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