Madison created 3000 jobs and retained 650 in 2005

Er, please read my mea culpa on the following blog entry. There is a major factual error involved in this posting.

I don't read everything that comes out of the mayor's office. Press releases, articles, etc are put out at a rapid pace, I usually read the title and move on . . . but today, something caught my eye. In a statement he sent out today which looks like an article for Business newsletters, he writes the following:

2005 in Review: A Good Year for Jobs and Economic Development in Madison
By Mayor Dave Cieslewicz

The City of Madison’s economy was stronger than ever in 2005.

The latest data from the Department of Workforce Development show that a remarkable 3,000 new jobs were created in Madison in the past 12 months alone. Since I took office in April, 2003, we have created nearly 5,000 jobs in our community. At the same time, our unemployment rate of 3.0% is the lowest in the state, and one of the lowest in the nation. This is good news for employers and employees alike.

Let me repeat - 3,ooo jobs in 12 months. At the same time we probably added about 2,000 housing units. All of this at a time when businesses are allegedly fleeing the City. You know the list, the minimum wage, inclusionary zoning, smoking ban, phosphorus ban, paid sick leave, etc. etc. etc. So, if businesses are fleeing the City, why are we adding so many jobs and housing units? The Mayor goes on to list our many awards we received this year:

National business publications continue to take notice of Madison’s economic leadership. In 2005 alone, we earned recognition from Forbes (“one of the ten best metros for business and careers”), Expansion Management (“5-star business opportunity metro), Entrepreneur (“#6 mid-sized city in the U.S. for entrepreneurs”) and Fast Company (“one of 15 up-and-coming hubs for creative workers”).

He also cites the following accomplishments:

From revitalizing the Economic Development Commission under the leadership of Mark Bugher to pursuing recommendations for making Madison city government more business-friendly, my administration is working to create an environment where local businesses can grow and prosper.

Working in close consultation with Governor Doyle, state officials and the city’s Office of Business Resources, we secured significant resources to help two major employers – Covance and Tomotherapy – grow their businesses here in Madison. Through an innovative combination of TIF financing, federal grants and other tools, these employers are creating and retaining 650 high-wage jobs in Madison and growing our local economy.

Partnership with the state was also the key to the $9.2 million investment that is moving forward in the Todd Drive area on MadisonÂ’s South Side. This redevelopment of a key commercial corridor will enable Madison to retain growing employers like NRS Corp., WIPFLI Accounting and Gaming Informatics, while leveraging $18 million in private investment.

In addition, the City worked closely with Cascade Asset Management to find a site and expedite approvals for a major expansion. The 30-employee company, which provides for the environmentally responsible recycling and disposal of computers and other electronic equipment, broke ground in May of 2005 and opened its new facility in November 2005. The company expects to have approximately 50-60 positions when fully operational.

Small businesses were not forgotten either. In 2005, my office organized the first-ever Small Business Conference in Madison, bringing together city officials, small business owners and other stakeholders to explore ways to strengthen that key sector of our local economy.

On the development side, cranes continued to be as common in Madison as bratwurst. While the rebirth of the Capitol Square area (complete with the return of parking on the Square!) has been the most noticeable aspect of this trend, major development can also be seen everywhere from Hilldale Mall to South Park Street to residential development throughout the far east and far west sides of the city.

Is Madison government doing enough for businesses? Why all these claims we are chasing businesses away? Something isn't adding up. The facts just don't support all the frenzied rhetoric. Read more!

IZ Myths (or Lies or Spin) #6 - 10 (the most outrageous ones!)

Building on yesterday's post on the first 5 myths, lies or spin regarding inclusionary zoning - I thought I'd address some of the funniest/saddest/most outrageous statements I keep hearing about inclusionary zoning.

Myth, Lie, Spin #6 - Inclusionary Zoning is costing us $60,000 per unit.

What?! From February 15, 2004 to September 1, 2005 we approved 24 projects that had 360 inclusionary zoning units. Let's see, simple math 360 units x $60,000 = $21,600,000. Hmmmm . . . you really think the City spent $21.6 million on Inclusionary Zoning?

Myth, Lie, Spin #7 - Developers aren't getting any incentives.

Set aside, for a moment, the fact that this one is absolutely absurd when uttered by the same person who makes the claims in myth #6. Folks, it's one or the other.

True, there have not been any cash incentives available to developers until the buy-out payments are made. We are expecting three payments at the moment (Monroe Commons, Capitol West and Krupp Project) at which point a portion of that money will be available as incentives. We could have made a budget amendment to make money available sooner, but the development community did not want to support such an amendment, lest they appear "greedy". (Their word, not mine.) Other incentives, including density bonuses, TIF assistance and parking permits have been granted.

Myth, Lie, Spin #8 - IZ is a failure because not one unit has been sold yet.

It is true not one unit has been sold yet, but consider that of the 360 units that have been approved:

- about 100 only have initial (GDP) approval and need final (SIP) approval, so the project is not started

- about 90 units the projects have final approval by the Council but aren't started yet

- about 100 units the projects are started, but they are still working on roads and utilities

That only leaves about 60 - 70 in some stage of construction. Of course they aren't sold yet, construction takes time after approval and you need something to sell.

Myth, Lie, Spin #9 - Developers are leaving the City.

Preliminary reports do not show a significant decrease in the amount of development going on in the City of Madison. Anecdotally, I'm not aware of any developers that have "left the City". Additionally, my personal experience is that plan commission meeting agendas are packed with development and besides an initial few months, I have not seen a slow-down in project approvals.

Myth, Lie, Spin #10 - People won't buy homes with program restrictions on them because it is too complicated.

This one baffles me. There are non-profits who have been operating in the City for years that sell homes to moderate income folks with restrictions every year. If you had a choice between continuing to rent and owning with the probability of gaining equity, which would you choose? How many people would continue to throw their money away on rent simply because the City has an option to purchase the home when you are ready to sell and won't allow you to rent it while you own it? Besides the equity model, which should be changed immediately, its not that complicated. Just because you have a lower income, doesn't mean you are stupid. Read more!

IZ Myths (or Lies or Spin) - #1 - 5

I was going to do a blog entry about the IZ myths, or lies, or spin that I have been hearing and I was starting to collect various sources of these myths when I ran across this letter from December 23, 2005 in the Wisconsin State Journal

Inclusionary zoning an illusion

Inclusionary zoning. On the surface it sounds great -- "create affordable housing." The reality is that it is having the opposite effect. Home prices are being artificially raised to subsidize IZ units.

Madisonians are being bamboozled and hoodwinked into thinking IZ is helping the underprivileged. With minimal investigation you will find that this ordinance has been a complete failure.

IZ was supposed to mix income levels within neighborhoods. This has not been accomplished. What it has done is cause people to pay artificially higher home prices.

Take a look at Lake Point Commons on Broadway. The density for the project was allowed because of the number of IZ units being proposed. Dismal sales (because of IZ) have made Phase 2 of this project difficult.

There are many layers to this ordinance that need to be explored and reported.

-- Gabe Albrecht, Madison

And I figured this was a good enough place to start . . .

Myth, Lie, Spin #1 - The goal of inclusionary zoning is to "create affordable housing."

Well, close, but not quite. The goal of inclusionary zoning is to create a range of housing options in every neighborhood so that kids can learn together because when we have to high of a concentration of low-income kids in schools, they don't do as well as when their classmates are of various economic backgrounds. As David Rusk says, classmates count. In fact, the ordinance says the goal of inclusionary zoning is as follows:

(a) Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to further the availability of the full range of housing choices for families of all income levels in all areas of the City of Madison. A full range of housing options promotes diverse and thriving neighborhoods, schools, and communities. It also aids the recruitment and retention of local businesses and their workforce, which are essential to the economic welfare of the City. This purpose can be accomplished by providing dwelling units for families with annual incomes less than the area median income.

Myth, Lie, Spin #2 - Home prices are being artificially raised to subsidize IZ units.

Oh yeah? I keep hearing this, but I'm wondering, where's the data to prove this? In fact, if they are coming to this conclusion, it likely means that they are not recognizing the value of the density bonuses that developers are receiving. People say this as if it is a fact. I'd like to see the facts.

Myth, Lie, Spin #3 -Madisonians are being bamboozled and hoodwinked into thinking IZ is helping the underprivileged.

Just the opposite. IZ isn't helping the underprivileged. It was designed to help police officers, firefighters and teachers - hardly the underprivileged. Homeowners at 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or lower. 60% AMI or lower for renters. Income charts are available on the City's website.

Myth, Lie, Spin #4 - With minimal investigation you will find that this ordinance has been a complete failure.

What is this based on? Truly a minimal, inadequate investigation. The city council asked staff to prepare a report to the council on various questions people had about inclusionary zoning. The report is overdue, but also, much of the information that is necessary isn't yet available. Staff expect to have a draft of the report available in the next week or so. It's a little soon to call IZ a complete failure without a proper investigation.

Myth, Lie, Spin #5 - IZ was supposed to mix income levels within neighborhoods. This has not been accomplished.

Of course not, there are only about 20 IZ homes built at the moment and it will take years to accomplish truly mixed income neighborhoods. This ordinance won't fix years of failure to build inclusive neighborhoods overnight.

There was one thing that the writer said that I agree with, "There are many layers to this ordinance that need to be explored and reported." Let's get the report, fix the obvious problem with the ordinance, the equity model, and give it a chance to work before declaring IZ a failure.


Note: I probably should know, but I don't know who Gabe is. All I could find on the internet was his non-existent blog call "Buy Madison Homes". No insult intended to Gabe, in fact, I'd like to meet him and find out where he got his information to write his letter as it clearly is a list of talking points from somewhere. Read more!

Reporting in absentia

Every once in a while, a temptation comes along . . . it's 9:00 at night (or later) and a reporter calls to find out what happened at the meeting I was at for the last 3.5 hours. They weren't at the meeting and they're calling anyone who will pick up the phone to find out what happened. And trust me, not a lot of people want to pick up the phone after a 3.5 hour long meeting. Dinner, maybe a drink, but talking to a reporter doesn't really sound like what a normal person would do after an 8 hour work day followed by a long meeting. Chances are pretty great, depending upon the meeting, I may end up being the only source (who may or may not appear in the story) that was actually at the meeting. So, what if . . . I just started making things up?

Ok, I wouldn't really do it . . . as tempting as it would be.

Here's the real problem. The next morning, when I read the story, or later that night when I hear the story on the news, at least I can judge if what I said got appropriately translated and reflects what happened at the meeting. (Tho, I can't do anything about it if it doesn't.) However, if you weren't there, you'll never know. Then, I think about all the stories I read in the paper, and I wonder, was the reporter even at the meeting or event? If not, who was the source? What motivated the source to tell the reporter what they told them?

I suppose I can understand. The newspapers/tv stations/radio stations don't want to have their reporter sitting through a 3.5 hour meeting. The reporter doesn't want to waste time waiting for the item of interest to come up. If you have sources you can rely on - it's a shortcut, which I can understand, but it just doesn't seem right. Seems like alot of room for error or abuse. There has to be a better way to get our "news", doesn't there? Read more!

Burning Down the House(s)

So this is kind of embarrassing. I was talking to Judy Olson the other day about the homes that were burned on the corner of Winnebago and 1st St . . . and . . . ahem . . . we both were wondering how this happened. Both of us first heard about it at the Plan Commission meeting on November 21st. And then here's the embarrassing part . . . we both thought the other one knew about it. It was a surprise to me to hear that the houses would be burned down by the fire department, but I assumed that it was discussed with the neighborhood, that precautions to remove toxic materials would be in place given that it was in the middle of a residential neighborhood and that neighborhood associations knew about it - after all, no one was complaining about it and this is a very involved, very knowledgeable neighborhood. Judy figured that it was mentioned in the plans for the project, that the plan department staff had included it in the materials and reviewed it and that she had somehow just missed it.

Well, apparently we were both mistaken. I went back and looked through the materials. They just talk about demolition of the homes, no mention of burning them. I remember someone asking and we were told that the houses were stripped of everything of value, but that was about it.

So, I went to the Fire Department website to see what they had to say about the incident. I found this press release. Odd, no real mention of burning the homes except this phrase:

Besides the tree demonstration, this recruit training will involve live fire evolutions on Thursday and Friday.

Does this seem a little unclear to you? When you read that press release about the dangers of Christmas tree fires did you know that they would be burning down homes that would be smoldering days later?

Contrast this with another home and barn that were recently burned by the fire department. Seem odd to you that they were concerned about informing the public when they were burning down a house and a barn surrounded by a cornfield, but not when they were burning down homes in the heart of the near east side? Read more!

All that is uninteresting . ..

So, yesterday in the Wisconsin State Journal, Melanie Conklin accused me of being wonkish in my blogging and too focused on policy. While that may be bad for her gossip column, there's a good reason why I'm policy focused and wonkish . . . Blogging about my day is completely uninteresting . . . I'll show you.

Today was Rob's birthday, so we both took the day off. We slept in. Got up, went to a movie. (Yes, it was Harry Potter - It was the first chance we had to go at the same time.) After the movie, we participated in the annual homage to capitalism and did some Christmas shopping - at big box stores nonetheless. After shopping, we ate dinner and came home. Rob went to band practice for Baghdad Scuba Review and I caught up on my e-mails, went and played some Zelda (I'm having trouble getting past the flying hands and big head). Now I'm catching up on some other computer related activities and am going to bed so I can get up early in the morning.

Bored to tears yet? Yup - the wonkish and policy stuff is likely much more interesting. Had enough of this really juicy interesting stuff? Meeee tooooooooo. Don't worry, I won't bore you with this stuff again. Sorry Melanie - it's just not that interesting. Read more!

What kind of jobs does Madison need?

I've asked this question repeatedly, and it seems there is no answer, or at least not an answer people agree on. I asked this question when we were talking about creating jobs in the East Rail Corridor through TIF. Are we trying to attract one business that would create 400 jobs, or 10 businesses that would create 40 jobs, or 40 businesses that would create 10 jobs? I asked the question, but I didn't get an answer.

I also heard the Economic Development Commission members debate this in terms of creating high-tech/bio-tech jobs or jobs for the working class. Most seemed to want to create the higher end jobs so we could attract more rich people to Madison who will buy expensive homes and pay high property taxes.

And what exactly are we talking about when we talk about jobs for the "working class"? Are those manufacturing jobs? Is it a Walmart distribution center? What are we talking about?

Recently, we approved the $700,000 loan for Tomo Therapy to create jobs that make $65,000 a year. I would have gladly loaned twice that amount if we were creating jobs that make $30,000 a year. After all, I believe the area we can have the most impact on is moving people from cleaning office buildings, serving food and clerking in convenience stores to better paying jobs. I think we should be helping the un-employed and the under-employed, not those with high tech skills.

For this, and so many other reasons, we need to have an economic development plan for the City of Madison. The sooner we have one, the sooner we will have a strategy to deal with these issues. Read more!

Issues with Salvation Army

I got a phone call today from a woman, an alleged "Christian" woman. The first thing she said was that I should stop badmouthing the Salvation Army. I tried to ask her what she was talking about, but she wouldn't really answer. She proceeded to ask me why I hated Christians. Eventually, she resorted to name calling. She kept calling me "nothing". Complained that I worked in a non-profit. Suggested that I put up homeless people myself if I didn't like the way the Salvation Army did it. She continued talking over me, insulting me and calling me anti-Christian and telling me I was "nothing". I tried to explain I wasn't anti-Christian and that this wasn't a very "Christian" conversation, but she wouldn't listen. I finally had to tell her the conversation was over and hang up on her. It was one of the least "Christian" conversations I have had in a while . . . since some of the phone calls I got during the smoking ban.

What I would have said to this woman, if I could get a word in edgewise, would have been the following:

I don't care that the Salvation Army is a church, as it says on their website:

Founded in 1865 in London, England, The Salvation Army is a Christian Church dedicated to serving those persons with physical and spiritual needs in the name of Jesus Christ without discrimination.

or that their mission statement is as follows:

The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

What bothers me, is that they are the "gatekeeper" for homeless services in Dane County, which means it is the only place homeless families can go. Unfortunately, their religious beliefs intrude into their services in the following ways:

1. They require their case managers to keep their bibles on their desks, and my tax dollars help pay for that case manager.
2. Instead of providing daycare, they send the kids to bible school, and I suspect my taxpayer dollars pay for that as well. (Note: This incident happened a few years ago, the county no longer funds it.)
3. They discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. If two women and their children come in to the shelter, they don't let them stay together. One of the mom's can stay with the children, they other one has to go to the single women's shelter. I don't understand why they would break up a family who is homeless when they should be kept together so they can support each other.

Even worse, they're not even good at providing the services they do provide. The have a "warming shelter" where they can take up to 14 people who would otherwise possibly freeze to death on the street. In public meetings, they claim that they don't turn anyone away. However, the other night, there were only two families in the shelter, meantime, several families got turned away. They don't even tell people about the "warming shelter" when they turn them away.

So, I don't care that the Salvation Army is a Christian Church, but I do care that their religion bleeds over into their services to the homeless, and that their services leave quite a bit to be desired. Lose the bibles, stop discriminating against gay and lesbian couples and let people into and tell them about the warming shelter instead of turning them away, then I'll think about discontinuing complaining about the Salvation Army.

By the way, if you're going to try to make anonymous phone calls, think a little bit. I was able to get the "Christian" women's phone number off my cell phone, googled the number and got her address. Looked up the address in the voter file and now I have her name. I'm tempted to send her a copy of this blog, but it would probably freak her out too much. Read more!

Random, Preferential Economic Development Assistance?

A Story about the Decimation of the Madison Capital Revolving Fund

Sigh . . .

During the budget debate, I, along with Alders Judy Olson and Mike Verveer attempted to introduce an amendment that would have updated the City of Madison Economic Development Plan that was last updated in 1983. After an amazing display of political gymnastics, the Council essentially defeated the motion. The City's plan needs to be updated!

This became painfully apparent again last evening at the Common Council meeting when we voted to loan $700,000 to Tomo Therapy. Alder Sanborn and myself voted against it. Why? After all, it was going to keep a business in the City of Madison and create jobs. All worthy goals, but the devil is always in the details. (For more on the Common Council meeting, see the live blog from Kristian at thedailypage.com)

First of all, the money came from the Madison Capital Revolving Fund even though the proposal didn't meet the conditions for approval for funding from the fund.

A. It didn't meet the objectives of the program which are as follows:

1. Encouraging the expansion of new and existing business enterprises that create jobs for unemployed and underemployed people.

2. Preserving and expanding the housing supply within the City, including market rate housing and affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households.

3. Redeveloping blighted and underutilized properties for uses consistent with a strategy for neighborhood and downtown revitalization.

The proposal comes close to the first objective, but there was no evidence that these jobs would be for unemployed or underemployed persons. And, it doesn't actually say new jobs will be created, is says jobs were created.

B. The fund has a limit of $250,000 per loan and this loan is for $700,000.

C. The proposal is not within the geographic boundaries for the fund.

Second of all, the proposal drained the Madison Capital Revolving Fund. There was only $836,000 in the fund, and there was already commitments for $104,000 in Facade Improvement grants. So that leaves a whopping $32,000 in the fund for 2006. Luckily, there will be a repayment of $150,000 in loan repayments. When we tried to find out how quickly the fund would be replenished, that information was not available. However, they did say that the repayment schedule would be slower than the $150,000 we will be getting back next year.

Last, and definitely not least, there are many questions that should be asked. How do we decide who to give economic development assistance to? How would other companies know that they don't need to follow the rules for the Madison Capital Revolving Fund? What are the economic development priorities for the City of Madison? Who sets those priorities? Shouldn't we consider several proposals and give our money to the most worthy? Or should it be first-come, first serve? What happens when we don't have the money to help the next company that comes through the doors? What other tools do we have available? What other tools should make available? What is the plan? When are we going to stop complaining about economic development and get serious and have a community conversation about the City of Madison's Economic Development goals and priorities?

Sigh . . . this is getting ridiculous.
Read more!

Inclusionary Zoning: How many incentives are enough?

The City of Madison adopted an Inclusionary Zoning program a little less than two years ago. The theory behind the program is that the city would provide incentives to the developer and in exchange, developers would build 15% of their housing affordable to people at moderate incomes. For homeowners they would be at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) or less. For renters they would be at 60% Area Median Income or less. (For income levels see here.)

The number of incentives a developer can get are determined by how affordable the units are. A typical ownership project would get 1 point for doing 10% of the units at 80% AMI and 1 point for doing 5% at 70% AMI. To earn more points, they could make more units available or provide units at a lower level. For rental, they earn 1 point for doing 10% of the units at 60% AMI and 1 point for doing 5% at 50% AMI. (For more details see charts on page 5 of the ordinance.)

Ever since the ordinance passed, developers have contended that the incentives are not working. The current ordinance provides the following incentives at 1 point each:

1. Density Bonus - a ten percent (10%) bonus, unless a development has four (4) or more stories and at least seventy-five percent (75%) of parking is provided underground or has forty-nine (49) or fewer detached dwelling units in which case, each point provides a twenty percent (20%) bonus. No more than three (3) points may be used for a density bonus. An additional density bonus may be available based on applicable approval standards in the Zoning Code.

2. A reduction in Park Development fees for on-site inclusionary dwelling unit, pursuant to the requirements in Sec. 20.16. No more than one (1) point may be used to reduce Park Development fees. A park developed to City of Madison standards prior to the time it would be developed under City of Madison plans shall be maintained for up to five (5) years by the applicant.

3. A reduction in Park dedication requirements, pursuant to the requirements in Sec. 16.23(8)(f). No more than one (1) point may be used to reduce Park dedication requirements.

4. Twenty-five percent (25%) reduction in Parking Requirements, if approved, pursuant to Sec. 28.11(8)(2)(c). No more than one (1) point may be used to reduce Parking Requirements.

5. Non-City provision of street tree landscaping.

6. A cash subsidy from the Inclusionary Zoning Special Revenue Fund disbursed pursuant to the rules of that fund of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) per inclusionary dwelling unit that are provided for families with an AMI denoted by an asterisk in 3. above or from Tax Incremental District funds, disbursed pursuant to adopted policies, for units provided to families with an AMI denoted by an asterisk in 3. above. No more than two (2) points may be used for any cash subsidy. The subsidy shall be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index and shall be subject to availability of monies in any of the above funds.

7. A cash subsidy from the Inclusionary Zoning Special Revenue Fund, disbursed pursuant to the rules of that fund of two thousand five hundred ($2,500) per inclusionary dwelling unit or from Tax Incremental District funds, disbursed pursuant to adopted policies. In either case, the subsidy shall be only for on-site inclusionary dwelling units for developments with forty-nine (49) or fewer detached dwelling units or developments with four (4) or more stories and at least seventy-five percent (75%) of parking is provided underground. No more than two (2) points may be used for any cash subsidy. The subsidy shall be adjusted annually based to the Consumer Price Index and shall be subject to availability of monies in any of the above funds.

8. One additional story for development in Downtown Design Zones, not to exceed the requirements of Sec. 28.04(14) or the height limits of the Downtown Design Zones in Sec. 28.07(6)(e).

9. Eligibility for a number of residential parking permits equal to the number of inclusionary dwelling units in Planned Development Districts, if the provisions of Sec. 12.138 are met.

10. Assistance from the Department of Planning and Development in obtaining other funding and information regarding other sources of funding related to the provision of housing.

11. For development that is located in the Central Urban Service Area and is contiguous to existing development, but for which no Neighborhood Plan exists, the preparation of a Neighborhood Plan may be funded by non-City sources upon approval of the Common Council.

So if the developer earns two points, they can choose two incentives. These incentives were all put in the ordinance at the request of the developers who worked with us on the ordinance, including Smart Growth Madison, Inc. (A group of developers who have hired a lobbyist to represent them, but they refuse to tell us who their members are.) These developers now oppose the ordinance, in part because they say the incentives which they helped create aren't working.

Admittedly, every incentive is not working out perfectly. First of all, there was no money in the Inclusionary Zoning Special Revenue Fund. I offered to sponsor a budget amendment to add money last year during the budget process for the 2005 budget, if Smart Growth Madison would support it, but they declined. They didn't want to be seen publicly asking for money. So we had to wait for a developer to qualify for a waiver and make a payment into the fund in lieu of creating the required Inclusionary Zoning to put money into the fund.

Additionally, the park fee reductions have been difficult to get. They also claim they are not getting their density bonuses, however, I believe the density bonuses are working.

In the amendments to the ordinance that the Mayor, myself and several other alders are recommending upon the advice of the staff that works with the developers on a daily basis, we are adding the following incentives:

1. Non-IZ areas of a Development - Reservation of up to ten percent (10%) of total floor area or ten percent (10%) of the developable residential area within a development for non-inclusionary dwelling unit designation. Any floor area reserved shall be for contiguous dwelling units and may include dwelling units on more than one floor if the floor area of one floor is less than ten percent (10%) of the total floor area. No more than two (2) points may be used for such reservation.

Note: The current ordinance requires equal dispersion of the inclusionary zoning (IZ) units throughout the development. This allows the developer to not put IZ units on the top levels of their building or in nicer areas of their plat. This allows them to make more profit on more expensive homes.

2. Duplexes - Up to ten percent (10%) of the inclusionary zoning units may be duplexes if both dwelling units in the duplex are inclusionary zoning units, the exterior appearance of the duplex inclusionary dwelling units is similar to dwelling units on adjacent lots, and duplexes are allowed in the zoning district. No more than two (2) points may be used for a total of not more than twenty percent (20%) of the inclusionary dwelling units.

Note: The current ordinance requires people who build single family homes, to build single family inclusionary zoning units. This change allows them to build duplexes instead of single family homes for up to 20% of their units in duplexes. This allows them to build more units on the same amount of land. i.e. a density bonus. These units are sometimes referred to as "Rusk-style" units after David Rusk who spoke several times in Madison while we were forming the ordinance and showed us homes like these from Montgomery County, Maryland.

3. Consideration of modifications to City plans, to allow residential development in areas currently identified for other uses.

Note: This allows them to build more residential units in areas than previously planned. i.e. another density bonus.

In addition to these incentives, I continue to ask, ad nausium, what other incentives they think would work. I welcome any and all suggestions for additional incentives, but I rarely hear any. What more could the city provide?

Read more!

Inclusionary Zoning & the American Dream: How much equity should a homebuyer get when they sell their home?

Recent local discussions about changes or repeal of Madison's Inclusionary Zoning* program have focused on several issues. The first one I'd like to address is what we refer to as the "equity model". The equity model determines how much money the owner of a house purchased through the inclusionary zoning program gets and how much money the city gets when the inclusionary zoning homebuyer sells their home.

Currently in the ordinance, there is a VERY complicated equity model (see page 10). The idea behind it, which I never bought into but was supported by Ald. Brandon, the Mayor and others, is that they wanted buyers to be incentivized to move out of their homes after about 11 years. So the buyer gets a different percentage of the "market equity" (the money the buyer gets because of the increase in the value of the home) depending upon when the buyer moves out. The maximum amount of the equity the buyer could get is 50% of the market equity but that is only in year 11. Additionally, if the buyer sells their home in the first 2 years, they would get no market equity at all.

In addition to the "market equity", there is also "improvement equity" that is based on improvements that someone makes to the home and the "paid equity" which is what the homebuyer puts into the home. In this model, there are requirements about notices to the City about improvements that the buyer makes, the City has to purchase every home in order to keep it affordable, it is complicated for the City to keep track of the value of the homes and it is complicated to explain to the homebuyer. Additionally, we are hearing reports that homebuyers don't want to purchase the homes because the program is too complicated.

The changes that have been recommended by the Mayor, myself and others gets rid of the complicated formulas, the complicated improvements issue, the notice required to the city when someone refinances a home and hopefully, is easier for the homebuyer to understand.

In the changes that we recommended the equity is calculated as follows:

1. If a home is worth x, but is being sold at an inclusionary zoning price of y, the amount of the equity the City has in the home is x - y.

2. If x - y = 25% of the value of the home, when the home is sold the city gets 25% of appraised value of the home because the City helped to reduce the price of the home by 25% in order to make it affordable.

This eliminates the complicated equity formula, likely gives the homeowner a larger portion of the market equity in the home and hugely simplifies the ordinance as described above. If a person makes improvements to the home, we don't need to figure out the value of the improvements because improvements will be included in the market value of the home. Also, part of the policy decision is that part of the way to keep the homes affordable is to not make major improvements (adding a room, etc.) and yet the homeowner has incentives to keep the home in good repair because if they don't keep their home up, it decreases in value.

The biggest criticism about these changes, which usually comes from the developers, is that the City still gets too much equity and it's not fair to the homebuyer. The recommendation I keep hearing from the folks who still don't think this is fair is that they City should only get the amount of money they put into the deal. Some are even arguing that the City shouldn't be allowed to get credit for the value of the incentives, but instead only the actual amount of cash the City invests in the homes.

In other words, if the value of x - y = $25,000, when the buyer of an inclusionary zoning home sells, the City would get $25,000. The homeowner would not only get the market value on the amount of their investment into the home (y), but they would get the value of the increase in market equity on the entire value of the home (x).

Some people at least argue that the City should get some percent for inflation, others argue we should not. Those who argue that the City should only recieve equity for the portion of cash the City puts in argue that because they do not want to recognize our incentives have value, primarily they do not want to recognize the value of density bonuses.

Note: There are some issues surrounding the equity model that merit further discussion in the days to come. In the changes to the ordinance, we use a second mortgage to keep the home affordable, which needs further explanation. Additionally, there is the issue of how affordable these homes will be in the future and if we will be able to sustain the affordability or continue to invest in these homes. This is just the first in a series of comments on inclusionary zoning, so stay tuned.

* Inclusionary Zoning is a program that requires developers/home builders to provide 15% of their homes at more affordable prices. Affordable housing is defined as lower than 80% of the Area Median Income for homebuyers and 60% of the Area Median Income for renters. Income levels and other information about the program can be found here.
Read more!

Why taxes go up . . .

It's that time of the year, tax bills are out. I thought this e-mail exchange might provide some info for folks.

Hi, Brenda ~~

Last summer I sent you a note pointing out that my property taxes were going up at an alarming rate and that, within 10 years at the current rate of increase, the property tax bill on my humble bungalow on the near east side would be roughly 70% of my Social Security check. And, that obviously a retired working stiff like myself could no longer afford to live in my home.

You didn't answer but I did get a nice letter from the Mayor. (Thus the cc.) In it, he explained that my taxes were not going up as I had feared. Apparently I had miscalculated or something.

Whew, was I relieved.

Anyway, now I got my tax bill and, contrary to what the Mayor promised, the bill is up over $250 from last year.

Obviously, given the Mayor's assurances, this bill is in error. Therefore I will be paying only last year's amount. I will be enclosing a note to the City Treasurer, explaining the error and referring any questions to you and the Mayor.

My response was as follows:

The amount we tax per $1000 of home value did indeed go down, it's called the mill rate and it goes down every year. Likely, the value of your home went up (I see it went from $174,000 to $195,100 last time, perhaps you should consider challenging your assessment next time it comes out.) Additionally, the city is only a portion of your tax bill. I have no idea what the mayor told you or how you are calculating what you are not going to pay or which portion you are claiming it the city's fault. However, I suggest that you discuss this with the treasurer's office, the assessors office or perhaps an attorney prior to withholding your taxes. Referring the city treasurer to me or the mayor will not relieve you of your duty to pay your taxes. One final thought, you could contact the comptrollers office and look into the reverse mortgage the city offers for people on fixed incomes.

In fact, this was one of the lowest increases in the budget we have had in years. The tax levy increase was 4.35% while the 15 year average is 5.75%

Funny thing about this e-mail was - it came from someone with a state e-mail address. If this person is retired, does the state allow them to keep their e-mail addresses?

Read more!

City Lobbying Law Trainings for Chamber of Commerce Members Only?

The Chamber of Commerce recently used the lobbying law to rally their troops. They also fought hard to make sure that as many of their members as possible were exempt from having to disclose their lobbying efforts to affect City policy. Having been quite effective in convincing the mayor's office and the majority of the City Council to go along with their plan, why do their members need specialized /individual training?

My curiosity about this began on November 22 when the Common Council members got the following e-mail from City Attorney Michael May:

Under the recently amended lobbying ordinance, training is to be provided twice every year. Working with the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce, our office recently put on two programs on the new ordinance. These were well attended by representatives of the Madison business community.

A third program is scheduled for Thursday, December 15, from 10 am to noon, in room 260, MMB. The Chamber again is assisting in notifying interested parties of this training. If you or someone in your department thinks this program would be of interest, please contact Connie Shomberg at the Chamber so that we have an idea of the number of attendees.

Connie's email address is cshomberg@greatermadisonchamber.com

The program will be recorded by Madison City Channel for future viewing.

I thought it was odd that I didn't know about the first two trainings, but didn't think much about it until a friend, who is a lobbyist for another organization sent me the following e-mail:

I'm a registered lobbyist and heard absolutely nothing about the first two trainings and certainly have not received an "invitation" to the upcoming one. Very considerate to give me just one option - during business hours, no less - to attend the training.

So then, I checked with my staff Megin (Hicks) McDonell, who happens to registered both as a lobbyist for the Tenant Resource Center and as an individual principal. She hadn't received any notice of any of the meetings either, either at work as a lobbyist or at home as a principal.

So then, I checked with the City Attorney to find out who the notices went out to. On November 28th, he told me:

Chamber is sending invitations to all registered lobbyists and principals and I notified City people for the third one. I may use a different method next year, but this seemed to work OK given the time limits we had to work under.

Obviously, based on talking to my friend and the my staff, that didn't happen so I asked him to check into it. On November 29, the City Attorney got back to me with this explanation:

The Chamber did not include lobbyists/principals on the notices for the first two. Why? I'm not sure, but I think it related to the timing of setting the dates and not having time to make the mailings. I didn't find out that they weren't notified until just before the training.

They are sending out mailings to lobbyists for the one on December 15.

It is also going to be available for review from City Channel.

At this point, I pointed out to the City Attorney that having the Chamber contact their members about these trainings was probably the least effective way to reach those most impacted by the ordinance. After all, it is the developers and non-profits that are most likely to have to register and very few of them are members of the Chamber of Commerce. Arranging trainings with the real estate industry related groups and non-profits that get money from the City would probably have been much more effective. This just seemed odd to me.

Meantime, this week my staff got notices of the next training. The notice said that it was "The City of Madison and GMCC Lobbying Ordinance Training". Included in this notice there is the following language:

Registration is Required: Please e-mail ordinancetraining@greatermadisonchamber.com if you are interested in attending. A confirmation e-mail, including directions will be sent out to you.

Deadline for registration is Tuesday, December 13.

Now something new was bothering me. Why do you need to register in advance for a City meeting? And why would you have to register through the Chamber of Commerce? Was this some type of membership recruitment tool for the Chamber? If so, why was the City cooperating in this way? What kind of government holds a public meeting and requires members to register through the local Chamber of Commerce to attend and relies on the Chamber of Commerce to send out the notices?

Oh, and by the way. I just talked to my friend. She still hasn't gotten notice of the training. And neither have the two other registered lobbyists that she is in contact with. Read more!

Holes in our Safety Net

Ok, I'm not sure I fully understand the full impact of the new rules about child support and W-2 payments but I do understand the very hard working women who work in my office. I understand that they were visibly upset because they are going to have to exist on a whole lot less money than they were before. Why? Because the federal government decided that the child support they were receiving will be used to reduce the payments they get for participating in W-2. I understand they are worried about how the new rules would effect their food stamps, and childcare assistance, and mileage and how were they going to pay their rent? I also understand, as Lisa Subeck very eloquently points out, that the W-2 system is less than perfect. Ok, it downright sucks. I also realize, that these hard working women who have so many medical and other life issues, are doing the best they can to survive in world of rules I can't begin to try to understand, even with my law degree.

What I can't understand, is why, today, when there was a client in my office that was having a major life crisis, the "safety net" seemed to have so many holes in it. And instead of the "safety net" working, a woman in my office, who was receiving W-2 assistance herself, offered a homeless woman a warm, safe place to sleep tonight.

I missed the beginning of the story, as I was out of the office. However, I came back to the office and there was a woman who was speaking in very broken English talking on the one of our phones, and she was crying. (OK, that part wasn't so unusual) She was explaining how she couldn't go back to her home because her roommate had threatened to kill her child. Since she was having trouble expressing herself, the woman in my office that receives W-2 assistance if she volunteers in my office x numbers of hours a week was helping her explain her situation to various social service agencies. This client made multiple phone calls, and used our office to receive some return calls. After numerous calls, and subsequent rejections from several social service agencies around town who were all full (including the Domestic Abuse shelter who told her to go home and that they would call her back there - I really hope there was some miscommunication here!) the woman decided to go to the Salvation Army (who had already told her that they were full). She was going to try to see if she could get into the "Warming Shelter" (why didn't the Salvation Army tell her this was an option?), which is an opportunity for 14 desperate people to sleep on a mattress in the hallway to avoid freezing to death. No one in our office had much hope she would get in and told her to come back if nothing worked out. (Up to this point, still, nothing unusual.) As the woman was leaving, the woman who receives W-2 assistance wrote down her home and work phone number on a piece of paper. She said to the woman "If you don't find a safe place to sleep tonight, call me and you can stay at my house. Even if you're still having problems a month from now, call me." The client gave the woman who works for us a big long hug, and thanked her for her warmth and understanding.

I've been doing this for more than 10 years, and I learned a long time ago, you can't take clients home with you and there are only so many hotel rooms, security deposits and "eviction prevention" payments you can personally pay for. However, the kindness of the human spirit never ceases to amaze me . . . and the failure of the safety net never fails to disappoint and anger me.

As my friend Nan Cheney has been known to say, no, demand of elected officials "Do Better." We definitely need to do better. Read more!

Open Records Woes . . .

The first open records request by Citizens for Responsible Government's for e-mails didn't work out so well.

So Ms. Mees submitted a second request. Upon submitting that second request, I received the following e-mail from Lisa Veldran, one of the two staff for the 20 City of Madison Alders:

At the present, my time is fully occupied in responding to other public records requests while also coordinating the regular business of this office. In order to provide Ms. Mees with a timely response to her current records request, I am asking that you, as the custodian of your records, contact Information Services to coordinate fufilling this request and to set up a time for you to review your emails.

I have attached the request to this email. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.

Well, ok. I don't have time either, but I understand. Of course, this requires us alders to go in, during times that city staff are working, which is when most of us alders should be working at our full-time jobs. So I arranged to go in at 7 am this morning so I could get to work at 9 am.

Well, it was an interesting experience to say the least. This time there were 4,276 e-mails that had "district2" in them and another folder that I didn't get a chance to look in. I started going through the first 400 e-mails which took about 45 minutes.

First, the annoying thing was that if someone sent an e-mail to all 20 of us, since that e-mail was received by 20 people, it showed up 20 times. Now, was I supposed to save all 20 of those e-mails to be given to the requester, or just one? I mean, I could save a lot of time by eliminating the obvious duplicates, but I wouldn't want to be accused of not handing over all of my records.

Second, I didn't see any of the e-mails forwarded to us from the Common Council staff forwarding various e-mails on the smoking issue. We received 2 - 16 e-mails attached at a time a few times a week and it didn't appear that those e-mails were showing up.

Third, I was noticing that I was getting e-mails I had forwarded to another person and that person was replying, but the e-mails were only showing up once. So, if person A e-mailed me about smoking that e-mail wasn't showing up. When I forwarded that e-mail to person B, that e-mail wasn't showing up. Only when person B replied were the e-mails showing up. Why?

The final straw was when I was reading an e-mail from Dorothy Borchardt and I didn't remember it. I read the e-mail twice and couldn't figure out what was wrong and why I hadn't noticed this particular e-mail earlier. Then I realized, it wasn't an e-mail to me. It was to Cindy Thomas. (As an aside, I'm sure neither Dorothy or Cindy ever expected me to read that particular e-mail.)

At this point, I called the city staff person over and we agreed, it probably wasn't a good idea to continue. It appears they will need to re-run the search and then I'll go in again, but for the next two days they will be doing a system upgrade, so they can't have us come in until Thursday.

It looks like if the same number of records are found, it will take me about 10 hours to look at all of my e-mails, that is a full day of work. Shouldn't there be an easier way to do this?

On a side note, it is amazing how many times the word "smoking gun" appears in e-mails about Walmart, or Alito, or on various other issues.

, Read more!

Lobbying - December Contacts

Ok - I'm going to try this . . . I'm going to track all contacts, including e-mails, phone calls, private meetings, appearances at meetings, snail mail and any other types of contacts. It is alot to keep track of without administrative assistance of some sort, but hopefully with the miracle of modern technology, I'll be able to enter it all here whenever I can get on-line. To be clear, the lobbyists I'm tracking are those who are representing the interests of a business, for-profit or non-profit and may or may not be covered by the new ordinance. Lets try this for a month and see how it goes . . .

Further information on November contacts and the history on lobbying.

(If you're keeping track, this looks like roughly 116 contacts this month and could actually be more than that as some of the phone calls and e-mails were more than one. I also missed some folks at that DMI meeting. I have also noted some lobbyists that attended meetings but I don't think engaged in any lobbying activities. It's hard to know who to list here, since hardly any of them are actually required to register as lobbyists.)

Thursday, December 1

Downtown Madison Inc Economic Development Committee
I didn't write down names, but I remember the following folks being there:
Susan Springman, Executive Management Inc (likely exempt}
Bill Kunkler, Fiore Companies (likely exempt)
Allen Arntsen, Foley and Lardner (likely exempt?)
Susan Schmidt - staff lobbyist for Downtown Madison Inc (not exempt)
Kevin O'Driscoll - Todd McGrath & Associates (likely exempt)
Ron Tractenberg - contract lobbyist, I have no idea who he may or may not have been representing (exempt?)
Sharon McCabe (likely exempt)
Ed Clarke,VP Strategic Innovations Madison Area Technical College (likely exempt)
Tim Anderson - Schreiber/Anderson & Associates (likely exempt)
Orange Schroeder - Orange Tree Imports
I know I missed a few other folks who were in the room.

Economic Development Commission
Delora Newton ( lobbyist for Smart Growth Madison), Phil Salkin, lobbyist for the Realtors Association for Southeastern Wisconsin and Susan Schmidt , lobbyist for Downtown Madison Inc were all present for the discussion of Inclusionary Zoning, but none spoke. (None are exempt except I don't think they actually engaged in any lobbying activities)

While I was there two gentlemen appeared on the Room Tax issue, JZ (Jason?) from a Fitchburg Hotel and another guy who I think represented the Fitchburg Chamber of Commerce. (ugh, this is why this is hard, I don't even know these people) JZ spoke, the other gentleman just registered to answer questions. (both are likely exempt)

Recieved information on "twin homes" from Jeff Rosenberg at Veridian Homes. (likely exempt)

E-mails and phone calls from Chris Larent with Gorman and Company re: TIF for 800 E Washington Ave. (not exempt)

E-mail from Michael Christopher representing Pres House re: Inclusionary Zoning (not exempt, I believe)

Friday, December 2

Phone call from Chris Larent with Gorman and Company re: TIF for 800 E Washington Ave. (not exempt)

E-mail from Michael Christopher representing Pres House re: Inclusionary Zoning (not exempt, I believe)

Saturday, December 3

Letter from Thomas Smith, NC Directions re: paid sick leave. (likely exempt)

Sunday, December 4

E-mail from Terrence Wall, T Wall Properties re: paid sick leave (likely exempt)

E-mail from Susan Schmitz, staff lobbyist for Downtown Madison Inc (meeting summary from the Economic Development Commission meeting, is that lobbying?)

Monday, December 5

Testimony by Ron Tractenberg on behalf of Michael and Julie Schurr re: 5435-5436 Lake Mendota Drive.

(Note: This was a very light Plan Commission agenda, and the only one in December, so normally, there would be MANY more lobbyists that I talked to or heard from on a plan commission meeting day.),

Tuesday, December 6

Email from Brendon McGrath, McGrath and Associates re: marketing/advertising for Nolen Shores (exempt?)

Email from Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co re: article in paper (exempt?)

Meeting with Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Wednesday, December 7

Email from Sheila Przesmicki, Executive Director, UNIDOS Against Domestic Violence re: paid sick leave (exempt?)

Email from Jason Weber, Interlink re: Inclusionary Zoning financing (exempt)

Housing Committee appearances and spoke in support of repeal of the inclusionary zoning ordinance:
Delora Newton, Smart Growth Madison, Inc. (not exempt)
Nancy Jensen, Apartment Association of Southcentral Wisconsin (not exempt)
Phil Salkin, Realtors Association of Southcentral Wisconsin (not exempt)

Meeting with Vicky Selkowe, Economic Justice Institute re: paid sick leave (exempt)

Thursday, December 8

Email from Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Phone call from Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co, re: TIF for 800 block of E Washington. (not exempt)

Letter from City of Monona re: opposition to the barriers (er, "temporary diverters") on Cold Spring Rd. (exempt)

Friday, December 9

I got my council mail today and it made me think of all the mail we get that is potentially "lobbying". Today I received the following:
School Reform News from The Heartland Institute (exempt?)
"Higher Standard" newsletter from St. Mary's Hospital regarding their development (exempt?)
MTI Solidarity newsletter (exempt), and
SEIU Local 150 re: paid sick leave (exempt)
Plus I recieved the BID December/January Newsletter via e-mail. (exempt)

Meeting with Alex Salutos re: Inclusionary Zoning/Affordable Housing programs (exempt)

E-mail from Jenifer Robinn Thompson, employee at Maduro re: and exemption to the smoking ordinance for Maduro. (exempt)

Saturday, December 10

E-mail with Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian Homes re: Inclusionary Zoning (exempt)

Letter from Owen McCusker, Executive Director Community Living Alliance re: paid sick leave (exempt?)

Visit from the Chamber of Commerce . . . ooops, I guess that doesn't count, since it was only their door! :) (My apologies for the inside joke! The Council Holiday party skit put on by the freshman made use of a door, borrowed from the Chamber of Commerce. This one, is definitely exempt!)

Sunday, December 11

Phone conversation with Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian Homes re: Inclusionary Zoning (exempt)

Monday, December 12

Email from Scott Dell, CPA, All Sat Digital re: paid sick leave (exempt)

Talked to Curt Brink, developer re: inclusionary zoning, misc. development issues (exempt)

Phone call from Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co, re: TIF for 800 E Washington (not exempt)

Emails with Alex Salutos, consultant re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Tuesday, December 13

Email from Jeff Tallard, Tallard Apartments re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Emails from Alex Salutos, private consultant re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Email from Nancy Kay Larson, Raw Materials, Interior Design Resource re: paid sick leave (exempt)

Private meeting re: Inclusinary Zoning with the following people:
Steve Schooler, Executive Director, Porchlight (exempt?)
Rita Giovannoni, Executive Director, Independent Living (exempt?)
Greg Rosenberg, Executive Director, Madison Area Community Land Trust (exempt?)
Eileen Mershart, Executive Director, YWCA (exempt?)
Marianne Morton, Executive Director, Commonwealth Development (exempt?)
Frank Staniszewski, Executive Director, Madison Development Corporation (exempt?)
Tim Radelet, Foley & Lardner (exempt?)
Dean Loumos, Executive Director, Housing Initiatives (exempt?)
Deniste Matyka, Executive Director, Project Home (exempt?)
Brian Miller, Executive Director, Habitat for Humanity (exempt?)

People who appeared to answer questions on various actions before the Common Council:
Edwin Richards and Mary Peters, Cool Runnings Nikelwa, LLC, re: liquor license (exempt)
Eric Lawson, Executive Management, Inc re: rezoning and demolition for 12 story buislidng at 700 Block University Ave (130,000 sq ft retail, 73,500 sq ft office, 91,000 sq ft health center, 60,500 Activity Center, 430 residential units) (not exempt)
Brian Munson from Vandewalle & Associates for Veridian Homes re: rezoning for 702 S Point Rd (274 Single Family lots, 9 duplex lots, 4 Multi-family lots) (not exempt)
Ron Tractenberg paid third-party lobbyist for Miller Construction re: rezoning 3270 - 3276 Maple Grove Dr (42 condo units) (not exempt)
Adam Fink, Joseph Freed & Associates re: rezoning and demolition at 702 N Midvale Blvd (not exempt?)
Ken Saikai, Ken Saikai Design for Joseph Freed & Associates re: rezoning and demolition at 702 N Midvale Blvd (exempt?)

Seemingly paid people appearing at the City Council meeting on various items:
Dar Ward, Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin re: Comprehensive Plan and Central Park (exempt)
Heather Mann, Urban Open Space Foundation re: Madison Comprehensive Plan (exempt)
Phil Salkin, Realtors Association of Southcentral Wisconsin re: Madison Comprehensive Plan (not exempt)
Walter Ostrenga, Chief of Police, City of Monona re: barriers on Cold Spring (exempt)
Peter McKeever, Monona City Council re: barriers on Cold Spring (exempt)
Bob Van Etten, Fire Chief, City of Monona re: barriers on Cold Spring (exempt)

Letter from Chief Glenn Linzmeier, Town of Blooming Grove Fire Department re: barriers on Cold Spring (exempt)

Email from Kris Grutzner, BID Manager, Downtown Madison Inc, re: parking on the square (exempt?)

Email from Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian Homes re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Email from Greg Rosenberg, Madison Area Community Land Trust re: inclusionary zoning (exempt?)

Registrations from:
Michael Sertich, Bulk Petroleum re: Acquiring land at 2609 E Washington Ave for E Washington reconstruction, including potential condemnation (exempt?)

Ron Trachtenberg, representing Anheiser Busch re: Keg registration (not exempt)

Ron Trachtenberg, representing Mr. & Mrs. Emerick re: Attachment of land from Middleton to Madison (not exempt)

Wednesday, December 14

Email from Susan Schmitz, Downtown Madison Inc. re: parking on the square (not exempt)

Meeting with Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co re: TIF and IZ for 800 E Washington (not exempt), IZ in general (exempt)

Thursday, December 15
Phone message from Gary Gorman, Gorman & Co re: TIF for 800 E Washington (not exempt)

E-mail from Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian re: Inclusionary Zoning (exempt)

E-mail from Andrew Millar, Studio 924 on Johnson St re: plowing - or lack thereof (exempt?)

Friday, December 16

Meeting with Tripp Widder, Chris Laurent, Pat Mullins all representing Gorman & Co re: TIF for 800 E Washington (not exempt)

Phone call with Gary Gorman, Gorman & Co re: TIF for 800 E Washington (not exempt)

Saturday, December 17

Email from Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co re: TIF for 800 E Washington (not exempt)

Sunday, December 18

E-mail from Dave Redick, Badger Ventures of Wisconin re: paid sick leave (exempt)

Monday, December 19

None, I really did take the day off.

Tuesday, December 20

Email from Jody Glynn Patrick, Publisher, In Business Magazine re: paid sick leave (exempt)

Email from Phil Salkin, Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin re: Inclusionary Zoning and marketing (not exempt)

Email from Randy Bruce, Knothke & Bruce working for Great Dane Development re: condo project at 627 E Mifflin. (not exempt)

Wednesday, December 21

None

Thursday, December 22

None

Friday, December 23

mail from Adam Jacobson, Data Collections, Chamberlain Research Consultants re: paid sick leave

Saturday, December 24

None

Sunday, December 25

None

Monday, December 26

None

Tuesday, December 27

email from Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian Homes re: skinny streets

phone message from Chris Laurent, Gorman & Company re: TIF for 800 E Washington Ave

e-mail from Jenny Gile, unknown company re: renting Collins House kitchen facilities (exempt?)

e-mail from Tenant Advocacy Group re: paid sick leave (exempt? I don't think anyone who signed is paid)

Wednesday, December 28

I picked up my mail today from the council office and it had been at least a week, perhaps two, since I picked it up so there were the following items in the mail:

Holiday greeting cards from Eppstein Uhen, Tweedee Productions, Meriter (from their lobbyist, Liz Schumacher) - (exempt)

Newsletters from Madison Teachers Union, Baxter and Woodman (consulting engineers), Privatization Watch (Reason Foundation), 4C's Childcare, MSCR (exempt?)

Solicitation to become a member of the Urban Open Space Foundation (exempt)

Memo from Linda Fox, Economic Policy Institute analyzing the City of Madison Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (exempt?)

Report from Insitute of Women's Policy Research on Paid Sick Leave (I don't know who sent it) (exempt?)

Letter from Terrance Wall, T Wall Properties bcc'd on letter to Mayor Dave re: thank you for TIF for Kipp for the Center for Industry and Commerce plus a description of Tribecca Village in Middleton and potential similar project yet to be developed for Madison with a request for TIF for a similar new project and help finding a site (not exempt if a project happens)

Phone conversation and e-mails with Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co re: TIF for 800 E Washington

Thursday, December 29

Meeting with Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian Homes re: Inclusionary Zoning (exempt)

Friday, December 30
None

Saturday, December 31
None


Read more!

Lobbying - November Contacts

Ah, lobbying! One of the reasons I started this blog. Many of you may be familiar with my attempts to close loopholes in the City's lobbying ordinance, my frustration that they city promised to start enforcing the law but nothing was happening and the fact that I subsequently filed several complaints. Those complaints led to bogus complaints against me by Aaron Frank and threats of legal action by Terrance Wall, who did actually file a complaint with the State office regulating attorneys, but nothing ever came of the either of the complaints. Tho you won't read anything in the newspapers clearing my name, only the bogus accusations. It also let to limited immediate success and resulted in the city attorney writting letters to over 350 potential lobbyists that were not registered. It also had some bizarre results where people clearly over-reported their lobbying activities. This whole mess ended when the mayor cut a deal, er compromise, with the business community, which either the business community backed out of or the mayor misrepresented. Then they refused to delay the discussion on the lobbying law and the council made the many people waiting to testify on smoking wait while they voted to gut the lobbying law. Most average citizens didn't seem to care at the time. I also got an unprecedented one, two, three, four editorials supporting my efforts from the Capital Times. It also resulted in a little public spat with the mayor. I have blogged about why this issue is important and how it affected the smoking issue over at Dane101.com and there have been several threads on various forums, one of which led to me blogging at madison.com.

Lobbying typically comes in the form of private meetings, e-mails, phone calls, handouts at meetings, snail mail, running into someone on the street and appearances at public meetings. That's alot to track when you are tracking the activities of many different lobbyists, but I have pledged to start tracking these activities to the best of my ability.

So, in order to start reporting as much of it as I catch, I started this blog. And to get started, I'm just going to list all the private meetings I had in November. Many of these contacts may no longer count as "lobbying" under the new law, but these were definitely contacts designed to influence my decision on issue important to the companies that these people worked for or own. Starting in December, I'll update as frequently as I can with as many contacts as I can track . . . my biggest problem is going to be remembering everyone's names and noting all the appearances at the meetings!

November - Scheduled private meetings

Wednesday, Nov 2 - Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian re: inclusionary zoning (likely exempt)
Thursday, Nov 3 - Mary Feldt Parktowne Management re: paid sick leave (likely exempt)
Thursday, Nov 3 - Henry Sanders, Chamber of Commerce re: paid sick leave (not exempt, lobbying organization)
Friday, Nov 4 - Daniel Guerra Building Wisconsin, Inc. (not exempt, non-profit seeking money from the city)
Friday, Nov 4 - Joe Krupp, re: inclusionary zoning (likely exempt)

Tuesday, Nov 8 - Several people from Gorman and Company (Pat Mullen, Chris Laurent and ????) re: TIF for 800 E Washington (not exempt, seeking city money)
Friday, Nov 11 - David Simon and Jeff Rosenberg from Veridian re: Inclusionary Zoning (likely exempt)
Friday, Nov 11 - Todd McGrath re: Inclusionary Zoning (likely exempt)

Monday, Nov 14 - Tim Sherry from Suby Von Haden & Associates re: Inclusionary Zoning (likely exempt)
Monday, Nov 14 - Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co re: TIF for 800 E Wash (not exempt, seeking city funds)
Tuesday, Nov 15 - Gary Gorman, Chris Laurent and ???? from Gorman & Company re: Inclusionary Zoning (likely exempt)
Tuesday, Nov 15 - Doug and Mark Nelson, Developers re: Inclusionary Zoning (likely exempt) Also talked to me about a development on 600 block E Washington (likely not exempt)
Tuesday, Nov 15 - Michael Christopher and Mark Elsdon from the Pres House regarding the impact of inclusionary zoning on their project (exempt?)
Wednesday, Nov 16 - David Nassar, Walmart Watch (exempt?)
Thursday, Nov 17 - Alex Salutos (has his own consulting company) re: inclusionary zoning (exempt?)
Friday, Nov 18 - Jennifer Feyerherm, Sierra Club re: Upcoming hearing on polution at MG&E N Blount plant

Monday, Nov 21 - Sue Springman and Greg Rice, Executive Management Inc re: project at University Square (not exempt)
Monday, Nov 21 - Jason Weber and Dan Brinkman, Interlink, re: inclusionary zoning (likely exempt)
Tuesday, Nov 22 - Tim Magner (don't know the business name) re: potential development on Allied Drive (likely not exempt)
Tuesday, Nov 22 - Scott Harrington, Vandewalle & Associates re: E Washington Build (exempt, city contract) Read more!

More Smoke . . .

The recent efforts by Heather Mees and the Citizens for Responsible Government to recall the mayor are just silly. I don't agree with their politics, I don't agree with their strategy and I don't agree that the mayor should be recalled. And I was beginning to think that I disagreed with their claims that based on information they received from the city that only Ira Sharenow and 61 other people had contacted us about the smoking debate. There was definitely something wrong with the information the newspapers had printed about her recent open records request regarding the smoking issue.

You see, during the smoking debate, I had started keeping a tally of new individuals who contacted me about the smoking issue. My information was telling me that I had 262 contacts between July 20, 2005 and September1, 2005. I didn't finish counting after September 1 because the trends were staying about the same and I ran out of time. During the time period I tracked, I had 45 contacts from people in my district and 67% of them supported the smoking ban. I had 88 contacts from people in the city but outside of my district and 59% of them supported the smoking ban so that city-wide I had 133 contacts and 62% of the people who contacted me that I knew were from the City of Madison supported the ban. 77% of the 43 people who contacted me from outside the city supported the ban. And the last category - people who did not leave an address was made up of 86 people and there only 40% supported the ban. Overall totals were that of the 262 contacts I had, 51% supported the ban. And yet she was claiming that we had only be contacted by 61 people. Something smelled. Was Heather mis-representing what they found? Had the newspaper gotten it wrong? Did something go wrong with the program that the CRG used to analyze the data? Did she get the right information? Honestly, they all were distinct possibilities.

It was bugging me so much, I went an got a copy of the information she was given. With about 35 minutes of work, I was able to figure it out. I thought I was in for a very long evening when I discovered that of the 6135 e-mails that she received 5385 contained the word/phrase "district 2". It turns out, that when you eliminate the duplicates, there were only 447 e-mails. And of course, 349 of them were to or from Ira. That only left 98 e-mails. At this point, I knew enough that I didn't look at the rest, she clearly had not received the right information.

Apparently, Ms. Mees subsequently submitted an additional open records request, and the city admits that there was some sort of oversight. Staff are saying that they did not search for the correct information, but if they had searched for "district 2" and "smoking" they should have found all of my e-mails.

Now the alders are being told they have to take several hours out of their work day (most of us have full-time jobs in addition to being an alder) and go review the information themselves during times when the IS staff is working. I'm particularly annoyed because we had gotten so much e-mail during the smoking debate that I separated them all into their own folder and they should be easy to find. And since the city archives all the information, I didn't bother to keep track of it in any other fashion. I relied on the archiving system to work properly so that we didn't need to worry about keeping our own records.

This whole thing is just bothersome. When a citizen, for whatever reason, submits and open records request, the public should have confidence that they have received the correct information. One of the keys to making a democracy work, should be the transparency of the government. The public has a right to know what influences our decisions. And hopefully, this all gets straightened out quickly and in the future, the public will be given the correct information. I called Heather to tell her the same thing. Read more!

I finally did it . . .

Yup - I finally did it, my very own blog.

I have my own website that is sorely in need of attention, I participate in the forums on thedailypage.com, I contribute to the blog at prodane.org, I have a guest blog at Dane101.com and today, as a result of my rare posts on madison.com two more media outlets asked me to consider blogging on their sites. (I did warn you about my tendencies to use run on sentences, didn't I?) But I just couldn't stand the thought of regularly blogging on a commercial site so that the corporate media could get more advertisers . . . (oh yeah, get used to the ellipses as well - I use them, and dashes, to substitute for a whole lot of punctuation.) Anyways, here I am.

Besides, I've been meaning to start posting information about the lobbyists that contact me. I just haven't been able to figure out a decent forum on which to make that information available to the public. And I don't have the time to fight with the City bureaucracy to make it happen where it should happen . . . So, on the advice of a person that hasn't steered me wrong yet, I started my own blog. (Thank you anonymous person! But you realize, this is all your fault!)

So, welcome to Brendaworld. Read more!