The ban on fishing on a portion of the riverwalk

This topic has created quite a bit of controversy. Below is my letter to the editor printed in the Daily Union. Please share your thoughts.

Transparency

In the weeks leading up to and following our City Council’s vote to ban fishing from all but the Bicentennial Park portion of the downtown River Walk, I have been weighing the thoughts of those who attended the public hearing, the printed responses of the council in our local paper, and the letters to the editor submitted by the citizenry. And not a few people have offered their opinion on this matter or asked me about it, either. As a former member of the Council, I have had time to reflect on these proceedings and compare them to the other “hot” issues that infrequently came before that elected body. If an issue were contentious, we rightfully aimed to be transparent about our personal interests and about where the viewpoints on the issue came from. This is most important in representative self-government.

I recollect being asked to attend a meeting (in 2000, I think…) of property owners along the proposed River Walk (before final planning and construction) in which Sandy Mayer, of High Pointe Properties, expressed her wish to have fishing banned along our collective properties. I registered my feeling that fishing should be allowed and encouraged as a wonderful, easy and relaxing activity. When the time came to sign an easement contract, my partner and I crossed out “fishing” as one of the activities we would give the easement owner the right to restrict, making it clear we were signing that easement with the stipulation that fishing never be prohibited on the land we were donating. I even asked that a bench be built into the wall at the base of our property so that people could relax under the shade of the trees we have allowed to grow on our bank; a place from which one could watch the river and perhaps their fishing poles while enjoying the peace that moving water carries with it.

It seems that Ms. Mayer had other designs and, when planning the River Walk, we may assume that fishing was not included in those plans; even before it was built with sections now allegedly “too narrow” for fisherman and pedestrians to mix. At about this time, High Pointe Properties had at least one wrought-iron gate constructed, which was to be placed on the River Walk with the intention of limiting access to the walkway when they felt it was warranted. You can still find this gate lying on the cement directly west of our property.

With this background, I stood at the public hearing and first reading of this ordinance and witnessed a very fine moment in public participation. Sixteen of us from various walks of life, both in the city and in the surrounding townships, presented sixteen different shades of opinion. In this case, all were opposed to the ordinance. There was not a single comment made that did not refer simply to the act of fishing and the wish for that right to remain. No names were called and everybody was respectful. I have had enough experience in hearing citizen input at council and planning commission meetings to have actually found it remarkable how polite every single person was. There are tapes of these city council meetings that are required to be held for ninety days. If anyone needs to hear the actual tone of that hearing, it is there at the city offices waiting to be heard.

At the second reading on March 18th, one of the council members said there had been a woman at the first reading (March 4th) who was too intimidated to testify on behalf of the ordinance. We will perhaps never know who this shy person was, but Ms. Mayer was there and did not speak. As a very successful businesswoman and one who felt strongly about this ordinance passing, there must have been some other reason that Ms. Mayer did not testify. The right of free speech is central to establishing the will of the people. Not speaking or claiming intimidation at this public hearing has the effect of reducing all those individuals, who spoke in their own way and with their own honest words, to the status of an unruly gang. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There have been twenty letters to the editor against this ordinance and only three in favor of it: One by the wife of a High Pointe Property partner, one by a council member who is listed as a contact for buying the condominiums that grace the river front just to the east of the walking bridge (real estate adjacent to a good portion of the river walk included in the fishing ban) and one citizen who is, it seems, simply exercising the right to speak in favor of it. Otherwise, the evidence in favor remains discreet phone calls to council members and unsigned letters from folks who were unwilling to be known. There are no named offenders and no citations for blocking or littering on the River Walk. And, though getting snagged by a fishhook is an unwanted mishap, there is only one event claimed where this happened and it remains an unfortunate possibility, regardless of where fishing occurs.

At the third and final reading of the ordinance, there was a letter from a person who uses a wheelchair and had found their use of the River Walk blocked by a rude fisherman. The wheelchair point is especially poignant because one of the finest features of this cement walk is that it is the only place on the river where a wheelchair-bound citizen or a person using a walker can safely and comfortably come to fish.

There were questions missing from this ordinance procedure that need to be asked and answered now that it has passed despite the stated wishes of what seems to be a large percentage of the public. Here are a few of them:

Why was there a wish to ban fishing before the River Walk was even built?
Is there something inherently incompatible with fishing and other activities that can take place on the River Walk?
Why is fishing not considered one of the most obvious uses of a river’s bank?
Where do wheelchair-bound citizens go to fish?
Are the five piers that will be located on the river in front of the condominiums, with the public walkway in between, a factor in the wish to ban fishing in the entire area?
Does allowing fishing reduce the value of property along the River Walk?
Will iron gates be proposed at some time in the future to control access to the walkway? What conditions would create the need to add “security”?
What sort of pressure was the Council under that gave private phone calls more weight than the public oral and written testimonies of our citizens?
Will it be illegal for future owners of the condominiums to fish from their piers?
Is this an example of “bait and switch”?

The renewal of our downtown is something most communities are grappling with throughout the mid-west and beyond. The TIF district that was formed and expanded in the past decade has the potential to return a portion of civic life to our central city. And I believe this is most needed for our future. It should be for the greater good of all the citizens of Fort Atkinson, as well as those who are enticed to visit, whether they be shopping, walking, picnicking or, that most ancient of activities, fishing.

Bill Camplin