On Vacation . . .

Many of you have commented that I haven't blogged much recently, that is because I've been busy trying to leave town for a vacation I planned last October . . . I'm going to Tulum, Mexico for a relaxing vacation and leaving Madison and all it has to, ahem, offer behind . . .

So, I won't be blogging until at least February 6th, unless I find an internet cafe and the mood strikes me . . .

Otherwise, we hope to be back in town on time for Rob to play with Baghdad Scuba Review on 2/5 at the High Noon Saloon for the Battlerusa contest . . .

p.s. if you check out the Baghdad Scuba Review website, check out this video about the Hurricane Katrina Read more!

Realtors: We need a process, a special process just for us.

Some people will say the most amazing things . . .

Tonight, Phil Salkin from the Realtors Association of Southcentral Wisconsin got up in front of the plan commission and said that, despite the fact that he has been to at least two housing committee meetings, two plan commission meetings and maybe an EDC meeting or a housing subcommittee meeting, the process to talk about inclusionary zoning wasn't good enough. In addition to that public process he has also met privately with myself and five or six other realtors and in a separate meeting with Alder Golden and likely several other alders, we'll find out in about 5 more months when the lobbying reports are due.

He essentially said that he wanted a process set up to that we could sit down and talk with the Realtors for "hours" about inclusionary zoning. He wanted to know who he should talk to and what the process was going to be. He said that now, after they supported repeal and refused to talk about changes, they're willing to come to the table. Of course, this is after the ordinance has gone through two committees is about to be passed by the plan commission and it has become clear that repeal doesn't have a chance.

Now what makes him think he gets a special process? Is he somehow better than the rest of the public? Why aren't the public meetings good enough for him?

We tried to get Phil to tell us what the top three or four issues were that they had with the ordinance. He wouldn't tell us, but he offered to put it in writing . . . later. We tried to get Phil to tell us what parts of the ordinance could move forward . . . but he didn't want any part of the ordinance to move forward. We tried to get Phil to talk about specific changes that he wanted, but he said he couldn't talk about any of them individually because it had to be a complete package. He also kept talking about the "questions" that he had. I asked him what they were, he offered to write them down. Another alder recently called folks like Phil "mushrooms", cuz they like to do things in the dark and that's all I could think about when he was (not) talking.

The other criticism he had was . . . we didn't show the ordinance amendments to him before they were introduced. He said they should have been "consulted". What? I missed that in the Common Council handbook where all ordinance changes had to be cleared with the realtors before they could be introduced.

How arrogant can someone be that they think that they get a special process and have to be consulted before things get done? I guess, these are the special favors lobbyists expect, I'm just not used to them demanding them so publicly. They sure have gotten brazen since they were able to gut the lobbying ordinance and they've gotten all the media support for their anti-business rhetoric.
Read more!

IZ report is in . . .

Lisa Subeck has already written about the IZ report.

My thoughts and more details are here. Read more!

Ald. Judy Compton took lessons from the Chamber of Commerce

Folks, we have more bad numbers . . . this time, It is those big stacks of paper that Judy Compton has been waiving around while she was claiming that we have enough affordable housing. Thanks to Alder Webber, who took Judy up on her offer to give us the numbers, we have the information and . . . drum roll please . . . .

Uh, the data isn't so great.

First of all, and I'm not done looking at it yet, but first of all, she didn't look at the size of the units and the price limits for families at various AMIs. Of the units she says are under $185,000 many of them are still out of range for families due to the number of bedrooms. I eliminated hundreds of units due to this.

Second of all, the data includes info from at least the Town of Madison and Westport. Maybe other areas as well, I'm still looking. So several more units are being eliminated.

Third, when looking at the available condos, she doesn't add the condo fee to the price of the unit. The ordinance requires that you only pay 30% of your income towards your monthly housing payment, which included the condo fee. I haven't quite figured out how to address this, but likely the condo fee will bump many of the units out of the affordable range.

Fourth, while Judy Compton, and Phil Salkin from the Realtor's Association of Southcentral Wisconsin try to show that the units are spread throughout town, you will find clumps of 20 or so units in various areas that are essentially the only option for buying units. I'm working on more data for folks in this area.

I'll let you know more, as I figure it out a little bit more, but clearly, as Robbie Webber suspected, the picture isn't as rosy as she may have led us to believe. Go figure, more bad data from the business community folks. This is growing tiresome. Read more!

Mobile blogging

OK - I think I figured it out. I can now blog from my mobile phone. This could either be a really good thing . . . Or a really bad thing . . .

Read more!

OK Zach - now $2.1 Million Equals $1 Million?

Still spinning.

Still not working.

Shall I remind you . . . you distinctly said . . .

Although we now know that the extreme of it wouldn't be $21 million, it would be $2.1 million, or maybe even a less than that at a million, the real question there is at what point are average taxpayers or homeowners willing to spend money to support this ordinance.

Now, you're down to $1,000,000 worst case scenario? Spin harder.

BTW - Does this mean you think that when the commercial property owners leave town, the value of their land becomes $0? And does this mean you believe that the Chamber of Commerce statistics of their member survey are statistically valid?

p.s. Cute blog, but I'd rather be a wonk. Read more!

EDC Comedy of Errors & Violations of Open Meetings Laws?

So, yesterday, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) scheduled a public hearing on paid sick leave during the Common Council meeting - where we were discussing inclusionary zoning. Obviously, not a very thoughtful thing to do. (Hell, even Terrence Wall wrote a letter asking who scheduled - or allowed to be scheduled - two controversial topics for the same time. Yup - pigs are flying, hell is freezing over and the world is coming to an end, T and I agree on something!)

However, something happened, and the meeting wasn't properly noticed. This happens from time to time and I don't think it was anything the EDC commission or staff did, or didn't do, that caused this to happen. I actually think it is unfortunate that the meeting had to be cancelled, because I know how much work goes into getting a good turn out at a public hearing. It also sends a terrible message to the public when they take the time to show up - for nothing.
So, even tho it was poorly planned, I am disappointed the meeting had to be cancelled.

But . . . what happens next, is pretty inexcusable.

Apparently the city staff found out that morning that the meeting wasn't properly scheduled. According to one of the city attorneys I bumped into, they spent alot of time on the phone that day, trying to explain that the EDC couldn't hold the meeting. Sometime later in the day, Robbie Webber started asking questions about why she didn't see the meeting on line. Hmmmm . . . .it appeared that while the meeting notice was in Legistar, it was not on the weekly schedule. Problem is, the weekly schedule, specifically the one posted in the hallway of the City-County building, is the official, legal public notice. According to state law, it has to be posted at least 24 hours before the meeting starts, so the meeting had to be cancelled.

Anyways, the meeting wasn't properly noticed and apparently they knew that in the morning, but alders didn't get a notice of cancellation until 3:45. Prior to getting the notice, I found out about the cancellation from someone who saw Alder Webber's questions and called the staff and they were told not to show up. The staff's explanation to alders was as follows:

From:	Lisa Veldran
To:	ALL ALDERS
Date:	Tuesday - January 17, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject:	CANCELLED - EDC Public Hearing on Sick Leave Ordinance

Alders - FYI - in case you were planning on attending this evening's EDC
Public Hearing on the Sick Leave Ordinance - Lisa, Council Office

>>> Katherine Naherny 01/17/06 2:56 PM >>>
Most unfortunately, the meeting notice did not get posted to the weekly
calendar and physically posted in the City County Bldg. It was sent to the
Clerk via email by by P&D staff last week but apparently was "lost" as many
other items were last week in the email conversion and it was not caught until
this morning.

Since this hearing has been widely publicized in other ways, I conferred with
Michael May on how to proceed.

It would be a violation of the open meetings law to hold the meeting so the
EDC will not hold an official meeting. The EDC Chairman Mark Bugher and I
will go to the meeting site, explain to those who attend what happened and
have an informal meeting with those who may want to share thoughts and views.

Ok - first the meeting isn't properly noticed, then the notice of cancellation goes out much later than it should have . . . but next, it gets even wierder . . . .the staff was telling advocates for the ordinance not to show up. They called the EDC members and told them not to show up . . . but at the same time, they were planning to hold an informal meeting. They even put it in writing:

The EDC Chairman Mark Bugher and I will go to the meeting site, explain to those who attend what happened and have an informal meeting with those who may want to share thoughts and views.

Um . . . if this isn't a technical violation of the open meetings law, this is definitely a blatant attempt to get around the open meetings law. I'm kind of shocked that city staff would encourage this activity. Holding an informal meeting - where some people were told not to show up - vs. an official meeting doesn't sound legal to me.

What's even more frustrating, is this is not the first time committees have tried to hold a public hearing when they didn't have a legal meeting. Back when I was first on the council, in 2001, the Section 8 Landlord Committee (I forget the technical name) wanted to allow people to speak on an issue when they didn't have a legal meeting (in that case I thought it was also not a legally noticed meeting, but it could have been lack of quorum.) And they tried to hold the meeting anyways and they were told they couldn't do it. This prompted Dorothy Borchardt to sponsor an ordinance change that would have added the following language to our ordinances regarding quorum:

"(3) Attendance and Quorum.

(a) If at any board, commission or committee meeting, a quorum is not secured within fifteen (15) minutes of the officially scheduled meeting time, the board, commission or committee shall adjourn without taking any action, except that it may set a date and time for its next meeting.

(b) Notwithstanding Subdivision (a), above, if members of the public have appeared to address the board, committee or commission, in compliance with applicable rules, pursuant to Sec. 3.27(4)(f), the members shall allow them to speak and shall see that a record is kept of the general substance of their comments.

This ordinance was placed on file. (In City committee language, "placed on file" means "killed" or essentially removed from consideration.) I'm quite certain it was placed on file because it didn't meet the open meetings law requirements. So, the fact that Mark Bugher, the chairperson of the EDC and Katherine Naherny, staff to the EDC, tried to hold the public meeting - and simply call it informal, is all the more bothersome.

Open meetings laws can be frustrating from time to time, but we can't just violate them (or the spirit of the law) because it is convenient. Open meetings laws serve a purpose. They are there to ensure that the public has knowledge of meetings where public decisions will be made. They are there to give fair notice. In this case, many people were told not to show up and they didn't. To move forward with any type of meeting, formal or informal, legal or illegal was just wrong. We're not running a business here. This is government, and we have laws to protect the public that guide our actions and any attempt to get around those laws should not be supported by staff and should be strictly discouraged.

Read more!

You can't spin your way out of this one.

Is there no end to the lack of understanding of taxes that Zach Brandon will continue to display? Is he so focused on the spin he's willing to ignore the facts? Or doesn't he get it?

The Isthmus Daily Page wrote a story about the Friday walk with the Mayor in which Alder Brandon says the following:

Zach Brandon discussed the error and his continuing thoughts on the proposed ordinance. He says:

I think the lion's share of the report dealt with the impact on business, not the impact on the city budget. They stand behind and say those are accurate numbers. It's unfortunate they misplaced the decimal point with the city numbers, but the message remains about one of the things we didn't really think about. Will there be an impact in the city budget?

Although we now know that the extreme of it wouldn't be $21 million, it would be $2.1 million, or maybe even a less than that at a million, the real question there is at what point are average taxpayers or homeowners willing to spend money to support this ordinance.

Um . . . it wasn't just the decimal point that was wrong - it was also the fact that they attributed all of the loss in taxes to the City of Madison, and forgot to attribute taxes to Dane County, the School District and the Tech Schools. You'd think a tax-capper would understand this. Or, as the WSJ puts it:

But a Wisconsin State Journal analysis found a major miscalculation of city property tax revenues -- a decimal point is in the wrong place -- that inflates projected property tax losses tenfold.

Further, the study indicates the city would be hit by the tax loss. But the numbers used to make calculations are for collections by the city, Dane County, the Madison School District, and Madison Area Technical College, so any loss would be shared.

Wanna try again Zach?

Read more!

Keep downtown schools open!

Note: I'm not an expert on school issues by far, and I'm still trying to catch up on all of the issues regarding the boundary changes. Thanks to those who have met with me, called and e-mailed and helped me keep up just a little!

Sunday's paper had a story on the dilemma facing the Madison School District. The story pointed out many interesting dynamics of how the city grows and how approvals by the City of Madison to build housing effects the School District. Despite our recent efforts to create a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Madison, sometimes, we work at cross-purposes with ourselves and with other local governments, including the Madison Metropolitan School District.

As someone who sits on the City of Madison Plan Commission, is participating in the BUILD plan for the E Washington area and is seeing new projects built in my district, I find it alarming that there is even talk of closing downtown schools. All of our City plans indicate that we are trying to increase homeownership on the isthmus, create a variety of housing options and bring additional families downtown. The recent project on the 800 block of E Washington has some family townhomes across from Reynolds Park and is ideal for families that may eventually have kids that go to school a few blocks away at Lapham School. Closing that school or other isthmus schools would be devastating to the efforts of the neighborhoods to make our neighborhoods more family friendly.

Furthermore, given recent school referendum results and frenzied rhetoric about rising taxes, I don't see approvals to spend money to build new schools passing any time soon. We're going to need these schools to be open so we have some place to send our children to school in our community. I still have much to learn regarding these issues and will be listening to parents and others in the community, but one thing is clear - closing downtown schools will create more problems than it solves, is inconsistent with in-fill development plans for the area and is very short-sighted. Read more!

"One Sneeze Away . . . "

Today's Wisconsin State Journal has an opinion piece by Susan Lampert Smith about the rhetoric in the "Chicken Little" report the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce bought from NorthStar, Inc. So many have been focused on the glaring error that their claims that this could cost the City up to $21 million in property taxes when in fact the high end, if you accept all their assumptions, is actually $750,000. (By the way, Dean Mosiman, I've said it before and I'll say it again, BEST REPORTER IN TOWN - always fair, consistently at least 99.5% accurate and very thorough. We need more reporters in town like Dean. Even when he does a piece I don't like, I can respect his work.)

Susan's column reminded me of something that I was trying to forget. I can't believe the insensitivity of the language in the report (sorry, it's been taken off their site, but I can e-mail it to you):

The support for the mandatory sick leave ordinance seems to center on the conclusion that in Madison 46,000 workers (and their families) are a sneeze away from homelessness. The baseline reality is that many Madison small businesses will be hurt by a mandatory sick leave policy.

and in this quote by Jennifer Alexander in the press release:

“Those who support the ordinance say many employees in Madison are one sneeze away from homelessness,” said Jennifer Alexander, president of the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce.

I think her comments shows the insensitivity and callousness that the business community has a reputation for and that is really sad because there are alot of hard working small businesses and big businesses that do alot for our community. It is elitist, insensitiveve and shows a complete lack of understanding of some of the leading causes of homelessness and furthers that reputation of the business community.

What do you do if your kid has chicken pox and they can't go to daycare? If you skip work, you don't get paid and you can't pay your rent. What do you do if you are hospitalized because your appendix explodes because you didn't take time off and go to the doctor like you probably should have in the first place? Now, not only do you have doctor bills you can't pay, but you are missing work and again, could be evicted because you can't catch up on your rent. We hear stories like this every week. To suggest this is about someone becoming homeless because of a cold is just plain cold-hearted and judgmental.

And the realtors complain about a joke by the mayor, at least it wasn't done by one of their own.

p.s. This is the craziness Susan was talking about in the report . . .

Other Externalities

The ramifications of compliance with the mandatory sick leave law or any law that adversely affects business within a small defined geographical area also extend to environmental health and personal and community safety. Firms’ leaving the city for outlying communities leads to urban sprawl. Commuting out of the city increases smog and other pollution from increased vehicle miles traveled. It also adds a large cost to employee work expenses in terms of time (for example, substituting commuting time for family time) and vehicle operation costs if they live in the city and must commute to their jobs outside the city.

Increased traffic congestion on the main thoroughfares increases commuting delays, fuel consumption, and accidents. Greater gasoline consumption leads to higher gasoline costs. Fuel taxes will need to rise to fund increased road building to alleviate traffic congestion and improve motorist safety. Insurance costs will rise to cover the greater incidence of traffic related injuries and property damage. Automobiles will wear out faster, requiring more frequent replacement. Household budgets would be significantly impacted by these added costs, affecting worker financial well-being.

Commuting to work out of the city will increase the need for sick leave time off as employees commute back into the city to see their doctor or care for children in school or another dependent that resides near their home in the city. Vehicle speeds may also increase as commuters try to minimize their sick time taken for personal or dependent care, raising safety concerns for other motorists and pedestrians. The increased time away form work can also jeopardize worker employment status.

Many of the workers affected by the mandatory sick leave law do not have adequate transportation for commuting to jobs outside the city. Their jobs will simply be put out of reach. Read more!

EDC Playing Games with Meeting Dates?

According to the City of Madison website, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) set the following meeting dates which are the first Wednesday of the month. However, they seem to be consistently meeting on dates that inevitably conflict with other meetings on the same or similar topics.

The first meeting they scheduled on repealing the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance was scheduled on Tuesday, November 15th. This was not a regular meeting date for the Economic Development Commission, as they regularly are scheduled for the 1st Wednesday of the month. This also happened to be the first night of the budget meetings for the Common Council. I drove out to the Water Utility building to attend the meeting scheduled right before the Council meeting, but they did not have quorum, so we all went away.

They subsequently had a meeting on Thursday, December 1st at which they didn't take action on inclusionary zoning. I was able to attend this meeting, but had to skip several neighborhood meetings to do so since they rearranged the agenda and attended to other issues first.

The next meeting they scheduled on inclusionary zoning was scheduled on January 9th at 5:00. Not so surprisingly, this was also the same date the Plan Commission was scheduled to take up inclusionary zoning. And the same time the Board of Estimates was supposed to talk about the TIF request for the Gorman project on the 800 block of E Washington Ave in my district.

Now, on Tuesday, November 17th 5:30 - 9:00, they have another meeting scheduled the same evening as a Common Council meeting to hear from the business community about paid sick leave. And this, despite the fact that the Equal Opportunities Commission tried to hold a joint public hearing on the ordinance on December 14th. What's the purpose of this second public hearing?

Anyone sense a pattern? Think this is coincidence?

Normally, an alder on the committee or a staff person would point out such obvious conflicts in scheduling and the meetings would be re-scheduled. Could the Economic Development Commission members and staff be doing this on purpose? Or are the alder and the staff not serving their committees very well? Could it be that the Economic Development Commission actually doesn't want the alders to hear personally from the business community about paid sick leave? Is it just me, or does it seem that they don't really want to have a discussion about the issues with all sides represented? Just like they don't seem to support doing anything about creating an economic development plan. Read more!

"Chicken Little" Part II - How embarrassing.

Ouch.

I'm nearly speechless. I just posted this on thedailypage.com:

Q: When does $21,000,000 equal $750,000?

A: When the Chamber of Commerce buys a study on paid sick leave from NorthStar Economics.

The study suggests a $4.2 million to $20.1 million hit on the city's budget. But even if all the study's other contested assumptions are used, the State Journal's review suggests that the revised impact on the city's budget would range between about $150,000 and $750,000. Read the rest of the article here.

Talk about having egg on your face . . . from the WSJ yesterday . . .

But Brandon said he welcomed the study, echoing Alexander's past complaints that local empirical data was not available to guide debate.

"For the first time we're dealing with real numbers," he said.

ouch. How can someone who claims to know so much about a budget and taxes make such a big mistake. Wasn't it obvious to him how far off the numbers were . . . a few basic simple calculations were enough to see there were problems. Read more!

"Chicken Little" Report - How Paid Sick Leave will Destroy the Universe

So, does anyone really believe that the City of Madison is going to lose

• 37 - 185 businesses

• 6,000 jobs

• $4 - $21 million in property taxes

and that businesses will lose $75 million

• in wages ($60M)

• and compliance costs ($15M)

because the City of Madison is looking at requiring that businesses allow their 39,000 City of Madison employees who currently don't have paid sick leave to get this benefit when they and their family members are sick?

(Note: $60M in wages is $1,538 per employee, which means that would be a payroll cost of $21.36 per hour per person and all 39,000 employees would have to be full time and take all 9 days of sick leave. How many people making that kind of money do you think don't already have paid sick leave?)

Those are just some of the claims made in the Chamber of Commerce's Paid Sick Leave Report they recently bought from NorthStar Economics, Inc. (It was on their website earlier today, but disappeared.) Part of a study and its conclusions are based on a survey of 96 Chamber of Commerce members. Do you think those survey answers were unbiased? As we have seen, this is hardly an apolitical group of people and one might suspect that their members have political motivations to answer the questions in a particular way. Alder Austin King made this analogy earlier today:

Asking Chamber of Commerce members if they are going to leave Madison if we pass a paid sick leave policy is like if he had polled Democrats right before the last election and asked them if they were moving to Canada if George Bush won the election. Both are likely to yield a high number of people who say yes, and a very small number of people who would actually follow through.

More disturbing in the report is the claim that the City of Madison would lose $4M to $21M. First of all, as Alder Austin King points out, that is 15.5% of our total annual projected tax revenue of $135,680,761. (see page 10) [Yes, I checked the math $21M/$135,680,761 = 15.477% and the source] And given that commercial property is only 31% of the land value that is taxed in the City (see page 2) that means we would have to lose half our commercial real estate as a result of this ordinance. [Yes, I checked the math $5,648,462,400/$18,283,569,200 = 30.89% and the source.] This is so absurd on its face it is hard to know how to respond.

Interestingly enough, they seem to have no problem making authoritative statements in their report but offer no data, to make statements such as the following:

The minimum wage increase has caused businesses to hire fewer workers, delayed, decreased or eliminated pay increases; decreased benefits such as health care and retirement contributions; increased prices and cut service levels.

Additionally, they obviously hadn't read the ordinance, or had no problem grossly mischaracterizing the ordinance when they said that the ordinance "will require a business with more than five employees to provide 70 hours of paid sick leave per year if the employee works more than 12 hours per week." Actually, what the ordinance says is that you have to offer 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked if a person works more than 12 hours a week. So if someone works 12 hours a week, they would only be offered 20.8 hours of sick leave, not 70.

There is so much about the Chamber of Commerce and friends' (Tavern League, Realtors, Common Sense Coalition) latest attempts to be politically active that is just so . . . comical.

Finally, I have a few rather random thoughts about all of this, and although I'm going to name names here, these are not meant to be personal attacks. I just have to point out some interesting inconsistencies and absurdities. I think these folks have to start taking responsibility for their actions.

First up, for no particular reason - Daniel Guerra, small business owner and Executive Director of Building Wisconsin, Inc.

I recently attended a Communities United meeting where they reaffirmed their support of inclusionary zoning and opposed repeal of the ordinance. Daniel is the current chair of that group. When they discussed someone speaking at the council meeting regarding their position, Daniel claimed that he couldn't do it because his position at Building Wisconsin prohibited him from taking public positions on political matters. However, he had no problem being quoted in the Chamber of Commerce press release as follows:

“Taking care of our employees is just good business,” said Dan Guerra, a Madison small business owner. “But, mandating economic policies on small business is killing us. The city has to consider the cumulative effect of all the mandates they have showered on us in the past 18 months. It’s time to stop the mandates and save the jobs.”

Interesting when he can make political statements and when he can't.

Next, Ald. Zach Brandon

Ald. Brandon's comments in the Wisconsin State Journal article on the report are as predictable as it gets. First, the scare tactics.

The study, obtained by the Wisconsin State Journal on Wednesday, found that even under more modest projections, the law would blow a $4.2 million hole in the city's operating budget.

The Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce commissioned the report as part of its continued fight against the proposal, and has planned a morning news conference to discuss the findings today.

Ald. Zach Brandon said such a big hit to the city's tax base could spell disaster.

"That would mean the elimination of some very important services, or a shift in the property tax burden," said Brandon, who opposes paid sick leave. "Because there wouldn't be businesses paying it, the average homeowner's taxes would go up."

The alder is definitely skilled in using republican fear tactics in his political rhetoric. And of course, just like the republicans, its all about the taxes. But I'm amazed he really believes these numbers? Doesn't he realize something doesn't make sense?

Surprisingly, he then makes a rather astonishing comment.

But Brandon said he welcomed the study, echoing Alexander's past complaints that local empirical data was not available to guide debate.

"For the first time we're dealing with real numbers," he said.

Interesting . . .

This brings me to my third name to drop - Chairman Mark Bugher & the Economic Development Commission

If the the Economic Development commission and Alder Brandon and the Chamber of Commerce/Common Sense Coalition/Tavern League don't have local empirical data, how do they know the city is losing jobs? And why is this the first time they're dealing with real numbers? How do they make decisions about economic development without data? What is the Economic Development Commission doing if they don't have real numbers? What are they doing to get them? And why don't they want to have an economic development plan for the City?

Sigh . . . how long before we can look at some data that is real and determine if this anti-business rhetoric has any basis? And when will the City have an economic development plan? Read more!

French Battery Factory Replica Considered Historic Preservation?

Last night at the plan commission we approved the demolition of French Battery Factory in order to make way for new development (Union Corners). The French Battery Factory was the birthplace of what eventually became known as Rayovac . It was one of the city's largest factories in 1924 and was said to have helped "spread the fame" of Madison Wisconsin. It is also where Charles F. Burgess worked who is the founder of UW-Madison's Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering (Sorry, I'm sure there is better and more complete history somewhere, but that was what I was able to quickly find. A few photos here.)

Despite testimony from the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation and other testimony from the community, the plan commission decided to remove the building because it had a better site plan if the building was removed - not due to cost. So, we lose another historic building despite media reports early on to the contrary which stated:

He also plans to preserve the historic three-story, 330,000-square-foot former French Battery & Carbon Co. building on Winnebago Street. French Battery was renamed Rayovac in the 1930s.

When McGrath got his grants from the state, even Governor Doyle said:

"My Grow Wisconsin plan calls for investing in infrastructure and strengthening our cities," Governor Doyle said. "With this grant, we will help McGrath Associates rehabilitate the former Rayovac French Battery building on Madison's near east-side to create residential and commercial space."

Anyone else feel cheated by early promises to save the building?

Sadly, I'm not surprised. What did surprise me was . . . the plan to save materials from the building and other buildings torn down and to build a replica/similar building on another portion of the site. Not move the building, not save major portions of the building, but build a replica with some of the same materials.

Why? What's the point? And could people possibly consider this historic preservation? Granted, its a nice reuse/recycling of materials and that is to be commended. But can this possibly be considered historic preservation? If this is to be considered historic preservation by the community, we've sunk to an even lower low than the historic preservation-lite facadectomy. Read more!

How far can AM radio shock jocks go?

Yesterday, when I blogged about Casey Hoff's wacky interpretation of my recent blog about the Salvation Army, I was well aware that Sly had made some rather nasty personal comments about me on the air that same day. I was attempting to ignore it. In fact, I didn't even ask exactly what he said because he's just been very personal and nasty to me before. However, today, a friend of mine told me what he said.

Apparently, yesterday he was asking his callers how Brian Burke should be punished. Of course, the callers and Sly were getting a little raunchy. They apparently suggested anal sex between Burke and Chvala among other things. At some point, a caller suggested that punishment would be sending me over to have sex with Burke. Apparently, instead of letting it go, Sly asked the caller if he meant that I was going to smother Burke. Then he made a comment about how he gets aroused when he thinks of me, which of course is followed by laughter. (Last time I remember him doing something similar, he said something to the effect that when he thinks of me his turtle crawls back in its little shell.) And of course they don't use my name when they make these remarks, they refer to me a Pumpkinhead. Although Tim Morrissey has apparently been asked to stop calling me Pumpkinhead, Sly and his callers were using the name yesterday.

Much has been said about why only 10 of the 37 races for county board are contested this spring. I think this is one part of the problem, who wants to open themselves up to this kind of crap? And don't the radio stations have some sort of standards they have to adhere to? Read more!

Casey Hoff knows what motivates Brenda Konkel?

So, Casey Hoff seems to believe he has the secret key to determine what motivates me. How scary is that! I can't stand listening to these blowhard AM radio hosts. I keep telling myself, this is just their job and they're probably really nice people when they're off the air. Tho I find it concerning that they are such tools for the right and that people actually take the crap they spew as "news" and they have no concern about if what they say is factually accurate. They actually go as far as to make things up. His most recent rant about me just shows what a tool of the right he is and how they have no shame about their reckless disregard for the truth.

Let's dissect what Mr. Hoff has to say:

First of all, he calls my recent blog about the Salvation Army a "crusade". Note that I posted the blog on December 16th. That was the one and only thing I said about the Salvation Army until Bill Lueders from the Isthmus called me and followed up on what I wrote. I merely answered the reporter's questions and practically begged him to find some other sources for his story. End of any action I have taken on this matter. I would hardly call that a "crusade". And if he thinks that qualifies as being "fired up", he's never seen me "fired up"!

Next, he says that my actions are a "politically motivated, vindictive vendetta against Christianity." Dude, you lost me there. How in the world did he come up with that? What would I have to gain politically? How does he know what motivated me? How is it vindictive? What vendetta do I have against Christianity?

Then, it just gets surreal - as it often does with Mr. Hoff.

Ms. Konkel apparently believes that the City of Madison and Dane County shouldn't be affiliated or provide support to the evil Christian organization, of which it received over $600,000 and around $13,000 from the city for the operation of its homeless shelter program and "family stabilization services".

In my blog I specifically said that I didn't care that they are a church or that they have a mission statement 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.

But I did care that their religious beliefs "intrude into their services". I really don't care if they are a religious organization. Many religious organizations do many fine things and have many wonderful people working and volunteering for them. What I care about is that their religious beliefs intrude into their services. Particularly, that the Salvation Army discriminates against gay and lesbian couples. In fact, they don't seem to deny it. They admit that they have a policy that has a disparate impact on homeless gays and lesbians. Then, they try to blame their discrimination on Dane County rules. Meanwhile, the county looked at their rules and said they are already changing the rules to get rid of any misperception the Salvation Army has that they cannot let these families stay together in shelter.

Casey also says that I think that city and county funds should be withdrawn from the Salvation Army. I never said. I just think they should change their rules, what is so terrible about that?

Next, he goes completely off the deep end when he says:

It's too bad that Brenda Konkel is more interested in trying to nitpick a wonderful organization than she is helping out the poor in this community.

First of all, discrimination against gays and lesbians is hardly nitpicking. It's illegal.

Second, does the dude have any idea what I've done for a living for the past 10.5 years? Or that before that when I was practicing law I took public defender cases, you know, the poor? Has he ever heard of the Affordable Housing Action Alliance that I helped found? the Social Justice Center that I literally helped build? Or has he noticed some of the policies that I have helped pass in this city? Some little issues he may have heard of that impact "the poor" include section 8, minimum income policies, affordable housing trust fund, TIF 10% set-aside, inclusionary zoning, minimum wage, paid sick leave, etc. Does he know how much money I give to various organizations that serve "the poor" every year? The fundraising I do for the Housing Crisis Fund to help prevent evictions of "the poor"? That when I was young I was "poor" enough to have to be embarrassed when I stood in the free lunch ticket line at school, or that there were times when I had no choice but to eat "government cheese" and drink powdered milk that my mom brought home?

Shouldn't there be some kind of standards or way to hold these shock jocks responsible for the ridiculous things that they say? Don't they have some sort of responsibility to at least say things that come close to the truth? And how the hell does Casey Hoff know what motivates me since we've never even met?

Read more!

Common Sense = Press Release?

On cue, the Common Sense Coalition does what . . . drum roll please . . . issues a press release. Now, this wouldn't be so funny, if it wasn't so predictable.

The essence of their press release is as follows:

• We want the following self-serving things done to serve our personal interests (i.e. give the police, sheriff and fire unions whatever they want cuz we need to claim their members to make us look legit) but we don't have any actual proposals and aren't going to do the work to get them done . . . but we do have a press release
  

• We don't like the mayor, so we've issued a press release

And then, the goofy contradictory position of

• We're non-partisan, but recruiting and endorsing candidates for spring elections, and here is our press release

As I've noted before, the Common Sense Coalition continues to claim it is a broad inclusive coalition, but it is purposely excluding a certain group of people (Progressive Dane and "the left") and isn't coming clean about it. Just ask Lisa Subeck who "applied" to be a member months ago and still, months later, hasn't been accepted . . . or rejected.

More specifically, and to the point, let's take a look at their 2006 agenda outlined in their press release.

Bringing Best Value Contracting to Madison

The Common Sense Coalition (CSC) is leading a working group made up of
representatives of management, labor, and elected officials to create a
win/win Best Value Contracting policy for our city. By the end of 2006,
CSC wants to see Best Value Contracting a reality in Madison.

Interesting, have you seen any public notices about these meetings of the "working group"? If you wanted to discuss this issue, would you know how to participate? What elected officials are they working with? Is this the way we should create policies, in closed door back room discussions of a select few that claim to promoting greater public participation? If they really want to have everyone attend, why don't they note the time and place of the meeting on their own website and invite people to participate? Or better yet, we have a vast community process, they could get one of their elected officials they are working with to form a committee and work on it in the community where people could participate.

Increased Leadership from the Mayors Office

Controversial issues like the proposed "Sick Leave” ordinance are too
important to the future of our city for the Mayor to take a passive position
on. Madison needs leadership from our elected executive on contentious
issues.

Um . . . I'm not usually one to jump to the defense of the Mayor . . . but . . . do you think they realize that the Mayor is not King of Madison? The Mayor didn't take a "passive position" on paid sick leave, did he? He pretty clearly said this isn't the right time, but he's the executive branch of government and this is a legislative proposal. What do they expect him to do? The council members have the right to introduce a proposal and have it referred to committees and the Mayor, with all due respect, can't really do anything about it. What do you think they think he could do and how would he do it? And is that the way you want your government to be run, if the Mayor says we can't talk about controversial things that is the end of the conversation? Nice open government and way to encourage public participation.

A Greater Focus on Local Economic Development and Job Creation

Local government is the best economic development tool we have. Madison needs to better utilize that tool by forming incentives for the creation of family wage paying jobs, especially those in the middle income bracket.

This one cracks me up. These are the same folks (Realtors, Smart Growth Madison, Inc, individual developers) that will tell us that the market should just take care of the affordable housing issues that we have and the government shouldn't interfere in how they run their businesses, but they have no shame in coming to locagovernmentnt for hand-outs?

And finally, the contradiction of:

"The Common Sense Coalition has a vision of putting politics aside and instead focusing on creating good public policy. Our goal is finding workable solutions to the issues that impact our community.” Said Ray Allen, spokesman and Chair of the Board, “This is one of many reasons why I am proud to lead our coalition and to help bring some positive changes to our local government.”

and then

GetMore Citizens Involved in Local Government and Elections

CSC will promote greater public participation in spring local elections and local government. Greater voter turnout is essential to having a representative elected body.

So which of the candidates in the 10 out of 27 contested county board races are they supporting? And is that how they "put politics aside"? Puh-lease. I hope the dismal array of candidates this spring isn't any indication of their best efforts to get people to run for office. Do you think that it occurs to them that the constant bashing of local government officials doesn't really inspire people to run? I guess, technically, their press release talks about "voter turnout", but their website indicates something else:

Interested in Running for a Non-Partisan Local Office?

The Common Sense Coalition is looking to support and endorse quality candidates that share our values and our vision for this community.

If you are thinking about running for a non-partisan elected office and would like to bring practical and consensus building policy to local government, please contact us:

info@commonsensemadison.com

So, while I'm at it, and as a complete total aside . . . ever think about the words "common sense".
This is the definition I found on dictionary.com

common sense n. Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

I just gotta ask, how good can that judgment be, if not based on knowledge? Is there something better about a judgment made if it is done without knowledge?

And, also, while I'm at it, and admittedly, being a little snarky this morning before the caffeine kicks in, who paid the money to get this group started? I never heard. Come on (good ol') boys, fess up! Read more!

Retraction: I should have known better . . .

No, I wasn't shooting my mouth off, or remarking (in what I thought was a private conversation) that someone could lick my hairy arm pits! :)

But I did . . . not check some facts I should have checked. In a recent post I repeated the Mayor's claim that:

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.

And, I should have double-checked the numbers. I know better. I did find the press release where the Mayor or his staff likely got the numbers they used. But I noticed three little words that make a big difference . . .

Madison MSA

What is that you ask? Well MSA stands for Metropolitan Statistical Area, i.e. not only the City of Madison, but the Metro Area. In this case, the DWD has a MSA map that defines the Madison MSA as Dane County.

My bad. My apologies. That was just sloppy. Now, if I can only figure out a way to get some accurate numbers, if they exist. Read more!

January Lobbying Contacts

So, this is my second month of keeping track of my lobbying contacts here. I suspect there will be a few more this month than I had last month due to the holidays.

So far 101 contacts in 18 days this month, most of them exempt. I had 116 contacts in December.

Updated (almost) daily!

Sunday, January 1, 2006
None

Monday, January 2, 2006
None

Tuesday, January 3, 2006
Meeting with Bill Perkins, Executive Director Wisconsin Partnership for Housing Development re: IZ (exempt)

Mail from Reason Foundation, Privatization Watch Vol. 29 No 5 (exempt?)

Mail from the Heartland Institute, School Reform News Vol 10, No 1 (exempt?)

Appearance by Jerome Pasdo, property owner & landlord re: Broom Street set-back (not exempt? depending on number of contacts, etc)

Appearance by Tom Nuejahr representing Fire House Jt. Venture I & II (Fred Mohs, Terry McCaughy, Nathan Brand, Brad Binkowski & Tom Nuejahr all present?) re: Broom Street set-back (not exempt? depending on number of contacts, etc)

Registration by unknown person, representing La Rocca's Pizzeria, LLC re: New Liquor License (exempt)

Registration by Rick Petri, representing M&M Madison Concessions, LLC (Howard Johnson Madison, 3841 E Washington) (not exempt, paid third party lobbyist)

Letter from Eastside Businessman's Association re: paid sick leave (exempt)

Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Meeting with Atty Bill White re: Inclusionary Zoning (exempt/not paid re: IZ, tho we at least mentioned three other projects where he was representing someone - Randy Alexander, Cherokee Marsh(?) and Peter Frautschi, tho I doubt he charged any of them for those brief mentions)

Meeting with Greg Rosenberg, Executive Director Madison Area Community Land Trust re: Inclusionary Zoning (exempt)

Phone call and e-mails to/from Susan Schmitz, Downtown Madison Inc re: Inclusionary Zoning (not exempt)

Newsletter from National Alliance on Mental Illness Dane County, Inc. (exempt)

Email newsletter from WasteCap Wisconsin (January 2006) (exempt)

Email from Joe Lusson, Madison Trust board President re: Rayovac building (exempt)

Thursday, January 5, 2006
Meetings with Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co re: 800 E Washington TIF request (not exempt) and inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Meeting Scott Gray, Executive Director Urban League and Joanne Kelley (MG&E?)
re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Phone call and e-mail with Dawn Stockmo, Fannie Mae Foundation re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Friday, January 6, 2006
Meeting with Judy Karofsky, Wisconsin Partnership for Housing Development re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Meeting with Gary Gorman, Tripp Widder, Pat Mullen, Chris Laurent re: TIF for 800 E Washington (not exempt)

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

Saturday, January 7, 2006
E-mail from Judy Karofsky, Wisconsin Partnership for Housing Development re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Sunday, January 8, 2006
Phone call with Chris Laurent, Gorman & Company re: 800 Avenue TIF (not exempt)

Monday, January 9, 2006
Meeting with Bill White, attorney and lobbyist, representing no one re: Inclusionary Zoning (exempt)

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

Presentation at Board of Estimates and discussion with Tripp Widder and Chris Laurent, Gorman & Company re: TIF for 800 E Wash (not exempt)

Plan Commission Meeting
Testimony by Pete Weston, Design Alliance re: Maywick Apartments (6326 Maywick) (exempt? cuz architect and didn't seem to be answering anything but technical questions?)
Testimony by Lance McGrath, McGrath Associates re: Union Corners (not exempt)
Testimony by Joe Lusson, Madison Trust for Historic Preservation re: Union Corners and French Battery Building (exempt - volunteer)
Testimony by John Lichtenheld - Schreiber Anderson/McGrath Associates re: Union Corners (may fall in the exceptions for design people, but I have no idea)
Testimony by Paul ?? Anderson Design Partnership??/McGrath Associates re: Union Corners (may fall in the exceptions for design people, but I have no idea
Testimony by Todd McGrath, McGrath Associates re: Union Corners (not exempt)
Testimony by Dan Melton, SASY Neighborhood Association re: Union Corners (exempt, volunteer)
Testimony by Tom Miller, Alexander Company re: Broom St. Condos/Capitol West (not exempt)
Available to answer questions, Natalie Bock - Alexander Company (not exempt), Nate Novak - JJR and Alexander Company (exempt for design professionals?), Ed Freer - JJR and Alexander Company (exempt for design professionals?) re: Broom Street Condos/Capitol West
Testimony by George Solner, Zingg Design Architects re: Demolition and Conditional Use at 5116 Spring Court (exempt design professional and size of project)
Testimony by Gabe Albrecht re: Inclusionary Zoning (exempt? - no idea if/who he was representing but he's a builder and Realtor)
Testimony by Alan Arntson (Foley & Lardner), Downtown Madison Inc. re: inclusionary zoning (exempt - volunteer?)
Testimony by Phil Salkin, Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin re: Inclusionary Zoning (not exempt)
Testimony by William Butcher, Realtor re: Inclusionary Zoning (exempt?)

Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Meeting with Randy Bruce, Knothke Bruce Architects and Mike Fisher, Great Dane Development re: 600 E Mifflin Development (not exempt)

Meeting with Phil Salkin and Kevin King, Realtors Association of Southcentral Wisconsin (not exempt), Matt Miller - Stark Company (exempt?), Tim McKenzie - TR MacKenzie Inc, Connie James - Sveum Realtors, and Judy Karofsky - Wisconsin Partnership for Housing re: Inclusionary Zoning

Phone call with Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co re: 800 E Wash TIF (not exempt)

Pile of mail received on various dates:
Health Care News, Heartland Institute
American Heart Association re: Proclamation for Go Red for Women campaign
Madison Teachers Union newsletter
Budget and Tax News, Heartland Institute (How much money do these people freaking have?)

Phone call and e-mails from Mike Roach, Channel 27 news re: urging me to introduce budget amendment for funding for Women's Transit Authority (exempt?)

Email from Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian Homes re: Inclusionary Zoning

Email from Jeff Tallard, Tallard Apartments re: garbage pick up fees for appliances

Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Email from Gabe Albrecht (representing whom?) re: inclusionary zoning. (exempt?)

Email from Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian Homes re: Inclusionary Zoning

Thursday, January 12, 2006
Emails from Delora Newton, Chamber of Commerce re: paid sick leave (not exempt)

Email from Joseph Leone, DeWitt, Ross & Stevens re: paid sick leave (not exempt?)

Emails from Chris Laurent, Gorman & Company re: 800 E Washington Ave project (not exempt)

Friday, January 13, 2006
Meeting with Natalie Bock, Alexander Company re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Meeting with Chris Laurent, Tripp Widder and Pat Mullen of Gorman & Company re: TIF for 800 E Washington Ave (not exempt)

Meeting with Jeff Rosenberg, Veridian Homes and Tim Sherry, Suby VonHaden re: inclusionary zoning (exempt except the part where we talked about 1000 Oaks Plat)

Email from Jennifer Alexander, Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce re: paid sick leave (not exempt)

Email from Sue Vilbrandt, South Central Federation of Labor re: paid sick leave (exempt?)

Saturday, January 14, 2006
None

Sunday, January 15, 2006
E-mail from Ted Woodstock, Silk Screen Adv re: paid sick leave (exempt?)

Monday, January 16, 2006
Email from Joseph Leone, DeWitt, Ross & Stevens re: paid sick leave (not exempt?)

Email from Brian Haltinner, Maduro Cigar Bar re: cigar bar exemption from smoking ordinance (exempt)

Email from Michael Christopher, lobbyist for Pres House re: inclusionary zoning. (not exempt)

Email from Tina Morschauser, Rejuvenation Spa re: paid sick leave (exempt)

Tuesday, January 17, 2006
(OK - I'm quite certain I lost track of contacts today, but here's what I have)

Meeting with Mariann Morton, Exec Dir Commonwealth Development, Brian Miller, Exec Dir Habitat for Humanity, Dean Loumos, Exec Dir Housing Initiatives, Rita Giovannoni, Exec Dir Independent Living, Bill Perkins, Exec Dir Wisconsin Partnership for Housing Development (all exempt) and Tim Radelet, Foley & Lardner re: inclusionary zoning (exempt?)

Email from Joseph Leone, DeWitt, Ross & Stevens re: paid sick leave (not exempt?)

Email from Jay Eknurg (don't know if he is representing anyone) re: Rubbermaid closing and City's efforts to keep them here.

Email from Randy Bruce, Knothke & Bruce re: 627 E Mifflin St. (not exempt)

Testimony on inclusionary zoning:
Nancy Jensen, Apartment Association of Southcentral Wisconsin (not exempt)
Dean Loumos, Housing Initiatives (exempt)
Marianne Morton, Common Wealth Development (exempt)
Registered to answer questions, Phil Salkin, Realtors Association of Southcentral Wisconsin

Testimony on Union Corners:
Lance McGrath, McGrath Associates (not exempt)
John Lichtenfeld, Schreiber Anderson/McGrath Associates (not exempt?)
Paul ?? Anderson Design Partnership??/McGrath Associates (not exempt?)
Todd McGrath, McGrath Associates (not exempt)

Testimony on Broom St. Condos
Tom Miller, Alexander Company

Letter from 4 Lakes Green Party, re: paid sick leave (exempt)

Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Emails with Michael Christopher, representing Pres House re: inclusionary zoning and the Pres House Project (not exempt)

Phone call from Chris Laurent, Gorman & Company re: inclusionary zoning (exempt) & 800 E Washington Ave TIF (not exempt)

Phone call from Bill White, lobbyist, representing no one re: inclusionary zoning (exempt)

Email from Adrian Moore, Reason Foundation, re: Eminent Domain (not exempt?)

Phone calls from anonymous people (2) against paid sick leave

Ok - I've added my meetings - but not much else for the rest of the month, will continue to work on it . . . as I wade through all my yahoo emails, mail and meeting notes . . .

Thursday, January 19, 2006
Meeting with GIG meeting re: IZ
Major Moore, Salvation Army (exempt)
Steve Schooler, Porchlight Inc (exempt)
Everett, MUM (exempt)
Deaconess from Emanuel Lutheran Church (exempt)

Meeting with Tripp Widder, Pat Mullen, Chris Laurent all of Gorman & Co re 800 E Wash TIF (not exempt)

Email from Tina Morschauser, President of Rejuvenation Spa re: paid sick leave (exempt)

Email from Gary Wolter, MR&E re: 2015 Energy Plan (exempt)

Friday, January 20, 2006
Phone call from Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co re: TIF for 800 E Wash (not exempt)
Email from Jim Mankowski, JBM Patrol & Prevention Corp re paid sick leave (exempt)
Email from Chuck Cook, (some bank?), re: inclusionary zoning (exempt?)

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Monday, January 23, 2006

Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Meeting with St. John's Lutheran Church meeting, Matt Garrett
Phone call with David Simon, Veridian Homes re: Inclusionary Zoning
Email from Michael Christopher representing Pres House re inclusionary zoning (not exempt)
Email from Susan Schmitz, Downtown Madison, Inc re: inclusionary zoning

Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Paul Soglin's IZ speech - talked to Lori Logan & Scott Faust afterward re IZ
Meeting with Bill White re: affordable housing issues
Phone call with Chris Laurent, Gorman & Co
Email from Michael Christopher representing Pres House re IZ (not exempt)

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Friday, January 27, 2006

Saturday, January 28, 2006
out of the country, no communications

Sunday, January 29, 2006
out of the country, no communications

Monday, January 30, 2006
out of the country, no communications actually recieved
email from Delora Newton, Chamber of Commerce re paid sick leave

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

out of the country, no communications

Read more!

The politics of fear (& IZ)

I read Paul Soglin's Inclusionary Zoning - A Lesson for the Left this morning, er afternoon, when I got up. At first, I chalked it up at the same old, same old. The same Chamber of Commerce style talking points about being anti-business. My initial response was posted on thedailypage.com and included the following:

a) What's his excuse for the failed housing policies in Madison that we have been cleaning up since he was done being mayor (Broadway-Simpson, Vera Court, Darbo-Worthington, Allied Drive, etc, etc, etc) His excuse is that it is a federal issue and we shouldn't interfere? In case he didn't notice, the failure of the federal government often means that the local government has to clean it up. I'm surprised he didn't pull his stand-by out of his pocket . . . if we do this, the poor people will move here from Chicago.

b) I'm sick of these old white guys telling us younger people that we don't understand (fill in the blank) and talking about unintended consequences. Maybe, just maybe, we're interested in trying new things, because the old way ain't working so well for everyone and I'm not going to sit around with the fear of "unintended consequences". We need to be smart, try to anticipate everything that we can, and be ready to react if we got it wrong, but to sit around and do nothing because of fear is ridiculous when others in the community are suffering.

One more thing, apparently, we added 3,000 jobs in the last 12 months. I wish Soglin had used facts instead of anecdotes to make his arguments, makes it harder to refute.

Admittedly, not a measured response, and a tad bit hot-headed and it showed my frustration just a little too much. It's been more than a few hours now since I re-read his blog and I'm actually surprised at how irresponsible his posting was because it was based on anecdotes and no facts.

First, before I get into it, let me say, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Soglin. He has dedicated many years to public service and is responsible for many good things about this City. His vision has shaped this City and will continue to do so for years but that doesn't mean that I don't reserve my right to disagree with the guy. (Yes, he has some personality issues, but hey, everyone does.) Disagreement, however, does not equal disrespect. Simply because I disagree with him, does not mean that I won't listen to what he has to say. However, I don't have to agree with him. Now that I got that out of the way, here's some issues I have with what he had to say:

I'm glad he starts his first paragraph off with this statement:

This is not about IZ, which as part of a balanced housing program can be an effective resource to provide economic integration and raise the quality of public education.

I presume he's seeing the goals of economic integration and a raise in the quality of public education as worthy goals. Apparently, he then concludes that we cannot have economic integration and good quality education and a good economy at the same time, despite the fact that part of what attracts people (workers and businesses) to Madison is our good quality of life. He then starts with his predictions of gloom and doom when he states:

This is about how a combination of decisions can lead to a series of events culminating in the economic decline of a city. All it takes is a few bad decisions, a lack of credibility and public officials who do not understand the externalities of their decisions. This is about unintended, but foreseen consequences.

(I'm ignoring the swipe he takes at our credibility and the part where we just don't understand things the way he does, because of his, um, personality flaws.) Then we get the history lesson/lecture and a glowing description of his administration and not so glowing description of the Bauman and Cieslewicz administration.
Then, more gloom and doom and fear-mongering.

As we close out 2005, for the first time in the sixty years since the end of WW II, Madison's future is bleak. I say that despite the record construction boom in what is sometimes referred to as 'crane city.' Keep in mind that development is staged over decades, not years. Madison will be fine for anther few years, but by 2010, serious problems will overwhelm the city's economic capacity.

Followed by more of a history lesson and criticisms of the Bauman and Cieslewicz administration policies. Then the civics lesson and his take on the responsibility of various levels of government. Then the business community talking points:

Starting in 2003 the city of Madison enacted three new laws, all admirable, all with lofty social goals, and all reflecting the values of its residents:- The already stiff smoking ban ordinance was expanded to cover all public places including taverns.
- The city enacted a city minimum wage ordinance.
- The city enacted an IZ ordinance.

While not enacted, there is also in development at one stage or another, city sick leave and health insurance proposals.

Then his prediction about what will happen, which he admits are not supported with facts, but with anecdotes:

There are specifics that are problematic with the IZ ordinance, but as a group these ordinances resulted in a sharp blow to the business community. While I am not fond of anecdotes to support an argument, I find the following occurring: - Retailers, particularly restaurants are developing in commercial areas outside of Madison in record numbers.
- Commercial tenants, who are not tied down geographically, are moving out of the city as their leases expire, costing the city jobs, contributing to sprawl, and lowering the value of property within the city.
- Real estate developers have shifted their land banking resources out of the city.
- Developers who originally acquired land to develop with the intention of annexing to Madison, are now looking at other alternatives.
- The only major developments that continue in Madison are 'prisoners.' These are developments where the land was already acquired or where the owner had no alternative as to where to develop. Some highlights:

• Hospital additions that could be built nowhere else.
  
• All of the IZ participants were already committed financially to the site.
• Developers with future plans that have no choice - for example, the owners of University Plaza that own the property; it is half vacant and they have no choice but to proceed with their plans.

And here's where he really loses me.

He claims that retailers and restaurants that are not developing in Madison. Where are the facts and figures to support this?

He claims that commercial tenants are fleeing the city. Where are the facts that support this?

He claims we are losing jobs, but as I noted, we added 3,000 jobs in the last 12 months.

He claims real estate developers have shifted their land banking resources out of the City. I'd like to see the facts supporting this. If it is true, what other factors are making that happen? We have boundary agreements and unwilling sellers that contribute to the lack of availability of land on the periphery and the land that is available is getting more and more expensive due to the lack of supply, which also may impact decisions to purchase land in the City of Madison.

He claims that the only major development that continue in Madison are "prisoners", citing hospitals, prior financial commitments and in-fill projects. Well . . . I'm having trouble with this one too as the facts don't really support his claim. IZ only applied to projects with applications after February 15, 2004 and we talked about IZ for a good 2 years prior to this. Landowners had plenty of time to get their projects approved (and believe me, they did) or not get into land deals if they had such fears. And, obviously, developers are still buying land and still developing, the two new projects in my district are ones where they didn't own the land pre-IZ. McGrath still bought the Fiore Center, after IZ. I'm sure there are many more projects, I just don't know when they bought the land as we are usually not privy to that information.

Then, more doom and gloom predictions.

The consequences of all this will not be seen for a few more years but the impact will be devastating:
- The proportion of new housing construction in Madison as a part of Dane County housing permits will drop at an accelerated rate.
- With reduced housing opportunities, housing cost will rise as shortages worsen, but taxes will go up.
- The proportion of children in the public school system from low income families will grow at an even higher rate, resulting in lower academic results for all students.
- Middle class families with school age children will abandon the Madison Metropolitan School District by either moving or putting their children in private schools.
- The net result is a city with more poor and wealthy families
- The value of real estate in Madison will either decline or languish; in either case it means the mill rate for all owners will go up.
- A greater cost for government services will be shared by a shrinking tax base.

Now, if all of the above were to happen due to IZ that would be one powerful ordinance. I'm having trouble understanding how all of the above could happen and the source be isolated and blamed on one ordinance. I also think the handwringing is a bit pre-mature and not based in reality.

First, he claims that the proportion of new housing construction in Madison as a part of Dane county housing permits will drop at an accelerated rate. If indeed it happens, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that this is a result of inclusionary zoning. He already said, himself, that Madison is having a hard time keeping up with growth in Dane County, and has been having a hard time for years. And, as I already pointed out, availability of land and boundary agreements will effect this as well.

Next, he predicts that we will end up with reduced housing opportunities i.e. they will build less housing and it will be more expensive because the supply will not meet the demand and then taxes (mill rate) will go up because we have less of a tax base. I have a hard time believing this will happen for various reasons. From what I hear, we don't have enough land available and if a few developers choose not to build in Madison, there are several others who would be happy to build in their place. It may also make the land cheaper if there is not so much demand for it. Plus, if the market is hot and they can sell their product at a higher price, I think they will also show interest.

Next he claims that as the housing gets more expensive we will have more low-income kids in our schools and middle-class families will flee the city or send their kids to private schools. This doesn't ring true at all. If our housing is expensive, won't people be moving to Sun Prairie and other places where the housing would be cheaper. Also, much of the periphery development in Madison is occurring in several different school districts as the boundaries of the school districts do not match the municipal boundaries.

Then the comment about "excuses" that pissed me off. I hope Mr. Soglin will not write off all my responses as "excuses" or discount them because I lack credibility with him.

And then, these absurd conclusions:

I have not touched on the details of Madison's IZ ordinance. We need only remember:
- that every unit built was for a development under way before the ordinance was enacted.
- that none of the 13 completed units have been sold.
- that developers who have a choice have stopped planning housing in Madison.
- that the cost of the units come from city taxpayers
- Madison is solving a national problem with local resources (TIF is not 'free' money).

I think I know why he didn't touch the details of the ordinance. He simply repeats the myths that have been repeated by the business community. Not every project that has been approved was underway before the ordinance was enacted. How does he know that none of the 13 (where'd he get that number?) completed units have not been sold? There are developers who have a choice and continue to build in Madison. Finally, TIF has only been used for IZ in one project so far - out of 24. (Monroe Commons TIF was for the parking for the store. Only Alexander's project has TIF for IZ in it.)

Read more!