Good morning.

Thursday in Whitewater will be cloudy with a high of 40. Sunrise is 6:56 and sunset is 5:22 for 10 hours 26 minutes of daytime. The moon is a waning crescent with 22.9 percent of its visible disk illuminated.
On this day in 1809, Abraham Lincoln is born.
On February 2, the Whitewater Common Council approved in a first reading changes to zoning for a development project along Bluff Road. See from FREE WHITEWATER, More Housing for Whitewater.
There’s a solid story in the Royal Purple reporting on the unsubstantiated allegations made at the meeting. Eric Arguelles, Community News Editor, reports on that issue in Common Council considers rezoning for housing development:
[Speaker during public comment Andrea] Svec alleged that city manager John Weidl has an existing relationship with Stonehaven and Legacy Realty Group, a real estate service owned by Vandeville. However, Weidl said this same concern had been previously raised, and that repeating it was intended to discredit city staff and obstruct the project.
Weidl denied the allegation, saying he has no undisclosed or improper relationship with Stonehaven, and has no interest in the project beyond his role as city manager.
“Separately, and several years ago, during a transition period between municipal positions, I obtained a Wisconsin real estate license and temporarily affiliated it with Legacy Realty Group, as required by state law,” Weidl said. “During that limited period, I provided high-level economic development guidance related to municipal processes and community planning in the region. I did not act as a broker, agent, or transaction participant in Whitewater while serving as a municipal administrator.”
Weidl also commented that after his return to municipal employment, the license was no longer needed for his duties.
See Eric Arguelles, Common Council considers rezoning for housing development, Royal Purple, February 9, 2026.
I’ll write about this, too, and I should have done so sooner. For today, I will consider Ms. Svec’s wholly unsubstantiated claim of ethical concerns about the development. The video recording and transcript of her particular claim appears below, followed by an assessment. Video of the full meeting is also available online.
CLAIM:
And then finally, and I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, but my question is, are you aware of, or has it been disclosed that there is a relationship between Stonehaven and Legacy Realty and Mr. Weidl and previous employment relationship? And if so, has that been disclosed? And if not, why not?
ASSESSMENT:
There’s nothing here, nothing at all, except ill-crafted insinuation. One hears two claims about Whitewater’s city manager and this private developer, divided by present and past. First, one hears a question of the present asking if “there is a relationship between Mr. Weidl and Stonehaven and Legacy Realty” (spoken of in the present tense — is a relationship.)
This immediate question means too little and implies too much. At its weakest, anyone has a relationship with many others, including his tailor or barber. That’s not untoward. That’s ordinary life.
But that’s not what’s crudely insinuated here, is it? A relationship is alleged in a way that suggests the Whitewater Common Council and residents living with the City of Whitewater should have concerns. These public comments don’t explain why there should be concerns. There’s nothing to show a material matter.
Second, there’s an accusatory question about the past: “and previous employment relationship?”
Previous, but not present, and so not active or ongoing or existing now. A previous employment relationship is one that is by definition inactive, over, and dead. Anyone who has had any vocational success, who has made anything of himself or herself in Wisconsin or beyond, has had previous employment or business relationships. That’s common in many industries and it does not imply or suggest untoward conduct in the present.
There was a question in the Town of Whitewater resident’s remarks that this libertarian blogger can answer. She asks “And if so, has that [a previous relationship between Whitewater’s city manager and the developer] been disclosed?”
I’ll answer: Yes, this question was asked of, and answered by, Tim Vandeville of Legacy at a public meeting of the Whitewater Community Development Authority on September 21, 2023.
I keep a repository of these meetings, and I remember that session well. I’ve a link to that portion of the full meeting.
(The Whitewater city manager was not in attendance, but Tim Vandeville of Legacy spoke. Jeffery P. Knight, a publicly-licensed lobbyist and once a member of the CDA, heard Vandeville’s description on that night on September 21, 2023 — and expressed no concerns whatever. Knight was also in the room on 2.3.26 when Svec spoke critically of a past connection, but was himself silent that evening on the issue. Knight sometimes returns to the Common Council lectern more than once to offer information or comments during a meeting, but remained curiously mute on this point on 2.3.2026. It was Svec who did the talking.)
These are unfounded allegations delivered in a careless, sloppy manner. An assertion should come with concrete terms and substantial proof. This includes assertions crafted as questions in a puerile attempt to evade a burden of proof or standard of credibility. There’s an empty justification these days that one can say whatever one wants if one is ‘just asking questions.’ The Whitewater Common Council should seek a higher standard for itself than cable television or TMZ.
One should also see — if one is to see clearly about this matter — that this is not simply an empty insinuation about one municipal official, but an accusation about the conduct of an official and a private developer. If that relationship (that is a connection between two parties) should be improper on one side (and I don’t believe it is), then it’s improper on both.
Here, one out-of-town commenter asks this city’s Common Council to accept stale and empty claims against a city manager and a private developer. This city should not — indeed must not — discard or impugn private development or developers on these specious pretexts.
This looks yet again like one tiny faction’s desire to say anything about anyone to get its way. All the rest is shallow pretense.
