The Fox River Trail: Public Policy, Private Property, and Process
Thomas H. Van Drasek
The path for the Fox River Trail from public policy to active parkway was long and at times bumpy. It involved multiple levels of government and dozens of private citizens. Trail supporters saw it as a a fine addition to the county park system while opponents said such a trail would violate their property rights. The task of implementing this long standing policy proved to be highly contentious. Determining why this was the case seemed best served by interviewing those directly involved or very familiar with the issue.
Twenty personal interviews were conducted with government officials, knowledgeable and involved citizens, and property owners along the trail. Based on a core set of questions, contemporary documents, personal interviews, and an extensive review of the public policy debate and votes on the implementation process, data regarding the actions of those involved with the trail was developed.
In the end, the original hypothesis that timing and context for this issue is more important than the formal public implementation process was found to be subordinate to a more important variable. An analysis of the data revealed that the point of view of those intimately involved with the issue is more important to its outcome than the two original independent variables posited at the outset of research.
Change of this kind seldom occurs unquestioned. On occasion those questioning the proposed action strongly disagree with the intended change. When that happened here in Brown County, even though the public process was graded as fair by most involved, more could have been done to reach-out to and work with those opposed to the planned trail. ALthough some changes cannot be bargained away, more negotiation and communication must occur between those on all sides of the issue. Opponents need to see real give and take. With that, a reduction in acrimony and resistance is likely. Not all will accept the trail, but improved understanding will improve the policy outcome.