Ferd Erlewein wrote on Oct 26, 2006 4:48 PM:
" Council member George Italiano's idea for ladders and rings, lighted so persons in the water can locate them is a good idea. Also council member Andrea Richmond's suggestion of a locking gate between the Radisson and the events center has merit.If a drunk has to walk another couple blocks to find the river, that's a deterrent. If he or she does and then falls into the river, at least the lighted ladders afford a way of getting out. Now if the city would also fill in the two sunken spots at the edge of the levee so people who are already unsteady don't trip and fall over the edge into the river, you'll have made a good start to solving your problem. The Mayors's lights are a bad Idea. "
Committee's and task force wrote on Oct 26, 2006 12:55 PM:
" I think you are doing the right thing by looking into this. I dont think anyone is wrong. Everyone must remeber that you are people that have family's too and you just trying to find a resolution. No one has the right to judge you, or think you need to be removed. I do believe that this should not be rushed into. If it is done this way it will not be handled the right way and we will still have this problem. Please think this all through and save another life. "
$$$$ wrote on Oct 26, 2006 12:51 PM:
" What would it cost to put up chain linked fences along riverside? If this is all because of drunks, I cant think of one drunk that could climb a chain link fence even if his life depended on it!!!!They are not ugly you can still enjoy the view, and provide some saftey. Let think realisticly and time wise. Some thing like that would last longer and prbably be more effective that lights and ladders!! "
Opinion wrote on Oct 26, 2006 12:47 PM:
" In all reality we will never be able to stop drinking. Binge drinking means drinking in excessive amounts. And did that just start? Hmmmm? No I believe it has been going on for hundreds of years, so lets not just blame this on "Binge drinking" Why would just male 21-25 yr old be the only ones this is happening to? "
PART2 Just us wrote on Oct 26, 2006 12:38 PM:
" I really dont think the blame should be on just students, bars or the park. And what ever happened to the boy this past year that didnt And what about all the people that go camping on the river. We all know they drink there. And there hasnt been anything like this there!! Lights, Ladders... Not going to help. Come up with a better plan than that. Ask the community what they think would help. My opinion...MORE PATROL. Spend the 60K on that!! "
To It's Just us wrote on Oct 26, 2006 12:37 PM:
" I like what you said. I think you have brought up a very good point. What about all the other places that are on water? No Dead BOYS there. And why is it just boys? Most people know that girls get more hammered than guys. "
Outside citizen wrote on Oct 26, 2006 12:23 PM:
" I do not live in La Crosse and pay the taxes, but if my government was going to spend 60k on something as dumb as lights and ladders, you can bet I'd have something to say about it! How can you expect a drunk person to A) see the lights and ladders, B) have enough strength to pull themselves up a ladder and C) be in any kind of shape to GET to the ladders? Yes, I think the committees are trying to move the right direction BUT still fall short of anything credible. Why is it the taxpayers responsibility to do something? Responsibilty starts with the over consumption of alcohol. "
response from Just me.... wrote on Oct 26, 2006 9:57 AM:
" I don't know what the facts are behind the commitee, do you? it seems very few people know what these people are thinking. read the posts. i am not the only one who thinks this way. please enlighten us all on the facts behind the commitee. is there something to hide? for anyone to say they don't want to put up a fence/guard rail because it amy not look "pretty" enough, but may save lives isn't thinking too much. "
SLIDER wrote on Oct 26, 2006 7:08 AM:
" Just how many lights do you need to go to the can? "
First of all...to I don't undertand either. wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:37 PM:
" I would like to see what your little town would be like without the revenue that the three campuses worth of college students bring to la crosse. And lets not forget the good contributions those students have made to your community (like raising tens of thousands of dollars for the American Cancer Society for example). I think yours is a sad attitude to take on this whole matter. I may just be a former "out of town college kid" but at least I'm not selfish townie like you. "
fences are a start wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:12 PM:
" i dont know about anyone else, but if i were to be drunk enough to fall in the river, i dont think im going to make it over a fence to get there. i know its possible to get that person once in a while that can clear the fence, but if they make it over that, then they shouldnt fall in. i still wonder what lures them to the river though, everytime im downtown, i never consider heading downhill, i always know which way to go, no matter how much ive had. "
To: college male thinking realistically wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:07 PM:
" Yep. -- Old eagle.
"
mjr wrote on Oct 25, 2006 7:58 PM:
" Dave Bergers comments are correct about the lighting in riverside park. The mayor wants to run this through just so he can say he did have one idea during his term so far, even though I think Ledvina was whispering in his ear behind closed doors just like every other day at city hall "
To: Pointless coucil wrote on Oct 25, 2006 7:00 PM:
" AMEN!!! This isn't about saving lives. Its about politics. How can these people sleep at night when they spend so much of our money on less than 1 death per year, and yet allow so many other deaths per year. They are simply too scared and self centered to work on finding a cure to the 6 deaths PER YEAR on the road, and the countless other deaths each year. Nothing but self serving hipocritical politicians! "
Can you imagine wrote on Oct 25, 2006 6:56 PM:
" what would happen if you put a swimming pool in your back yard and then didn't bother to fence it or do anything to keep your neighbor's children from drowning in it?! Why did La Crosse hold no responsibility, for years and years, to do something ? And now some think lights will help, or more ladders or whatever. Some of you think you should not have to do anything at all. Again, why is a homeowner completely responsible for someone else's stupidity, but the city is not? "
fence wrote on Oct 25, 2006 6:19 PM:
" I shouldn't take so long to settle this problem!!!! Just put up the fence to keep the students safe!!! This would bethe answer to the problem that should of been done when Jared drowned . Are we going to wait two more years??????? Lights, floating devices and ladders aren't going to do any good-so wake up Mayor and get the fence up before we have another tragedy!!!! For 60,0000-I'll do it!!!!!!! What a waste of money-just like the carpet in your office!!! "
UIWL student wrote on Oct 25, 2006 6:04 PM:
" I think it is great that members of the committee went to go see for themselves what it is like down by the river at night. They couldn't tell where the river's edge was when they were sober. Imagine not knowing where the edge was after you've been drinking. It sounds like they are beginning to take some action and have great ideas. This is definitely a step in the right direction! Thank you! "
Kudos to Dave Berger wrote on Oct 25, 2006 5:00 PM:
" Excellent ideas Dave. I think we're going in the right direction now. "
It's Just Us?? wrote on Oct 25, 2006 3:43 PM:
" I find it asinine that everyone is quick to link the drownings to the "binge drinking problem" in La Crosse. Does nobody notice the LACK of drownings in other college towns near water...UW Madison has been ranked the number one party school numerous times; "Frat row" lies right ON Lake Mendota but none of the party goers there drown in the lake. UW Eau Claire - you have to walk OVER A BRIDGE to GET to the bars from most places and no one seems to think it fun to go swimming off that when they're drunk. And Winona State is right on the river as well. So La Crosse is the ONLY city where college kids drink excessively and wander toward water. Give us a little more credit than that. After all, we had to have some sense and intelligence to even get into the college... "
Pointless coucil wrote on Oct 25, 2006 3:38 PM:
" This is not about preventing further tragedies. It's lip-service to the people who are overly concerned about a once-in-a-year tragedy. What about all of the other deaths that happen several times daily? Why do we not focus more money and attention on safety belt issues? Or speeding? Or plain old murder motivated by passion? Any one of these accounts for more preventable deaths per year, yet we waste time and money on something that will continue to happen no matter what the council decides. "
security wrote on Oct 25, 2006 3:27 PM:
" If you want security in the park than hire Per-Mar. The police should not have to babysit adults. "
Do Nothing wrote on Oct 25, 2006 2:35 PM:
" "Why don't we, as a community, take no action, maybe spend our tax dollars upgrading our roads and highway interchanges..and then we can keep blaming alcohol for people dying. Sounds like a great idea, keep the great ideas and suggestions coming..impressive." "
Common Sense wrote on Oct 25, 2006 2:31 PM:
" The only problem we have is people being irresponsible...it doesn't matter if there is a fence, it there's a gate, if there are ladders, or if there are lights...people will get around all of these, if someone ends up in the river there are probably pretty much s c r e w e d so what good is a ladder going to do anyway...spend the money on showing people how to have fun without getting totally wasted...teach them to drink responsibly "
college male thinking realistically wrote on Oct 25, 2006 1:49 PM:
" barriors, fences, railings ... enough said. College students are never going to stop drinking, that's just the way things are, and you can't change that. You may be able to change attitudes on binge drinking, but there are always going to be a vast majority of students who drink, so the best way of preventing this from happening is with some kind of obstruction from getting to the river. "
To: I don't understand either wrote on Oct 25, 2006 1:20 PM:
" Good Point! "
To: just me... but you want to know what i have been doing wrote on Oct 25, 2006 1:19 PM:
" What the heck do you think their incentive is? Grow-up and don't post unless you know the facts behind the commitee's. "
I don't understand either wrote on Oct 25, 2006 1:12 PM:
" Why do my tax dollars have to be squandered on out of town college kids?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? When was the last time someone local fell in the river? We make such a big deal about how dangerous the park is, but no one local has gone in. What about River Fest? No one seems to go in then, and everyone is RIGHT on the river and DRUNK! Its not until the fall when the college kids come back. Its UW-L and Viterbo's problem. If we are DUMB enough to think a fence will stop drunk people (and let me tell you I've climbed many fences into areas that I shouldn't have been in while drunk), then let the colleges pay for it!! "
Two Different Groups wrote on Oct 25, 2006 12:42 PM:
" The Alcohol Task Force and the Alcohol Oversight Committee are two different groups. Some of the negative comments mention the Oversight Committee, when they really seem more directed at the Task Force.
From my understanding... and I've made it a point to get it right... The Oversight Committee is basically an offspring of the Task Force. Creating the oversight committee was one of the 19 reccomendations from the Task Force.
Many may not care at all about this, but it seems necessary to note because some of these comments are not valid considering which group we're taling about. "
just me... but you want to know what i have been doing wrote on Oct 25, 2006 12:28 PM:
" is not going down town and getting drunk. so i guess that means i can say things about the commitee. i see the problem as too many people on it, you can never get that many people to agree on anything with out an incentive to agree. and please do not tell me thier incentive is to make the levee safe. so i ask evey member what is your incentive? "
who ? wrote on Oct 25, 2006 11:47 AM:
" I want to know who is patroling the park now? what kind of effort is being taken by police? "
Totally agree with Dave Berger! wrote on Oct 25, 2006 10:35 AM:
" If you disagree with his statement: Go to Riverside Park after dark. The park is well lit. Why would we need motion lights? 60,000 to install lights, give me a break. Let's spend the money where it is actually needed. Dave, we are lucky to have someone like you on this committee. Keep up the good work! "
Here's an idea wrote on Oct 25, 2006 10:09 AM:
" Let's just sell the park to Logistics Health for $1. Let them worry about people falling in the river. Then in the north end the city can spend 10 - 14 million on a parking ramp. The area would be so unsightly no one, even the drunks, would want to be near it. "
mmmmmmmmm........ wrote on Oct 25, 2006 10:07 AM:
" So tell me, who exactally is going to toss these life rings to the next drunk college kid that falls in at 3:30 in the morning? Tell me also how a person so intoxicated that they fall in the river is going to find a ladder and then to proceed to climb up it out of the water? Liferings? Ladders? now that would be money well spent.....not! For $60000.00 I volunteer to go stand down at the park with my flashlight every night for a couple of years! "
The REAL Real Problem wrote on Oct 25, 2006 10:02 AM:
" Is a lack of self responsibility. Plain and simple. Darwin says there is a "survival of the fittest" in nature. Humans have created a "survival of the dumbest" of a "survival of the not responsible". We are diluting the specie to the detriment of all. Laws force us to wear seatbelts, helmets, life preservers, etc. Why? Because some are too stupid to take care of themselves. Obviously a blind-drunk person cannot take care of themselves but what about their so-called friends? And who forced them to get so drunk? Teach your children well and maybe we'll all be better off. "
I don't understand wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:57 AM:
" Why don't these people believe fencing will help?! Why take the action to help when the person has ALREADY fallen in the river? How will ladders help a person get out when they were already too drunk to not fall in in the first place?! How do lights help a drunk person to not fall in the water? They don't help drunk people to not fall off curbs or trip on even, level sidewalks! Let's stop people from going in the park in the first place! It's closed at 10 or 11 pm, what's the matter with locked gates when it's closed anyways? Prevention should be the first place to look for solutions with this problem. We can't control how much kids drink, but we can prevent then from making it into the river. "
Where did you get this is the first time they have been to the Levee? wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:52 AM:
" THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THEY HAVE OBSERVED THE LEVEE! "
Where? wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:51 AM:
" Where did it say this was the "first" time the committee met at Riverside Park? NOWHERE! They've been idown there before but in the daylight. "
Lights in the park - Don't always assume what is written is correct. wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:48 AM:
" The comment regarding lights in the park:
Since the full statement was not posted and the reporter was writing in the dark: The comment should have stated:
The park is well lit.
When the committee was in the boat: You could hardly make out where the levee wall ended and the water began.
The person who made the statement agrees that lights and ladders on the levee would beneficial.
Don't always assume what is written is correct.
"
Don't get the cart before the horse wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:43 AM:
" Before everyone rushes into the mayor's proposal for motion sensor lights, there first should be a prioritization of each of the steps that can be taken. This is important because we may not be able to afford everything -- we need to determne what is the most efficacious use of taxpayer dollars in achieving the highest level of risk mitigation. Beginning with $60,000 motion sensor lights (when the area is already illuminated), is an expensive and woefully inefective solution compared to many of the other suggestions that would be more effective in keeping someone from falling into the river in the first place -- a physical barrier of a railing along the levee, or gates preventing access -- or providing a means to get out -- ladders. "
Alcohol Oversight Committee wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:33 AM:
" I think each and everyone of these individual should be given more credit. What have each of YOU done to help resolve this issue? Do you think they make the decisions and can just go ahead with every suggestion? They have to somewhat agree as a group. Then the proposals have to be passed by another board. They want to make sure the money that is spend helps this issue and not a waste.
Stop all the negativity and let's appreciate what the Alcohol Oversight Committee and other volunteer that are patrolling riverside are doing for this community.
"
Alcohol Oversight Committee wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:32 AM:
" For everyone making negative comments about the Committee:
Do you know that each one of these individuals are volunteers? They would not be on the committee if they did not care about what was happening in this COMMUNITY. They are people just like you and me. They are giving up time with their families to come together and agree on what the best approach would be. Some of these people work 80+ weeks and are very involved in what happens in our community. They have so much heart for God's Country. "
Naaaah! wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:14 AM:
" We don't need to close the walkway between Front St and 2nd St at the end of Pearl St. We should reopen the B & R Tavern on Pearl St. The B & R patrons acted like a flipper in a pinball game for the drunk college kids that wandered too far west. Besides the Friday night fights down there were the stuff of legend! "
Chico wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:04 AM:
" The main reason why we've failed to fully address the problem is that the serial killer theory pervades this community. Community officials are partly to blame (I would bet alot of them privately buy into the serial killer theory) but every person whose espoused that nonsense is responsible for the failure to act. By giving attention to ridiculous conspiracy theories, we're distracted from addressing and solving the real problem. "
I bet if the police would actually do thier job, for once, that wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:56 AM:
" there would be a significant decrease in crime and these unexplained drownings would stop. How you wonder? Get rid of the drunks and druggies that they allowed to take over Houska park. They roam the river area and down and around 3rd st, begging for money and booze. I'll venture that the drownings are directly related to at least one, if not more of our fine citizens that live in the park and under the bridge. It's disgusting that the city gave up the park to these people. The Mayor and the Chief of Police should both be fired for allowing it to go on. Take your kids down for a picnic near the bridge on a sunny afternoon. They will surly get an eyeful, just as the occasional tourist that doesn't know not to go near the park does. "
TO LIFE RINGS>>>>> wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:43 AM:
" DA SWAMP THING WILL RISE OUT OF THE MURKY DEPTHS OF THE GOOD MISS.,WHO DO YOU THINK!!!THIS HAS GOTTEN JUST A LITTLE OUT OF HAND,THEY JUST NOW WENT DOWN TO LOOK AT THE LEVEE FROM THE RIVERS POINT OF VIEW!WRONG!!!!YA GOTTA FIND THE ANSWER TO THE AGE OL QUESTION...WHY ARE THEY ENDING UP IN THE RIVER???WE ALREADY HAVE A BIG RAILLING BETWEEN THE LEVEE AND THE PARK,I GOTTA BELIEVE THE LEVEE "IS NOT"THE REASON THESE BOYS ARE FOUND FLOATING "BY"THE LEVEE!INVESTIGATE UPSTREAM.WHAT ABOUT RAILINGS BY THE BIG INDIAN!RAILINGS ALONE THE EDGE OF THE LEVEE IS A GOOD IDEA,BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEM. "
Why? wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:42 AM:
" Why is this still going on and on and on. All the different ideas. It's like nothing is happening but talk. I agree, who would throw the life rings in at someone if no one is there. I had a thought, several years ago when that "gang" killed another boy down by the river, couldn't the people actually be going in at a different place down by the river and floating by at the levee part? and ........is it gang related, is someone actually doing this to people. I DON'T believe all the young men are getting drunk, walking down to the river and jumping/walking in. Someone is behind it and we just aren't looking that far into this problem. It's just "how to fix" what we already have. "
To:Removal of Commitee Member wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:38 AM:
" If you are refering to Dave Berger being removed...I say anyone who disagrees with him needs to be removed. 60,000 for motion lighting? I sure would want to be the contractor for that job....talk about cha-ching. Where did they come up with that figure anyways...WOW! A waste of money is an understatement....
As for the ladder idea....thats the smartest idea I've heard so far. Quit complaining that it took so long for them to do this, at least they are doing it. "
UWL Parent wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:27 AM:
" As a parent of a UWL freshman visiting the campus last weekend, I made a special point to do down to the river. I wanted to see just how a person gets from downtown to the river on foot.(Apparently, I made trip to the river from out of town faster than the Alcohol Task Force) I was suprised at the distance and that it is not a straight path. Having some barrier installed near the Rivercenter / Radisson walkway or a gate at the landing area would seem to help. The solution lies in keeping people out of the river as opposed to figuring out what to do once they are in. "
An Idea wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:25 AM:
" I think we should reassign the cop assigned to guard crossings to stand around on the levee all night and bail people out. Or something like that.
This is so unbelievably stupid. We already know La Crosse has a binge drinking problem, people. Let's address the behavior that is leading to the problem at hand - people out wandering around while blitzed, instead of enabling them to continue with the behavior.
If you are THAT drunk, lights and guardrails aren't going to help. "
outsider wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:13 AM:
" This article begins by saying, 'You could hardly make out where the levee wall ended and the water began'. Yet, committee member Dave Berger claims that it is well-lit. Clearly, folks are simply being stubborn and close minded! I agree, why is Mr. Berger on this committee?
"
Just Thinking...... wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:08 AM:
" Why not put up an attractive fence on the Front Street side of the park and close the gates at night. That way no one can even be in the park after hours. "
i cannot believe some of you! part 2 wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:08 AM:
" i think that they could mabey set the flaotaion device on a hook or something and if someone falls into the river, the "floatie" is there for them to grab in the water so that they can stay afloat, i think that lighting the latters would be great, so everyone can see them. there is alot of work to be done, and it probably will take quite some time, after all we are talking about lacrosse here. it seems that it takes forever for something to get done in this town. i hope that it can all get done before someone else falls(or is pushed in) "
Just Thinking...... wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:07 AM:
" Why not put up an attractive fence on the Front Street side of the park and close the gates at night. That way no one can even be in the park after hours. "
Citizen wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:03 AM:
" I hope this committee and the bar owners in LaCrosse read the article in the New York Times about our community and the lack of responsibility toward alcohol throughout this entire area. Shame on us all!!! and to the bar owners - at least you're making lots of money, right? "
Re: just wondering wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:02 AM:
" look at your calendar. there is only one week until next month. i don't know how you understand the world to work but the way i've seen it so far is that things aren't accomplished by a snap of fingers or a wish upon a star. change takes time. i say be glad they're even considering doing this. "
i cannot believe some of you! part 1 wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:01 AM:
" you sit there and bash this commity(sp?) when they are doing more than what alot of us are doing. we sit on our behinds and type blogs on our computers. and some people have the audasity to sit here and complain. granted the alcohol task force should have done this a long time ago, it would have saved a couple of lives i am sure, but they didn't. that is not anything to bash them for. i don't see any of you doing anything about it. and for the person who asked who would be there to throw the floatation device to the person in the river, that is a question that hasn't been answered yet, i would like to know too. "
Real Problem wrote on Oct 25, 2006 7:52 AM:
" Maybe we should look at the real problem. Too many college students are binge drinking, getting extremely intoxicated and falling in the river. Maybe something should be done to curb the origin of the problem......the drinking. Everyone is blaming the city and the levee, but the real problem is with the irresponsiblity of those drinking. "
Do something! wrote on Oct 25, 2006 7:26 AM:
" I really can't believe all the tail dragging that is happening. Put lights in! Put more ladders in! Add more police! Close off the walk way between the Radisson and La Crosse Center! Put a railing along the levee! Do it all! And to pay for it here's the solution, either take it out of the TIF that is setup for the area (ahem - Logistics Healh) or instead of selling valuable land for $1 let's actually get something close to the market price for it and use that money to either pay for completely or at least substantially decrease the cost. "
McBain wrote on Oct 25, 2006 7:25 AM:
" "I have never seen a statue of a committee."
Somebody should step up and get it done "
Lou wrote on Oct 25, 2006 7:22 AM:
" It's pretty obvious that the solution is to move the river over a few feet. Duh! "
Just wondering wrote on Oct 25, 2006 7:11 AM:
" Next Month...what? I would think this would be top priority. Why does it have to go to a meeting to get an approval, to go to another committee to go to another meeting, and so on... There are still a couple of weekends before next month, Halloween especially this weekend. Why let any more time pass before something is done? Lets save the next person, before it happens!!! Now!!! "
I'm confused wrote on Oct 25, 2006 7:09 AM:
" It's been two years since the last drowning and we decided to form this committee and this is the first time they've gone down to check out the river? AFTER there was yet another drowning? The students have taken the most positive approach to fixing the problem, they're patrolling the park! An immediate sensible reaction to a complex problem. Good for them. If the students continue and the task force decides on to add life rings, at least there will be someone there to throw one. "
Finally wrote on Oct 25, 2006 6:43 AM:
" It took them long enough, but maybe they have the right perspective now. The idea that the visual appeal of the levee is more important that human life is unbelievable. The idea that this many people can't figure a way to protect and have it look nice is sad. Get on it people! "
RSM wrote on Oct 25, 2006 6:33 AM:
" It's great to see the committee taking a close look, and exploring options. There is an aspect of this that I just can't believe isn't being considered, or it keeps getting pushed aside. Ostensibly, the committee is trying to look at it from the prospective of "someone who has fallen in the river." This statement begs the question; why not install a railing along the levee to prevent people from falling in the river in the first place? There is something fishy about the denial of this logical approach. "
Good Observers wrote on Oct 25, 2006 6:27 AM:
" I believe our mayor should listen to these people. They are doing a very open minded look at the problem of drunks falling into the river unable to get out in a swift current. Maybe they could tell or the Tribune could tell people unfamiliar with swimming in a current to not to try to fight current by swimming against it and to to gradually float downstream while gently moving to shore. More ladders will help if someone falls in at this levy drunk or not drunk.It doesnt have to be a college student drinking to have a problem with getting out of the water at this tall levy of death.Have the the ladders installed it could be a child during the day that falls in too. "
Local Observer wrote on Oct 25, 2006 5:31 AM:
" The Alcohol Task Force has been around now for how long, and this is the first time they've actually taken the time to go down and L-O-O-K at the levee? I rest my case. If these people were in charge of looking into the Challenger mishap, they'd probably be scheduling an O-ring inspection NEXT WEEK! Does the phrase 'the blind leading the blind' ring true here? "
Removal of a committee member wrote on Oct 25, 2006 2:11 AM:
" There is at least one member of this so-called committee who ought to be removed. "A waste of money?" What next? Did the makeup of this committee contribute to the current situation La Crosse now finds itself involve in? "
life rings? wrote on Oct 25, 2006 1:13 AM:
" Who is going to throw the life rings to the person in the water? "
Hmmm? wrote on Oct 25, 2006 1:04 AM:
" You would think that the commitee would have gone to go look at park a long time ago. What good are two years of meetings when you haven't even gone to look at the problem yet? "
Ryan wrote on Oct 25, 2006 12:18 AM:
" Where the heck were these people for the last 7 drownings? Are they finally now taking a trip down to the river to take a look? You people on the Alcohol Oversight Committee make me sick. What have you been doing for the last 2 years?? I hope you all are ashamed of yourselves... "
Advertisement
