Before Big Bend Decides: What Franklin Learned the Hard Way About Powerful Developers, Public Silence, and the Cost of Speaking Out
What Franklin’s decade of controversy reveals about noise, governance, and the hidden costs of approving powerful development interests without enforceable safeguards.
Why This Matters Now
Big Bend is approaching a decision point. The proposed Breck Athletic Complex is not a routine development; it is a regional-scale sports and entertainment project involving significant public infrastructure investment and long-term land-use commitments.
Once approvals are granted, leverage shifts. Zoning changes, infrastructure extensions, and political buy-in create momentum that is difficult to reverse — even when impacts emerge that were not fully disclosed or anticipated.
Franklin’s experience shows that many of the most serious consequences of large sports and entertainment complexes do not appear immediately. Noise disputes, enforcement challenges, political pressure, and financial risk often surface only after a project is operational and public capital has already been committed.
This matters now because Big Bend still has a choice. Residents can insist on transparency, enforceable conditions, independent oversight, and equal application of rules before approvals are finalized — rather than relying on after-the-fact fixes that may never come.
Firsthand Experience: How The Rock’s Approval Affected Neighboring Communities
I am writing to you in my capacity as a resident, former local elected official, and publisher of Franklin Community News to share important context as the Villages of Big Bend and Vernon consider the proposed Breck Athletic Complex.
I served as a Village Trustee in Greendale at the time when plans for The Rock Sports Complex in Franklin were being considered and approved. That experience gave me a front-row view of how a large, regional sports and entertainment development — promoted as an economic opportunity — can affect not only the host municipality, but also neighboring residential communities.
The Rock was built on a former landfill that had been converted into a ski hill, located between Franklin to the south and Greendale to the north, with residential neighborhoods surrounding the site. While the project was approved by Franklin, its impacts — particularly related to noise, traffic, enforcement, and quality of life — quickly crossed municipal boundaries. Greendale residents bore consequences without having meaningful authority over the approvals or enforcement decisions that shaped those outcomes.
Approximately six years ago, I moved to Franklin, where I have since continued to document and observe the long-term effects of that development. What became clear over time is that many of the most significant challenges — noise disputes, policy changes made after the fact, taxpayer exposure through Tax Incremental Districts, and political pressure surrounding enforcement — were not fully apparent at the time of approval. They emerged only once the project was operational and public leverage had diminished.
The reason for this article is that the proposed Breck Athletic Complex in Big Bend shares important similarities with the ROC Ventures development model used in Franklin:
-
A regional-scale sports and entertainment destination
-
Proximity to neighboring residential communities
-
Reliance on public infrastructure investment
-
Long-term operational impacts that extend beyond municipal borders
Vernon residents have already expressed concern about cross-border impacts, echoing many of the same issues Greendale faced when The Rock was approved next door in Franklin.
This article is not to oppose development, but to encourage informed decision-making before approvals are finalized. The article below highlights lessons learned the hard way — including the importance of enforceable conditions, independent oversight, equal application of rules, and protections for residents who raise concerns.
I respectfully encourage you to review this information as you consider the proposed project. Decisions of this scale shape communities for decades, and once approvals and infrastructure commitments are made, leverage is difficult to regain.
Thank you for your service and for your thoughtful consideration of these issues.
Big Bend residents are being asked to consider whether a large, privately owned sports and entertainment complex would benefit their community.
Before any decision is made, it is worth examining what has occurred in nearby Franklin, where similar promises were made — and where residents continue to grapple with the long-term consequences.
This letter is offered in the spirit of public information, civic engagement, and transparency.
What Is Being Proposed in Big Bend
As of January 2026, Big Bend is considering the Breck Athletic Complex, a $175–$225 million, 150-acre, multi-phase regional sports complex.
Scope and Scale
Public materials and media reporting describe a development that would include:
-
Six turf baseball fields and one championship field
-
Seven full-size soccer fields
-
Four lacrosse fields
-
A large indoor sports complex
-
Potential future commercial or residential components
The scale of the proposal positions it as a regional destination facility, not a neighborhood-scale recreational site.
Public Investment
The developer is requesting approximately $15 million in public funding for water and sewer infrastructure — commitments that can reduce municipal leverage over time and shape future development patterns well beyond the initial project.
Franklin’s Experience Should Give Big Bend Pause
During the 2023 mayoral election, Franklin Community News (FCN) reported that voters were effectively presented with a package deal — an alignment between political leadership and private development interests — without clear disclosure of how much influence those relationships would carry once in office. That concentration of influence has had lasting effects on governance and public trust.
When Developers Ignore Residents, Communities Pay the Price
When resident input is sidelined early, accountability rarely improves later.
Big Bend residents should ask a simple question:
If community concerns are ignored before approval, what protections exist afterward?
Changing the Rules After the Fact
municipal code provisions tied to development and enforcement authority. While framed as administrative cleanup, the timing raised concerns about whether rules were being rewritten to accommodate powerful interests rather than protect residents.
Municipal codes exist to safeguard fairness and limit arbitrary enforcement. When rules change during periods of heightened development pressure, trust erodes.
Big Bend should be wary of any proposal that requires extensive code changes, special zoning accommodations, or expanded enforcement powers to make a private project viable.
Community Pushback and Resident Advocacy
By November 2023, Franklin residents were organizing simply to be heard. FCN reported that opposition did not come from a fringe minority, but from engaged residents attempting to participate in the civic process.
The council approved a temporary use permits allowing up to 60 decibels for the Rock'n Food Truck Rally and up to 65 decibels for games at Franklin Field this year, measured from property lines. These limits are higher than the 55-decibel limit previously established for Milwaukee Milkmen games.
For Big Bend, this is a warning sign. When residents must organize just to gain basic attention, ordinary channels of public input are no longer functioning as intended.
Community Impact: Quality of Life, Social Cohesion, and Governance
Franklin’s experience shows that impacts from large sports and entertainment venues accumulate across daily life, social cohesion, and governance.
Quality of Life and Daily Disruption
Radio, television, and print reporting documented persistent noise impacts tied to events at The Rock Sports Complex:
-
WTMJ Radio described escalating conflict between ownership and Milwaukee County officials
-
TMJ4 News featured residents describing ongoing disruption
-
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel quantified the problem, reporting 236 noise complaints in a single year
As complaints mounted, officials later approved higher allowable noise limits for certain events. WISN News reported that the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors considered legal action — illustrating how quality-of-life concerns escalated into governance and legal disputes.
Community Division and Social Strain
FCN and other outlets documented how prolonged disputes divided the community. Some residents organized for relief, while others felt pressured to defend the project as an economic asset. Over time, trust between neighbors and confidence in local institutions eroded.
Governance and Long-Term Consequences
Investigative reporting documented enforcement challenges, disputed sound studies, and weakened accountability. What began as resident complaints evolved into litigation risk, intergovernmental conflict, and nearly a decade of recurring controversy.
Once established, a major venue can permanently reshape how a community allocates public resources and resolves conflict.
Major Local Media Coverage Confirms the Scope of the Controversy
Concerns surrounding The Rock Sports Complex and Ballpark Commons were not confined to neighborhood complaints or independent reporting. Over multiple years, the issues became the subject of sustained coverage by major local and regional media outlets, reflecting their significance to the broader community.
FOX6 News reported on escalating noise complaints from Franklin residents, including coverage of a county-funded sound study and emergency meetings convened by local officials to address resident concerns. FOX6 interviews featured neighbors describing repeated disruption to daily life, as well as officials acknowledging the difficulty of enforcing noise standards once large-scale entertainment operations were underway.
TMJ4 News aired multiple reports documenting ongoing resident frustration, government response, and the evolving policy debate. TMJ4 coverage included interviews with Franklin residents, city leaders, and representatives connected to the complex, illustrating how the issue progressed from localized complaints into a persistent governance challenge. TMJ4 also reported on decisions to raise allowable noise limits, showing how enforcement disputes ultimately led to changes in public policy.
WTMJ Radio, a major regional news outlet, framed the dispute as a broader conflict between ownership and Milwaukee County officials, describing the situation as a “harsh reality” for nearby communities. WTMJ reporting emphasized that complaints were not isolated incidents but part of a recurring pattern that placed pressure on local and county governments to respond.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the region’s largest daily newspaper, provided quantitative context by reporting that Franklin received 236 noise complaints in a single year, many tied to activity at The Rock. The paper also covered the findings of a multi-month sound monitoring study, explaining how noise from events could travel well beyond the immediate site and affect residential areas. Later Journal Sentinel reporting documented policy changes that raised allowable noise thresholds, highlighting how enforcement challenges reshaped local standards.
WISN 12 News also reported on the county sound study and the broader political response, reinforcing that concerns about noise and enforcement were shared across multiple levels of government and were not confined to a single municipality or news outlet.
Together, this coverage demonstrates that disputes surrounding The Rock and Ballpark Commons were widely recognized by mainstream media across television, radio, and print, and treated as a serious public-interest issue. The sustained attention reflects not just resident dissatisfaction, but the scale of the impacts, the involvement of government entities, and the difficulty of resolving conflicts once a major sports and entertainment complex is operational.
For Big Bend residents, this record matters. It shows that Franklin’s experience was not speculative or exaggerated — it was documented, measured, debated, and reported by major news organizations over multiple years. Communities considering similar developments should expect comparable scrutiny — and should plan accordingly before approvals are granted.
Sound Studies, Enforcement, and Legal Disputes
Wisconsin Right Now documented problems with sound monitoring, including disputed methodologies and inoperable equipment. When technical safeguards fail, residents lose reliable mechanisms to validate complaints.
The same outlet reported ongoing legal disputes involving The Rock, illustrating how conflicts extend beyond neighborhoods into prolonged legal and governmental battles — consuming public resources and constraining enforcement.
Developer Background and Pattern of Controversy
Patterns matter. When a developer repeatedly appears at the center of controversy, communities are justified in heightened scrutiny — especially when public funds, zoning flexibility, or enforcement accommodations are requested.
The $1 Land Deal and Concentrated Political Influence
In December 2025, Franklin Community News reported on a $1 land transaction championed by Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor, raising serious questions about valuation, process, and public benefit.
While $1 land transfers are sometimes framed as economic development incentives, they represent a permanent transfer of public assets into private hands and therefore demand heightened scrutiny — particularly when accompanied by zoning changes and coordinated governmental action.
The context is critical.
At the time the land was sold and rezoned, Steve Taylor simultaneously held two public offices:
-
Milwaukee County Supervisor, and
-
Franklin Alderman
In that dual capacity, Taylor participated in — or had influence over — decisions at both levels of government as:
-
Milwaukee County acted on matters related to the land, and
-
The City of Franklin voted to rezone the same property
This overlap is not incidental. It represents a documented conflict-of-interest concern, as Taylor was positioned to influence outcomes on both sides of the transaction involving land that ultimately benefited a development ecosystem he had actively supported.
Taylor had previously played a prominent role in advancing development interests tied to ROC Ventures and The Rock Sports Complex, advocating for rezonings and approvals that enabled the project to proceed. Following his public role in pushing those initiatives through government processes, Taylor later assumed a paid position as Executive Director of the ROC Foundation, placing him financially within the same development ecosystem he had helped advance as an elected official.
When an elected official:
-
holds simultaneous offices,
-
advocates for extraordinary development terms such as a $1 land deal,
-
participates in rezoning votes, and
-
later becomes financially connected to the same development interests,
public confidence in impartial decision-making is undermined — regardless of whether individual actions were technically permissible.
For communities, the concern is not merely legal compliance, but structural influence. Once land is transferred, zoning is changed, and approvals are granted, public leverage disappears. The consequences of those decisions — financial, environmental, and political — can last for generations.
For Big Bend and Vernon, this episode underscores a central lesson:
large sports and entertainment developments do not move forward through market forces alone. They often rely on political champions operating across jurisdictions, extraordinary concessions, and governance structures that deserve rigorous scrutiny before approvals are finalized.
Community Benefits Promises and Enforcement Gaps
Wisconsin Right Now reported that The Rock refused to meet certain community benefits requirements tied to its development framework. When enforcement mechanisms are weak, communities lose leverage once approvals are granted.
Promises made during approval processes are only as strong as the willingness and ability to enforce them.
Regulatory and Compliance Concerns
FCN has also reported that multiple IRS complaints were filed involving ROC Ventures–connected entities. While complaints alone are not findings of wrongdoing, repeated regulatory scrutiny is a relevant consideration when evaluating risk.
For communities, this matters because municipalities often become indirect partners in large developments through infrastructure, services, and political capital. Regulatory issues can translate into delays, disputes, and pressure on local governments to accommodate problems rather than enforce standards.
TID Valuation Swings and Financial Risk
A critical — and often misunderstood — issue is how Tax Incremental Districts (TIDs) function in practice.
What the State Data Shows
According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue’s 2025 Statement of Changes in TID Value, Franklin experienced dramatic valuation swings:
|
TID |
Area |
2024 |
2025 |
Change |
% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TID 005 |
Ballpark Commons |
$78.8M |
$129.3M |
+$50.6M |
+64% |
|
TID 006 |
Strauss |
$26.9M |
$74.1M |
+$47.2M |
+176% |
|
TID 007 |
Velo Village |
$50.9M |
$39.1M |
−$11.8M |
−23% |
|
TID 008 |
Corporate Park |
$134.9M |
$152.4M |
+$17.5M |
+13% |
|
TID 009 |
Carma Labs |
$12.3M |
$42.5M |
+$30.2M |
+247% |
Several increases occurred without major new construction, indicating reassessment-driven changes rather than physical investment.
Why This Matters
Incremental value is captured to retire TID debt. Higher valuations can improve appearances on paper while underlying obligations persist.
Developers benefit through asset appreciation and refinancing capacity, while taxpayers remain exposed if values fall.
The Ballpark Commons Shortfall
In 2024, Franklin reported that Ballpark Commons failed to make a required $935,000 shortfall payment. The City sued (Milwaukee County Case No. 24-CV-7479). A partial payment was later made, but legal fees remain unresolved in closed session.
For Big Bend, the lesson is clear: valuation growth alone does not guarantee public benefit. The key question is who benefits when values rise — and who pays if they fall.
Community Debate
-
TMJ4 News reported Big Bend residents are sharply divided
-
FOX6 News reported Vernon residents objecting to cross-border impacts
-
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted unresolved concerns about traffic, services, and long-term costs
The Personal Cost of Speaking Out
In the course of publishing documented reporting, blogs, and analysis, filing ethics complaints, public records requests, and other formal complaints, speaking out at public meetings, and working alongside residents and citizen groups raising concerns about noise and special treatment related to Ballpark Commons, I experienced sustained personal and professional consequences for questioning development practices tied to ROC Ventures and associated political decision-making in Franklin and Milwaukee County.
Rather than responding substantively to the issues raised — including concerns about sound impacts, enforcement disparities, and whether Ballpark Commons and The Rock were receiving preferential treatment — certain officials and politically connected individuals engaged in personal attacks, efforts to discredit my reporting, exclusion from civic processes, and actions that appeared intended to discourage or silence further scrutiny.
These responses followed — and were directly connected to — a pattern of protected civic activity: publishing investigative blogs, submitting ethics complaints, requesting public records, collaborating with residents affected by noise impacts, participating in organized citizen advocacy, and voicing concerns during open public meetings. The focus shifted away from addressing the substance of the concerns and toward targeting those raising them.
The conduct went beyond ordinary political disagreement, which is expected in a healthy democracy. Instead, it reflected retaliatory behavior following lawful civic participation, including advocacy on behalf of residents who believed Franklin and Milwaukee County applied enforcement standards differently to Ballpark Commons than to ordinary residents or businesses.
As these actions escalated, the situation became serious enough that a John Doe filing was submitted, reflecting concerns that the response to civic oversight had crossed from political disagreement into potential misuse of authority. The existence of that filing is not an assertion of guilt or outcome, but evidence that the conduct warranted formal review beyond routine political discourse.
This experience is not shared for sympathy. It is shared to illustrate a broader, structural risk.
When residents, journalists, or citizen advocates face personal retaliation for working collectively to oppose harmful impacts, speaking at public meetings, filing ethics complaints, publishing investigative reporting, or questioning unequal treatment by government, it signals a breakdown in accountability. Communities should not depend on individuals absorbing reputational harm, legal exposure, or personal cost to surface problems after approvals are granted.
The lesson for Big Bend is clear: safeguards must exist before development moves forward — including transparency requirements, enforceable conditions, independent oversight, equal application of enforcement standards, and meaningful protections for residents who organize and speak out. Without those safeguards, the cost of accountability is shifted onto individuals, and the consequences can be severe.
Big Bend still has the opportunity to insist on those protections at the outset, rather than learning the same lessons the hard way.
What Big Bend Residents Can Do Now
Before any approvals, residents should insist on:
-
Independent traffic, noise, and fiscal impact studies
-
Full disclosure of political and financial relationships
-
Enforceable conditions with remedies
-
Assurance that codes will not be rewritten for private benefit
-
Protection of residents’ right to speak freely
Asking questions is not anti-growth.
It is pro-community.
A Closing Thought
Franklin’s experience shows how quickly development promises can evolve into long-term civic strain when transparency and accountability are lost.
Big Bend still has a choice.
Plan first. Build second.
This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.
Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.
Sources & References
This article draws on publicly available reporting, government records, and firsthand civic experience to provide context for the proposed Big Bend development. Sources include the following:
Franklin Community News (FCN)
-
Voters in Franklin Get Three for One (April 2023)
-
County Supervisor Steve Taylor… (April 2023)
-
ROC Continues to Ignore Franklin Residents (October 2023)
-
Establish New Franklin Municipal Code (October 2023)
-
Franklin Residents Support Franklin (November 2023)
-
Another IRS Complaint Filed Against ROC (December 2023)
-
Taylor’s Ethics Statements Still Not Complete (December 2023)
-
Mike Zimmerman and ROC Ventures Owe… (February 2024)
-
The Rock Receives Noise Citation (August 2024)
-
Don’t Let The Rock Divide Communities (September 2024)
-
Franklin Common Council Cannot… (September 2024)
-
Ballpark Commons / Mike Zimmerman Sued (October 2024)
-
Crank It Up: A Decade of Noise Politics (September 2025)
-
Ballpark Commons Valuation Skyrockets (September 2025)
-
Inside Franklin’s Political Crime (November 2025)
-
The $1 Land Deal Steve Taylor Championed (December 2025)
Regional & Major Media Coverage
-
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
-
Reporting on 236 noise complaints in Franklin
-
Coverage of sound studies and later increases to allowable noise limits
-
Reporting on policy changes tied to Ballpark Commons events
-
-
TMJ4 News (WTMJ-TV)
-
Coverage of resident noise complaints and community disruption
-
Reporting on Big Bend residents divided over the Breck Athletic Complex
-
-
FOX6 News
-
Coverage of Vernon residents objecting to cross-border impacts
-
Reporting on community concerns related to large sports complexes
-
-
WTMJ Radio
-
Reporting on conflict between The Rock ownership and Milwaukee County officials
-
Coverage describing the “harsh reality” of ongoing noise complaints
-
-
WISN 12 News
-
Reporting on Milwaukee County sound studies and enforcement challenges
-
Investigative & Independent Reporting
-
Wisconsin Right Now
-
The Rock Sports Complex (overview and ongoing coverage)
-
Mike Zimmerman (developer background)
-
The Rock Sound Study
-
The Rock Refused to Meet Community Benefits Requirements
-
Legal Action Against The Rock
-
Government Records & Official Data
-
Wisconsin Department of Revenue
-
2025 Statement of Changes in Tax Incremental District (TID) Value
-
-
Milwaukee County Circuit Court
-
City of Franklin v. BPC Master Developer, LLC et al.
-
Case No. 24-CV-7479 (Ballpark Commons TID shortfall litigation)
-
-
Big Bend–Specific Reporting
-
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
-
Coverage of the proposed $175–$225 million Breck Athletic Complex
-
-
TMJ4 News
-
Reporting on Big Bend residents split on the proposed sports complex
-
-
FOX6 News
-
Reporting on Village of Vernon residents objecting to the proposal
-
-
Finance & Commerce
-
Industry reporting on the Breck Athletic Complex proposal
-
-
BizTimes Milwaukee
-
Business coverage of the proposed Big Bend development
-
đź•Ż️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.
Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.
Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.
đź’¬ If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.
Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable
— for the greater good.
© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.
Comments
Post a Comment