Factually challenged
Unfortunately, Oshkosh Common Council candidate Kent Monte has proven once and for all that he is, in fact, factually challenged. I say unfortunately because I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, however, he has proven time and time again to be more interested in speculation and innuendo than facts. For examples, please read just about any entry on his blog.
In his latest entry, Kent accuses me of "defending" local developer Ben Ganther. Today's Oshkosh Northwestern ran an article regarding Mr. Ganther and the once again delinquent property taxes of the 100 N. Main Street apartment building. For those who do not know, Mr. Ganther is part owner of the property. I am extremely disappointed in not only this property (again) being delinquent, but the over $3.5 million dollars in delinquent taxes owed to the city.
Below is a comment I submitted on Mr. Monte's blog. I am not sure if he will post it, however, I cannot let his unfounded and blatantly incorrect accusations go unchallenged.
Kent-
I've come to the conclusion that you simply cannot understand facts. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but time and time again you have proven to be nothing more than someone who speculates rather than investigates. That is not the type of leadership this community, or any community for that matter, needs.
My comments on Oshkosh News, which you link to in your above post, were as follows:
"This is an unfortunate situation that is concerning and should be addressed. However, this one incident should not be used to misrepresent the strides being made in downtown Oshkosh. From what I read in this article, Mr. Ganther has taken appropriate steps to notify city staff of his plan to pay all owed taxes. I encourage him to make public the full payment of taxes to eliminate any public doubt and concern (e.g. another interview with Oshkosh News)."
"Furthermore, I am excited to read that Mr. Ganther plans to announce a new commercial tenant and restaurant for the building. This is good news for downtown and the city of Oshkosh."
A direct link to those comments is: http://www.oshkoshnews.org/oshblog/2005/03/100-n-main-in-arrears-but-close-to.html#110994263030939262
Furthermore, I posted the following on my blog in January 2006:
"In March 2005, I made comments on OshkoshNews.org in which I said Mr. Ganther’s failure to pay property taxes on the 100 N. Main building is “concerning” and “should be addressed.” I reiterate my previous comments and am very disappointed to learn about the still outstanding 2004 property tax bill for the 100 N. Main building."
"No one really enjoys paying property taxes, however, it is necessary for our city to function and provide services. I previously posted on my blog that the state should pursue its delinquent taxpayers, and firmly believe the county should as well. It’s not fair to have the citizens of Winnebago County - our tax dollars - make private property tax payments for individuals or businesses."
"I discovered today why the county is involved in such matters. The city turns over to the county any unpaid property taxes at the end of the fiscal year and the county, in turn, makes the property tax payments to the city. The county will then pursue reimbursement from the individual or business, with associated penalties. If the county is unsuccessful, a foreclosure and sheriff’s sale can then be pursued. The city does not have this option and that is why the county is involved. Please also read the comments made by County Executive Mark Harris on the Eye on Oshkosh Website."
"It seems there is some conflicting information in “cyber space” regarding this matter. The Oshkosh Northwestern reports Mr. Ganther owes $66,641, however, the city’s website shows a different, much higher amount. That same ON article also correctly reports that Mr. Ganther has until Tuesday to pay his 2005 property taxes, however, the article states that it seems Mr. Ganther might not meet the deadline. Finally, the ON Website lists as a story for next week: “An update on the top unpaid property taxes.”"
"I will contact City Hall on Monday to find out first-hand information before I go any further, however, let me go on record as saying this: paying property taxes is an obligation all property owners must fulfill. No one, regardless of who they support in local elections, should be exempt from fulfilling their obligation. To suggest or imply that I condone this is simply wrong." (emphasis added)
A direct link to that post is: http://bain-blog.blogspot.com/2006/01/property-taxes.html
Kent, when and where did I "defend" Mr. Ganther? No more speculation. No more innuendos. If you are going to say that I "defend" delinquent taxpayers, then you need to cite facts.
Furthermore, if you want to know who has contributed to my campaign, all you have to do is ask or wait to obtain a copy of my reports, which are public records. I'll save you the time: I have never received a financial contribution from Mr. Ganther. Again, you throw out that "...one was even reported to have accepted campaign donations from him. Both of these candidates are running for re-election, I have to wonder if he has contributed this year?" without any facts.
Kent, this campaign should be about facts, not speculation. Information, not innuendos. I respectfully suggest you spend more time investigating and discussing the facts rather than spreading rumors.
-Bryan
You would hope that a candidate for council would not run this type of campaign, however, when that candidate insists on touting falsehoods as facts, then I am left with no choice but to defend my character.
-Bryan
In his latest entry, Kent accuses me of "defending" local developer Ben Ganther. Today's Oshkosh Northwestern ran an article regarding Mr. Ganther and the once again delinquent property taxes of the 100 N. Main Street apartment building. For those who do not know, Mr. Ganther is part owner of the property. I am extremely disappointed in not only this property (again) being delinquent, but the over $3.5 million dollars in delinquent taxes owed to the city.
Below is a comment I submitted on Mr. Monte's blog. I am not sure if he will post it, however, I cannot let his unfounded and blatantly incorrect accusations go unchallenged.
Kent-
I've come to the conclusion that you simply cannot understand facts. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but time and time again you have proven to be nothing more than someone who speculates rather than investigates. That is not the type of leadership this community, or any community for that matter, needs.
My comments on Oshkosh News, which you link to in your above post, were as follows:
"This is an unfortunate situation that is concerning and should be addressed. However, this one incident should not be used to misrepresent the strides being made in downtown Oshkosh. From what I read in this article, Mr. Ganther has taken appropriate steps to notify city staff of his plan to pay all owed taxes. I encourage him to make public the full payment of taxes to eliminate any public doubt and concern (e.g. another interview with Oshkosh News)."
"Furthermore, I am excited to read that Mr. Ganther plans to announce a new commercial tenant and restaurant for the building. This is good news for downtown and the city of Oshkosh."
A direct link to those comments is: http://www.oshkoshnews.org/oshblog/2005/03/100-n-main-in-arrears-but-close-to.html#110994263030939262
Furthermore, I posted the following on my blog in January 2006:
"In March 2005, I made comments on OshkoshNews.org in which I said Mr. Ganther’s failure to pay property taxes on the 100 N. Main building is “concerning” and “should be addressed.” I reiterate my previous comments and am very disappointed to learn about the still outstanding 2004 property tax bill for the 100 N. Main building."
"No one really enjoys paying property taxes, however, it is necessary for our city to function and provide services. I previously posted on my blog that the state should pursue its delinquent taxpayers, and firmly believe the county should as well. It’s not fair to have the citizens of Winnebago County - our tax dollars - make private property tax payments for individuals or businesses."
"I discovered today why the county is involved in such matters. The city turns over to the county any unpaid property taxes at the end of the fiscal year and the county, in turn, makes the property tax payments to the city. The county will then pursue reimbursement from the individual or business, with associated penalties. If the county is unsuccessful, a foreclosure and sheriff’s sale can then be pursued. The city does not have this option and that is why the county is involved. Please also read the comments made by County Executive Mark Harris on the Eye on Oshkosh Website."
"It seems there is some conflicting information in “cyber space” regarding this matter. The Oshkosh Northwestern reports Mr. Ganther owes $66,641, however, the city’s website shows a different, much higher amount. That same ON article also correctly reports that Mr. Ganther has until Tuesday to pay his 2005 property taxes, however, the article states that it seems Mr. Ganther might not meet the deadline. Finally, the ON Website lists as a story for next week: “An update on the top unpaid property taxes.”"
"I will contact City Hall on Monday to find out first-hand information before I go any further, however, let me go on record as saying this: paying property taxes is an obligation all property owners must fulfill. No one, regardless of who they support in local elections, should be exempt from fulfilling their obligation. To suggest or imply that I condone this is simply wrong." (emphasis added)
A direct link to that post is: http://bain-blog.blogspot.com/2006/01/property-taxes.html
Kent, when and where did I "defend" Mr. Ganther? No more speculation. No more innuendos. If you are going to say that I "defend" delinquent taxpayers, then you need to cite facts.
Furthermore, if you want to know who has contributed to my campaign, all you have to do is ask or wait to obtain a copy of my reports, which are public records. I'll save you the time: I have never received a financial contribution from Mr. Ganther. Again, you throw out that "...one was even reported to have accepted campaign donations from him. Both of these candidates are running for re-election, I have to wonder if he has contributed this year?" without any facts.
Kent, this campaign should be about facts, not speculation. Information, not innuendos. I respectfully suggest you spend more time investigating and discussing the facts rather than spreading rumors.
-Bryan
You would hope that a candidate for council would not run this type of campaign, however, when that candidate insists on touting falsehoods as facts, then I am left with no choice but to defend my character.
-Bryan
13 Comments:
I plan to vote:
Monte
Bain
For Council. Please join me.
By Anonymous, at February 16, 2007 8:56 PM
Bryan,
I have corrected the post, and I apologize for any incorrect assumptions I made regarding this situation.
Thank you for taking the time to correct me.
K. Monte
PS, the comment submitted to my site did not appear, I am not sure why but I would have posted it if it was there.
By Kent Monte, at February 16, 2007 10:23 PM
I am still planning to vote for Bain and Monte. However, I would recommend Mr. Bain take his own advice about speculation and innuendo. It would seem Brian is accusing Mr. Monte of doing that very thing intentionally. I did not get that from his blog and he went so far as to make the correction Brian asked for. Now here we have Brian's blog making accusations and includes an apology from Mr. Monte. There is no correction from Mr. Bain, only an angry tyrade. These types of tyrades are why I am not voting for Mr. "I,I,I,Me,Me,ME" Palmeri. Brian even goes so far as to state that Kent claimed one of the incumbants is supposedly receiving money from Ganther. I was pretty sure it wasn't Brian even if it wasn't all spelled out for me. I would bet it is Scheuermann without Kent making that statement which did not indicate that it was Brian.
I realize candidates must be under a great deal of stress right now and prone to taking everything as a personal attack. Take a breath or you may lose more than you think you might gain.
Mr. Monte swallowed his pride, admitted his mistake, and made the correction. Will Mr. Bain?
By Anonymous, at February 17, 2007 2:51 PM
I had thought of voting for Palmeri, but after some of his opinions and comments of late, I have rethought and will now not vote for him.
I plan to vote - Bain, Monte and the 3rd vote will either be Mark or Bob.
I won't vote for Palmeri, Scheruman or King. I think King might be OK but like somebody said, she is spending too much money on the campaign and that makes me nervous.
By Anonymous, at February 17, 2007 4:32 PM
Re: anonymous
Whether or not Mr. Monte intended to malign Mr. Bain is not the issue. The fact remains that Mr. Monte did not take the time to investigate or support his accusations. While it is great that he made those corrections, it was irresponsible to write in the first place.
By Anonymous, at February 17, 2007 4:45 PM
What research is necessary for the comment? The only thing that was wrong was putting Bain and Scheuermann in the same catagory. Scheuermann obviously defends Ganther and Bain chose his words carefully but talked about being excited regarding one of Ganthers claims. It was a misinterpretation at best. The rest of it wasn't wrong, it simply wanted people to think about the candidate(s) closely.
Monte made the change, lets get off his back, shall we?
Please vote:
Bain
Palmeri
Monte
By Anonymous, at February 17, 2007 6:01 PM
My, my some of you are sure willing to let Monte off the hook, aren't you? I predict the voters will not be as blind and forgiving as you.
By Anonymous, at February 17, 2007 6:50 PM
I predict a landside vote for Bain.
Other top vote getters will be
Monte
Cornell.
Monte will appeal to the "average working man"
Cornell will appeal to the "retired on a fixed income"
Palmeri as a UW-O Prof will appeal to the UW crowd, but they won't show at the polls.
Scheuermann will appeal to the Propel crowd and will get a good amount of votes from the "elite" crowd.
King will appeal to the same group Scheuermann does.
I plan to vote:
Bain and Monte
By Anonymous, at February 17, 2007 8:30 PM
Correction. I'm not a member of the elite crowd and I plan to vote for King. So do some of my neighbors. Don't underestimate her.
By Anonymous, at February 17, 2007 11:02 PM
Since when is it a negative to spend money on campaigning?
It's certainly better than casting innuendos,and mud slinging.
My votes will go to
King
Bain
Scheuermann
Why?
Bain and Scheuermann have proven leadership skills. They have the experience of being in the political arena and have made the tough decisions. Ms. Scheuermann and Mr. Bain each realize they are a part of the TEAM. They have listened and asked questions and voted for what is best for ALL of the Community. Oshkosh is lucky to have these two intellegent civic-minded young leaders. They both should be praised for their willingness to serve again.
King shows knowledge of city issues and I beleive when faced tough issues or decisions,she will represent all citizens not cater to
any particle group. SHE is for growing Oshkosh and realizes she will be one member of a Team.
She realizes we need to get jobs back to Oshkosh.
By Anonymous, at February 18, 2007 10:00 AM
The city council IS NOT A TEAM!!!!!
It is a council of elected representatives. That team mentality might be great on the field or in business, but in a governmental body it is simply another word for rubber stamping. Just because one or more do not agree with the team, does not mean they are failing the community. Do you really think everyone in the city thinks exactly alike? NO!!! If everyone on the council always voted identically and voiced the same opinions, I would be questioning who exactly they are representing. While I support Bain, I do not always agree with him and those were times when Esslinger did represent me with a no vote.
Keep your team in a gym and keep the rubber stamps in the scrapbooking classes.
As for letting Monte off the hook, he did something bigger then Bain, he admitted his mistake and apologized in the same forum of his mistake. He also removed his post entirely. Bain has shown no similar courtesy. His tantrum is still there for the world to see. I hope he shows more level-headedness than that when he is reelected.
I hope Scheuermann is not. I watch the meetings and frankly I am sick of her dim-wittedness. SHe is constantly asking Shirley what is going on. For a bank manager, she has a remarkable LACK of knowledge with city budgets. She sends fliers to the women of the community, not the men. Is she trying for the pity the women vote? I'm a voter too and sexism does not appeal to me. I've had enough of scatterbrains (Scheuermann, not women in general). Maybe Jess King can do a better job.
By Anonymous, at February 18, 2007 11:10 AM
Anonymous 11:18,
There is no reason Bryan Bain should have to remove his post. He did not attack Kent Monte. He set the record straight which is what needed to be done. There is no shame in that nor should there be a reason for apologies. It certainly can't be called a "tantrum." What can be said fro Bryan is he carefully thinks things through before speaking. That can't be said for Kent Monte.
By Anonymous, at February 18, 2007 1:06 PM
The person who posted at 11:10 must have a better TV than me because I don't see Mrs. Scherueman asking Mrs. Mattox to explain to her what's going on. It sounds like someone spouting off because they've got an axe to grind with M.S.
Somebody who should ask anyone what's going on is Dennis McHugh. He's always lost in space and looks idiotic. I wonder if the reason he won't speak into the microphone is so we have to strain to hear his stumbling and stammering. Dennis, the microphone is there for a reason. Try using it once in a while.
By Anonymous, at February 18, 2007 10:14 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home