From the Village Square

The call came in. It was my nephew in Stockholm in Sweden. What are you doing there? We're purchasing testing equipment for the firm. Nice of you to call, give my love to your wife when you get back to California.

Many things in his brain as in mine. We need more time to exchange thoughts. We both loved my brother.  See you during the holidays.

My mind turned to the fox that I saw this morning. We were both surprised as we confronted each other. We had eye contact. I didn't want him to run. I won't hurt you my eyes said. He turned and disappeared around the house. I couldn't follow his foot prints in the snow beyond the hedge.

He has thoughts in his head. What kind of thoughts? Thousands of thoughts like in my brain?

At breakfast the birds fly into the feeder in small groups. Suddenly they all fly away except one. What are they thinking? Is it group think?

We talked of the frog that came onto our deck this summer. I know you want to hold him, but you can't do that, you'll frighten him. Would he think that I'd harm him. Who knows his thoughts.

Thinking, thinking, thinking. My South American friend told me that she was engaged and she was so happy. She revealed many thoughts that were dancing around in her mind, more than people my age would permit each other to share.

I'm happy for you. Say hello to him for me. These are only reflective of a few thoughts that we exchanged. 'Talk to you again next time.

An email from my other niece in California. Just checking up on you guys. Let us know how you're doing.
I again thought of the fox and then of the dog that I had as child. How I loved him and how sad it was when he died. I still cry over him.

Thousands of thoughts in one brain. Just think of all the brains in the world, all the frogs, birds, ants and even bees. Do bacteria think?

Oh my God. I often say aloud, oh my God I say in my mind. God knows all things, does He know how often I think of Him and did He feel the love I had for that fox this morning. Oh my God, he was a lovely fox.

In the past the churches took on the responsibility of taking care of the elderly who could not care for themselves, just as they provided for hospital care for the sick.

Many hospitals today are still known by their previous religious identities.

Both hospital care and elderly services have now entered the less religious domain of profit oriented services provided by the market place. Health and elderly care are now for profit. Some churches have established elderly care facilities even today.

In our free and innovative world we can do anything that the market permits.

I'd like to see the churches once again become interested in the care of the elderly, not directly but by using their good services and diplomatic efforts in cases like Shorewood to get the School system and the Village government to come together to see to it that the most appropriate care be provided the elderly.

Both of these agencies have the social facility to make this happen in mutual assistance. Concentrating on a project for group living would make it possible also for both these agencies to really work together in a meaningful way that might forever weld their social forces.

I believe that school districts in this country need to re-energize their functions by including the welfare of the elderly in the same manner as they assume responsibility for the development of our children.  They can then become the service agency of the State and Federal government.  

They are the only servicing agencies found in every community in the United States, the only organic entities to assume the functions, that were once the responsibility of the church. We can begin building that model right here in Shorewood.

The leaders in the churches here, even though some of them have their own schools can give support to the idea and then assist in the reality of community supported group living for the elderly here in Shorewood.

There are specific locations to be considered once the concept of group living becomes a generally accepted one. All the elements are here, what is needed is their assemblage.

George Washington was a slave holder.

One of the men who is among my three favorite presidents was Thomas Jefferson, also a slave holder, who took one as his wife. She wasn't freed until after his death.

It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln that a would-be president made public announcements against the system of slavery.

On January 20^th 2009, we shall have a president who because of his father's background might have been a slave under those conditions previous to Lincoln's election. Yet it is not likely that Barack Obama would have been born at all under the socially accepted conditions before Lincoln's presidency.

It has taken many years for human beings to understand that enslavement of another to be one of the worst of social crimes. Superiority of one human being over another is also an unacceptable convention and not expounded by any conventional religion or government today.

The French and American revolutions gave strength to the concept of human equality. Yet societies from that time through the American Civil War and through the great depression have been unable to achieve what might be considered to be a true equality.

World War II was fought mainly against those who believed themselves to be superior to all others. And although wealth has always been a part of what gives rise to superiority claims, it hasn't been until today when super wealth exceeds family background in the claim of superiority.

Just as the Republican party of Lincoln took on responsibility for eliminating a conventionally held view that permitted slavery, it can renew its strength if it takes on the role of bringing on greater equality among the American people of today.

Although the notion of equality has been a strain of political thinking among a segment of the Democratic party, it has become so thin that it seems to have lost its visibility.  A note: the Democratic Party was at one time not opposed to slavery.

If the Democrats succeed in establishing a medical program, the base for medical care will be there and the Republicans can take that issue and build on that and Social Security as their basis for bringing an improved equality in this country.

To secure their position and to take on equality as their fundamental base, they can establish a private system of grants and funding so that education from childhood to the upper college levels would be available and assured to anyone in this country, but not necessarily government based.

The party of Lincoln was the party that aimed to fulfill the American desire for equality and it can again raise this flag.

The only way that the making of billionaires can be justified in this country is in directing the greater portion of their wealth, privately organized, to the support of an appropriate Social Security system, a universal health system and an educational system that is open to every American.

“No new taxes” and “smaller government” might be slogons accepted by most Americans, although they have  no real substance in actual political fact.  Yet other goals might help bring on these reductions, as a direct approach has minimal attraction in the political climate of the day.

Equal opportunity and equal human treatment within a free system is basic to Republican thinking and can become the base of a new approach to a renewed party.

“Looking inward” on a national basis is viewed as protectionist and anti-global.

At the community level, “looking inward” is seen as elitist, pretentious or of a better sort.

Yet as we look outward and tend toward another community and even toward another world, we are inclined to lose our identity, our rootage.

Those of us interested in maintaining a heartful relationship with our community and tend to personalize our national sensitiveness, usually display more of an inwardness.

We are not without recognition of what is around us or of other ways and other universes and cultures, we are more engaged in who we are and might become, “organically” as a sort or as a kind of people.

I've lived abroad, studied there, am interested in other cultures and bring home many ideas from beyond the confines of Shorewood and dream of shaping them into our lives in order to improve them. This is a very serious infection. Yet I see it also as a serious “looking inward” characteristic, a result of the disease.

I'm very much against being religiously global as I am against a religiously held free market. Those of this nature are perhaps as much against my “inward lookingness.”

I'm very much aware of the significance of the free market and the underlying future that economic globalism holds for us. I was against former President Clinton's support of NAFTA and some of his other trade agreements leading to uncontrolled global economic conditions.  

Absolute freedom has many dangerous results as well, not as many as absolute dictatorship or absolute control of any type has, but the dangers of absolute freedom can be seen when extended to children and to those without responsibility within the nation or on the international scene.   

So in a world of “outward lookers” I believe that some “inward viewing' ain't too bad. Therefore, my interest in community building and in looking inward to the development of my own community.

It is well-known today that we are living in a world of aging population.

Longevity is significantly shifting the population more toward an older population, with fewer people of younger age and more of older age.

How does this alter our present and future way of life? In the past, one of our primary social concerns was the education and development of the youngest children from there earliest ages until their early twenties.

Although that remains an important concern, today's parents are also becoming responsible for their own parents, without the same acknowledgment and without social concern.

Elderly generally want to remain in place and take care of themselves as long as possible and prefer caring for each other rather than be a burden on their children or on younger members of the society.

It then becomes important that various means for doing this be reviewed and put in place. This social responsibility becomes that of the local community, especially in places like Shorewood. At one end, the community can provide for in-place living and at the other end provide group homes.

Today we have the opportunity for providing for group home living at the site that has been considered for independent living and extended care, referred to as the Sunrise site. Group home living makes it possible for over 60 to live in group circumstance and provide care for each other.

Many citizens of Shorewood would like to see the community begin to look into the provision of group homes and independent living accommodations in our own community.

There are many possibilities including existing apartment buildings and facilities that can be grouped together in a meaningful way to provide self-servicing and independent accommodations. Although these can be cooperative type ventures, arrangement for in-lieu of taxes can also be made.

It would be a progressive move if some of the more innovative members of the Village Board and of the School Board could lead in the planning and to work toward making these provisions possible.

I've indicated some possibilities and I would be happy to offer my assistance to either or both of these boards in any efforts to get a lead toward group home type living for the older adults of our community.

Economic stimulating programs could provide for these type of developments if the plans are in place in sufficient time.  We should be discussing these possibilities here in Shorewood, within a program for upgrading some of our public buildings.  

My thoughts on this national holiday, this Thanksgiving Day, thinking of our nation, what do we give thanks for today?

Do we give thanks for two wars being conducted in places where most Americans haven't been or that they could even locate on a map?

Do we give thanks for having supported a money-focused idealism, a Los Vegas-type gambling mentality that has led us to the edge of an economic depression?

Will we go over the edge by next Thanksgiving Day?

I might, perhaps, if I were a preacher say, that we've become a nation that has lost its way.

The saints, or better, the idols we worship, in what has become a moneyed culture are billionaires and as a result we've become a nation without leaders, without a sense of reality and without a sense of the uncommon common man.

That sounds “high and mighty.” I could also say that as a nation, we must re-assess our goals and objectives and therefore look for new directions again and that we must evolve a new national religion other than one based on money. 

But how do we determine these new directions and where do our leaders come from? How do we separate the hopes of a living democracy from the cynicism of a dysfunctional market place?  The billionaries can't led us.  They are the result of the problem.   

We have a need to re-examine our values even at the local level.

These are some of my thoughts and questions on Thanksgiving Day, as I listen to reports of terror attacks in India.

On my desk are two partially read books that I'm reading interchangeably. “Hot, Flat and Crowded” and “The Ascent of Money,” both relatively “hot off the press,” examples of a  mature man's “up-datedness.”

As I try to keep up with the times, I'm also trying to be thankful, but for what?

Keeping up becomes rather difficult, especially  trying to keep up my optimist-self this Thanksgiving day.

If I were to describe the serious situation of our economy today in a rather simplified way, we would need to be prepared to think in Titanic terms.

A huge ship containing all that is valuable to us, manned by a drunken crew has rammed the ship into the base of a dam holding millions of gallons of water vital to our existence.

The crew has left the apparent sinking ship and now we know, that if the ship were to be removed from its present position, that the ship would collapse and the dam would soon follow and we'd all be inundated. Some say that the builders of ship and the dam are to blame, not the crew of the ship.

It seems that the only thing that we can do for the moment is to re-enforce the inserted hull of the ship to maintain its additionally required engineering integrity, hoping to give it sufficient structure to keep the dam from completely falling apart.

Yet we must eventually remove the ship and keep it in tack and at the same time maintain the dam and strengthen it while keeping the water from flowing out.

This is what our in-coming president will be confronted with as he comes into office. Yet instead of it being an engineering job, it is more of a nebulous economic problem.

At the present time President Bush is saluting the flag all over the place and waiting to go on a long vacation.

He has left his Treasury Secretary with his hands on his head to run around this situation to try to plaster around the hole that the ship has made in the dam to keep the water from running out of the dam.

He then returns to give speeches about the problems he's having with making different types of plaster stick to the ship and dam at the point of impact.

This is our present situation. Now, are we capable of solving the problem?

Here again is the problem: if the ship remains in the dam, the economy is at a stand still, sliding into depression. If we cannot remove it and keep it afloat while at the same time keeping the dam from collapsing, then the whole economy is devastated.

Not doing anything or not doing the right thing is going to lead to economic devastation. Some will say that this is an exaggeration, a “sky is falling” description, and perhaps it might be an exaggeration, but on the other hand?

We need to take action.  An earlier transfer of power to the incoming president would certainly help a lot.  President Bush, why not?  These are not normal times.  Who can deal with what's happening in India during the next two months?  I suggested moving transfer of power to after Thanksgiving.  The sooner the better.  Could someone pass this on to President Bush?  An early vaction would be nice, Mr. President. 

None of us are what we appear to be to others.

Recently while in the grocery store, an expensively dressed mother with three children of very young age, saw some fruit there, and said to the children, “look Asian Pears,” then proceeded putting a number of them in a small paper bag.

She seemed centered on her shopping and her children, but I asked about the fruit, “are they good?”

“Yes, she said, they taste a little bit like apples and little bit like pears. Select the softer ones and perhaps leave them for a day or two.” Then she showed me some of the softer ones.

I realized that she was treating me with the kindness that she would show  her dad or her grandfather. Had I not broken the balloon around each of us, I would have never tasted the Asian Pears nor would I have realized that she was more than a picture from a fashion magazine.

I also realized that I seemed more a grandfather image than the 30 year-old that I usually feel inside. And she was more than merely a fashion picture.  I found that I really didn't mind being a grandfather image.  I said to the children, "do you like Asian Pears," and they all nodded shyly.   

Elderly are often seen as looking inwardly. If this were really true, then I'm not one of those.

I must make myself look inward occasionally and then primarily to rediscover who I am. I'm never the same person from day to day. I suppose no one is. So I have to keep track from time to time.

I seldom run except for some urgent reason. I don't like walking but I make myself walk some, usually everyday. I'd rather sit than stand—I suppose most would. But what I like most is to observe and analyze what I see. What I see is only part of the observation, not always visual and even so, it is less a part of the whole analysis.

My observations tend to be selective and based on my interests and maintained knowledge on specific subjects and therefore biased, what I call wisdom. Wisdom is individual and no other has the same wisdom as another. Not all of us who claim to be wise would ever agree with another wise person let alone admit to any agreement. We often start by saying that we don't agree.

The main thing that I've discovered about observation, analysis and wisdom is that if I do not write it down, it disappears and is often lost forever. So I write as much as possible and find that doing a posting on the blog is like a small chocolate or a small glass of previously untried liqueur. So I'm thankful to this technology. It gives me the opportunity to occasionally turn inward and analyze myself for a short time, but there's too much to criticize.

So that's perhaps why older adults seem to be looking inward for they have a knowledge of themselves and their experiences over the years and may wonder as to why they've done things and do things as they do today and perhaps imagine how different things would have been if they had turned left instead of right or even gone straight ahead instead of turning.

But I don't believe that older adults do turn inward. I believe that observation and concentration gives them that appearance. They appear to turn inward because they are no longer participants. They are on the sidelines and often the observers.

Society doesn't care or give them much for their wisdom and more often than not an elderly person isn't comfortable in expressing wisdom, let alone in sharing it among those who do not value the worthiness of it.

Therefore, inward or not, uninformed or wise, non-participants can't appear to be participating when they are not.

It seems that the Bush Administration passed away a few weeks before the election.  And it left Secretary of the Treasury Paulson to read its final rites.

We are now beginning to experience a two-month long "state of inactiveness" at this crucial time for our nation. Parliamentary governments are off and running the day after the election as should our government be.

This coming week the new and in-coming president will be announcing who his economic team will be, pretty much to create an early transition step.

But the transition is taking too long. What would we be doing if the nation were being attacked now. Who could with determination be the commander-and-chief in this state of affairs? Are members of this administration sufficiently alert at this stage?

President Bush should agree to pass on the mantle of office to Barack Obama shortly after Thanksgiving and as soon as possible, and do so by decree. And even though the Inauguration could be held in January it would be merely ceremonial this time and until Congress decides to push up "Inauguration date" as close to election day as possible.

This would be in best interest of the country, especially  in these serious times. Why the waiting period? If president George Bush could carry this out, it would be his noblest hour. Waiting two months is going to place us in a precarious economic situation and increase the chances of moving us into an economic depression.

The idea of a soul seems to have developed out of a notion that human beings become the physical vessels that carry our spiritual consciousness, this evolving from our belief in immortality.

And from that, the travel of our soul to another world after death. Most religions set forth this notion.

This idea of the soul developed long before we understood how we were conceived. Yet the notion of a soul still carries a certain romance even with some who are non-believers.

It would be uniformly accepted however that the soul is not merely created by nature? Nor would God create souls with unified inclinations and proclivities as each soul takes on its own individualized characteristics upon conception?

Then we must conclude that the soul evolves with the development of each individual according to the specific attributes of that individual and quite early in life? It,of course, goes through an evolutionary process as the particular individual'd life progresses?

To those who do not fully accept the notion of a soul, these questions might remain; does the soul enter the life of a new being or is the soul created as the result of conception, coming into existence upon that physical event of conception?

These of course are questions without answers and of a religious nature and not in the domain of politicians and scientists.

However, a very important question of similar nature beyond the idea of a spiritual soul, more of the actual nature of physical reproduction has become both religious and political.

It is more than a question that is being asked of politicians; do you believe that life begins at conception and therefore must not be interfered with after that point?

I believe that functional life does begin at conception and that an egg and a sperm unless joined together cannot function as a human life.

I believe that embryos in the womb however are not more important than those embryos that have already developed to become young men and women at 18, who then society sends off to war.

If the life of the embryo is to become the subject of politics, the development of a human being from birth, after its embryonic status is just as important a subject. When a young person's life is deliberately placed in harms way at 18, it also becomes a political matter.

It is from conception to age of warrior that the individual human life is dearest to us and to the family of the warrior and to society itself. The life of the soldier going off to war is as dear as that life in the womb. These are all our children.

As a politician, I would argue that we must be prepared to treat all life as precious, not only that developing life that is in the womb. For if we are to believe with reason and logic, then all individuals have souls. And all souls are equal.

Who takes care of those who can't take care of themselves as in the womb? We must be just as concerned about those human beings already here and make sure that they are treated with dignity whether in or after leaving the womb.  All human life. if we are to believe that it has a purpose is precious.   

Millionaire or billionaire executives are not going to give up their perks or stop spending money on themselves merely because they are asking for a loan of 25 or 50 billion.

After all, its because they are rich that they are heads of very rich companies and that they are asking for billions to carry them over the Christmas season.

Five or ten thousand dollars for a call girl's services are some of the perks of being rich, whether a rich governor or rich business executive. This is all part of being rich. A private jet is all part of this thinking. Those who question this logic appear to be out of touch. One question, do rich woman executives, get expensive call guys?

Even though there's no real logic to it, nor do people of other cultures necessarily understand it, the poorest of the poor in our culture do understand. Those that rob our banks even from the outside understand.

We tend to overlook that we are running a culture where it is all right to be greedy and were some high priests of the Christian churches especially preach that God wants us to be rich. This justifies the high priests' position and their riches and power and their access to call girls. I don't think there are any rich call girls. But perhaps the pimping people are?  Ususally those in the slave trade are richer than their slaves. 

We know that being rich is better than being poor. What's all the fuss about. Even Jefferson had slaves. I don't know about George Washington. But that was all about being rich. One of the principles, however, is that we can't  have a lot of rich, if we don't have a lot of poor.

During Washington's and Jefferson's time, they at least were responsible for feeding and sheltering of the workers whom they owned as property and therefore took care of as they did all their property.

The problem in our culture is not about the rich becoming rich, remaining rich or expanding their riches. The problem is with the poor. They want to share some of the richness, which of course they are not entitled to, even if they are working in the rich executives' firms as part of the scheme for keeping the rich, rich.

Those in the Congress who accept this philosophy of having a few rich on top and many poor as underpinnings of the system are not voting for bailing out those who represent this system for getting rich. And why is that?

It is perhaps because they know that if the companies fail, that the executives have their parachutes. But it is the auto workers that the politicians are after.

If we could get rid of those strong unions and the union leaders who also want to become rich, then we wouldn't have to go to China for cheap labor or in the interim rely on the poor of Mexico. It is the unions who are the socialist not the CEOs. Getting money from the government is not necessarily welfare, is it?

If workers remain free agents, most of them will remain poor and that's good for the system. If they organize, that becomes a problem. It works against the principle of buying cheap and selling dear. That's the principle on which the stock market works as well, if we hadn't noticed.

Yet when the range of cheapness gets too big, the system breaks down. Just as when the range of dear grows too big, the balloon or bubble eventually explodes.

So within a culture where the rich must get richer and the poor poorer, if they want, then what's wrong with 500-dollar bottles of wine, and private jets? That's all part of it. Congressman, get with it. The CEOs are O.K. Give them the money. Why not? And let's all give thanks.

After defeating the Germans and the Japanese, do we now want only their cars to drive around in? Of course, we still have those expansive Italian cars.  By the way, which side were the Italians on during WWII?

Writers are of course fascinated with words and their meanings.

Some write as conventionally as possible and others create and give new meanings to words. Poets are fond of creating new sensations.

And from time to time, I'm taken back to the subject of words, not as a grammatical study but as a concentration on words as to their cultural significance and as though they were physical pieces of art.

This week, a certain experience with a word brought me back to this fascination that sometimes comes over me.

A women whom I have become acquainted with who hardly understands English and is of Spanish background attempts to speak English not as one who studied the language, but as a direct translation of Spanish, just as one of my Swedish relatives after some years in this country  uses English words as things inserted into a row of other things rather than as total thoughts.

Let me explain further. I asked about a common friend and my Spanish friend said,  “he has affection for me.” And I could see more pleasure in her eyes and smile than in the words “he has affection,” “affection for me.”

What do I make of it. The sentence was about him more than about her. “He has affection.” Who does he have affection for? “For me.”

Would a person of American culture put it in this way and so directly? Would she say “he has love for me, or that he loves me or he likes me?”

I don't think that she'd say that he has love for her. Nor would she say to me as her friend, that “this guy's got affection for me.” She'd more likely say that this “guy is interested in me or that we are friends or in today's terms when it gets more serious that “we're dating.”

But “he as affection for me” indicates another kind of relationship and appreciation. “He has affection for me” is not a common English expression, but for this week, I find it a fascinating and gentle injection into the English language.

Now, I can say that I have many friends for whom I have affection, both men and woman.  And this affection doesn't involve dating. Affection used in this way has a great deal of significance and many pleasant meanings. I can now say that my father had great affection for me and I for him.

So a word, is a word, is a word may not apply as readily as it does to a rose, that is always a rose.

With an expected growing elderly population that is increasing faster than the school age population is in Shorewood, it becomes necessary for both the School Board and the Village Board to review their present policies and develop a community approach to an aging citizenry.

People over 60 can make contributions to the services provided by the village as well as be recipients..This is not a one way street as may be commonly believed, where services are only to be provided to the older adults.

Many citizens of Shorewood would like to see the community begin to look into the provision of group homes and independent living accommodations in our community for adults of all ages.

There are many possibilities including existing apartment buildings and facilities that can be grouped together in a meaningful way to provide self-servicing and independent accommodations. Although these can be cooperative-type ventures, arrangement for in-lieu-of-taxes can also be made.

Some Shorewood citizens are working toward presenting such proposals. I'd like to see both the Schools and the Village assist in preparing for some studies of the type of facilities and the type of participation that might be available. Seemingly further ideas along these lines will be coming up toward the early part of the year.

New analysis give some of us pause to think about how policy is actually set here in our village.

Who is responsible for putting it all together, who gives it direction and who is responsible when it all falls apart like the Sunrise project?

Are any of our elected officials responsible, individually and collectively?  When they do something by consensus doesn't that make them all responsible? And if they are wrong, then what do we do with all of them?

Do we actually observe that the Sunrise project is not really rising and roll over and go back to sleep?

Policy is set and people seem to be working based on that policy, but where is it taking us? Are candidates for “powerful” positions in local government responsible to anyone after they are elected to office? Are they only responsible to themselves? Then, if that is the case, what is their purpose?

What about the underlying election rhetoric, the notion that our property taxes will be reduced and our policies are aimed toward that principle goal?  When has their consensus produced a tax reduction during their time in office?

It doesn't seem that in the evolution of our community here in Shorewood over the past three or more decades that our taxes have been reduced. Does this mean that all policy based on reducing our taxes has failed?

It does seem that way.

Now on another question:

Should we try to increase our school enrollment for the purpose of reducing our taxes or is our purpose, our policy of increasing enrollment, in some way to improve the education of children?

I believe the improvement of education, the expansion of knowledge and of our knowledge base is more important than the expansion of the tax base?

It seems that converting duplexes into single family units to attract young people with children to Shorewood is falsely based, especially when we now learn that rental properties and duplexes have also been attracting young people with children. (See Steve Koczela's new analyses).

One of our former trustees seemed more interested in removing rental property and duplexes than improving the education of young children.

Still the larger question, as to whether we improve education by attracting more children has not been answered.

So how can we make policy based on any of these premises? Do we make policy simply on faith? Faith in what?

Our policy makers had faith in the rising sun project but it didn't rise. Are we going to just let this project get out our hands now and fall apart? Are will simply going to ignore this event?  Now what do we do?

Some important questions need to be asked about where we go from here, so that we can set wiser policy based on real knowledge and on new events.

But then let's discuss these questions openly and publicly, not on the faith in one's own prejudices, so that we can base our new policies on knowledge that reflects real community needs.

What to do with the so-called “Sunrise” property?

If I were thinking of the type of use that should go on the Sunrise property along the river on Capitol, from a purely social aspect, I'd like to see some river related use along the river side (there are plenty of clues that we can get from Europe) and east of that, a low rise group living complex for seniors.

From a commercial standpoint, a hotel with a high scale restaurant integrated into the river setting might be another concept to start with.

Here again we might look at European, South American and even California seaside settings for ideas.

These concepts might suggest economically feasible projects to some interested developers.

The first might attract some grants and even donations, perhaps some in-lieu-of-tax agreements, so that we could begin designing right away.

The second, would have to await better times. The way Shorewood operates and as it seems now that Sunrise is not rising to its development proposal, that we'll have to wait until better times anyway. For few private developers are going to be seeking new projects for awhile.

However, we need to find a way of keeping the property attractive and presentable until then.

But for now, Shorewood should begin negotiating to purchase this parcel.

A request for an update on some of our development projects was made on November 4^th, one was the Sunrise project and another was the Condos on Oakland.

On learning of Sunrise's cancellation, I suggested that Shorewood purchase the Sunrise property as soon as possible.

It seems that I had also recommended its purchase before the proposal for the Sunrise development and later on, I was not the least bit keen on the way we were going to develop it and along the lines it was taking. Now a new start.

The condos on Oakland, on the other hand, are to be built on land that we we bought and this land was made available for the proposed condos. There's been a long delay in the start of construction which is understandable under these economic conditions.

What are Shorewood's obligations in this situation and what are those of the developer?  What are our next steps?

During the “great” depression, there was a 16-story steel girding, an uncompleted downtown building that remained standing and unfinished for a number of years in the community where I lived. It stood as a reminder of the depression that we were undergoing.

I don't know who carried the cost of the structure's idleness. I don't know which of  the agencies are carrying the cost of the economic idleness of our proposed condos on Oakland while the project remains in limbo?

Should we be anticipating any answers?  Are we going to get an update? Or is it really necessary for the public to know about the status of this project?

Shorewood like many other communities involved in state supported community development has a serious and significant lesson to learn.

That lesson is that “community development” means community improvement and not merely tax base expansion.

Tax base is the result of community and not the other way around. .

The Sunrise proposal at 1111 E. Capitol Drive was not necessarily going to add more to the community than any other type of development. In fact the project as it has worked out seemed to have created an artificial increase in the value of this property.

And now we're in an economy that will show its true market worth rather than the overstated super value.

The question that should come first in considering these proposals is what is the proposed development going to do to improve the community and then, secondly can it pay its own way, not the other way around. For the improvement of the tax base does not justify a negative community type development.

In fact the subsidies that come with these projects should give us superior type community improvements, greater than what might have been achieved if we hadn't intervened in the market process..

For example our intervention in the improvement of the facade of the building on Edgewood and Oakland (where Sherwin Williams paint store is located) would not have been of the high quality that we see today, had it not been subsidized.

So what did we get for our subsidy and intervention in the Sunrise proposal that was good for the community?

Had the project not been canceled, (something some of us suspected would happen), what would we have gotten beyond an undetermined increase in the tax base?

“Community development projects' ” primary purpose are the improvement of the community and their secondary requirements are to provide assurance that our intervention in these improvements might pay off in the long run.

Now after the cancellation of the Sunrise project on Capitol at the riverside, we need to make sure that we achieve the appropriate community improvement on this site. We need to fully control what takes place there.

It now becomes necessary  to purchase this property at today's real and reasonable price, which under these conditions is much lower than the past established value.

Sale to another potential developer, if this occurs, will likely be at a lower price and will call for even a more inferior-type development.

Therefore Shorewood must purchase this property and we must come up with our own proposals for its development.

The Sunrise development proposal for an assisted living complex at 1111 East Capitol Drive, adjacent to the river in Shorewood was a development proposal significantly involving Village Hall.

The demise of this project first came to light this week, reported by Tom Daykin and pointed out by Steve Koczela

We cannot however accept that the failure of the proposed development is fully attributed to our national financial setting. Doubts as to the soundness of this proposal had been expressed by some during the process.

In the same way, the present condition of our economy is not the only factor in the developing situation in which our auto industry finds itself. This is an excuse for the situation that these firms find themselves as they are reaching a certain point in their misguided evolution.

Of course the economy now emphasizes their situations and places their frailties in the full light.

I believe that this is a good time for Shorewood to begin negotiating the acquisition of the Sunrise property, so that it can be put to a better use when the economy begins to recover.

Our ability to hold the land for an appropriate time places us in a good negotiating position.

The holding costs and the need to remove existing buildings and maintaining the property in reasonable condition as it awaits development can influence our acquisition price proposals. It is already an eye sore.

The location of this property and the market being what it is today, should move Shorewood in the direction of acquiring this land quite reasonably.

Sunrise wants to sell it as it cannot afford to hold it. At this time, we'd probably be the only willing buyer.

The bailout that is going to work is going to be the Wal-Mart bailout.

It works this way, money is put in the hands of working families on a regular and continuous basis so that they can continue to shop. This means jobs.

Job creation begins with the central government funneling money to the States and municipalities who accelerate their plans for digging holes, for replacing sewers, building bridges and upgrading infrastructure.

In this way we upgrade our infrastructure, which is needed and will pay off in the long run and meanwhile the workers can continue to shop at Wal-Mart.  Seems clear enough.

Where is the money coming from? From the central government, either by printing it or by taxing those who have more than they need to shop at Wal-Mart. No other social agency can do that.

Printing money de-valuates it. Taxing those that have a lot of it is not as hard on them as devaluation would be.

If the working class does not have money on a regular basis to buy from Wal-Mart, the auto industry will be far gone and so will the stock market.

So a pro-active bail-out of Wal-Mart makes more sense, perhaps more sense than a bail-out of Wall Street. Simple enough.