Can 3,300 people be wrong? In this case, maybe.

The (Plymouth) Review: Perspectives (Thursday, October 7, 2004)

The group, “Friends of Sheboygan Parks” presented a petition signed by approximately 3,300 people to the city of Sheboygan Wednesday morning, calling for a referendum on saving Sheridan Park.

The Sheboygan Common Council voted Aug. 2 in favor of building a new police station at the park. Since then, people concerned about losing a park with historic value to the city have rallied to Sheridan Park’s defense.

Why didn’t they speak up before the council voted to build at Sheridan Park? “Friends” members said they did not believe that the city would really bulldoze the park to build a police station.

However, many people have spoken in favor of building at Sheridan Park – Sheboygan Police Chief David Kirk, Deputy Chief Bob Wojs, 11 aldermen, and residents from the Sheridan Park neighborhood among them.

The last group may be the most important. While it’s true that a police station could be built anywhere, building at Sheridan Park would address some very real problems in that neighborhood.

The people who know best what happens in that neighborhood want a police station there. They want gang and drug activity at the park to end.

They may be outnumbered by more than 100-to-one by those who signed the “Friends of Sheboygan Parks” petition, but their concerns ought to carry a greater moral weight. They are placing peace above trees, and safe places ahead of green spaces.

Of course, there is little matter that Sheboygan truly needs a new police station – in fact, it has needed one for the better part of three decades. What police do not need is another delay.

If the signatures on the petition prove to be valid, then the city attorney would determine if the council should address the petition. The question here appears to be whether a council action can be undone by direct legislation or referendum.

Assuming that the petition passes legal muster and the council puts the question on the spring ballot, what does this mean for the Sheboygan Police Department? And is it fair?

The desire to preserve green space in urban areas is laudable. The passion for parks is admirable. But the mission is misguided.

This issue should not have surprised anybody. The city has held meetings for the past four years on where to build a new police station, and Sheridan Park was long before Aug. 2.

The decision was controversial, and certainly disappointing to many. But it was reached following a lengthy – and proper – process of study and discussion. To overturn that decision now, to preserve a seldom-used park as opposed to solving real needs by police and residents, is akin to not seeing the forest for the trees. It puts principle ahead of priority.

And sadly, it will not accomplish one of the presumed goals of “Friends of Sheboygan Parks” – improve the quality of life.

Dan Verhasselt told the council he canvassed every aldermanic ward in the city, and found that more than 90 percent of the people he spoke with opposed the Sheridan Park site for a new police station. He said that a 900-signature petition bore this out.

“Your constituents in over-whelming fashion don’t want that park to go,” he said.

Karl Byrand, a professor at UW-Sheboygan, warned that the loss of Sheridan Park would make the surrounding neighborhood less viable.

“Removing Sheridan Park will not only be hazardous to the community but will have devastating long-term effects,” he said, noting the historical belief in urban green spaces and the lack of significant private yards in the Sheridan Park community.

After those who had registered to speak during the public forum were finished, the council voted to open the floor to allow four people to speak in favor of the Sheridan Park decision.

Sheboygan Police Officer Eric Edson, a member of the K-9 unit as well as president of the Sheboygan Professional Police Association, said he believed that opponents to the Sheridan Park location were a vocal minority.

“Needless to say, there is a lot of emotion circulating around the issue,” Edson said. “But emotion clouds the judgment.”

Gina Steinhardt, who lives one block from Sheridan Park, said the opponents of the park location did not live near the park.

“Parents don’t feel it’s safe to go to Sheridan Park,” Steinhardt said. “It’s much safer to go to Sheridan Elementary. It’s become a very unsafe neighborhood, and the park is part of the problem. The park has become a gathering place for the gangs. I wouldn’t let my kids go to that park without supervision.”

Steinhardt said she supported a new police station at the park.

“We hope the council will stay with its vote and not let people outside of our area decide what’s best for our area”, she said.

Kirk told the council that he joined the Sheboygan Police Department in 1977. Twenty-seven years later, they were still talking about a new police station.

“The time has come,” he said, “If the council wants to change its mind, I think it would be another setback. We can do this at Sheridan Park.”

Kirk responded to suggestions that money should not be a major consideration in locating a new police station by observing that his department was operating six officers under full strength.

“If in fact there is no concern for money, then I would like to have my employees back,” he said.

Kirk said that his department remained committed to shared services with the county, and that a new police station would be a good neighbor.

Perez said he was on the other side of the issue because he wanted to be responsive to his constituents who opposed the Sheridan Park site.

“I understand the political game – I play it very well,” he said. “This is not a political game. This is about a park.”

“I believe we will build the best police station,” he continued. “It just won’t be at Sheridan Park.”

Alderman William Wangemann acknowledged that, as a former Sheboygan Police officer, he was biased in favor of law enforcement. But he debunked criticisms of the Sheridan Park decision as myths.

“A doctrine of fear has been introduced, and I find this objectionable,” he said. “Sheridan Park will not be destroyed. It will be maintained as much as humanly possible. A police station will be built in it, not over it.”

Alderman Margaret Segalle said she agreed with Kirk’s assertion that Sheridan Park was the best site for a new police station.

“I won’t be intimidated by special interest groups,” she said. “My vote stays with Sheridan Park.”

Alderman Michael Warner said that while the vocal minority has spoken Monday night, the silent majority favors Sheridan Park decision.

Alderman William Stephan said he would vote to rescind, but sought assurances that doing so would not stall efforts to build a new police station.

Perez explained that the motion to rescind the August 2 council vote could not recommend an alternative site. He said he would not offer a resolution at the next council meeting to recommend the 4-acre county land on N. 23rd street. However, Alderman James Graf said he would.

Alderman Richard Manny said he wanted more time, more information and more choices.

“I think in 6-8 weeks we could have enough work done to know if that alternate site would work”, Manny said, referring to a nearby gravel lot adjacent to existing businesses.

Alderman Silas VanderWeele said that he was not in favor of tearing down Sheridan Park, and neither was his family.

“But that’s my personal decision,” he said. “I wasn’t elected to vote my personal decision. I went door to door, and the people want a police station there. That’s how I will vote.”

Warner repeated his compliant that progress on building a new police station is always threatened by last-minute demands to consider other locations.

“It’s easy to say you’re in favor of a police station,” Warner said. The question is what are you willing to do to make it happen?

“We have done the work – we have voted,” he continued. “We should not change the vote because some people are unhappy. This vote was not just a good vote, it was the right vote.”

And after Warner called for a vote on the motion to rescind, seven other aldermen agreed with him.

Aldermen Perez, Montemayor, Graf, Manny, Stephan and Robert Peterson voted to rescind the Sheridan Park vote.

Voting against the motion to rescind were aldermen Warner, VanderWeele, Wnagemann, Segalle, Cerda, Bonnett, Berg and Van Akkeren.