Franklin Can Act on High View Street — Mayor Nelson May Soon Have to Explain Why He Won’t
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi, Franklin Community News
Nearly 100 Franklin residents have formally asked the City of Franklin to vacate a short, dead-end portion of High View Street. City officials have so far declined to act, citing the fact that the Franklin Public School District did not sign the petition as an abutting landowner.
That explanation is incomplete — legally, factually, and politically — and it ignores what voters actually approved.
What Voters Approved — According to the Referendum Resolution
Notably, the resolution — and the ballot question presented to voters — does not mention converting High View Street into a throughway, opening neighborhood streets to expanded traffic, or altering existing residential access patterns.
Voters were also given detailed tax assurances. The District emphasized that the bonds would be issued over 20 years, based on projections prepared with Ehlers, Inc., assuming an average 5% interest rate, with an expected mill rate increase of approximately $0.82. The District highlighted its history of defeasing debt and encouraged homeowners to calculate their individual tax impacts.
Voters agreed to long-term tax obligations based on those representations — and on the scope of impacts described.
What Changed After the Vote
After the referendum passed, updated site plans advanced by the School District now seek to use High View Street as a through street, fundamentally changing traffic patterns near Franklin High School and adjacent homes.
For nearby residents, this is not a minor adjustment. A quiet dead-end street would become a cut-through tied to school traffic and events — an impact never disclosed to voters during the referendum campaign.
That change is what triggered the neighborhood response.
99 Neighbors Have Asked the City to Step In
In response, 99 residents living on High View Street, South 47th Street, West Forest Hill Avenue, West Valley Drive, and surrounding blocks signed a formal petition asking the City to vacate the eastern portion of High View Street and prevent its conversion into a throughway.
They are not opposing the referendum project.
They are objecting to a post-vote expansion of impacts that voters never approved.
They are asking for process: a resolution, a public hearing, and a vote.
What Residents Said at the January 20 Common Council Meeting
Those concerns were brought directly to City Hall.
during public comment about the proposed use of High View Drive as a through street tied to the high school expansion.
Speakers cited Wisconsin Statute § 66.1003, emphasizing that while a petition signed by property owners is one way to initiate a street vacation, the statute does not give any single landowner veto power over whether the Common Council may consider the issue. Residents warned that High View Drive was designed and used as limited emergency access, not as a regular traffic route, and that converting it into a throughway would increase congestion and create new safety risks.
Several residents noted that no traffic study had been conducted, despite existing unsafe conditions already occurring during school drop-off and pick-up on nearby streets such as Forest Hill Avenue. Parents of young children expressed concern that opening High View Drive and 47th Street would replicate or worsen those conditions in another residential area.
Residents asked the Council to place the matter on a future agenda, hold a public hearing, and evaluate whether vacating the street would better serve the City’s long-term safety and planning interests.
What the Law Actually Requires — and What It Does Not
Wisconsin law does require that a street-vacation petition initiated under Wis. Stat. § 66.1003(2) be signed by all abutting landowners in order to proceed on that petition alone.
But the statute does not stop there.
Section 66.1003(4) expressly provides an alternative path. Notwithstanding the petition requirements, the Common Council may initiate a street vacation on its own motion by adopting a resolution and holding a public hearing if it determines the public interest requires it.
In other words, the absence of unanimous signatures limits one procedural path — it does not strip the Council of its authority to act, and it does not prevent the issue from being considered by elected officials.
Treating the petition defect as a barrier to agenda placement is a policy choice, not a statutory mandate.
What the Courts Say
Wisconsin courts treat street vacations as a legislative decision, granting common councils broad discretion to determine whether a street continues to serve a public purpose.
Courts have long held that no landowner has a vested right in the continued existence of a public street. In Nick v. State Highway Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court made clear that public roads may be altered or vacated when the governing body determines the public interest no longer requires them, even if an adjoining landowner objects.
When such decisions are challenged, courts review them on certiorari, a highly deferential standard. In State ex rel. Hammermill Paper Co. v. La Plante, the court held that judicial review is limited to whether the municipality acted within its jurisdiction, followed the law, and had a rational basis for its decision — not whether the court agrees with the policy outcome.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Ottman v. Town of Primrose, emphasizing that courts do not substitute their judgment for that of elected officials unless the action is arbitrary or exceeds statutory authority.
Taken together, these cases establish a clear rule:
If a common council adopts a resolution, provides proper notice, holds a public hearing, and votes on the record, courts will generally defer to that decision.
An Active Lawsuit Raises the Stakes
This dispute is unfolding alongside an active lawsuit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
On October 1, 2025, Franklin Public Schools and Franklin High School filed Case No. 2025CV008557 against the City of Franklin Common Council and the City of Franklin Plan Commission, seeking a writ of certiorari challenging conditions imposed on the high school expansion.
While the School District is aggressively asserting its interests in court, the City is declining to even hold a hearing requested by residents — despite having clear statutory authority to do so.
Mayor Nelson’s Position — and the Election Clock
That support now places him squarely at the center of this issue.
With a Franklin mayoral election approaching, the question is no longer whether the City can act on High View Street.
It is whether the Mayor and Common Council are willing to risk alienating 99 organized, engaged, tax-paying residents by refusing even to hold a hearing — while backing a post-referendum change that voters never authorized.
Holding a hearing would not undermine the referendum.
It would not decide the lawsuit.
It would simply honor transparency, process, and accountability.
Franklin residents accepted the tax impact they were promised.
They did not consent to neighborhood streets being rewritten after the fact.
The authority to act exists.
The record is clear.
What remains is a decision — and voters will remember it.
Editorial - Franklin Leadership Can’t Have It Both Ways — Mayor Nelson Can’t Afford to Lose 99 Voters
Franklin is at a crossroads. Our community overwhelmingly voted in favor of a $145 million referendum to invest in our schools, trusting that project plans and impacts would match what was presented at the ballot box.
But in the months since, plans have shifted — and not in small ways. Updated designs now include an extension of High View Drive into a neighborhood street rather than the limited emergency access shown originally.
Now nearly 100 residents who signed a petition asking the City to vacate a portion of High View Drive — not in opposition to the school project, but out of concern for their safety, traffic impacts, and neighborhood character — are being told their voices don’t count because the School District didn’t sign the petition. That’s not how democracy is supposed to work.
Mayor John Nelson has publicly supported the referendum project. That support is understandable — Franklin Public Schools are a critical asset to our community and deserve investment. But if that support becomes an excuse to avoid addressing neighborhood concerns, it undermines trust in local government.
Even more concerning is the Mayor’s habit of trying to have it both ways: on one hand, aligning with the District and its lawsuit against the City over post-referendum conditions; on the other, suggesting there’s nothing the City can do about the petition because it lacks a specific signature. But Wisconsin law offers an alternative: under Wis. Stat. § 66.1003(4), a common council may initiate the discontinuance of a public way on its own motion by resolution and public hearing, regardless of petition signatures.
In other words:
The absence of all abutting signatures limits one procedural path, but it does not strip the Common Council of its authority to act.
Residents rightly raised this at the January 20, 2026 Common Council meeting. Multiple neighbors spoke, on the record, about safety concerns, the lack of traffic analysis, and the statutory framework that allows Council-initiated action — not just petition-driven action. Yet the City Attorney and staff focused narrowly on an “invalid petition” instead of engaging the broader statutory context. That may satisfy a technical reading of one subsection, but it sidesteps the larger public interest.
This is where political leadership really counts.
Mayor Nelson cannot afford to alienate 99 highly engaged voters — especially when their concern isn’t about stopping the school project, but about preserving neighborhood safety and fairness in the process. These are people who voted in the referendum, pay taxes, and live in the community they are trying to protect.
And make no mistake: this will be an election-year issue. With the Franklin mayoral election on the horizon, voters are starting to ask tough questions:
-
If the Mayor truly supports both the schools and residents, why has he avoided a hearing?
-
If he believes the community will back the post-referendum changes in a public process, why refuse one?
-
And why treat the absence of a signature — from an entity already in litigation with the City — as a veto over democratic consideration?
Leadership means listening — especially when residents come together with a clear, documented concern. It means using all the tools the law provides, not just the ones convenient for a particular outcome.
The Mayor may have good intentions, but leadership isn’t measured by who you stand with when everyone agrees. It’s measured by who you stand with when there’s conflict — and whether you’re willing to give voters their day to be heard.
Mayor Nelson, you can support our schools and respect our neighborhoods. But you can’t play both sides of the fence — and you certainly can’t afford to lose 99 organized voters in an election year.
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.
🕯️ 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.
💬 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.
💬 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