On Thursday, June 24, 2010, part of the facade on the O’Donnell Park parking structure suddenly fell off, killing a fifteen year boy and injuring two other people.
Our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to the victims and their families as they try to cope with their injuries and loss.
Within hours of this tragic incident, Milwaukee County Board Chairman Lee Holloway issued a statement remembering the victims and calling for an immediate inspection of all county structures and buildings. Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker criticized Holloway’s actions and called them “irresponsible.”
However, there is more than enough reason for these inspections to be done. In fact, they actually should have been done long ago.
Look at some things from just the last few years:
- In 2008, some of the parks bathrooms had to be closed because they were unsafe and unserviceable.
- In 2009, a county audit found many of the parks buildings and parts of the infrastructure to be in deep repair and/or desperate need of maintenance.
- Earlier this year, a piece of the cornice on the Milwaukee County Courthouse fell off, even though the county was warned two years ago of the needed repairs to it.
- Recently, it has been reported that an inspection of the mental health complex found the facility to be in “shoddy condition.”
In 2007, when the bridge in Minnesota collapsed, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty and several other governors called for an immediate inspection of the bridges in their respective states. No one ever called them irresponsible or accused them of playing politics with that horrific event.
What makes Walker’s accusations even more egregious is that the first thing Walker did was to check in at the courthouse to see if there was any deferred maintenance. At the press conference that occurred shortly after the tragedy, after appropriately expressing his sympathy for the victims, Walker felt it necessary to keep repeating that there was no deferred maintenance that he was aware of. It was as if his first concern was that he didn’t get blamed for this catastrophe.
Regardless of whether this tragedy was caused by poor design, faulty construction, deferred maintenance or something else, the only responsible action would be to inspect all of the county-owned buildings and structures, especially given their history, before anyone else is injured.
For Walker to argue for anything else would make one wonder if he is really concerned about the public safety or if he is just worried about how this might effect his gubernatorial campaign.
Here is the press release we issued today regarding this series of events.
It’s kinda like how Walker used his Memorial Day press release to brag about how many of those crappy brown bags he handed out instead of, you know, remembering our dead veterans. This guy’s as big a political hack as they come and if Walker and his B-team campaign staff think this story is going to just go away because it’s inconvenient for them, I think they’ve got another thing coming. In eight weeks, all these conservatives who are bitching about Mark Neumann might just be grateful that he stuck around and gave them another option.
Then again, it would require a powerful elixir to undo all that Walker Kool-Aid many of these people have consumed. To them, this guy can do no wrong. He could throw his mom to a pack of wolves and they would tell you she deserved it.
“the first thing Walker did was to check in at the courthouse to see if there was any deferred maintenance”
-
You have proof of this? You know this is the very first thing he did? Or is this more of capper speculating and insulating something he thinks is true?
“Regardless of whether this tragedy was caused by poor design, faulty construction, deferred maintenance or something else”
-
It is clear by your comments and those of the left which one of these you all hope it was…just sad.
Do you have proof of this? You know what we hope it was? Or is this more of Logic speculating and insinuating something he thinks is true?
MY proof is exactly what I sated….it is clear by your comments. Why else did you accuse walker of something you have really no idea of if not in the hopes this was really the case?
Two people say he was on TV now. Your paranoia is running away with you again. Either that, or you’re being hyper-defensive. Would there possibly be a reason for that?
Failing to answer the question again?
I answered your question. If you don’t like it, well, that’s your issue, not mine.
No you said he was going to the court house…
Again where did he say, did you find, or did you find evidence of his first action being check for delayed maintenance?
I guess we could nitpick and say the TV proves you are wrong, he was interviewed before going to the court house, so going to the court house is at least factually second.
But why nitpick. I would be happy to know the facts that lead you to the conclusion he checked these records FIRST. Or is this more chris speculation portrayed as fact?
And what is your proof that he was interviewed before going to the courthouse? Because that sure isn’t what he said. Or are you calling Walker a liar? That might be something we could agree on.
I am using your words of an TV appearance.
I miss-read your statement on the tv interview. I thought it was before the fact not after the fact.
See how easy it is chris to admit mistakes….
Actually, I remember Walker saying in an interview that he heard about the incident when he was at opening ceremonies for Summerfest and then went directly to the courthouse. Go read the initial transcripts of his initial TV interviews.
Going to the courthouse and ““check in…to see if there was any deferred maintenance” are not the same thing.
When you have to fight with semantics, you have already lost.
Is it possible he went to the courthouse instead of O’Donnell because he knew that his being there wouldn’t accomplish anything while the rescuers were trying to do their jobs?
That’s not what he stated.
He also never stated the first thing he did was check the records you accuse him of. Interesting when you are asked to back your claims you continually side step and avoid the issue.
Unlike you, most people can put two and two together. What do you suppose he did at the courthouse? Use a clogged up toilet? Bludgeon a rodent? Count the parts of cornice falling?
Chris you hit the nail on the head with this one. I don’t suppose/guess/question what he went there for other than for official reasons. If he was a sinister as you think he would call someone and have them check on the records; never having to go to the court house at all would have still given the same answer, if this was his intention.
There are many things he could have been doing there that night. If you really wanted to know you could ask him or his office; at least then you could blog factually instead of speculatively pretending your beliefs are the facts.
Absent any presented facts it leads only to one conclusion. You THINK this is what happened, meaning you really don’t know; yet you said this was the first thing he did. This then suggests there is motivation behind your accusation presented as fact. Otherwise why side-step the question on what are your facts this whole time; other than a TV interview that said he was going to the court house? As I have previously stated, this leads normal thinking individuals to conclude yourself and others on the left wish this situation really had a delayed maintenance aspect behind it; really sad.
Again, it does not take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. Unless you have something to go on, you’re only wasting both of our time here.
Yes, I am attributing a motive to Walker’s race to the courthouse. That was because he was more concerned about any potential impact to his campaign rather than the public safety. But that has been a behavioral pattern of his for years, even if those who blindly follow him find it too uncomfortable to deal with.
“That was because he was more concerned about any potential impact to his campaign rather than the public safety.”
-
Again more speculative assuption with no facts.
Actually, no. That was based on an observation of behavioral patterns. Rather simple to do, if you are honest with yourself.
Again chris you have the idea of facts and speculation in the same order as your accounting skills and Az law understanding.
“If” you think his behavior pattern suggests he is more concerned about any potential impact to his campaign rather than the public safety, then phrase it as such. When you just declare it so, as a factual statement, it will be questioned.
I see. Do you tell someone that you think the sky is blue or do you simply say, “The sky is blue?” Of course, you say the latter, even though it really is a matter of perception. Why should I have to qualify something that can be easily observed by an honest onlooker?
Then again, there is, of course, the question of your motivation for trying to second guess everything I write. Perhaps I am uncomfortably too close to the truth for you, so you feel the need to attack me and/or what I write in an effort to discredit it. Unfortunately for you, the people are seeing through Walker’s charade of competence.
But this whole business is bringing up more questions than they are answering. Don’t worry, I’ll be writing on this as well. For quite a while, actually.
Chris the reason I question you is your own fault. Declaring something speculative as a fact is your choice; made often.
If you would have said “I SUSPECT he was going to the court house to check on records” or had any secret facts about walkers political angle I would never have said a word in quetioning it.
The fact you have nothing yet say so anyway is questionable.
False argument. That would only explain this one post. However, your do this consistently on any post on any site I write and almost exclusively on posts involving Walker. Your pattern of behavior trips you up on that “faux concern” angle.
Color is an observation and not a fact? Physics is another of your weak areas I see.
Actually, color is perception. Some people are color blind, so they perceive colors differently. Others are unable to discern between shades of a state color. Then there are issues affecting color, such as lighting. Another fun thing is how colors can be perceived differently. For example, the throat of the ruby-throated hummingbird is actually black, but it is perceived as red. Again, your presumptuousness has let you down.
As I suspected you have no idea what is fact or perception. Expecting you to grasp the visible light spectrum is science (physics related) and not speculation was too much for you…
So, are you trying to say that you look up on a clear day and remark, “My, the sky is particularly reflecting the light at wavelength 475 nm today.”
I would rather say the sky is a very nice blue today.
In other words, yes light is physics, but he way people see the light is biophysics, which is entirely different. But, that might not matter to someone who only wants to be argumentative.
Argumentative? You mean like declaring color (perception) biophysics instead of physics? You mean like asking if I discern a wavelength and then assign a color/label to it?
Or did you mean only people that disagree with your “perception” are argumentative?