In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

207 chapter 10  The Local Citizens and the Lakeshore The very nature of a park proposal will inevitably cause friction with the local citizens with well-established patterns of land use, which will be affected . Lands will be removed from tax rolls, which are a major source of local government budgets. Some residents will be forced to sell or give up their private property through condemnation. “Outsiders” will be the new users of the land and will be resented and viewed with suspicion by residents. The park planner needs to have a great sensitivity to these understandable human emotions and must treat owners and other residents with sensitivity and honesty . Where possible they must try to soften the impacts. In the case of the Apostle Islands, planners made their best efforts to so do. Dealing with local units of government was another matter entirely. Because the region had been economically depressed for decades, some private owners had simply abandoned their land without paying the taxes. State and federal governments had bailed out those local governments in the 1920s and 1930s with massive transfers of tax delinquent lands to establish the Chequamegon National Forest, a number of county forests, and infusions of new money to support forestry, fire prevention and suppression, road construction , and so on. In other instances, land titles often ended up with the county or town governments. This was the history underlying the Apostle Islands proposal, and not too unexpectedly local governments used their leverage to either resist the proposal or insist upon untenable conditions. Historically, with good cause, the federal government had always insisted that local (and state) governments should be willing to give up their lands to the federal government in exchange for the national investment and recognition that the areas would receive, as well as the increased tourist spending. However, as this 208 issues and policy studies chapter demonstrates, local citizens and governments do not always act in predictable ways. County Governments and the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Ashland County rather parochially resisted donating lands to the federal government for the lakeshore. It had also previously resisted a sale to the state. For example, in 1962 the state offered the county $80,000 for Oak Island. A Wisconsin Conservation Department staff member even flew to Ashland to present the check to the county board; it was rejected. A year later the Ashland County Board asked for private bids on the island, again turned down a state offer, and reviewed with favor a tentative offer of $50,000 from a developer . Obviously they did not view parks with any great favor. In 1969 the state finally succeeded with the purchase of Oak Island and five additional parcels on Stockton and Basswood Islands for $201,000. The state was the only bidder on all six parcels; the Basswood Island parcels drew bids from three private individuals, including William C. Brewer of Chicago, a staunch opponent of the lakeshore. Ashland County’s opposition to either the sale or donation of its lands went further: the county initially opposed the entire lakeshore proposal. The chair of the board, Ken Todd, pointed out that 48 percent of the land in the county was owned either by the state or the federal government. Todd stated, “I can’t imagine how they can make a national park out of those islands.” Over the next several years members of the Citizens’ Committee for an Apostle Islands National Lakeshore lobbied county board members with little effect. In fact, in 1966 the county board voted against the taking of any privately owned developed property within lakeshore boundaries. It further resolved that the county be compensated for any loss of property taxes (ignoring state “in lieu” policies regarding tax payments by local governments). The parochial view of Ashland County was brought clearly into focus in 1967 when C. E. “Corky” Johnson, the superintendent of Isle Royale National Park, and I engaged in a contentious discussion with the county board. The Ashland Daily Press headlined the meeting “Island Park Sizzles: Meeting Called.” Although the proposal was carefully explained, the county board was not prepared to act. One board member declared that Oak Island was worth $160,000 and that “we better get some money for Oak Island.” Another meeting was called for a month later in preparation for the upcoming June hearings. Perhaps in response to the publicity and pressure, the county board shifted its position. A few days before the Senate...

Share