Sometime during the winter of 1996, I decided that at the tender age of 18 I should be a Trustee in the village of Williams Bay. Why I decided this I’m not sure, but I can guarantee it had something to do with the $4500 annual salary. I had filed the necessary paper work, attended some “debates” where I sat under the searing lights of the village hall, elevated on their wooded console that served no other purpose than to lift me even closer to the burning intensity of those stage lights. I sat and I sweated. And when the time came for me to talk, my teeth ached with the pain of an Novocain-less root canal. Every breath I drew caused my teeth to ache, and between the aching and the sweating, it was almost too much. But I pushed forward. I even had 50 or so signs printed with my name and the word “trustee” on them, and stapled these signs, signs that I now remember to be yellow, around town on telephone poles and mailbox posts. I was David Curry, and I was going to be trustee.
For several weeks I went on like this, spending my days trying to sell real estate to customers that always commented how young I looked, and my nights feverishly pounding away at a calculator intent on making that $4500 salary provide me with the sort of material bounty that I had as of yet not experienced. Then, on the Sunday before the Tuesday election, I didn’t want to be a trustee anymore. Money be darned, I didn’t need the stress. Why on earth did I want to spend my Monday nights sitting under those bright lights, trying to pretend that I wanted to be present in anything more than body? The sweating and the stress and the inevitable committee meetings and the thought that I might have to get involved with pig roasts and brat grilling and raffle ticket selling, it all made me nuts. I panicked. And then I did what any other panicking kid would do; I drove around town under the cover of night and removed all of my yellow signs.
Election day came and went, and I didn’t vote for myself. That night, I sat and watched the election results for obscure elections like the one I originally wanted to win until my name flashed across the bottom of the screen. My apathy turned fear quickly turned to relief. I had lost. Phew. But I had only lost by like 18 votes or so, which left my pride intact. I could have won if I wanted to. And like the three years in high school when I refused to play on the basketball team but routinely demolished all of the players during lunch time games of 21, I had justified my lack of participation. I was not going to be trustee, not then, and not ever.
Three paragraphs to get me to where I’m going today. I do not normally care much for village governments. I don’t have much interest in them. Sure I’m going to vote NO to the Williams Bay School referendum in September (live within your means school district, please), and I show up once every five years at a village meeting to be a bit snarky and negative, but I generally steer clear of local politics. That said, when something presents itself that promises to impact that ethereal lake that I love nearly as much as life itself, I feel compelled to get involved. And so, today, I must take umbrage with the village of Fontana. Fontana, this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you.
Fontana has positioned itself as the premier lakeside municipality on Geneva Lake. Take an hour drive around the lake, and chances are you’ll come away with an understanding that Fontana is indeed the most idyllic of our four municipalities that possess property on Geneva Lake (Walworth Township, you don’t count). Real estate values have risen in Fontana commensurate with this obvious appeal, and many buyers are suffering from a case of acute municipal attraction, with Fontana being the only prescription available, over the counter or otherwise. So as Fontana propels itself ahead of the competition, there’s a growing concern that Fontana is getting a bit off course as it relates to zoning and permitting issues. I’ve been aware of this for quite some time, and wrote a year or more ago about a proposed land subdivision that I wasn’t in favor of. Fast forward to today and there’s another proposal that I don’t like, and a slippery trend that Fontana is on the brink of escalating.
Our friends at the Geneva Lake Conservancy sent out an email last week, bemoaning some recent decisions made by the Fontana board. Among those grievances is the 2010 approval of a boathouse. Now, boathouses are cool. I love them. But I don’t really think we need to start allowing more of them to be built. The boathouse that was just approved by Fontana and quickly built is on the north side of Fontana, and while it’s small and tasteful, I still don’t like the trend that the approval has possibly established. The fine folks at the GLC are not in favor of it either, and it’s left their mood teetering on apoplectic. The letter they wrote calls out the village for this boathouse approval, but there is more disapproval directed at the village’s consideration of a proposed development along the same road that would provide lake rights and a slip to an off water home that currently has neither. This, as you may have guessed, is a big deal.
I’m generally a limited government sort of guy. I dislike taxes, and as a rule dislike social programs that benefit select few at the expense of the more productive others. That said, regulations designed to protect values and protect aesthetic qualities of Geneva Lake are regulations that I support. I don’t want to see the density on the lake increase. I don’t want to see more piers and more boats and more boathouses. I like it just the way it is, and I have no interest in pulling back previously strict regulations for the benefit of a few powerful individuals within Fontana. I have a simple take on municipal zoning and building issues. If a house exists, I think the house should be able to be torn down and rebuilt in the same footprint without any hassle. I think that owners of small cottages who seek to upgrade those cottages by alterations or minimal additions that don’t impede another owners access of view should also be permitted with little struggle. I think platted vacant lots should always be buildable, even if the municipality has restricted the building setbacks to a degree that current construction would require a lengthy and burdensome variation appeal. I think these things, and I think they are reasonable. What I don’t approve of is the butchering of private lakefrontage to a degree that the density of housing and the density of riparian improvements (piers) increase.
Fontana has been leading the charge on the lakefront for improving municipal space, and they should be applauded for their gains. What they should not do is bow to the wishes of a select few that seek only financial gain. Lakerights should not be extended to those owners who currently have none, and land subdivisions should be limited to what the current zoning allows. The lakefront is too valuable to allow one municipality to approve measures that incrementally increases density in a way that affects all of those who use and love the lake. If you feel the same way, take a minute to email the village of Fontana. Tell them you’re not a fan of increased density, and while you love their grassy medians, you have little interest in seeing more piers and even less interest in having them approve condominium plats on single family parcels.
Now that I’m sufficiently worked up, please remember this. If you ever see a sign up that says “Curry for Trustee”, please remove it at once.