to; people people wrote on Oct 12, 2006 4:44 PM:
" If you think that is the only thing that needs improvement, you sure are close minded. Open up, and realize it's going to take steps ... step one would be to put a barrier/fence in place, step two is try to tell people they shouldn't drink. This town has been a drinking town since it was founded, you are not going to change that. What we can do is try to protect the public, period. "
people people wrote on Oct 12, 2006 1:45 PM:
" A gate or railing will not solve ANYTHING. It would simply be a waste of time and money. The only solution is to stop all the drinking in the La Crosse area. The alcoholism is getting out of control. "
GoatBoy wrote on Oct 12, 2006 1:30 PM:
" Does anybody plan on voting for Johnsrud again? Anybody? "
INEXPENSIVE PRECAST CONCRETE BARRIERS wrote on Oct 12, 2006 12:42 PM:
" WOULD HAVE SAVED LUKE'S LIFE!!
CITY OFFICIALS must take responsibility for making the decision for not placing a barrier at such a dangerous place. the public must HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE for their NEGLIGENT ACTION and loss of this man's life
failure to place barriers at the waters edge where the drop off is 12 feet straight down with no way out after the previous death at the same spot should be considered a crime!
a second story porch built in LAX requires a railing all street bridges over water have a railing to protect walkers from falling off a private pool must be fenced
WHY do city officials think this PROVEN DANGEROUS DROPOFF in a most public place should not similiarly be protected?
"
Ok. wrote on Oct 12, 2006 11:59 AM:
" Very crazy. It's not our fault people are getting drunk && falling in! "
Les Dent wrote on Oct 11, 2006 11:15 PM:
" I think the mayor is a blooming idiot...he should be voted or recalled out of office...So that LaCrosse cn get back to normal. "
TO GATES AND RAILING wrote on Oct 11, 2006 9:19 PM:
" I AGREE!
"
The view wrote on Oct 11, 2006 5:38 PM:
" In Trempeauleau they responded to the danger area with a fence. Why not LaCrosse? http://s26.photobucket.com/albums/c108/hunterws/RH/ "
Can't help but notice wrote on Oct 11, 2006 5:30 PM:
" Some people posting here seem pretty cold around the heart. "
To gates & railings wrote on Oct 11, 2006 5:25 PM:
" Yeah, gee whiz, what is someone's life worth if it obstructs the view of the river!? "
Sober bartender wrote on Oct 11, 2006 5:15 PM:
" The only people that should receive any blame should be the person that was drunk or his friends for not paying attention. Doesn't anyone stay sober to take care of their friends anymore? I do not understand how a group of college kids, especially ones that are friends with such "popular" athletic guys, could be so irresponsible. I bartend downtown and it is unbelievable how many people ditch their friends. The arguement that it is the bartender's fault for overserving is ridiculous. It is not my job to babysit you outside of the bar either. That is why you brings SOBER FRIENDS out with you. If I think you are ok to drink, you get one...if I don't, you get water. Many older people will just drink the water. Younger people will get upset and leave. "
wow wrote on Oct 11, 2006 3:34 PM:
" How come evrybody rips the bars? The city council passed a resolution on a $100 keg reg. this resulted in more kids buying booze from their grocery store. Maybe we should let them drink beer and no booze or energy drinks!! "
Bob wrote on Oct 11, 2006 3:30 PM:
" Bars arent to blame so knock that off.If college kids cant control themselves ( they are adults now) then maybe mom and dad should keep them living at home.Maybe mount a large flag pole on campus so they would know the path to go home.Maybe the drunk bus should park at riverside. "
A New "Octoberfest" wrote on Oct 11, 2006 2:06 PM:
" So if alcohol is "the Killer", then lets make Octoberfest "dry"! We're supposed to be celebrating fall, that can easily be done without alcohol. Oh, I"m bad....with out the bars and the students drinking in them, what would Lacrosse be?? Maybe the business owners have a part to play in this solution. Octoberfest has become the "king of Binge Drinking Fests" in this part of wisconsin. Maybe thats what has to change! "
Who should Pay? wrote on Oct 11, 2006 1:51 PM:
" It is apparent what the cause of these deaths were, alcohol. THerefore, I think it is only appropriate that the La Crosse tavern league and other bar owners flip bill for the $60,000. We know it will go through since everything the Mayor wants the Mayor gets. What would happen if they paid? Woukld they have to raise their prices? Good! then these young men would not be able to afford to drink themselves to death. "
Why not? wrote on Oct 11, 2006 12:04 PM:
" It's hard for me to understand the reasoning behind not wanting to put in a hand rail on the levee. I understand that it is used for boats and so forth, couldn't you put in several gates that can be unlocked if a boat is docked? And to those of you that say it will take away from the view of the park. First if you were up in the park you wouldn't see it since the levee sits lower and you would look right over it into that beautiful brown water. For you that are on the levee, how many of you are shorter than 4 feet tall because that is the height or shorter that the rail would have to be. So once again you're looking right over it. "
IDEA like eazy fix said wrote on Oct 11, 2006 11:41 AM:
" Why not eliminate the levee? If the levee is what's causing a safety hazard it should be eliminated! The city should not be concerned a few individuals or businesses will be inconvenience if there is no levee at Riverside Park! "IF" it is the levee and the surrounding areas around the levee creating a public safety hazard the city of Lacrosse has not only a legal obligation but a moral obligation to eliminate the hazard! If it is not the levee causing the problem then you all have to remember "you cannot fix stupid"! "
motion lights and wrote on Oct 11, 2006 11:13 AM:
" Not only should you put motion lights in, but video cameras attached to the same light pole. It will be activated when motion lights are set off. Then you wouldn't need patrol,just people watching camera activation. Maybe from river history building. This will likely get more volunteers in the colder weather. "
THE HOMAN RAIL wrote on Oct 11, 2006 10:30 AM:
" There is no need to put a fence around the park! All that is needed is a guard rail from the levee. Talking to several Counsil members they agree that a guard rail would help in this matter. Im told that it would only need to be extended 700 feet. The mayor is against any guard rail. LETS GET A RAIL PUT IN!! "
fence wrote on Oct 11, 2006 9:46 AM:
" What is taking so long to get a fence??? As far as the boats go build a gate between the railings so they can dock their boats for access to the levee. This matter should of been done after Jared drowned. Let's wait until another drowning occurs and another!! I agree that if this was a governments officials son it would of been done long ago!! Replace the Mayor, the police chief and council members and get people in their that care!!!!! "
Dunlap wrote on Oct 11, 2006 9:44 AM:
" Perhaps we can set the motion lights to detect a person or larger, when the lights go on send a signal to the dispatch desk or some other close monitor to go check why they were activated. Motion lights won't stop anyone, a follow up to why they are lit just might. Maybe activating a camera on the dike and sending the signal to the dispatch desk?
"
Citizen wrote on Oct 11, 2006 9:17 AM:
" I have a great idea. Send out radio AND television announcements, and letters throughout the entire United States - DON'T SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO LACROSSE TO COLLEGE..THEY MIGHT END UP DEAD IN THE RIVER. "
Maybe... wrote on Oct 11, 2006 8:36 AM:
" Maybe before starting off a night of drinking in La Crosse, bar hoppers should be required to wear a life jacket. Surely that would solve the problem... "
gates & railings wrote on Oct 11, 2006 8:21 AM:
" Gates and railings are the worst idea I have ever heard! Why should we ruin the beautiful scenery of riverside park? Because some people can't control how much they drink?? I don't think so! The only solution to this problem is to better educate the public on binge drinking, alcohol, and its effects on the human body. Shut down 75% of the bars in the down town La Crosse area, then we'll see who needs a gate! A message out there to all you drinkers: have a little self control! "
J-Rizz wrote on Oct 11, 2006 8:05 AM:
" You can raise the drinking age all day and do so many different things. But let's be realistic. If you raise the drinking age the 21 year olds that are banned from the bar are going to drink other places. At home, at house parties, maybe even in the park. That will not work. Come on. Don't be ridicoulous.
Cameras will solve what is happening to these kids but it will not keep them from falling in to the river. Prevent it. That is the key. How many have to die? "
MN_Guy wrote on Oct 11, 2006 8:04 AM:
" The solution is to shut down 75% of the bars in La Crosse. The drunk culture must be changed. Lighting the way so drunks in near-coma inducing states of inebriation can find the river more easily will not work. "
Curious wrote on Oct 11, 2006 7:59 AM:
" Hey "EASY FIX"... what is your theory on what is going on? I think you probably have a good idea "
Wrong solution wrote on Oct 11, 2006 3:26 AM:
" I guess you can't expect to get a logical solution to this problem from someone who pays $75.00 per yard for carpeting. "
tax payer concern wrote on Oct 10, 2006 10:00 PM:
" why not have city adminstrators patrol the river for their current salaries no overtime
plus all aldermen for about 6 months then they can make a decision on their experience and not just spend money which they seem to be good at with no justifaction.... "
Thorn wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:47 PM:
" What a scam. Buy the lights at Menards...probably save about 59,000.... "
"A angry roommate" ??? wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:47 PM:
" No wonder these boys cant handle their booze - they haven't even learned to write yet.
The kids cant handle themselves - how about a cure the taxpayer wont have to dig in their pockets for - raise the drinking age to 25 - eliminate the so called source of the problem. "
Molly M -- the dog wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:02 PM:
" They should just put up a railing. But gates would be a good idea, too. "
dog wrote on Oct 10, 2006 8:14 PM:
"
They should just put up a railing. "
Corn dog wrote on Oct 10, 2006 8:09 PM:
"
They should just put up a railing. "
OSHA? wrote on Oct 10, 2006 7:53 PM:
" Why would OSHA get involved? None of the victims worked at Riverside did they? "
Liability wrote on Oct 10, 2006 7:37 PM:
" They City can't build a fence. If they do, then they will be admiting there is a safety problem. Then when some drunk climbs the fence and falls in (and they will!) the victims family will sue the city and win. Its the same as if you put up a beware of dog sign and someone gets bit. You are then in more trouble because the sign admits your dog is a problem dog. If they don't build the fence, then they are not admiting there is a problem, and they are not liable for some stupid drunks actions. As is the way it should be. So, just get over it there will always be people that will do stupid things that get them killed and there is nothing anyone can do to change that! "
Re: boingo wrote on Oct 10, 2006 6:40 PM:
" ohh, that does sound fun! Although a serious matter, I do appreciate your sarcasm! "
GUS/FROM GREENBAY wrote on Oct 10, 2006 6:31 PM:
" THE COMMENT I READ IN THE GREEN BAY PRESS --MAYOR MARK JOHNSRUD SAID THE PROBLEM IS BINGE DRINKING , NOT ACCESS TO THE PARK. SO 8 YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES AND IT HAS TAKEN THIS LONG TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS--I DO NOT CONDONE THE BINGE DRINKING BUT THESE ARE PEOPLES CHILDREN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT --BET YA 10 BUCKS THE FENCE WOULD BE UP IF SOMEONE IN GOVERNMENT LOST A CHILD--THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO EVERY FAMILY THAT HAS LOST A CHILD--HAVE WE ALL FORGOTTEN THE WRONG CHOICES WE MADE AS YOUNG ADULTS--MOST OF US HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH THOSE CHOICES DID NOT TAKE OUR LIVES. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THE FENCE SHOULD HAVE GONE UP BACK IN 1997--GOVERNMENT SPENDS MONEY SO FOOLISHLY --ANY LIFE IS CERTAINLY WORTH MORE THAN 60,000.00 DOLLARS. MY PRAYERS ARE WITH THE FAMILIES. "
Add a Gate! wrote on Oct 10, 2006 6:28 PM:
" The lights alone will not deter intoxicated people from falling in. It is time to have a gate out front that closes at 10 p.m., like other parks. If 8 deaths occurred at one intersection, you can bet DOT would change the intersection. Trempealeau added a fence to deter intoxicated people from going on to the track, La Crosse needs to add a gate. "
uhhh wrote on Oct 10, 2006 6:25 PM:
" wouldnt the squirrels set off those lights??? i dont think the cops are going to go check on wuts going on every time the squirrels set off the motion lights!! "
"ODE TO THE MOTION LIGHT" wrote on Oct 10, 2006 4:34 PM:
" "MOTION LIGHT,MOTION BRIGHT" "I REALLY DON'T THINK THIS WILL HELP,ON ANY NIGHT"!!!!! "
Serial Killer failed... wrote on Oct 10, 2006 4:17 PM:
" If there's a serial killer out there, why was Cullen Fortney, who fell into the river in January of 2006, able to get out and get to help? The police found video of him getting into his truck (alone). Where was the serial killer? Many of the details of this are similar to these other guys. Face it - alcohol is the only killer responsible for these deaths! "
Look for a Solution not Who to Point a finger at... wrote on Oct 10, 2006 4:03 PM:
" If the city is going to truly look at finding a solution to the problem they need to look at other cities that have large bodies of water or rivers going through their communities and pro-actively look for a plan of action. Stop pointing fingers! People have lost their lives! La Crosse isn't the only town next to water with Bars or Festivities within walking distance. "
Boingo wrote on Oct 10, 2006 3:35 PM:
" I have the best solution. We dig a pit by the levee thats lined with foam, or maybe those McDonalds playland balls. Every morning, the police drive down there and pull out the 8 or nine drunks that fell in the night before. They send them on their way and bill the parents $50 for saving their special boys life. This would be a great fundraiser for the city and during days, kids can play in there... "
Can not believe the Mayor wrote on Oct 10, 2006 3:16 PM:
" I am disappointed in the sensibility of Mayor Johnsrud. Disappointed and Baffled how an elected official can be so IGNORANT to believe that motion lights will stop or even detour anyone from falling into the river. This is NOT the answer and is just a HUGE waste of money. Put the money towards a FENCE in Riverside Park. A fence WOULD have prevented those deaths. I don't mean a small fence, I mean one that cannot be climbed by a person who is too drunk to walk a straight line. If the City Council agrees to these motion lights, they ALL need to be REPLACED!! I don't want my taxpayer money to be wasted on such frivilous, IGNORANT suggestions. "
Drinking problems wrote on Oct 10, 2006 2:25 PM:
" Someone pointed out that nobody drowns in the river during riverfest. Riverfest takes place during July, with most students at home for the summer. Riverfest at riverside also has a lot of people right there to prevent anything from happening. Maybe we should do the same with Oktoberfest. Move it to riverside. Then we need to educate the students on how to drink and how to do it and still have fun. For example... If we told all the kids to eat a huge meal before drinking and to have no more than 2 drinks an hour, and told them that this would prevent hangovers and extreme drunkeness. Would that do any good?
"
Concerned wrote on Oct 10, 2006 12:32 PM:
" I'm thinking the camera idea is a good one. Have them throughout the park, have the PD monitor them from the station & alert and officer of any suspicious activity. The cameras don't have to only save lives, how about violence & destruction of property. This would also help with other festivities down at the park. I think in conjunction with the cameras, lights could serve a purpose. I can't imagine anyone (in their right mind, besides under the influence of a substance) would intentionally go to the park to end their life. I truly feel it is just that they find themselves wondering from their group and unfortunately that's where some have ended up. I'll just say this once ... LIGHTS * CAMERAS * (and pray for no) ACTION! "
Think About It!! wrote on Oct 10, 2006 11:45 AM:
" During Riverfest do any of the "drunks" fall into the river. NO!! Hey, they are getting drunk right there in the park!!! How come nothing has ever happened then?? Anyone care to explain this??
As for what the city wants/should do..I think if they are going to do something/ANYTHING it should not be publicized. That way, IF someone is actually doing this, we could catch him/her/them and put an end to all of this!!
"
To Joker: wrote on Oct 10, 2006 11:29 AM:
" I'm sure Luke Homan's parents would love to hear about their son's "stupidity" at this time, you fool. The point is, other college aged kids have drowned as well. While others don't want extra steps taken to "protect" or limit the beauty, or what have you, it's obviously necessary we do so. We live in a community, we protect the community and those who live in it, within reason. I agree with personal responsibility, but the numbers of drownings prove we need to take action. "
baffeled wrote on Oct 10, 2006 11:29 AM:
" First lets do our best to fix the problems, make it as difficult as possible to get to and fall or be pushed in the water at the levy, shesh guys we can do this in a way to compliment all the beauty at the park I am sure. second educate the kids on drinking. As a citizen's of La Crosse we all need to help stop these death's. "
Baffeled wrote on Oct 10, 2006 11:20 AM:
" There is no easy solution to the problem. People take a look at the levy it is way too easy to fall or be pushed into the water thats problem # 1. We do know that alchohol is also involved thats problem # 2
"
short term non-guarantee wrote on Oct 10, 2006 10:26 AM:
" Will the light deter people from entering and drowning in the river? That has yet to be seen. This is a short term solution that isn't guaranteed to work.
By putting up the lights the mayor is accepting the fact that there is big problem with binge drinking. Does he think the only problem with binge drinking is students drowning in the river? I hope not. Sure he has put together the alcohol task force, and now proposing lights at riverside, but I don't think he knows how to fix the big problem. "
Lighting Designer wrote on Oct 10, 2006 10:23 AM:
" Why not illuminate the park at all times?
No one falls in the river during rotary lights. Light the trees and walkways. Light the levy, and open it up to boat parking for a permit or fee. Let people walk the park at night. Drunks won't go there if there is a bunch of people around! "
Business Idea? wrote on Oct 10, 2006 10:18 AM:
" Plain and simple-Have someone start up a business where people can come down after the bars close and tube on the river for a small fee. Tubing down the Mississippi behind a speed boat would bring many opportunities to this community and doing so while wasted would be tons of fun!!
$5.00-single tube-10 minutes
$15.00-up to 4 of your drunk friends-10 minutes and a free drink!
This will bring more people to the park so they can "keep an eye out" for everyone else that is down there! "
$60,000 wrote on Oct 10, 2006 10:11 AM:
" Forget the lights...For this price the Mayor could get his office repainted or even better a little wallpaper...possibly with the state logo on it??? Huh..I know I thought of the idea by myself and what a good one it is! Any leftover could be used to buy a carpet cleaner :) "
Let be fair. wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:47 AM:
" I really do not think people are being fair to Mayor Johnsrud by essentially blaming him for some drunks death by not restricting access to the river. This is not a new problem in LaCrosse and has been something that was happening before he even voted into office. I don't see anyone showing discontent for the former leadership in our community. Besides the mayor is only one part of the puzzle, how about the rest of the city council that has the ability to "propose" a new solution? "
JJ wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:46 AM:
" There are countless numbers of cities along the Mississippi that have similar access to the river, i.e. no walls. Why don't we ever hear about drownings by intoxicated individuals in those cities? What are these cities doing to protect the access to these areas? Possibly they have found an effective way to limit the ability for over served individuals to gain access to alcohol. Maybe they have bartenders that are not afraid to say "no" or deny service? "
Joker wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:34 AM:
" With a .32 BAC if the kid walks east he gets run over by a car, if he walks west he falls into the Mississippi river. The fact is that this kid ordered the drinks, consumed the drinks and now we want to blame the government for not protecting his stupidity. If he got run over by a car would people be upset that the mayor did not put up a barrier between the sidewalk and the road? I am tired of individuals that want to protect people from themselves. Next someone is going to suggest that everybody in the bars downtown should be required to wear a lifevest! "
McBain wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:26 AM:
" Instead of halogen lights, how about a bat light to signal the mayor, chief of police and Batman. "
CaptnTony wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:25 AM:
" Hey, with cameras, we'll at least know where to start the search! I'm not sure anything short of a physical presence will stop events like this from happening. Though, I'm not sure what most will be saying when someone falls prey to this 'accident' once again and there are a couple volunteers or police officers patrolling the area. Hey, you can't be everywhere at once, so it's bound to happen even with the eyes watching. Do you blame the people on patrol for missing the poor guy or girl? Where does it stop? It stops at personal responsibility. No, it's NOT OKAY for you to consume so much alcohol that you can't make conscious decisions. If you don't take care of your own privileges, the gov't will take them away - think prohibition. That's the decision making ability in the gov't, time to 'Think globally, act locally' and take responsibility for your own behaviors. "
Common sense wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:04 AM:
" Lights- so he doesn't trip and fall on his way to the river?
Cameras- so you have the drowning on tape?
bUILD A FENCE! "
What if... wrote on Oct 10, 2006 7:14 AM:
" We just dump in some quick-crete and be done with this? "
cryptoman wrote on Oct 10, 2006 6:15 AM:
" It is amazing how rapid this was thought of. "
Jim wrote on Oct 10, 2006 3:21 AM:
" Can we honestly say that a fence will stop this? If so, it would be one heck of a fence, an unclimbable one at that. I'm sorry, and with full respect, but using a quick-fix method and changing the beauty of Riverside by adding such aspects as Big Brother devices and "stupid human" deflectors will ruin one of La Crosse's best assets for the majority because of a minority.
What happened to personal accountability? How about having a "designated friend" tag along? Even the idea of thinking that is sad. "
props to the mayor wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:54 PM:
" I think the lighting idea is a great one and the mayor is doing a great job handling a touchy situation to many of us - I speak as a college student in saying it could surely help and the cost to the city is minimal in comparison with many other options brought forth. It also helps to protect not only ideas/theories of people falling in or a "serial killer" but the general public as well. Let's go through with it! "
former UW LaCrosse student of the late 70's wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:40 PM:
" Recommend a series of web-cams with light sensors. Don’t think there is any expectation of privacy in a public park. That way the “whole world will be watching.” Seriously though…anyone with a .32 BAC (if true) may have more threats to their life then just the Mississippi. Personal responsibility should be in the forefront of this issue/debate IMO "
z wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:36 PM:
" reality is, people are going to drink. now put a fence up along the levee with a nice plaque dedicating the fence to the lives that were taken because there wasn't a fence before. people visiting would see the plaque and think how nice of a place lacrosse is to remember the loss of lives "
JP wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:47 PM:
" If you are drunk to the point of .032 a lighting system is not going to help. These people are so drunk they are incoherent and completely lost. Believe me I've been there. I've been drunk and lost walking back to campus. They won't be able to comprehend a lighting warning. How annoying would it be when ever a couple is trying to take a stroll by the river a bright industrial light goes off! Are you kidding me? Who is running this city?! Build a little railing you stubborn fools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"
Wendy wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:29 PM:
" I think this would be a good idea all around, I'm just surprised it wasn't this seriously considered before. "
To: Cameras?! wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:37 PM:
" The cameras are not only for drunk darlings falling into the water. It serves a dual purpose that someone can walk in the park at dark without someone robbing them. Criminals know the cameras are filming and they decide not to rob, assault, deal drugs or cause trouble. If the camera happens to catch the next low-will powered drunk fall into the water, then we can all let the "killer" thing go.The lights will be on so much from false setoffs, nobody will pay attention and the Radison guests will complain. They will be taken down and taxpayers are out $60,000 "
I've had enough wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:32 PM:
" Maybe if the college kids would spend less time drinking to the point of utter stupidity and more time studying and doing more worthwhile activities, they'd stop falling into the river! Why should the city waste our tax dollars trying to stop people who are so stupid drunk that they walk the wrong way home from the bars and fail to notice that they're about to fall into a huge river? "
TZ to "Cameras?!" wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:00 PM:
" I think we may be talking about VIDEO CAMERAS. You may not have heard of them yet, but they don't need film. They are digital, and can be monitored WHILE THINGS ARE HAPPENING. It's the same concept as TV...have you seen one of those? The idea behind it is that one police officer can monitor MANY areas of the city at one time, live while it's happening, and he/she can dispatch officers to the scene if needed. It tends to be more economical and efficient than paying 20 officers to sit around in 20 places to wait for something to take care of. Now, what if these "deeds" do move...well then we have more to speculate on don't we? "
Just a guy wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:54 PM:
" It's simple. Stop going down to the river and peeing in it, and you won't end up in it. "
Cameras?! wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:25 PM:
" To those of you that think cameras are the answer...What makes you think that you wil catch the supposed killer on camera? If "they" know that the cameras are in the park the deed would be moved somewhere else. Also, cameras are reactive not proactive. All the tape would show is someone falling into the river. "
To Levee: wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:20 PM:
" The current along the levee swirls alot. There are undertows all along the shoreline there that will take an object under, spit it up and take it back down again. "
kepmama wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:10 PM:
" If an intoxicated person walks through downtown amid all the lights and people there, why would sudden lights by the river make a difference? If someone walks to the river thinking they're going home, they obviously don't know where they are.
I have always felt nervous walking along the section of Riverside Park that drops off from the sidewalk. Even on a sunny day, you could trip and fall in. The Mississippi River is dangerous. It has undercurrents and underwater visibility is non-existent.
Why is our mayor against a fence or other barrier at certain locations? A fence certainly can't affect a view of the river like the CenturyTel and Logics Health building have.
People in our community are important, no matter what they do or who they are. We need other solutions besides "more lights"!!!! "
fence wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:04 PM:
" I think it is time for a fence? It doesn't have to be tacky looking but 90% of the river drownings happened near the levee. The motion lights are not going to solve the problem. If they have a blood alcohol as high as Luke's supposibly was then no motion lights are going to do any good. Let's not have another river tragedy
and it's been 2 years since Jared's death and now another one!! Come on people let's get this problem solved now before another one!!!!! "
To: Bob wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:44 PM:
" Ditto. It might cost a little bit more than that, but I definately like the way you think. Signed: Bobb "
Another Mom wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:38 PM:
" Thank-You to Mom on October 9th,She hit the nail right on the head, LETS LOOK AT LA CROSSES ATTITUDE TOWARD EXCESSIVE DRINKING. THAT IS THE PROBLEM IN THIS CITY.Have you ever been out of town and told someone where you're from, and that person knows La Crosse because of all the bars..........Hmmm "
carrie wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:17 PM:
" more must be done camra's is a good idea a funraiser let's do it "
??? wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:15 PM:
" What good is motion sensor lights going to do??? putting up cameras is much more sensible granted some one may not be able to get down to the river to save a life but at least the city will have answers when you go back to the tape and watch what happend!!! This is what the city wants is answers please someone tell me what good the lights will do "
CaptnTony wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:03 PM:
" And to put my money where my mouth is, I do volunteer quite often for Lions Club events, the Humane Society, and Habitat for Humanity. I also volunteer in the local school system (Winona at the moment) giving lectures regarding technology and it's impact on society when asked. I've also encouraged others I know to volunteer their time giving demonstrations in the classroom. So, yes, I do think highly of becoming part of the solution rather than saying 'someone else should do it.' "
re: To CaptnTony (cont) - CaptnTony wrote on Oct 9, 2006 5:58 PM:
" Because you forgot one VERY IMPORTANT part of the puzzle. You, me and everyone that is part of this citizenry. I was slamming the 'simple' "It's not my problem, someone else should be responsible - it can't be the victim" attitude. It's far easier to say it should be someone else's job to solve all the world's problems than to take responsibility and run with it. I fully encourage you to help BE the solution if you feel strongly about the issue. "
re: To Capt Tony - CaptnTony wrote on Oct 9, 2006 5:57 PM:
" My bad, I meant that you have the mayor's attitude correct and that I agree with him. You want government to be responsible for this sort of thing? That's okay - not everyone can be right ;). Be careful for what you wish for is my point. While I believe the gov't has a role, I just don't think it's as extensive as you obviously do. Why can't I hold the gov't responsible for finding a cure for cancer, for finding me a better job, for feeding my family? "
Bob wrote on Oct 9, 2006 5:09 PM:
" Ok, first. Ill buy three large spotlights at Menards for $20 each, hardware and poles for another $100, motion sensors for $80. Then pay an electrician $2000 to hook it up. Where does Johnsrud get $60,000??? Are these stadium lights? Second, go to Trempelau and see the fence they have by the train tracks. If money wont be spent on cameras, buy this type of fence. Johnsrud, you are out "
To Capt Tony wrote on Oct 9, 2006 4:59 PM:
" You misunderstood - I DO think it is in part government's responsibility. I am not excluding the need for personal responsibility of each citizen Your comment illustrates the sad indifferent attitude toward intoxicated people drowning. I see the need to address the on-going drowning deaths as a priority in this community. There is great responsibility that goes along with being the chief of police, mayor, council member, etc. As citizens, we EXPECT and DESERVE the leadership in the community to rise to the challenge of doing everything they can to deal with this problem. How can you think otherwise? "
shya wrote on Oct 9, 2006 4:50 PM:
" think like an intoxicated person, shouldn't be to hard for this Mayor, did you do some personal studies to gain that knowledge?? Intoxicated people don't like bright lights. Are we talking about Mogwai or gremlins here? This is all so unnecessary, all we really need is more carpets. "
Kevin3 wrote on Oct 9, 2006 4:38 PM:
" I would be more pro gate if the Levee were the only place of entry. To my knowledge only two of the individuals entered at the levee. Wouldn't the gate need to be 6' plus in height, with the fence at the park/levee interface being raised accordingly as well? I'll vote for the gate, improved levee fence, water side rail and the lights. I also want a limit on the amount of alcohol that can be consumed in the bar, at the fest ground and restaraunts as well(I don't care how old the consumer is, what color the hair/skin, athleticism or gender). I also vote for the bars to have interconnected communications with the drivers license bar code being used to tally drinks against. One drink per hour per person. "
Blinding idea wrote on Oct 9, 2006 4:23 PM:
" That's the solution, lets help this disoriented person by blinding him, I just don't get it. "
to; the Mississippi floods nearly every year wrote on Oct 9, 2006 4:15 PM:
" The other section portions of columns with black chain are in fine repair. If you set in cement, the logs bounce off and keep going down river, it's not like they're coming in at 65 mph .... there needs to be a barrier, period . "
cameras wrote on Oct 9, 2006 4:10 PM:
" you cant put cameras in public, unless you want the ACLU at your doorstep, that's the hangup there ... it aint gonna happen folks. Somehow, wal-store gets away with putting them on the public street to their entrance though. It's an issue that some would whine about. Don't need to create another money sucking battle. "
This vs that wrote on Oct 9, 2006 4:01 PM:
" For those of you that poopoo the barrier idea along the levee and are hell bent there is a killer among us ... neither possibility can be ruled the problem, nor, can we rule any out. So, we need to cover all bases, a barrier on the levee, and foot patrols in the early hours. That would be a massive step. You can't be against one idea, and cheer for the other ... we need both in place and be open minded enough to realize a killer can't be ruled out. KV "
Levee wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:59 PM:
" Why does everyone keep insisting the levee is dangerous? If a body is found there doesn't it float there? Doesn't is make sense that the person went in farther north. "
to; Cataract Jack wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:57 PM:
" Those miles of riverfront have riprap, or some type of grade to the water. This levee allows you to take a step, trip and be in 10' of water. That's the difference, that's the fact Jack. "
drinking wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:51 PM:
" Come on folks, as pure as you are, you are not going to abolish drinking and drunkeness in this town, that stand will never be reality. So, what's next? Putting protections in place. Lights is a lame step, but it's progress nontheless. I really do not understand the mayors thinking, in that, drunks don't like bright lights, and that will deter them ... lol ... WHAT¿ *shocked* "
A angry roommate of Luke wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:50 PM:
" There should be some motion activated cameras down by the river so if there is something that is going on here you will be able to look at the footage. Lights arent going to solve or help anything. "
you make no sense wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:45 PM:
" """"If we put in a gate and pat ourselves on the back, an intoxicated person could walk to either side of it."""" let me finish this comment 'walk to either side of it away from the danger and not drown' ... you make no sense!!!!!!! "
Otis from Mayberry wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:43 PM:
" Have a nice sheriff like Andy Taylor,who has control over his over zealous officers,plenty of Barneys out there!Have a drunk tank at jail without fear of being beaten,arressted,get the chaplin out of bed and he can preach to them the dangers of alcohol and drugs, to make it simplier to the Chaplin he can just call everything drugs! "
Lights aren't a bad idea wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:31 PM:
" I think the lights are a good start - granted it doesn't mean that noone will ever drink too much or even wander into the river. However, I do believe if something like a bright light startled a drunk person that maybe wandering around, maybe - just maybe - they would either stop and think or change direction or something. I don't speak for the mayor, but I don't believe he thinks this is any cure all - but we have to start somewhere don't we? "
Upset parent of UWL student wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:27 PM:
" All I can say is I am shocked at all the negative comments about a very sad situation. No matter how much Luke or these other young men had to drink, the issue still stands, something has to be changed. Let's give the Mayor and the Police department a chance. Maybe all of you who are so against it, should actually do something more than just write rude remarks. "
re:Students WORKING to protect...Mayor proposing old ideas? - CaptnTony wrote on Oct 9, 2006 2:50 PM:
" You are correct, it shouldn't be the gov't 'problem'. Nor should it be the taxpayer's job to protect everyone from every possible thing that could happen to them. If you, or a group of students working to protect, care about this issue so much I'd suggest that you become COPs (Citizens On Patrol). Adopt this issue as a group and protect those which you are fighting to have others protect. If people are unwilling to claim responsibility to make it better, don't be expecting others to 'have' that responsibility. "
To: Words from the city council wrote on Oct 9, 2006 2:49 PM:
" There is nothing I would rather hear and see done than the common council wanting a protective railing along the levee, or, gates that can be closed at night to prevent access to the levee. Their collective light of reason and safety in wanting a physical barrier to protect people would outshine the Mayor's, many times over. -- RSM "
Natural Selection wrote on Oct 9, 2006 2:27 PM:
" Great idea, lets not spend 60,000 on education, environment, poverty, community support groups, roads, public buildings, etc., but let's spend it in order to accommodate drunk people. How about we spend 60,000 to educate students on personal responsibility. Why are we trying to stop natural selection? Let's spend money on things that happen to people for which they have no control over, like stopping crime!!!!!! "
Students WORKING to protect...Mayor proposing old ideas? wrote on Oct 9, 2006 2:26 PM:
" The fact that it took another tragic death to prompt some action by the city is a clear indication of this communities lack of concern over this issue. Kids drink - they act stupid - not my problem. Mr. Johnsrud was obviously more interested in what to do with Mr. D's, squabbles with Shelby over drinking water and other budetary issues. He has made his position clear - it's binge drinking and it's not his problem to fix. His efforts to propose lighting is too little, too late and toooo insincere! "
??? wrote on Oct 9, 2006 2:19 PM:
" I am not familiar with the area where these young men lost their lives, but I wonder. If it is easy for someone to fall into the river, is it not a matter of time until a small child would fall in while in the park? "
Words from the City Counsil wrote on Oct 9, 2006 2:14 PM:
" I talked to some city counsil members this morning and was told they would like a guard rail put in but the Mayor is against it. Does not cost much and would saves lives. Sounds like a solution to me. "
? wrote on Oct 9, 2006 1:51 PM:
" This will probally blind someone who is already to drunk to walk, causing the same thing as before. "
Former UW-L Student Part 2 wrote on Oct 9, 2006 1:29 PM:
" Second, for everybody championing the idea of a fence along the levee, the utility of this working levee along the river would be compromised by erecting a fence on the side of the river. Perhaps people should put more stock into the 'line of demarkation' idea that had been proposed and suggest benches and/or a painted line. While a fence might detract from the beauty, park benches set several feet back from the edge with an implied line of increased danger could serve the same goal in a more aesthetic way. "
Former UW-L Student Part 1 wrote on Oct 9, 2006 1:28 PM:
" First off, for everybody making a big deal about the new carpet in the Mayor's office, it's not as though he came up with this idea mid-way through the budget cycle. Instead, these sorts of capital improvements to City Hall are planned at least one year in advance. Granted, the cost seems a bit high, I'm sure the taxpayers would much rather pay for new carpet once every 25-30 years than once every 10 years.
"
yeah wrote on Oct 9, 2006 1:15 PM:
" This is just a nice bandaid cure to pacify the community and make us think something is being done to prevent this from occuring, thats a stupid idea, so the motion lights go off every 5 minutes, and someone responds (who)? Or they just go on/off all the time?? hmmm i think cameras would be a much better idea. "
re: uwl student wrote on Oct 9, 2006 1:09 PM:
" I completly agree. I no longer reside in LaX, and I never knew Luke Homan, however it really bothers me that there is so much negativity to any attempt to help the situation. If some of the people put as much energy into helping the city, or society in general as they put into coming up with witty, sarcastic comments than maybe LaX can be the community I recall when thinking of home. I think many of the online readers can take a lesson from the college community at UW-L, they seem to be the most respectful and proactive members in the city right now. "
Fire attracts more drunks than water wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:55 PM:
" 1. Set up a fireplace in the park. Put it in/near a gazebo, roast marshmellows every night. How could the intoxicated resist.
2. Hire a camping spotter.
3. Build an incline :"drunks don't like walking uphill" - lax tribune
4. Build a hole, "drunks don't like walking uphill" - lax tribune.
5. Leave the lights on in the fountain. Maybe they'll swim in there first. - make it easy access. Provide complimentary towel services.
6. Have a 'night corridor" leading east. Turn off some street lights. If drunks don't like bright light -lax tribune;
-naw this idea isbad - it would only save $$ "
GUARD RAIL wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:49 PM:
" Why put up gates and fences when all is needed, is a guard rail along the river! I've contacted the city council and some agree that a guard rail would help more in the matter. We would only have to add 700 feet of rail to help these kids from falling into the river.
You have a lot of support back in Milwaukee!!!
"
TZ wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:42 PM:
" Hey...now there's a fun new game for after-bar. Let's wander down to the park, and get the lights to flick on and off...see how long it takes the police to show up. Will this be a draw to the park after-bar time? How sensitive will these lights be? Will rabbits, birds, or bats set them off? How will these sensors work during the week that mayflies inhabit the area? I think there are more than a few bugs in this idea. I am not familiar with the funding for this project, but shouldn't the drinking establishments be considered in assisting with the charges for these steps? "
re: Arcadia wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:42 PM:
" It is easy to put a price on a human life. Just mention that any of these life saving ideas are going to increase taxes and the overwhelming whine will drown out any intiative to stop these drownings. The demand for more police, lights, fences, video cameras all cost money. Money we apparently would rather spend on beer. "
one wonders wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:37 PM:
" Has anyone called OSHA and asked them to come to La Crosse and take a close look at the levee? As I recall, every rule OSHA has in place is because someone lost their life. The levee in La Crosse certainly has that criteria covered. The levee either needs gates to prevent access, or, a gaurd rail along the levee to prevent people from falling in. The Mayor may want to hold off on his dim idea until we find out if OSHA requires La Crosse to have physical barriers for safety. Maybe someone will find the logic and safety in this. -- RSM "
the Mississippi floods nearly every year wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:35 PM:
" with a fence or railing between the levee and the river who is going to pay to repair this fence or railing when the logs that float down River during a flood destroy it? has anyone in this city ever been down by the river during and after high water? the force of the water and the debris it carries would destroy a fence or railing on the levy. "
CaptnTony wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:35 PM:
" It's called 'reactionary government'. Every disaster MUST have a quick solution, to placate the people. Until individuals take responsibility for their own drinking habits/actions (as not all drunks are perpetually drunk), we will be forced to revisit unfortunate happenings like this. This is an issue of tolerance. What's next? Are we going to put heaters under all roads because ice causes people to slide off the road or through intersections too often? Traffic fatalities have for some reason become an 'accepted' tragedy, while the onesie-twosie events captivate our attention. Not sure that is where the gov't should be concentrating it's efforts and we as citizens have to give them the 'ability' to call stupid stupid and accidents accidents. We cannot be 100% safe, nor can we predict the next stupid action someone will take. Ever climb a fence/gate drunk? It's loads of fun! ;) "
How about a snare? wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:00 PM:
" Alcohol is the real problem and the people selling and serving it.We live on Lauderdale Court on LaCrosse very north side that borders Onalaska and the Black River. 2 of the nine drowning occurred here both overserved individuals.The individuals walked across private property.Our Taxes are outrageous and we have called police to patrol this dead end road for bartime drunks, the same cars keep weaving home at bartime.What should we do put up snares in our backyards to catch intoxicated youths? A wire on a bent tree limb would stop them from getting in the river and they would be snared by the ankle hanging upside down drunk but still alive,Then these people can tell the story were they were overserved and go through counseling! "
Tony wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:59 AM:
" With halogen lighting in the park, seems to me a few cameras would put to rest once and for all the serial killer theory. However, the powers that be have convinced themselves, and are trying to convince the rest of us, the only killer is alcohol. I have stated previously, who is more vulnerable than an extremely intoxicated person. Prove me wrong Mr. Mayor, chief, and council members. "
Stupid Idea wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:44 AM:
" I agree that these lights are not going to help. I think that all of us writing on this blog should voice our opinions to the Mayor himself. I would hope that he would listen and find a different way to spend the $60,000.00. And I agree that a fund raiser for the difference is a GREAT plan. I think that a railing along the levy would be better than motion lights. "
Drunkard Solution wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:42 AM:
" Hmmm..how bout moving the LaCrosse Police Station to Riverside Park...or throw up some Web-Cams with Night Vision in Riverside Park and pay someone to monitor them. Seems to work catching criminals in London. Might prevent overly intoxicated students from drowining in the Mighty Mississippi!? "
uwl student wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:40 AM:
" As a student at UWL, it is really discouraging to read all these negative comments about the mayor/city government. If you were to step back and look at what is being said, it looks terrible and makes our city look like a bunch of whining, unintelligent people. At least the mayor is stepping up and doing something! If half of you would get away from your computers and become part of the solution, maybe more could be done to keep these tragedies from happening. Lets work together on this to not only make the park safer, but also change this city's tolerance of alcohol abuse. "
Arcadia WI wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:40 AM:
" Why not do surveilance tapes like many stores and businesses do? The cost should not be a factor, how do you put a price on a human life?
I'm surprised the city has not been sued for being deliquent at reacting quicker to this problem, since so many have drowned!!
Govenment does have a responsibility to the public for public safety! "
The Contrarian is WRONG wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:37 AM:
" Ever heard of a Eau Claire college kid by the name of Michael Noll? Hint: He drowned in Half Moon Lake. Search a little and you'll probably come up with a few more. Are people too stupid or lazy to check their facts before posting? "
My opinion wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:31 AM:
" Old fashioned, wrought iron gates around the levee would look just fine, and they might actually stop somoneone from walking or falling into the river. Police officers could close and open them at designated times. That levee is scary. "
Volunteers wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:25 AM:
" The lights are a horrible idea. Take that money and spend it on patrolling the area. Pay people to be outside - give them incentive to help one another out. "
RE: EASY FIX wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:23 AM:
" like EASY FIX says "you cannot fix stupid" if you look stupid up in a dictionary it will now say see LaCrosse mayor. apparently lacrosse leaders are either too stupid or trying to cover something up with all these ridiculous bandaid fixes they are proposing which will accomplish nothing more than to waste taxpayers dollars!! "
Tom Chase wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:16 AM:
" As citizens of LaCrosse and the surrounding area, all of you have the right to contact the mayors office and tell him some of your ideas or to tell him what you think of his. I think constructive criticism is what he needs, not anonymous complaints. I suggest we take a moment to remember the past leaders of the city of LaCrosse and ask ourselves what preventative measures were taken on their parts..ease up a little on the mayor "
Local Observer wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:11 AM:
" How is it that Johnsrud keeps finding money? Money for lights at Riverside Park, money for his "City Seal" carpet, money for a Safe Routes to School Plan, money for Sister City vacations. You name it, if Johnsrud LIKES it, he'll find the money for it. "
Alcohol vs madman wrote on Oct 9, 2006 11:04 AM:
" I think the lights are a start, maybe if someone is pushing these young men in the river, this will deter him/her. Trempealeau has had numerous concerts and let us not forget party til you puke "Catfish Days". All of those events have taken place on the edge of the river and I don't recall anyone ever falling into the river. There was an unfortunate event when a young man was hit by a train and died. One would think if there was a place for drunks to FALL into the river it would be the perfect place. "
lacrosse tax payer wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:55 AM:
" Lights? So they can see their way into the river?!! Drunks stumble and swagger, and I really don't think a bright light is going to do it. It actually may be so bright that it's blinding and they can't see where they are going! A gate around the levee area and maybe a hundred feet on each side, would not be unattractive to the park, if the gate chosen was stylish and not a prison type gate! Don't waste our money on lights, dumb idea. "
Get Real wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:37 AM:
" As others have mentioned, other cities like Milwaukee and Madison have colleges and large bodies of water. If you look at the lakeside in Milwaukee, there is an unfenced section just as in Riverside and yet nobody falls in the lake and drowns! What about Blonde or Red haired people, dont they drink and party too? Why only Brown hair athletes? Get Real lights wont help! "
EASY FIX wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:34 AM:
" Why not eliminate the levee? If the levee is what's causing a safety hazard it should be eliminated! The city should not be concerned a few individuals or businesses will be inconvenience if there is no levee at Riverside Park! "IF" it is the levee and the surrounding areas around the levee creating a public safety hazard the city of Lacrosse has not only a legal obligation but a moral obligation to eliminate the hazard! If it is not the levee causing the problem then you all have to remember "you cannot fix stupid"!! "
To: "The Contrarian" wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:27 AM:
" Get your facts straight...Eau Claire has had multiple drownings in the past few years...
It's not just LaCrosse, read this: (page 42) http://www.acfei.com/pdf/examiner/2006%20Examiners/Fall%20Examiner%20%2706.pdf "
Agreed wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:26 AM:
" I think that is a good Idea. As far as i know drunk people do not like birghtlights and that will make them turn around. If anybody is concerned about Taxes, We just have to think if it will be ok in the long run. I think it will be a good idea and then to add Cameras will be an even better idea. "
Kevin2 wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:09 AM:
" The response makes me smile. Perhaps that is why we can't find an answer suitable to all for this problem: We are all trying to be too sensitive. Some questions along with the answers are hard to face. A .32bac is most definitely a fact. Is it the primary cause of this 'accident'? We will only know when the police are done investigating. Until then, my money is on overindulgence. We should install the lights and motion sensors. The levee is a working boat dock for commercial and private use. Adding concrete walls and fences reduces its usability. I have not forgotten about decisions I have made whilst intoxicated. Many, if not all were either unsafe, selfish, stupid or at the very least embarassing to myself, family and friends. This doesn't mean that 'I' didn't have fun. Think about it. "
I think wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:03 AM:
" that the mayor is still thinking like an intoxicated person. Time to sober up marky mark the mayor. "
Re.. Kevin wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:43 AM:
" I am astonished that you have all the facts on the death of Mr. Homan. You make the assumption he died from excessive drinking.
Your comments and suggestions are ludicrous and insensitive. Crawl back into your secluded socially inept cave.
Just so you know, 99.999% of us hold our lives and the lives of others in high regard whether we party too much or not. "
Figure it out ... wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:41 AM:
" The point of the motion sensor light is to illuminate the area so someone else (ie police in the area) realize there IS someone there - currently there are no lights so the individual probably wouldnt be seen. BTW, no one has mentioned the obvious in criticizing the mayors suggestion, that multiple things can be done -> motion lights, gate, changing attitutes toward drinking, etc. We ignore the multiple deaths drinking cause that are NOT related to drowning (car accidents, etc). Figure it out for yourself - alcohol is the serial killer. Its absurd to dream up a Jack the Pusher scenerio when self-destructive behavior is so widespread-and accepted... "
Drunks wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:40 AM:
" Ever notice how people in these blogs think we should crack down on binge drinking but then anytime there is an article about the police going into bars and cracking down all the comments are from people complaining that they are just out having fun, they aren't hurting anyone, leave them alone... and then we find someone in the river. "
re More Ideas wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:32 AM:
" An outside professional investigative specialist to catch the person(s) who are preying on our young athletic college men? ASo is there a conspiracy between the La Crosse Police and County Sherrif, or are you suggesging they are incompetent? Are the Wisconsin Department of Criminal Investigations (DCI) or the FBI in cahoots with local police, since they have been involved and found NO evidence of foul play with ANY of the students that have drowned. How about Magnum PI or better yet CSI-La Crosse. "
RSM wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:31 AM:
" With all due respect, this is not a bright idea, and some longstanding dubious politics seem to be involved. When a person is extremely intoxicated, cognitive and motor functioning are alomst (if not completely) gone. A physical barrier -- along the levee, or, gates preventing entry to the levee -- will stop a person in this condition. Lights will not -- it's just too little, too late. In we are truly interested in safety first, not politics, a physical barrier along the levee, or, blocking access to the levee is a more efficacious use of taxpayer dollars than lights.
It's a small part of a larger puzzle, but if the choice is between gates or lights, gates should win, hand down. Thanks, for considering. "
Silly wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:28 AM:
" idea. "
Cataract Jack wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:27 AM:
" Anything to protect the drunk kids. But what about the other several hunderd miles of the Mississippi rivers edge? "
Figure it out wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:13 AM:
" How would someone with a .32 BAC notice a motion light. Get a clue. "
Kevin wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:08 AM:
" When I read the comments associated to these articles I can't help but do a slow boil. It isn't the mayor's fault that people drink too much! It isn't his job or the city's or the community members to constantly try and keep people safe from themselves. Most of us have jobs, families, friends and interests that we hold in higher regard than getting S--- Faced at a local fest. I am not interested in the blame game, but who let whom down during the fest? If it does take a village, and all of the partiers are part of the village, what is there responsibility in this: Blame the community, demand that the community babysit? Nice guy or not, Luke crossed the line and paid the ultimate price for his fun.The partiers that survived the fest need to ask themselves: Was the party worth it? "
Why no decorative railing? wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:05 AM:
" I absolutely cringe everytime I walk down there with my small children. The fact that there is no type of small, stone fence or decorative railing is bothersome. The only people that are going to have an obstructed view are the 2-3 year olds! Congratulations on the new carpet Mayor. "
"Mom" doesn't know everything wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:01 AM:
" "Mom" says "Let's fix the problem with LaCrosse's attitude toward excessive drinking." How the heck are you going to do that?! It isn't La Crosse's attitude, it's a culture in the midwest and other places. And on the fence: if it saves a life--a drunk or a little kid at Riverfest--it's worth it. Show us pics and people may warm up to the idea. "
Good one "more ideas!" wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:47 AM:
" I like your line of thinking! Well said! "
Oh geez wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:39 AM:
" What a great and thought out solution! Please! This is so ridiculous and will not prevent any deaths. Way to go Johnsrud. Please continue to waste the tax payer's money. "
Mayor, Not Ump, is Blind wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:28 AM:
" Why are there black metal chains on posts down there at the river? They are broken...and then just stop, leaving the entire area wide open! Why, after reading flyers at the river Saturday night, was the situation ignored back in July if OSHA and others were involved? Is this Mayor so blind that anyone, drunk or sober, could fall right in at any given time? Do you all think that if a person in a city position lost a child in that river...that action would have been taken quicker? I have lived here 3 months....what an embarrasement by "city leaders". And why did no one clean up after the horses while downtown???? "
La Crosse wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:13 AM:
" Does the mayor really think before he speaks his ideas??? Guess not. Lights are not going to do much but waste some money. I appreciate the fact that Riverside is a nice looking park, but do people care more about the looks of it without a fence or young men drowning. If people are worried about the looks and we know lights won't do much then come time that there is another drowning we have accept that people get drunk and stupid. "
MOM is correct wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:12 AM:
" The problem is alcohol. How are lights coming on going to help a person who is drunk out of his or her mind and stumbling about? Would the person even NOTICE motion lights? Two of the people taken to the hospital were actually unconscious, but fortunately someone saw them pass out. "
More Ideas... wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:02 AM:
" Yes, a community fundraiser to to raise money for lights, gates. Good idea!
BETTER IDEA: a community fundraiser to raise money to hire a outside professional investigative specialist to catch the person(s) who are preying on our young athletic college men. "
dw wrote on Oct 9, 2006 7:39 AM:
" I don't get it. After reading an astounding amount of opinions going "either-way"..accident or serial killer..no one from the council is thinking it's other than alchohol alone that is causing these tragedies? NO ONE has stepped forward with this thought?? This is so maddening! The council's continue to move forward on this alcohol killer, rather than bring forth that "something else" is a possibility. Lights won't help!! There are many roads for a drunk to take, not just the road to Riverside! Get with it! "
hmmm wrote on Oct 9, 2006 7:36 AM:
" I think this is the result of binge drinking in the mayor's office. "
Local Observer wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:39 AM:
" How about if the lights go off every time the Mayor goes on a Sister City vacation too? That way we'd know when he's out of town. He spends more time on Sister City vacations than he spends in his office. Come to think of it, if they NEVER put in the new carpet with the City Seal, how would he know? He's never there anyway. Putting in the lights is a knee-jerk reaction, and to do it so soon after the latest death only makes the City L-O-O-K like they're guilty, and like they S-H-O-U-L-D have done something earlier. This Mayor is a fool, and HOPEFULLY he'll become a one-term memory. "
Hmmm.. wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:33 AM:
" Thats another brilliant idea from our Mayor. Once the drunk is standing on the levee, lets quickly pop the lights on and startle him into the river! "
if a tree falls in the woods..... wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:26 AM:
" Okay, a motion detector senses motion (something) and turns on a light. Now, who is waiting for the light to turn on to investigate? No one. If the drinking problems are not resolved, there is only one thing I see that will ensure (almost) that all students get home. Cattle chutes--from downtown to campus(s). Still one might hop the gate. "
The Contrarian wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:21 AM:
" Look...
The universities or downtowns in the cities of Madison, Milwaukee, Stevens Point, and Eau Claire all are near bodies of water.
None of these schools have had one drowning within the last nine years.
Those are facts. What one makes of them is ones belief. I think La Crosse has a real problem which it needs to thoroughly investigate with an external probe. "
with rick still wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:20 AM:
" lights wont help someone keep off the ledge at the levee, what people are missing is that we JUST need a fence at the levee on the water side so there is at least a hand rail or something there. there isnt even a ladder to get back up if you fall. a hand rail of heavy pipe would help... "
Mom wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:01 AM:
" The problem is not with the river or the park, the problem is with drinking to excess. Adding lights or gates or watch dogs will not change the fact that once you have a drunk person, reason is comprosmised. Let's fix the problem with LaCrosse's attitude toward excessive drinking. "
Its a Start wrote on Oct 9, 2006 1:51 AM:
" I like the idea of something that will alert others to the presence of someone at the levee. However I think there still needs to be a physical barrier in addition to lighting and motion sensors. Even something that is more decorative than restraining would be better than nothing. Some kind of barrier that slows them down long enough for somebody to find them in time or maybe even discourage them completey from entering the levee area. It doesn't have to be a 10 foot stone wall. Surely somebody with some creativity could come up with a design that includes form, function and something that is astheticaly appealing. "
Ideas... wrote on Oct 9, 2006 1:20 AM:
" If the city doesn't have money to put cameras at Riverside, than why doesn't someone (Family Radio/Tribune/local hospitals) hold a fundraiser to raise the money to have them installed. Plus, we could have a volunteer watch group patrol the park from like 12-4 a.m. in a couple groups of 2-3 people. I know I would sign up in a hearbeat to "walk the beat" if it meant no one else would die. I would give up my Friday/Saturday nights to make sure people stayed safe. Not sure lights are the answer here, helpful, but not the answer. "
Local Moron wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:30 AM:
" Umm...Aren't motion sensors pointless, due to the amount of animal traffic taking place in our beautiful parks? "
Advertisement
