City Council Gives Cold Shoulder To Public Opinion

Tweet

As expected, the ice arena funding involving a taxpayer commitment of $2.5 million was fast-tracked through the Janesville city council during yesterday's meeting. It passed by a vote of 5-2 with Councilman Rashkin and Frank Perrotto voting against.

It is worth noting that Councilman Yuri Rashkin made an unusual (unusual for a JVL council member), but very reasonable if not convincing argument on behalf of the silent majority of Janesville taxpayers. Well, convincing for everyone except those already in the tank. Judging from polls, emails, reactions and comments against the greasy deal, why on Earth would the majority of the city council ignore public opinion?

While several council members agreed to disagree with Rashkin, they thought it important to prove that the new arena was not being pursued for the for-profit Janesville Jets junior hockey organization. Since the Jets are the furthest reason to commit millions (as one council member claimed) for improvements, why then would Janesville need 2 sheets without the Janesville Jets? Why would the Janesville Gazette spend a quarter-barrel of ink promoting the Jets as the fundamental reason to go forward with a new arena? And most importantly, why would the private sector arena group, you know the guys who are only looking out for the best wishes of the community, make it clear that they want no part of a single sheet community ice arena built near the center of the community? Remember, without the Jets making an appearance, this entire debate began with a centrally located community ice arena with an aging ice-maker and a leaky roof - there were no millionaires involved.

I hate to say it but it's clear Janesville taxpayers have been played for fools. And the sad truth is this: Without the Jets, who would this council be willing to put millions in improvements into the ice arena for? The general public they chose to ignore? Please - don't make me laugh.

Suggested slogan for the WHP and private ice arena group.

"We're only here for you. But if we don't get everything - we have nothing to give."

And when did we hear that before?