Answer

I am opposed to a road through the marsh.

One of my strengths is thinking three-steps-ahead. That strength instantly puts a series of "what-ifs" in my head. In the case of an additional road through the marsh, my thoughts created, "What if it was a monorail, or the road created a levy that would lift homes out of the floodplain designation, or it was an elevated road. I realized those what-ifs were not feasible and still had an impact on the marsh. The logical answer ... I am opposed to a road through the marsh. It is a resource my family and others enjoy on a regular basis, plays a critical role to our ecosystem, and is a key part of this beautiful place we call home.

I do recognize that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) has an obligation to address safety on their highways (the City is responsible for our streets). We must continue to work with the DOT to address these safety concerns but do so in a way that minimizes the impact to our marsh.

As a community, we also cannot ignore that our roads are vital to our economy. They are not only for people to get to work. They get patients to appointments. Roads get products in and out of the City. We have more than 100 semi-trucks coming out of downtown on a daily basis. We want tourists coming into the City. Those coming into La Crosse spend money in our businesses, making them thrive. We must unite all voices to address the safety issues. Addressing safety concerns is what makes this long-standing DOT project get resolved. We must send a strong message that the solution cannot put a road through the marsh.