{"id":17090,"date":"2025-07-31T21:05:12","date_gmt":"2025-07-31T21:05:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=17090"},"modified":"2025-07-31T21:57:11","modified_gmt":"2025-07-31T21:57:11","slug":"we-still-need-to-pave-our-roads","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=17090","title":{"rendered":"\u2018We still need to pave our roads\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/www.badgerinstitute.org\/wisconsin-land-stewardship-program-analysis\/<\/a><\/p>\n

As stewardship program is up for renewal, northern counties\u2019 budgets, economies are squeezed by how much land already is taken out of equation<\/em><\/h4>\n

Like practically everyone else in Wisconsin, state Senate President Mary Felzkowski praises the idea that started the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program: In 1989, the Legislature greenlighted $250 million over a decade to buy up land for outdoor recreation.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
Image generated with AI technology<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cTotally in favor of that,\u201d said the Tomahawk Republican.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut then it got, in my opinion, out of control.\u201d<\/p>\n

Specifically, the still-running<\/a> program, now up to $720 million spent on acquiring land, has $16 million a year allocated to buying still more through the fiscal year ending next June 30. Its reauthorization after that is an open question.<\/p>\n

On its own, the stewardship program has acquired, either by direct purchase, by giving money to nonprofit conservation organizations to buy land, or by buying permanent no-development easements, about 646,000 acres \u2014 equal to all the land in Dane County.<\/p>\n

The acreage may equal Dane County, but it\u2019s mostly not in<\/em> Dane County, where the land taken off the tax rolls by the stewardship program totals only 6,200 acres.<\/p>\n

About three-fourths of the land acquired has been in northern counties \u2014 meaning that the one program alone has locked up significant shares of all territory. In Oneida County, the program has acquired about 60,000 acres \u2014 8 percent of the county, and, for comparison, about equal to the entire city of Milwaukee. In\u00a0Iron County, about 16 percent has been taken by the stewardship program alone.<\/p>\n

And stewardship isn\u2019t alone: In total, about 5.9 million acres<\/a> of Wisconsin, one-sixth of the state, is undeveloped government-owned land. In Vilas County, that total is 46 percent. In Forest County, it\u2019s 60 percent. Add in roads, government buildings and other acreage not on the tax rolls, and what\u2019s left to support local government?<\/p>\n

Felzkowski, whose district includes everything northeast of Wausau, says it\u2019s to the point that northern counties fear violating laws that mandate local services because they can\u2019t hire staff. \u201cThey can\u2019t bring in people because they can\u2019t afford to pay them,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

The state pays counties something in lieu of taxes, though \u201cit doesn\u2019t replace what privately owned land would pay,\u201d said Felzkowski. \u201cSo we\u2019ve put our counties and our towns in northern Wisconsin in very dire straits.\u201d<\/p>\n

And since the point of stewardship program is to lock out development by offering an attractive sum for private land when it goes up for sale, it blocks growth. Felzkowski talks to young people looking to buy land for some business venture \u201cor even to build a home on \u2014 they can\u2019t afford it because they\u2019re competing with the state.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYou have the trade-off,\u201d she said. \u201cYou live in this beautiful area of the state. Well, yeah, we do, but we still need to pave our roads. We still need to educate our children.\u201d<\/p>\n

That takes a healthy economy, something Felzkowski sees as stymied by locking up so much land for recreation. It\u2019s good for the tourism industry, but \u201cwhat does tourism do?\u201d she said. \u201cHow many family supporting jobs with benefits and retirement exist in tourism? Do we have that for the people that clean cottages? Do we have that for our waitresses and our supper clubs? Do we have that for amusement rides? Do we have that for fishing guides?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYou look at the wealthiest parts of our state, Milwaukee with all its challenges, they still have very healthy economies and family supporting jobs,\u201d she said. \u201cDoes Milwaukee care that we don\u2019t have that in northern Wisconsin? I know Governor Evers doesn\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n

The program\u2019s reauthorization through 2030 was left out of the budget agreed to by the Legislature and the governor in July, with some Republicans now floating a proposal<\/a> that refocuses its spending<\/a> on maintaining lands the state already has while making the Department of Natural Resources get lawmakers\u2019 approval<\/a> for further major acquisitions.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m not a \u2018no\u2019\u201d on keeping the program, said Felzkowski, who is not a cosponsor, \u201cbut I want guidelines around it, which in my humble opinion are kind of common sense.\u201d<\/p>\n

For one, she\u2019d like a cap on further acquisitions in counties where a large share of the land already was government-owned. She suggested 30 percent as a threshold.<\/p>\n

Citing a case where Langlade County snapped up a defunct youth camp before learning that a private developer proposed a recreational use that would keep the land on the tax rolls, Felzkowski suggested giving counties an option to buy back land they bought with stewardship funds if it can be put to better use for local citizens.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlso, if we\u2019re going to do purchases, I want them by a population center,\u201d she said. If the land is for recreation, buying it far from where most Wisconsinites live cuts against the purpose.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe kids in Rhinelander do not need any more public land. They\u2019re blessed with it,\u201d she said. \u201cI want the land to be closer to individuals that don\u2019t have the same opportunities.\u201d<\/p>\n

But how much land? That\u2019s a crucial question after the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2024 killed off legislative oversight<\/a> of major land purchases. The 5.9 million acres of undeveloped government-owned land in Wisconsin already is larger than all the metropolitan areas of Milwaukee, Madison, the Fox Valley and Janesville put together. It\u2019s bigger than eight other entire states. Is it not enough?<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve asked that,\u201d said Felzkowski, when nonprofit conservation organizations \u201ccome to see me because they always told me how wrong I am and what I just don\u2019t understand. I just said, \u2018Well, what\u2019s your number? What\u2019s enough?\u2019 Nobody has that answer.\u201d<\/p>\n

Patrick McIlheran is the Director of Policy at the Badger Institute.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n

Any<\/em>\u202f<\/em>use or reproduction of Badger Institute articles or photographs requires prior written<\/em>\u202f<\/em>permission.<\/em>\u202f<\/em>To request permission to post articles on a website or print copies for distribution, contact Badger Institute Marketing Director Matt Erdman at<\/em>\u202f<\/em>matt@badgerinstitute.org<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Submit a comment<\/h2>\n

\t\t\t\t#wpforms-55718.wpforms-block-f61a5fd1-367f-488f-be0a-4364b51b9df3 {
\n\t\t\t\t–wpforms-button-background-color: #9e1b2f;
\n–wpforms-field-size-input-height: 43px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-input-spacing: 15px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-font-size: 16px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-line-height: 19px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-padding-h: 14px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-checkbox-size: 16px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-sublabel-spacing: 5px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-icon-size: 1;
\n–wpforms-label-size-font-size: 16px;
\n–wpforms-label-size-line-height: 19px;
\n–wpforms-label-size-sublabel-font-size: 14px;
\n–wpforms-label-size-sublabel-line-height: 17px;
\n–wpforms-button-size-font-size: 20px;
\n–wpforms-button-size-height: 48px;
\n–wpforms-button-size-padding-h: 20px;
\n–wpforms-button-size-margin-top: 15px;
\n–wpforms-container-shadow-size-box-shadow: none;<\/p>\n

\t\t\t}<\/p>\n

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.<\/p>\n
Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.<\/div>\n
\n
\n\t\t\t