Complaint

St Ought on Forward Complaint by catswoman05

Sign the Petition!

(click)

We Must Live Under the Rule of Law!

 

Hello Stoughton Citizens!

 

I have created a new petition site to for you to sign and comment as a supporter of the Stoughton Forward lawsuit against the city of Stoughton.  It demands the city follow the TIF law and re-start the approval process.

 

WE WILL TURN IN A PAPER COPY TO THE COUNCIL AT THE TUES. COUNCIL MEETING.  At this meeting the pro-KPW folks will be down one due to Hohol finally resigning for the council.  What will happen now I wonder?

 

Please sign the petition to the mayor and alders at this site.  http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/support-the-rule-of-law-stop-illegal-corporate

 

Please write your views in the comments section of the petition.  All who log on to the site will be able to read them.

 

We need plaintiffs and money as stated in the last email.

 

We have asked the Yahara River Grocery Coop to become plaintiffs in the lawsuits twice:  Once earlier when we thought we could do a suit.  Now recently for this lawsuit.

 

The Coop Board refuses to invite us to discuss the suit and makes its decisions based upon what they know.  This is a grave mistake in my opinion.  If the SuperCenter is built, we may find a vacant storefront in the years ahead.

 

Their response:

Dear Mr. Davis: 

The Yahara River Grocery Cooperative Board of Directors considered the request to join in Stoughton Forward's legal action against the city of Stoughton and determined unanimously not to join the lawsuit as an organization.  

The main reason for this decision is that the YRGC bylaws state in Principle 1 (Section I: Purpose — 1.1 Mission Statement) that its membership include and welcome everyone, no matter of each member’s gender, social status, race, political inclination, or religion – or any viewpoint whatsoever. 

There are over 1,200 members of the YRGC ownership family, some who may very much agree with Stoughton Forward’s initiative to sue the City of Stoughton and others who very much agree with the city’s actions regarding the KPW/TIF issue. It was strongly felt that those who do agree with Stoughton Forward on this issue and want to support the lawsuit have the freedom to sign on as co-plaintiffs individually. .

YRGC very much appreciates your support as a member-owner of the Co-op and we wish you the very best.

Yours,

The YRGC Board of Directors

The SF law suit is not a beauty contest asking a judge to decide who looks the nicest.  It is about following the rule of law in America.

 

You have a chance to stand up for the rule of law right here in little old Stoughton.

 

If we cannot try to uphold the law in our community we may be doomed.

 

At the national level the special interests are far stronger than here in Stoton.  The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal.  They were illegal for Bush and they are illegal for Obama.  Many speak out to try to uphold the rule of law but are drowned out or ignored by the media and our "paid" politicians.

 

Can YOU stand up for the rule of law in Stoughton home town?  Sign here:   http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/support-the-rule-of-law-stop-illegal-corporate

 

Peace!

Buzz Davis

CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Sent: 7/21/2015 1:19:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Questions regarding Alders Hohol and Christianson

To:  Lana Kropf, Clerk, City of Stoughton

 

Hohol issue resolved.

 

2.  Would you please tell me if Alder Ron Christianson has had or has a contract with the city to conduct office cleaning for the city of Stoughton?

 

If this is true, how long has this contract been in existence, what is the approximate dollar cost for each contract and does he presently have such a contract with the city?

 

The existence of an alder having a special relationship with the city resulting in a monetary gain, creates certain ethical conflicts for certain votes.

 

And such a monetary relationship may create certain power relationship conflicts between the mayor who drafts the city budget and the alder that has a monetary interest in having a personal business contract within each budget, voting on that budget and on other matters before the council which the mayor has great interest in.

 

Has the city or Alder Christianson asked for a ruling from the city Ethics Board on this situation?

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Buzz Davis,

7/21/15 - WE NEED PLAINTIFFS

Hello SF email group!

We have only made it this far because we have stuck together, educated each other on the massive amount of details of the KPW effort, donated to what needs to be done and done all the work we have tried to do.

We have been one of the most successful citizen efforts in the USA in fighting back against ill concieved developerment and corporate welfare under the guise of TIF.  As you know CA and AZ have already outlawed TIF because it is run-away-subsidies to pvt. developers - the rich get richer.  But as you can see the media is part of the problem.  They do not care or know their owners will not like stories about communities fighting back against developement, thus no stories.  Thus the greater public in Stougton is just a bit less ignorant on what is going on here than the public in Oregon and Evansville which may lose their Bill's and PiggleWiggley grocery stores to the WalMart money vacume.

So can YOU help some more this week?

1.  We need more plaintiffs!

2.  We need to do another round of envelope on the door of each business asking them to stand up for their community and themselves and become a plaintiff!

3.  We need to raise more money for the court suit!

4.  We need to do thank you letters to all our Stoton Fwd. and Vote YES donators and ask them for some more money (Yoli and Lois have volunteered.)!

5.  We probably need a town hall meeting to outline the court suit, do a press conference before that meeting, etc.

6.  We could do a press conference at the KPW site so the media would have us standing on the hill on the road just south of Hwy. 138.  We need some alders and citizens to speak.

7.  We need to do - what else can you dream up???

This week we MUST get more plaintiffs and we need business plaintiffs most of all.  Now is your time to help.  The questionnaire you need to give to the business person is attached.  He/she fills that out and sends it to me or Dennis G. via email.

Below is the letter to the editor that will probably be in the HUB this Thurs.

Attached is a longer copy that I will use as a basis of the press release I will hopefully draft and send out late tonight if all goes well.  I need some comments for the press release regarding city actions, our law suit, following the law, whatever you wish to say. 

Please just write up a sentence or five or so and send it to me and I will work it in.  I believe alders CANNOT be part of the suit but it is permissible for them to write why they voted as they did, etc.  Note we told all the alders in a letter from our attorney what was "wrong" with what the city was doing.  That letter/email is attached.

We have raised $4,300 towards the law suit.  I sent Dennis G. $4,200 for our client trust acct. at this firm to go toward paying our legal costs for phase one of the lawsuit - which is getting all the documents to the court. 

Roger Thompson served the summons on the city, the developer and WalMart on Friday.  So that is all done.  Defendants have 45 days to respond.

Dennis G. asked for a temporary injunction of all KPW actions until the judge can decide the case.  The defendants' lawyers will try to prove that all the plaintiffs have NO LEGAL STANDING TO MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THE COURT. 

WalMart will have a fleet of $500 per hr. lawyers at the hearing requesting the injunction and they will be attempting to confuse the judge into dismissing the complaint.

Thus we need business people who have a direct loss facing them to be plaintiffs.  I can not do this alone.  We need YOU to help us get some businesspersons as plaintiffs.  All this work we have done of the last two years hinges on this lawsuit.

The questionnaire for you to discuss with your business friend is attached.

IF THEY (the WalMart and other lawyers) knock us off as plaintiffs, the case is done - regardless of whether the laws are violated or not.

I will send the Coop's response to you all next - stunning as it is.

Plaintiff Form Dennis G by catswoman05

SHOULD OUR CITY FOLLOW THE LAW?

In a message dated 7/20/2015 6:58:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, DBuzzdavis@aol.com writes:

Should Our City Follow the Law?

Last  Thursday Stoughton Forward filed a lawsuit against the City, Kettle Park West (KPW) LLC and WalMart Real Estate Business Trust.

Why?  The lawsuit alleges that the amended Developer's Agreement is invalid, the council's resolution to approve a three party agreement (city, KPW & WM) is invalid and the three party agreement itself is invalid  --  because the state's Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) law requires that specific procedures be followed when a city significantly amends an approved TIF project plan.

The lawsuit alleges the changes made to the above documents meet the level of significant amendments to the TIF project plan.

These major amendments are that WalMart, the richest corporation in the world, will now receive the city's $5 million in TIF funds under the following conditions:  If the KPW LLC goes bankrupt, or cannot follow thru with the construction of the $5 million in public improvements for the new mall anchored by a SuperCenter, the city will give WalMart the $5 million and WM will then construct the public improvements or WM can require the city to spend the $5 million on public improvements.

These major amendments were made in violation of state law requiring public notice and a public hearing before the planning commission and review and approval of the proposed changes by the planning commission, the council and the joint review board.

Of course, the law is so written to ensure that significant amendments to TIF projects DO receive public input and proper consideration by all the government jurisdictions involved.

Prior to the Mayor's and council's approvals, Stoughton Forward's attorney emailed the council and outlined the questionability of its proposed actions under the law and I spoke to the council during public comment.  This advice was disregarded.

As individuals and as governments, we must try to live under the rule of law.  If we do not, we will live under the rule of political whims and power plays and public money will be wasted.

Stoughton Forward urges citizens, who believe individuals and governments should be required to follow the law, to join us as plaintiffs in our law suit.  The cost to join is zero.  The cost to let Stoughton violate state laws will be substantial.

7/22/15 PRESS RELEASE

Press Release -- For Immediate Release  --  Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Should the City of Stoughton be Forced to Follow the Law

When Agreeing to Give $5 Million in TIF Money to WalMart?

Stoughton Forward (SF) filed a lawsuit on July 16, 2015 in Dane County Circuit Court against the City of Stoughton, Kettle Park West (KPW) LLC and WalMart (WM) Real Estate Business Trust.  The lawsuit charges that the city has conducted illegal approvals and agreements related to the KPW development project.

The city and the developer have been planning a new mall anchored by a WalMart SuperCenter just west of the city for 5 years.  For years the city and developer kept the name of the big box store SECRET from the public.  The city intends to give the developer $5 million in Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) money because the developer says he cannot afford to do the project without such corporate welfare.  The city will borrow the $5 million, using short term notes, at a cost of possibly $2 million or more in interest over a 20 or so year period to pay off the loans.  The city avoided using the normal municipal bonding process because the mayor and half the alders were afraid the voters would reject the issuance of bonds.  The bonding process would have been a safer and less costly method of financing the borrowing.

The community voted in a set of referendum questions last April.  Sixty percent (60%) of the voters voted against the corporate welfare, 53% voted against the overall Kettle Park West project and 78% of the voted to have the city focus its efforts on re-developing Stoughton's beautiful Downtown and riverfront.

The citizen group Stoughton Forward has been actively fighting back against the KPW project for nearly two years.

Why a law suit now?  The lawsuit alleges that the recently approved Amended Developer's Agreement (between the city and KPW LLC) is invalid, the city council's recent resolution to approve a three party agreement (city, KPW & WM) is invalid and the recent three party agreement itself is invalid.  All are invalid because the state's Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) law requires that specific procedures be followed when a city significantly amends an approved TIF project plan (WI law Sec. 66.1105(h)).

The lawsuit alleges the changes made to the above documents meet the level of significant amendments to the TIF project plan.

These major amendments are that WalMart, the richest corporation in the world, will now receive the city's $5 million in TIF funds under the following conditions:  If the KPW LLC goes bankrupt, or cannot follow thru with the construction of $5 million in public improvements for the mall, then the city will give WalMart the $5 million and WM will construct the public improvements or WM can require the city to spend the $5 million on public improvements.

These major amendments were made by Mayor Donna Olson and half the council in violation of state law requiring public notice and a public hearing before the Stoughton Planning Commission followed by review and approval of the proposed changes by the Planning Commission, the city council and the joint review board.

SF alleges that the city chose to ignore the law because Mayor Olson is unwilling to face the public scrutiny, opposition and questioning that would result if she followed the law.

Local activist Buzz Davis, treasurer of Stoughton Forward, said, "The state law is specifically written to require that the whole review process start over when the parties make significant changes to the agreements AFTER the original review and approval process is completed.  For example if the amount of the TIF gift to the developer jumped from the approved $5 million to say $10 million, would the city think that is just a "minor change" not needing re-approvals?  In this specific case, the city has now decided that if the developer goes belly up that is it just fine to give WalMart, world's richest corporation, $5 million in TIF money.  Our attorney will argue in court that such an amendment is a "significant amendment" which, under state law, requires the re-start of the approval process."

Davis stated the mayor, council and city attorney were told of the state law requiring the restart of the approval process BEFORE they considered and approved the changes.  Stoughton Forward's attorney emailed Davis.  Davis emailed the mayor and council prior to the June 23, 2015 meeting.  Davis then gave all officials a paper copy of the email at the meeting and outlined the email during the public comment period.

Davis said, "All such advice was disregarded.

As individuals and as governments, we must try to live under the rule of law.  If we do not, we will live under the rule of political whims and power plays.  And public money will be wasted.

Our city ordinances require any developer pay for the entire public infrastructure (water, sewer, electricity, gas, roads, etc.) required for any development.  This ordinance has served Stoughton well for 50 years.  But the state TIF law enables the city to bypass city ordinances and GIVE taxpayer money directly to a developer so he/she does not have to pay for the public infrastructure.

Would any reasonable individual say that WalMart should be given $5 million by Stoughton taxpayers to pay for these public improvements because WalMart cannot afford to pay for the improvements?"

Davis asked, "How can half the council and the mayor vote in favor of giving WalMart $5 million in corporate welfare after they have been specifically told what the law requires and they each know that the majority of community residents are against such welfare and are against the entire project?  I find it astounding.

The Kettle Park West project is using borrowed government money to subsidize super wealthy WalMart.  WM will then turn around and compete against our local businesses in Stoughton, Oregon, Evansville, Edgerton and McFarland.  The city will have tilted the playing field in favor of WalMart which will then drive some merchants out of business leaving vacant downtown storefronts, unemployed workers and broken lives.  Research has shown that for every 1 new job at a WalMart store 1 to 1.4 present retail jobs are lost.  The SuperCenter is project to create 100 new jobs thus causing 100 or 140 present workers to lose their jobs.  This is not community development.  It's community destruction -- using public money.

I ask just what part of NO do Mayor Olson and the pro-KPW alders not understand?"

"Stoughton Forward urges citizens, who believe individuals and governments should be required to follow the law, to join them as plaintiffs in their law suit.  The cost to join is zero.  The cost to let Stoughton violate state laws will be substantial.  We must all fight back against government corruption and corporate welfare," Davis concluded.