The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has some good commentary, and some very nuanced views, on the debate over the Menards expansion that fell through. From today's paper:
Rather than accusations of bureaucratic bungling from gubernatorial candidate Rep. Mark Green and platitudes from Gov. Jim Doyle's office about how well the governor's office works with business, Wisconsin deserves some serious answers to serious questions about why Menard Inc. decided to build two distribution and manufacturing centers outside Wisconsin.While I'm certainly guilty of partisan bickering and simplistic campaign rhetoric (hell, just scroll down), I really appreciate this moment of sensibility from the Journal Sentinel.
Did the state Department of Natural Resources put up unreasonable roadblocks to building a facility at Menard's headquarters in Eau Claire? Was a one-acre wetland really responsible for the loss of hundreds of jobs? Was Menard unwilling to adequately protect a natural resource? Would the company have built out of state anyway for logistical reasons?
Clearly, Menard found the DNR difficult to work with, a common complaint in a state that Forbes magazine recently ranked among the worst in the country for over-regulation. A Menard spokesman expressed frustration with a process that cost the company more than $1 million and three years. Menard didn't apply for a permit because it was clear that regional DNR officials were opposed, he said.
The DNR says it worked closely with Menard, including sending a series of letters to the company and holding a meeting with Menard officials that included Doyle and DNR Secretary Scott Hassett.
It's true that Menard might well have needed distribution facilities in Ohio and Iowa anyway, given its recent growth.
And, no doubt, there is some unhappy history between Menard and the DNR. Menard was twice fined record amounts after environmental complaints. In the latest case, an Eau Claire County judge last year ordered the company to pay more than $2 million in fines after Menard pleaded guilty to discharging pollutants that spilled into an adjacent watershed.
But Menard has a point. If this piece of ground was a non-starter - and that might be a reasonable decision given its importance to migratory birds - why did the process have to take three years? Why couldn't the two sides reach a compromise?
Green says Doyle should have done more to save the jobs. Maybe. But Doyle has a history of working well with business on these issues; he was the primary mover behind the Jobs Creation Act, a regulatory reform measure that made it easier for businesses to comply with regulations. Doyle's administration has worked well with Menard on other projects, something President John Menard acknowledged in a statement.
Growing Wisconsin's economy is critical to the state's prosperity, but protecting the environment is critical, too, if people want a state worth living in.
A thorough public discussion of what happened in this case - something more than simplistic campaign rhetoric - is needed.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home