Two Opinion Pieces in Journal-Sentinel

The Affordable Housing Taskforce in Waukesha County's own Donna Ferency has an opinion piece in the Crossroads section of the Journal-Sentinel which ran on Sunday.  Offering an opposing viewpoint is Laura Karvala of Concerned Citizens of New Berlin. 

The two pieces are not quite pro & con as Ms. Ferency focuses on the larger issue of affordable housing in Waukesha County while Ms. Karvala focuses specifically on New Berlin.  But the two pieces do overlap. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I provided some feedback on Ms. Ferency's piece, so I'm hardly unbiased on this issue.  I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor would I want them to.  But when there's a debate on an issue, I expect people to not try to mislead me, as Ms. Karvala seems to be trying to do with the readers.

Strong words, I know, but in terms of cold hard objective facts, I'll point out the following:

1) Ms. Karvala criticizes the MSP Project for having underground parking, without mentioning that either a covered attached parking or underground parking is required.  The alternative to underground parking is a "covered attached parking" which I'll interpret as a parking garage attached to the development.  Leaving aside the fact there are existing buildings with underground parking in the City Center, I can imagine what the good citizens of New Berlin would've said about a parking garage. Here we have an instance where she's being disingenuous. 

2)  She states, "The main building was very large, four stories high and out of character with other buildings."  That would be the building for those over 55 years old.  Yet it was not this building that the Concerned Citizens of New Berlin opposed-it was the "workforce" buildings that they opposed.  Their petition referred specifically to the workforce portion. Very odd that she left out that tidbit, isn't it?

3)  Ms. Karvala professes concern for young children because of the nearby ponds and creek.  But those ponds and creek would be there regardless of what type of residencies are built there-even luxury condos.  In fact, we have a real-life example. There is an existing condo/apartment building in City Center with a lovely view of a pond.  Was it opposed because of potential harm to children?  No.  In fact, opponents repeatedly said they wanted more of the same-high end condos (never mind the fact that the developer was forced to rent out condos due to a lack of sales).

There's plenty to take issue with in the rest of her piece, but I think those three say it all, don't you?