Andrew Gadow
February 22, 2011
Should a Bass Pro Shop and Bergstrom Car Lot Be built by Lambeau Field?
There has been fair amount of conflict in the early months of 2011 about a Bass Pro Shop possibly being built in conjunction with a John Bergstrom car lot on three acres of land in close proximity to Lambeau Field off of U.S. Highway 41. This plot of land is being pushed to be developed into an economic hub around Lambeau to be named the Titletown Sports District. This plan, which began visionary development years ago, would bring jobs and economic stimulus to the area. The main goal was to develop the land around Lambeau Field with other businesses that would entice the community, boosting the local economy and create job openings for local area. This area has been delineated as a wetland which means that it falls under certain federal management standards and regulations. A bill was presented to the state legislation. The bill passed under the Republican majority Assembly Committee, giving permission to a development company to built up the wetland and develop it without proper the permits and review by the Department of Natural Resources. This was met with conflict by the Wisconsin Wetland Association as well as the Democratic side of the Assembly, who protested and demanded a review of the situation. At the end of January, after discussion by the management of Bass Pro Shop, the company decided to relinquish the possibility of development at this particular site due to the existing wetland and damages that could occur if the proposal moved forward. This decision could have been partially influenced by the media attention it received around this time as well.
This situation is quite controversial and a highly debatable topic. Most people can agree the destroying a wetland isn’t a good idea due to current scientific data about these particular ecosystems. They are important for many environmental reasons such as water quality and wildlife habitat as well as numerous other environmental benefits. If one looks at the other side of the situation, a national recession is in progress. Developing this area around an already productive area with a large community involvement could boost the local community, creating jobs as well as an economic epicenter. The federal laws require that one and a half acres of wetlands be created for every acre destroyed. If this dilemma is looked at through that perspective, the proposal does not seem like such a bad choice; however, preserving the environment and its ecosystems is another major topic receiving attention across the country.
References for this blog post were courtesy of the Green Bay Gazette Newspaper.
2 comments:
Thanks for this post-- I had heard the first half of this story in our Wetland Delineation class, but hadn't known how it ended 'til now. I have to say it surprises me to see that Bass Pro Shop decided not to build over the wetland. Usually I hold no faith in companies choosing the environmentally-friendly choice over the financially rewarding one. Maybe it was the media attention that made them abandon the possibility of developing that particular. Or maybe they really did go down that path with good intentions and sincere concern for our natural resources. I would hope that the managers/employees of Bass Pro Shop hold a respect for nature, considering what types of products and therefore opportunities they sell--that is, gear for the fishing and camping trips all we nature-lovers and eco-warriers buy from them.
I think that the Bass Pro Shop and car lot had the right to build on the wetland. I hold the view that if we are responsible with our natural resources, we should not be afraid to use them. Like it was stated in your blog, for ever acre destroyed, there must be one and a half acres be recreated. I think this law makes many businesses think twice about building on wetlands because of the extra time and money they would have to invest in their construction. I also believe that this law is one of the more sustainable practices required for businesses. I personally would be more concerned with issues of other natural resources that are being depleted and not replaced.
Lauren Casterline
Post a Comment