fbpx
Connect with us

Business

La Crosse city council imposes camping limit, maintains historic status for old library

Published

on

Spectators filled most of the seats at the July city council meeting on Thursday

La Crosse’s city council said no to long-term camping, but yes to a historic designation.

At Thursday’s monthly meeting, the council voted 7-4 to approve a 12-hour time limit for any individual camping in La Crosse city parks.

The limit was suggested as one way to prevent homeless people from setting up tents or otherwise living in parks for days or weeks. After 12 hours, a camper would have to go to another location at least 500 feet away.

La Crosse Police Chief Shawn Kudron told the council that a 12-hour limit is not a solution to the situation, but it is a resource to help city officials respond to camping. The chief predicted that complaints to police about camping might increase as a result of the new rule.

The council also upheld 8-3 the Heritage Preservation Commission’s recent decision to declare the former South Community Library a historic landmark, despite an appeal from the mayor.

Developers are planning to remodel the inside of the library for housing units.

More than 500 people signed petitions to maintain the historic designation, but Mayor Mitch Reynolds questioned whether the 70-year-old building meets the specific criteria for historic status. He also spoke on that earlier this week on La Crosse Talk PM.

Several people suggested to the council that its long-time use as a neighborhood library gave the building historic value. Last month, a city commission endorsed a request to develop six housing units in the old library.

A native of Prairie du Chien, Brad graduated from UW - La Crosse and has worked in radio news for more than 30 years, mostly in the La Crosse area. He regularly covers local courts and city and county government. Brad produces the features "Yesterday in La Crosse" and "What's Buried on Brad's Desk." He also writes the website "Triviazoids," which finds odd connections between events that happen on a certain date, and he writes and performs with the local comedy group Heart of La Crosse. Brad been featured on several national TV programs because of his memory skills.

Continue Reading
5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. nick

    July 12, 2024 at 7:34 am

    What makes the library building historic?
    It is a normal building that closed over budget concerns.
    The committee has no idea what a truly historic building is.

    Anyone who voted yes for the designation both on the committee and city council should resign.

  2. R Head

    July 12, 2024 at 7:38 am

    No camping I was jus thinking about taking my 5 th wheel to Cameron park for the weekend.

  3. Libertarian Guy

    July 12, 2024 at 1:00 pm

    If I understood the news correctly, The closed branch library is considered historic because it operated several years as a library. By this standard the library on main street should also be designated historic. My house operated as a house for 20 years, maybe it should be considered historic too. In fact, how about every building in the entire city be designated historic just because it has existed for 20 years or more. There is nothing historic about the branch library. I believe the residents around The branch library signed a bunch of petitions, asking for historic Designation because they are afraid the city will turn it into a homeless encampment. So deeming historic saves them from having homeless move there. I’m sure they are all aware with the city tried to pull with regard to the former Maple Grove motel.

    • walden

      July 12, 2024 at 4:21 pm

      Libertarian Guy, I don’t know the “inside ball” on this matter but what you outline is probably the case and is a result of citizens losing confidence in City leadership.

      • LG

        July 12, 2024 at 8:18 pm

        I invited some discussion on this during the p.m. show that Mike Hayes hosted. It sounds like the residents Signed the petition to designate the Former library branch historic because they are afraid that a developer might raise the building and put something up that detracts from the neighborhood. I guess that’s reasonable, but it’s still an inappropriate use of the historic designation. Put another way, it Is not historic as has been said, but they pretend it’s historic to accomplish their goals. Another example of inappropriate use of government power. Guess I’m with the mayor on this one, a rarity

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *