The La Crosse Tribune from La Crosse, Wisconsin • Page 8

Crosse Tribune, Tuesday, February 11,1975 Race For Mayor: iboues 4 Will Run In Primary On Feb. 18 Merlin J. Bauer, 314 S. 19th St. Sales representative, Gerrard Realty.

Born Nov. 7, 1935, in Dubuque, Iowa. Has a bachelors degree in sociology criminology from University of Iowa and attended University of Iowa law school. Was counselor at Iowa State Prison and salesman for Squibb Pharmaceuticals in La Crosse. 16th District alderman since 1971, serving on council finance and purchase committee.

Member of city board of health, Western Wisconsin Health Planning emergency medical services council. Married, three children. W. Peter Gilbertson, 1807 Main incumbent since 1971. Born July 30,1941, in Montreal, Quebec.

Has bachelors degree in business administration from University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Formerly was accountant for Hawkins, Ash and Baptie. Divorced, two children. Le Roy Wells, St. Paul St.

District president, La Crosse Indoor Sports Gub. Born Aug. 8,1908, in La Crosse. Attended Central High School. Formerly worked at Auto-Lite, La Crosse Tool and Die, as government parts inspector, and as a taxi driver and dispatcher.

Married, four children. Patrick Zielke, 2919 James St. Engineering assistant at Trane Co. Born April 17, 1932, in La Crosse. Graduated from Logan High School.

Has been 19th District alderman since 1966. Now serves as council president and member of special, finance and community development committees. Married, six children. your solution to La traffic problem? Do you favor a freeway? If so, where? As an immediate solution to traffic congestion I would inaugurate pairs of oneway streets to complement 3rd and 4th Streets. 7th St.

one way north and 6th St. oneway south was suggested as a good 5th Ave. to re main tweway. An east-west pair should also be instituted. In addition to oneway streets, certain areas ought to have restricted parking during rush hours so more lanes can be devoted to traffic flow.

I do not favor a freeway through town be cause it would have a devastating effect on residential and commercial property in that area. It would remove many homes and commercial structures from the tax rolls. There is no need for a freeway through La Crosse. Diverting traffic around the downtown area will eliminate the 3rd and 4th SSt. congestion and return parking spaces to the downtown merchants.

The extension of Losey Blvd. to Onalaska will provide an additional arterial for north and south traffic. Making Highway 16 a limited access (route) will provide better and safer movement of cars to the interstate and east. Four lane movement for Rose St. and Lang Drive will move twice as many cars.

There is no immediate solution to La traffic problem. This is going to take the time and heads of all civic-minded people. I am not in favor of a freeway as proposed. Geographically it is impossible, but other means could be worked out. We can eliminate some downtown parking, we can attempt alternate truck routes, or a belt line.

There never are simple solutions to a problem that changes with the patterns of the community, but panic answers can create more problems than we solve. In my judgement, additional one-way streets, not necessarily side by side; more use of our main arteries to handle the 20 per cent of through traffic; controlled left turns and traffic signals at buildup areas; controlled parking during peak hours on vital streets; and keeping the transit line healthy, are solutions. I do not favor the freeway as proposed. The proposed freeway is not acceptable to the very existence of the city of La Crosse as we know it. If a reasonable alternate plan is developed, I would give it consideration.

Should the city subsidize industrial growth by providing other than utilities, streets, curbs, Should tax money be used to benefit private enterprise? If our goal is to attract industry, our concern should not be how much we charge for our industrial parkland, but how bad we want that industry. If big enough industry, providing several hundred or thousands of jobs for our people, then by all means give them the land if we have to. Once they establish in La Crosse we will reap the benefit in taxes and new jobs for the next 50 to 100 years. The second part of this to be more clearly defined. I would presume talking about an operational subsidy for a manufacturing or service industry.

No, the very term private enterprise negates public subsidy. We already subsidize industrial growth other than with basic utilities. Our land prices are set to return fair value to the community. If city land was priced for sale by ownership, the price would be from $3,000 to $5,000 per acre higher. We do not make a profit on it.

In addition, we lend the backing as a responsible corporation to the use by private enterprise of industrial revenue bonds. These bonds allow 100 per cent financing of land, building and equipment (not possible by conventional financing) at an interest rate much lower than conventional financing. If the city of La Crosse can bring much-needed industry to town, I would say use whatever means as are at hand to do so. Our taxpayers are already overburdened, so why should they pay for private enterprise, unless it means more tax base to our city, and cash in the pockets of the taxpayers. Mr.

Michael Cordes (executive director of La Crosse Area Economic and Industrial Development, Inc.) was brought to La Crosse a number of years ago, to go out and bring industry to town. Where are the results of his office, other than buying and selling real estate. No. There is assistance available to help an industry locate in La Crosse. Those communities which have provided tax-free lands or other incentives (paid by local property owners) have often been disappointed.

We need industry that is willing to be a contributing part of the city instead of one that is here only for what they can get free. The property taxpayer is carrying enough of the load. By the same token, government agencies should not compete with private enterprise. Should La Crosse promote and encourage tourism here, or will large influxes of people crowd our recreational faculties? Tourism should be promoted for certain events, such as Oktoberfest, events at the events and such things. would be opposed to a fullscale promotion of La Crosse as a tourist city and all of the shoddy roadside attractions and gaudy signs that this attracts.

Tourism is just another business in a balanced La Crosse economy. Obviously, large influxes of people will crowd our recreational facilities and we are not interested in being another Wisconsin Dells. However the tremendous expanse of outdoor recreation available in La Crosse allows us to reap benefits in terms of more business, jobs and income to our residents without us having to invest any money. La Crosse should promote industry, rather than tourism. Ours is one of the most scenic places of beauty.

Our bluffs, parks are among the finest. These are the most attributes to tourism, and a satisfied tourist, is the best promotion you can get. People come for miles to fish, swim, and go boating on our beautiful waters. Available statistics show that 20 per cent of the retail sales volume in La Crosse is created by tourism. The tourist and recreation industry should receive consideration in any future planning toward the development of La Crosse.

The current energy situation has created the possibility of a shortage of tourists which could ere ate high unemployment in La many tourist-oriented businesses. Do you favor a tax on motel rooms, as proposed by the convention and visitors bureau? If this is what the motel owners want to do to raise money for the convention and visitors bureau, I would approve. It is a tax that primarily affects them; they do have to build the tax into their room rate. I did oppose this tax when it was suggested as a revenue generating device because the amount of revenue generated did not appear that great and the cost of administration would be high. I do favor the motel room tax for very specific purposes.

The motel room tax is in effect in every major trade area east, west, north and south of La Crosse. So we would not be affected competition-wise to any great extent. The approximately $200,000 plus or minus would have to be used for convention bureau activities, city parks and recreation activities and industrial development. This usage would bring relief to our property taxpayers. I do not favor a hotel, motel room tax.

Taxes are what is driving business and industry out of the state of Wisconsin. No one should pay a tax for staying overnight, and otherwise spending money in town. I am against a room tax for several reasons: Present law provides that a room tax can only be collected by a village, township or city. That would mean motels outside the city limits would have an economic advantage over those inside the city. The room tax is being sold to us as a source of revenue to help the taxpayer.

We heard the same story when the sales tax was first being proposed. In reality, it is just another way to reach into the pocketbook of the taxpayer. Do you favor combining the city police, county police and department into some sort of metropolitan police force? I favor consolidation whenever a more efficient system is the result. I believe that the objective is to provide the most efficient service for the least tax dollars. If consolidation can do this, and I have no figures to substantiate this, then I favor consolidation.

Usually where we have duplicity of efforts we have waste. When certain groups, such as city of La Crosse residents, pay for a service once in the city, and then are required to pay 67 per cent of that service in the county, a divisive force is created at the outset. The combination of city police, county traffic and departments is a good idea for various reasons. The outlying areas would benefit from the detective bureau capabilities. The patrol patterns could be set to best cover the entire county.

The sheriff, who by law is the top law enforcement person in any county, could be held directly responsible for all police activities at election time. Law enforcement administration would be clearer and the public would have less confusion. Only one facility would be needed. I do not see any dollar saving, however. a good idea to combine, but not a pressing problem.

I believe a combined united police force is a valuable asset to any city. There is. extra strength in such a unit. However, to make it perform without any problems, each department must have its chief, and each chief work in unison for the mutual benefit of all. I believe some money could be saved.

I am in favor of evaluating a merger between the department and the county highway police. However, I see no advantage of any merger plans which would include the city police department. What will you do to promote cooperation between city, county and township governments? The best way to promote cooperation between city, county and township government is through positive communication. Too frequently there is no communication, or when there is, it comes in times of stress when a hotly contested issue causes a clash. As mayor.

I would like to see a city-county committee dedicated to improving our system with the general welfare of all residents of the county in mind. The best way to promote cooperation between governments is to sit down and talk to each other. That way everybody finds out that the other people hide a set of horns under their hats. We have set up a liason committee with the county. see how it works.

The La Crosse Area Plan Committee also serves as a good forum for city and township differences. To have successful cooperation in city, county and township government, the prime ingredient is the desire for all concerned to want to work together for the best interests of all the constituents. Each must be treated fairly, without malice, and each plan together for the advancement of each community. Team work. We need teamwork and cooperation while attaining each goals.

Mutual respect and a sincere effort to work together can go a long way toward improving cooperation. What are the prospects of growth for La Crosse? Should the city try to expand in area and population? The prospects for physical growth in La Crosse are not that great because of our inability to annex neighboring land. The metropolitan area will continue to grow, however, and it seems to me that if we are going to benefit from this growth we have to capitalize on the fact that we are a natural retail center. This not only means more retail development, but revuvena- tion of what we have. Prospects for growth are good.

The present economy is hurting the entire nation, but La Crosse has not felt the brunt yet. The construction start in July of Harborview and the start of the post office-federal building in October will have a fair amount of work available. In addition our industrial development people are rather high on at least one major prospect who may well build a new plant in this area starting in 1975. La Crosse will continue to grow in the field of medicine, education and fine arts. Its population growth will be automatic.

Nothing will stop it. As for area expansion, where else can we go other than underground, in the air, or on the north and south ends. We do not have anywhere near enough housing for population growth. The big shopping centers are building and locating where they can furnish their customers with free parking. State laws, plus our natural boundary restrictions present obstacles, but I do have enough confidence in La Crosse and its people to believe that we will find the space and the dedication to make things happen.

The population point of 50,000 for La Crosse is critical. Federal and state guidelines both use the 50,000 figure as a cutoff point. Many aids programs and regulations are based on this number. What wUI you do to ensure that the Harborview project faker? I believe in Harborview as a project and as our hope to rejuvenate the city. I will continue to work aggressively with the Redevelopment Authority to get tenants and to start construction as soon as possible.

Hopefully next year will see some progress. We have too much work, money and time invested in Harborview to let it falter now. I am personally wiling to go on recruiting trips to sell La Crosse and the Harborview concept. The Harborview project is not faltering and will not. The plans for construction are being set.

It will start in 1975. No one can ensure the Harborviev. project from not faltering. For many years, statements have been made about and so going to do this and do that, but never are these statements backed with signed contracts, or money on the line. Yet we, the taxpayersn are asked to invest millions of dollars in parking ramps so these investors will have ample parking, provided they can raise the money to come to La Crosse and build.

How many local people can afford, or kwill spend the vast sums for apartments in a condominium? With the present shortage of construction dollars and the high rate of interest, the only thing left is to keep the pressure on for meeting the completion date. f. i-.