Saturday, March 31, 2007

Campaign Finance Reports - Take 2

Here's the next 5 reports.

This time I looked at Brink, Clear, Palm, Sanborn and Clear.

1. There is a conduit missing. There are several firefighters that are listed on the reports as contributing through a conduit, but there is no conduit report listed on the City website.

In addition to the previous report that Clausius had conduit contributions from mystery conduit from the following three people:

Che Stedman (Oregon) $100
Todd Shortreed (Waunakee) $100
Michael Stich (DeForest) $100

I can also now add:
Jed Sanborn's report has conduit contributions from the mystery conduit from the following three people.

Clay Christiansen $22
Michael Popovich (Middleton) $117
James Sharpe $161

2. The conduits and candidates didn't quite get their reporting right, unless I missed something. There are some people who reported conduit money but there are no reports. In other instances, conduits reported contributions that don't show up on the reports.

In addition to my previous report of

Mark Deadman
Reports a contribution from

Larry Gleasman $50 and
Phile Salkin (Verona) $50

as being from a conduit, but it doesn't show up on the conduit reports (likely the Realtors).
Note: I believe these contributions should have shown up on the pre-primary report. WRA letter dated 1/31/07, report says 2/13/07.

Michael Schumacher
Reports a contribution from

Larry Gleasman $50
Note: I believe this contribution should have shown up on the pre-primary report. WRA letter dated 1/31/07, report says 2/06/07.
John Deininger $40
Jennifer Mirscke (Sun Prairie) $25
Peter Sveum (Stoughton) $50
Kathy Zastrow $60
Lisabeth Weirich $60

as being from a conduit, but it doesn't show up on the conduit reports (likely the Realtors). And my apoligies if I spelled things wrong the handwriting was hard to read.

Great Madison Chamber of Commerce - Direct Givers
Report a Contribution to Mark Deadman from
Phil Blake $100 and
Mari Wolter $100
but the contributions don't show up on Mark Deadman's reports.

Report a contribution to Michael Schumacher from
Phil Blake $100
but the contribution doesn't show up on Michael Schumacher's report.

I can now also add the following:
Jed Sanborn report the following contributions from conduits that don't show up in the reports:

David Simon $250
Susan Springman (Waunakee) $25

both are in the real estate industry and I suspect that they should have shown up on the realtors reports.

Troy Theil's report marked the following contributions from conduits that don't show up in the conduit reports.

Elizabeth Curley $50
Allen Arntsen $50
Michael Christopher $50
Thomas Beach $100
Anne Gorman Axe $30
Dick Wagner $50
Scott Neitzel (Verona) $60
Tom Stolper $100
Susan Springman (Waunakee) $25

He also reported contributions from the following people that show up in the conduit reports but were not marked as such on Troy Theil's report:

Jim Imhoff $100

And finally, the Chamber of Commerce reports contributions to Theil that don't show up on his report. The contributions are as follows:

Jim Hegenbarth $125

3. Some campaigns got high dollar amounts or large percentages of their money from organized special interests. (I know, no big surprise really, but the numbers are higher than even I expected).

Here's a brief (hopefully accurate) analysis of a few campaigns - but it doesn't include any of the late money.

Brink
  • Total - $4285.31
  • Average Contribution - $194.79
  • Average Contribution without $1040 of the candidates own money - $147.51
  • $1,355 from the real estate and development community which makes 32% of the dollars and 50% of the contributors
  • 48% of the dollars came from contributions that were more than $100
  • 29% of the dollars came from outside the city
  • 41% of the contributions came from outside the city
  • 2% of the money came from the Chamber of Commerce conduit
  • 0% of the money came from the Realtors conduit
  • 2% of the money came from conduits
Clear
  • Total - $11,696.26
  • Average Contribution - $87.76
  • Average Contribution without $2550 of the candidates own money - $66.76
  • Only one noticeable contribution from the real estate and development community
  • 56% of the dollars came from contributions that were more than $100
  • 16% of the dollars came from outside the city
  • 13% of the contributions came from outside the city
  • 0% of the money came from the Chamber of Commerce conduit
  • 0% of the money came from the Realtors conduit
  • 0% of the money came from conduits
Palm
  • Total - $6288.19
  • Average Contribution - $82.74
  • Average Contribution without $1242.43 of the candidates own money - $67.28
  • No noticeable money from the real estate and development community
  • 64% of the dollars came from contributions that were more than $100
  • 10% of the dollars came from outside the city
  • 5% of the contributions came from outside the city
  • 0% of the money came from the Chamber of Commerce conduit
  • 0% of the money came from the Realtors conduit
  • 0% of the money came from conduits
Sanborn
  • Total - $5593.85
  • Average Contribution - $103.59
  • $2,956 from the real estate and development community which makes 53% of the dollars and 43% of the contributors
  • 80% of the dollars came from contributions that were more than $100
  • 42% of the dollars came from outside the city
  • 39% of the contributions came from outside the city
  • 10% of the money came from unknown conduits
  • 11% of the money came from the Chamber of Commerce conduit
  • 12% of the money came from the Realtors conduit
  • 33% of the money came from conduits
Theil
  • Total - $10,208
  • Average Contribution - $65.02
  • Average Contribution without $1000 of the candidates own money - $59.03
  • $2,811 from the real estate and development community which makes 28% of the dollars and 21% of the contributors
  • 52% of the dollars came from contributions that were more than $100
  • 22% of the dollars came from outside the city
  • 19% of the contributions came from outside the city
  • 4% of the money came from unknown conduits
  • 17% of the money came from the Chamber of Commerce conduit
  • 15% of the money came from the Realtors conduit
  • 35% of the money came from conduits

More to come . . .
Read more!

Friday, March 30, 2007

Campaign Finance Reports - Take 1

Ok - Instead of responding to the TIF piece in the Isthmus, I was convinced to look at the campaign finance reports instead. After 5 hours, here's what I can tell you.
(Slightly edited to fix a few errors I found.)

I only looked at reports for Claussius, Deadman, Pham-Remmele, Schumacher and Skidmore. They seemed to have the highest amount of contributions of interest. After looking at these 5 reports, here is what I can tell you.

1. There is a conduit missing. There are several firefighters that are listed on the reports as contributing through a conduit, but there is no conduit report listed on the City website.

Clausius had conduit contributions from mystery conduit from the following three people:
Che Stedman (Oregon) $100
Todd Shortreed (Waunakee) $100
Michael Stich (DeForest) $100

I'm aware of this happeneing on a few more reports and I will report them as I sort them out.

2. The conduits and candidates didn't quite get their reporting right, unless I missed something. There are some people who reported conduit money but there are no reports. In other instances, conduits reported contributions that don't show up on the reports.

Mark Deadman
Reports a contribution from
Larry Gleasman $50 and
Phile Salkin (Verona) $50
as being from a conduit, but it doesn't show up on the conduit reports (likely the Realtors).
Note: I believe these contributions should have shown up on the pre-primary report. WRA letter dated 1/31/07, report says 2/13/07.

Michael Schumacher
Reports a contribution from
Larry Gleasman $50
Note: I believe this contribution should have shown up on the pre-primary report. WRA letter dated 1/31/07, report says 2/06/07.
John Deininger $40
Jennifer Mirscke (Sun Prairie) $25
Peter Sveum (Stoughton) $50
Kathy Zastrow $60
Lisabeth Weirich $60
as being from a conduit, but it doesn't show up on the conduit reports (likely the Realtors). And my apoligies if I spelled things wrong the handwriting was hard to read.

Great Madison Chamber of Commerce - Direct Givers
Report a Contribution to Mark Deadman from
Phil Blake $100 and
Mari Wolter $100
but the contributions don't show up on Mark Deadman's reports.

Report a contribution to Michael Schumacher from
Phil Blake $100
but the contribution doesn't show up on Michael Schumacher's report.

3. Some campaigns got high dollar amounts or large percentages of their money from organized special interests. (I know, no big surprise really, but the numbers are higher than even I expected).

Here's a brief (hopefully accurate) analysis of a few campaigns - but it doesn't include any of the late money.

Clausius
  • Total - $5859.53
  • Average Contribution - $142.52
  • Average Contribution without $1600 of the candidates own money - $106.49
  • $2,375 from the real estate and development community which makes 41% of the dollars and 57% of the contributors
  • 64% of the dollars came from contributions that were more than $100
  • 25% of the dollars came from outside the city
  • 43% of the contributions came from outside the city
  • 9% of the money came from the Chamber of Commerce conduit
  • 3% of the money came from the Realtors conduit
  • 18% of the money came from conduits
Deadman
  • Total - $8,092.85
  • Average Contribution - $49.05
  • Average Contribution without $500 of the candidates own money - $46.30
  • $4,160 from the real estate and development community which makes 51% of the dollars and 27% of the contributors
  • 78% of the dollars came from contributions that were more than $100
  • 26% of the dollars came from outside the city
  • 18% of the contributions came from outside the city
  • 30% of the money came from the Chamber of Commerce conduit
  • 16% of the money came from the Realtors conduit
  • 46% of the money came from conduits
Pham-Remmele
  • Total - $10,109
  • Average Contribution - $70.20
  • Average Contribution without $800 of the candidates own money - $65.10
  • $2,750 from the real estate and development community which makes 27% of the dollars and 25% of the contributors
  • 42% of the dollars came from contributions that were more than $100
  • 22% of the dollars came from outside the city
  • 20% of the contributions came from outside the city
  • 17% of the money came from the Chamber of Commerce conduit
  • 7% of the money came from the Realtors conduit
  • 24% of the money came from conduits
Schmumacher
  • Total - $9,416.42
  • Average Contribution - $97.08
  • Average Contribution without $1,000 of the candidates own money - $87.67
  • $3,614 from the real estate and development community which makes 38% of the dollars and 42% of the contributors
  • 57% of the dollars came from contributions that were more than $100
  • 28% of the dollars came from outside the city
  • 28% of the contributions came from outside the city
  • 21% of the money came from the Chamber of Commerce conduit
  • 12% of the money came from the Realtors conduit
  • 23% of the money came from conduits
Paul Skidmore
  • Total - $3,817.85
  • Average Contribution - $119.31
  • $3,030 from the real estate and development community which makes 79% of the dollars and 59% of the contributors
  • 80% of the dollars came from contributions that were more than $100
  • 39% of the dollars came from outside the city
  • 34% of the contributions came from outside the city
  • 12% of the money came from the Chamber of Commerce conduit
  • 3% of the money came from the Realtors conduit
  • 15% of the money came from conduits
4. The Realtors have given "late money" (we won't see who it was from until the July reports are done) to the following candidates in the following amounts:
Michael Schumacher = $575
Mark Deadman = $625
Thuy Pham-Remmele = $500
Michael Schumacher = $305

5. Chamber of Commerce has given "late money".
Michael Schumacher = $725
Thuy Pham-Remmele = $575
Troy Theil = $600
Michael Schumacher = $450
Thuy Pham-Remmele = $325
Jed Sanborn = $375

So, more to come, as soon as I find more time to dig through these numbers - I have to get to work by noon today. Hopefully, my info is error free, but this is not an easy task to try to untangle all of this. If you see an error, feel free to let me know.

Read more!

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Better Late than Never - 3/27 Council Meeting Report

So, Tuesday night's Council meeting did not disappoint. There was all the spinning, grandstanding, puffery and otherwise unnecessary talking that you could ask for. I sure hope the new council can do better, this is growing tiresome. Anyways, here's what happened . . .

First of all, the following Alders were absent: Tim Bruer, Santiago Rosas, Paul VanRooy, Isadore Knox. That's the most absences we've had in recent memory.

The agenda had several items of note:
  • Neighborhood Conservation Districts Failed for the third time. The "deal" struck with the "industry" didn't sit very well with several council members. The new language said that 75% of the area in the district couldn't be buildings that were less than 25 years old. This was problematic for infill areas and the periphery (and not so periphery) of the City. There were attempts to refer that failed. The vote eventually was 10 - 6 with the 4 absences. Voting against, despite the "deal with the industry" were Sanborn, Thomas, Brandon, Compton, King and Skidmore. Then I changed my vote to no, so that I could move reconsideration at the next Council meeting after we worked on the above noted problem. So, we'll be discussing this, for the fourth time, with the new council.
  • Compact Fluorescent Light bulb proposal This was a truly bizarre discussion, complete with props from Alder Brandon. If you were to believe some of the near hysterical arguments, if we passed the ordinance we'd all be dying (particularly the children) from mercury poisoning, the City of Madison would be be putting 15,000 American workers out of work, we'd be destroying the environment, recycling the bulbs would be bad for the environment, Austin King is the new champion for Walmart , this was an ordinance proposed just to "get landlords" cuz they're a "favorite to be picked on" and businesses would go out of business cuz they'd have to deal with hazardous chemical spills every time a lightbulb broke. Ok, there may be a slight exaggeration in those statements, but not much. There were several votes on this item. First we voted on referral; the argument was that there wasn't enough time to discuss this, despite going through the process - as explained by Ald. King - of introduction, referral, discussion at committee level, (compromise with the industry) and then coming back to the council. That failed with only 9 votes in favor - Radomski, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas, Brandon, Cnare, Compton, Golden, Gruber. Alder Brandon the made a motion to change the types of bulbs used and the time that the ordinance would take effect. That failed with only 6 votes in favor - Radomski, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas, Brandon, Compton. Then, we voted on the ordinance and it failed with only 10 votes. The council requires 11 votes for an item to pass regardless of who shows up for the meeting. Those in support were Olson, Palm, Verveer, Webber, Benford, Cnare, Gruber, King and Konkel. And I should say thanks to all the Sierra Club members who helped to educate us so much about this issue, it was really educational for many of us.
  • We put around $1M in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund
  • We completed more of the Health Department Merger (#14 & 15). And thanked the many people who worked so hard on this over the years.
  • We passed a mandate banning paint ball guns. There were a few amendments to this that passed easily.
Um . . .did I mention, we put ONE MILLION DOLLARS in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund? That passed without comment. Unanimously. We will have $3.8 million dollars in the fund. Former Alders Todd Jarrell and Tom Powell should be proud!

Well, so ends another two years. We have much to look forward to in the new council, regardless of who wins next Tuesday. And likely, we'll have many challenges ahead as well particularly with all of the new members and their varied learning curves. Stay tuned!

Read more!

Thank you WISC-TV

A quick word of thanks to Neil Heinen and Channel 3 for their nice editorial about the Tenant Resource Center and our current funding issues. Thank you!

Here's the text of the editorial.

HELP PRESERVE VALUABLE TENANT RESOURCE CENTER

03/27/07

For the last 26 years, the Tenant Resource Center has been an indispensable asset for renters in Madison. It has always been a campus icon, interestingly since a questionable decision by the University of Wisconsin has cut funding for the center.

But over the years, the TRC has grown to be an important voice for all those seeking help, advice and sometimes fairness in finding and keeping housing. And that is a service that we have a responsibility to preserve.

The Tenant Resource Center is now larger, more professional agency. It assists thousands of people and last year alone, helped more than 200 families avoid eviction. Employees and volunteers are smart and passionate.

But the constant battle for adequate funding is wearing thin. TRC has plan for making up the loss of campus funding, but it needs a little help. We ask you to please consider donating time, materials and yes, money, to help keep this vital community asset provide the services it alone is best suited to provide. Give them a call, stop by the Williamson Street office or visit their Web site. The TRC is a resource we can't afford to lose.

Read more!

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Last Business Meeting of the 2005 - 2007 Madison Common Council

I thought we were pretty squirrely at the last Council meeting, just last Tuesday. I wonder what tonight will hold?

Last time, the agenda and (near) actions of the council were disturbing. I'm not sure how many people realized that we nearly repealed the childcare program, finally approved spending the fair housing testing money that we voted on in 2005 when we created the Department of Civil Rights, voted to condemn private property (Sanborn and I voted "no"), created a committee in a highly unusual way, approved a flawed agreement with Union Corners for TIF funding and nearly approved a resolution with missing information. All of this, in addition to some playing some crass politics on the council floor. Several alders (Compton, Gruber, Knox, Olson, Rosas, Skidmore, Thomas, VanRooy and Verveer - tho Verveer says he wasn't paying attention and made a mistake) actually voted to call the question to prevent me from asking questions about the Union Corners agreement. (Thanks to Benford, Bruer, King, Sanborn, Webber and Palm who wanted to allow debate and subsequent correction in the resolution. Brandon, Cnare and Radomski were absent. Golden abstained.)

The Union Corners issue boiled down to this. The day before the council meeting, the TIF Committee met and we discussed changing what is considered an investment by the developer. If changed the way the development community wants it changed, they could be allowed to make more profit before the City gets back its "equity kicker". The "equity kicker" is a formula to get back money from the developer if they make more money on the project than they said that they would. (Which means we could have given them less TIF money to begin with.) None of the alders in the room were present for that TIF committee discussion, and yet they were willing to vote to just give taxpayer dollars away without listening to arguments about how we could improve the agreement and protect the taxpayer.

And then, there was the nutty discussion on public financing of campaigns. My personal favorite was when Alder VanRooy attempted to "balance" the committee that had the League of Women Voters, Democracy Campaign and Common Cause on it by adding 2 members of the business community. Apparently, according to this alder, the "business community" has a different view of clean elections than the watchdog groups!

Tonight's agenda holds several items of interest including:
Hopefully things don't get as contentious at the last business meeting, but I'm not too optimistic. If nothing else, with at least nine new members of the council, this election cycle gives us a chance to start over and hopefully build a little more respect and collegiality on the Council and some better working relationships. And hopefully this new council won't be afraid of debate on the council floor.

Read more!

Monday, March 26, 2007

What's in a Dane Dem Vote for Endorsement?

There are many reasons why I don't belong to the Dane County Democratic Party, but here is yet another. (These are my thoughts and my thoughts only, not the position of Progressive Dane.)

When a political party endorses a candidate or makes no endorsement, wouldn't you expect that they would then put their resources into the candidates that they endorsed? And refrain from putting resources into those candidates that did not get an endorsement? Those resources might be volunteers, lists, promotion on website and in newsletters, etc. Makes sense right?

Well, its not that way with the Dane Dems and the state Democratic Party. The Dane Dem website says that they endorsed the following candidates for Madison Common Council

Aaron Backer [1st District]
Mike Verveer (incumbent) [4th District]
Brian Solomon [10th District]
Satya Rhodes-Conway [12th District]
Julia Kerr [13th District]
Joe Clausius [17th District]
Mark Clear [19th District]
Gary Poulson [20th District]

However, they ended up doing phone banks to ID voters in several races, including for Eli Judge (8th district), Larry Palm (15th district), Troy Theil (5th district) and who knows who else.

When asked about this, their excuse was that they are "only a phone vendor". And that it is not a "Democratic Party sponsored event".
Oh, so they're just a phone vendor? Would they let Republican candidates use these phones?

And,
when you get these calls, Democratic Party of Wisconsin shows up on your caller ID. That seems to imply a Democratic Party involvement. I wonder how all this backroom shuffling of member's wishes plays with members of the party? Why bother showing up and voting if leaders of the party just do what they want anyways?

I have seen countless other examples of leadership thwarting the will of the membership over the years and I often wonder why people keep trying within the Democratic Party, but I admire the tenacity of those who keep trying. It's this kind of lack of transparency and lack of democracy that cripples the organization and renders them ineffective and drives members away. Of course, that's completely absurd given that here in Dane County, Democrats are a majority of voters.

Makes me wonder what else we have to look forward to in the last week of the campaigns? Will we see similar tactics as two years ago from Citizens for Madison's Future or some similar Democratic Party front group? Remember when they paid to mail smear lit pieces with lies and attacks into districts to support the candidates that Democratic Party leadership has chosen, without a vote of the membership? Or do they have new tricks up their sleeves this year?

Locally, this is the worst week for campaigning, lets hope the campaigns keep it clean this year.

Read more!

I love spring!

Ok - so there is nothing political or deep or insightful about this post.


It's just nice to wander around your yard and see the fruits of your labor from years past.



And it's nice to have warmer weather!

(Sorry about the kinda blurry camera phone photos, I didn't know where Rob had put the camera.)

Read more!

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Tenant Resource Center needs your help!

I don't often blog about, for or at work, but the Tenant Resource Center could use a few minutes of your time! (i.e. Please read!)

I've been volunteering or working for the Tenant Resource Center since 1991. That's 16 years of my life. And I don't stay because of the not-so-cushy pay or the not-so-posh comforts of the office and the slow computers. I stay because I know we can change the world. And I hope you do too!

I started as a housing counseling volunteer when I was a second year law school student. At the time, the agency had about a $80,000 budget, 1.25 staff people, a poor volunteer training program and problems literally keeping the door open. And by that I mean, volunteers would show up and the office would be locked. I remember sitting in the basement at 14 W. Mifflin on the steps trying to help tenants who had problems, without any back up materials or even a chair. The place was struggling, but I stayed, because I saw the potential and I knew this place would help change the world.

After volunteering for over a year, the volunteer coordinator was graduating from law school. I interviewed on Good Friday for the position, when I should have been going home for break, and I got it! Then it was my job to keep the doors open - and I did. I did that and a whole bunch of other crazy things, including making my boyfriend hitchhike back from Weedstock in Mt. Horeb (our car was stuck in the mud along with everyone else) to help the Tenant Resource Cenater move around the corner and down the street from 14 W. Mifflin to 122 State Street. (5th floor and later 2nd floor). I kept the job after I graduated from law school and started my law practice, but it soon became impractical, so I had to leave the Tenant Resource Center. However, I joined the board of directors. I did that because this wasn't just a place of employment or a place to make money; I did it because I knew that the Tenant Resource Center was helping to change the world, one problem at a time.

When I was on the board of directors, we were facing all kinds of trouble that so many non-profits face. Low wages, small staff, unstable grant funding, no money for one time investments like a computer, struggling to meet the grant requirements on a state grant, etc etc etc. It got so bad, we ended up firing an Executive Director, who still couldn't keep the doors open. Another board member and I stepped in to write volunteer training materials and to do statewide seminars so we didn't lose our state grant funds. (Since then, because we were so late in performing on the grant, we've never gotten state funds again! Or so we've been told. Not sure I believe that is the reason.) We hired a new person who, after 6 months, didn't work out. And we figured out, with a salary of $20,800 and with no health insurance or benefits beyond two weeks vacation, it was going to be difficult to hire anyone else who would be qualified unless they were insanely committed.

So I took the job. It was only supposed to be for three months while we sorted things out. (OK, and at that point, the thought of a steady paycheck as opposed to the completely random payments from my solo law office was kind of appealing.) But I also took the job because I believed that the Tenant Resource Center, with the help of so many people in the community, was making a difference; we were changing the world.

And, so it goes. I brought my desk and chairs from my law office and and my personal computer and I've been Executive Director of the Tenant Resource Center since May of 1995. Since that time, I have seen amazing things happen. I've had the pleasure of knowing so many dedicated volunteers, staff and board members. I've seen the agency help thousands and thousands of people in need. I've watched the programs grow and expand. And I've been thrilled with the community support we have had so far.

With your help, we took our $85,000 budget to $350,000. Instead of just being funded by the City of Madison Office of Community Services and Community Shares of Wisconsin, we are also now funded by City of Madison Community Development Block Grant Office, Dane County, UW-Madison, HUD, several small one-time grants, our fundraising and sales of services. Our staff grew from 1.25 to a height of 8 FTEs (full time equivalents). We started a mediation program, the Housing Help Desk, the Housing Crisis Fund, the statewide toll-free number and moved two more times, each time to a bigger office and we are now proud members/owners of the Social Justice Center.

In 2006, we were able to serve the following people:
  • 6,724 people called or stopped by to get assistance with housing counseling, information or referral.
  • 1,480 calls came in statewide through our 800 number and received follow up assistance.
  • 634 people attended our local workshops or presentations
  • 106,940 people visited our website
  • 1,084 people received in depth assistance from the Housing Help Desk, with an additional 6,732 people stopping by to get "quick" information
  • 205 families were able to avoid eviction through assistance from our Housing Crisis Fund
  • 787 people resolved their rental housing disputes through 645 mediations
We also continued our statewide seminars, finished our Apartment Management in Wisconsin book, performed CLE training for local attorneys, translated more materials into Spanish, continued to improve our website and a whole host of other things. We're able to do all of this, not only because we have volunteers who do our housing counseling and assist with office work and a dedicated staff, but because of the community support. And of course, because we all know that we can change the world, or at least our little corner of it.

Sometimes I feel like I am one of the luckiest people in the world. I was able to find a job that I am good at and I love. Sure, there are mornings, like this morning, when I'm answering the business line until my office manager gets here and getting interrupted to open the storage area in the basement to figure out how to get rid of the water in the basement from last night's rain after being at the office until 11:00 last night. And sometimes I wonder how I'm going to make it through the next three months without going insane while Megin (Hicks) McDonell, my trusty sidekick and the Program Director for the Tenant Resource Center for the last 10 years, is out on maternity leave having her second baby. But it's all worth it. It's worth it when you see the look in the eyes of a formerly homeless person who says thank you for believing in him and helping him to get permanent housing. Our friend, Johnathan was able to sell some of his art through his exhibit at the Social Justice Center Jackie Macaulay Art Gallery and because of the case management of one of our staff people, was able to get himself in a position to have a place to call home. And he in return, gives back, by running errands and helping out with miscellaneous things around the office. For others, we might just give them some information that helps them figure out how to prevent getting evicted, how to get their $600 security deposit back, how to get their heat repaired, what their responsibilities will be if they break their lease because they have to move out of town and what they can do to help themselves. But most people still smile and say thank you and you can see they truly appreciate what we can do for them, and that makes it all worth it.

So, back to my point. We need your help! This fall, the SSFC (Student Services Finance Committee) denied the Tenant Resource Center eligibility for funding because they changed their rules yet again and they have determined that we are not a student organization. We apparently need students to 100% control our funding and having 1/3 of our board members being students isn't enough. As a result, come July 1, after 10 years of being funded by the UW-Madison, we will be losing $55,000 in funding. That's $15,000 more than my salary and more than the salary of 2 of my full time employees. As you can imagine, that will have a devastating effect on the amount of people we can serve if we don't figure out a way to make that up.

Don't dispair, we have a plan! But we need you. And here's some of the things that you can help with.
  • Volunteer to do housing counseling for the Tenant Resource Center (There is a 12 hour training done in 3 sessions, written materials and on-going support.)
  • Volunteer to help answer the business line, in particular between 2:00 and 6:00.
  • We're looking for someone to help finish our second book, but we need someone who is well versed in PageMaker (We're kind of stuck with that program at the moment.)
  • Make a donation.
  • Donate materials we need. We can always use letter size paper (white and various colors), treats for our volunteers, letter size file folders, flip chart paper, miscellaneous office supplies. And at the moment, we need a new easel for our flipchart and a cooler (preferably on wheels).
  • Host a houseparty. (Invite your friends and ask them to donate.)
  • We always need additional trained mediators who can work on Tuesdays.
  • Or, more immediately, if you have time today or tomorrow or maybe even Monday, stop by and help us get a 5,000 piece mailing out the door.
Seriously, if you can help, we can be contacted at
  • 257-0143 (257-0006 if you need help with a housing problem or 242-7406 if you need help finding housing or with rent assistance), or
  • stop by our office at 1202 Williamson St, Suite A Monday - Friday from 9 - 6, or
  • email us at office@tenantresourcecenter.org (or for housing counseling questions asktrc@tenantresourcecenter.org), or
  • you can donate on line at our website.
Thanks for listening! And thanks for everyone who has supported the Tenant Resource Center for so many years. You have helped us to make a difference! And our many clients throughout the years really, truly appreciate it.

Read more!

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Plan Commission Mania!

Last night's plan commission was pretty grueling, but productive. Partially due to lack of quorum at the last Plan Commission meeting, and partially due to several alders trying to get things done before they left the Council, we had a pretty crazy agenda and I think we did the best we could under the circumstances.

Here's a few things that we decided or accomplished:
  • We got a 20 minute briefing and were able to ask questions and give feedback on the Hill Farms State Office Property
  • We recommended approval of the sale of Wingra School, with two modifications to number 13 and 18 and with the recommendation that the money from the sale of the school go into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. We also approved land use changes for the school.
  • We recommended adoption the Monroe Street Commercial District Plan, despite the fact that it wasn't quite complete and that there wasn't quite agreement about the heights of the buildings and we will likely be discussing this one project by project.
  • We referred the East Washington BUILD Plan after several hours of testimony and discussion. We referred the plan so staff could provide us information about how we could do a traffic/transportation and parking plan to examine if the recommended heights were feasible, so we could get a report about the conflicts between this plan and the East Rail Corridor Plan (Why is that still a draft?) and the proposed Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Plan (And when will we finally get the staff to release this plan so we can vote on it?) and, there was one other condition I can't remember at the moment.
  • We recommended approval of changes to the Union Corners land use plan and the SIP (Specific Implementation Plan) for phase 1.
  • We approved demolition of a bunch of stuff.
  • We recommended approval of the Linden Park school. And we recommended changes to zoning to allow schools to be built in a Conservancy District to do it. (I have to say, that doesn't make sense.)
  • We delayed approval of the rooftop terrace a Johnny O's to allow the owner to work with the neighbors and neighborhood association.
  • Recommended to establish three new wellhead protections areas.
  • We recommended adoption of the Neighborhood Conservation District Ordinance (again), with 6 amendments to ordinance that failed the council about a month ago. The changes require a survey of neighbors and a report before a resolution can be presented to the Common Council to establish the district. The request to study the area must come from a resident, commercial tenant or owner in the proposed district. The conservation districts will be reviewed after 20 years to consider changes. Conservation districts can't be created in newly built areas of the City. Conservation districts can't be formed simply because there is a landmarked building, there has to be more of a unique feature of the area. And another change or two that I can't remember at the moment.
  • Recommended possible condemnation of a property at 8694 Hughes Place. (I didn't vote for that.)
  • Recommended replacing the Lake Wingra Dam. (It was a pretty quick $1M decision that I couldn't vote for given the late hour and my personal lack of background information on the subject.)
  • Recommended approval of the Office of Neighborhood Support (I'll see if I can get a link to an electronic version of that) and delayed, yet again, our discussion of the details of the report on the reorganization of the Department of Planning and Development.
Well, who says we can't get things done if we want to?

All of that took a little less than 7 hours. I hope we can get those appointments made to the Plan Commission so we don't have further problems with quorum and that we can slow down the pace just a bit so we can make sure we are making good decisions, or better yet, maybe someday we can get our Plan Commission materials sooner than Friday afternoon before the Monday plan commission meeting.

Read more!

Thursday, March 15, 2007

East Washington BUILD Committee

A few weeks ago, an email I sent to the East Washington BUILD Committee caused a typical panic and backlash from members of the business community. In that email, I said that I would not be sponsoring the resolution that accepted the East Washington BUILD committee report, mostly due to the "process". That was a mistake.

In my haste, I didn't clearly articulate the issues that were underlying that comment about "process". Luckily, only a few hours after getting off the plane from my vacation yesterday morning, I was able to attend the middle portion of the Urban Design Commission meeting on the plan. As I stood in the hallway (the room was overflowing) listening to the testimony, I was impressed by the folks who attended the meeting to express their concerns in a way that was so much more adequate than my feeble explanation of my objections to sponsoring the resolution.

My vacation-adled brain was quickly reminded of what the issues at hand were. And here, I will try to begin to outline what some of those issues are, though I am likely missing a few issues as I try to refresh my memory regarding the many months of work done in 2005.

1. There is a disconnect between the stated goals of the plan and the specific recommendations of the plan.

The stated goals of the plan are not in dispute. The goals are as follows:
  • Protect and enhance the iconic view of the Capitol.
    • Incorporate building setbacks and stepbacks to protect the view of the Capitol.
    • Incorporate minimum and maximum heights for buildings that directly front along East Washington Avenue that may then stepup or down away from the Avenue.
    • Incorporate building setbacks and stepbacks to frame views of the Capitol in a complementary fashion from one side of EastWashington Avenue to the other.
    • Incorporate varied building stepbacks and varied roof designs within permissible height limits to avoid a walling/canyon affect of the Capitol view corridor and a plateau affect of flat and uniform building tops.
    • Incorporate building designs, materials, and exterior colors that complement surrounding development and do not attract attention to the detriment of the view of the Capitol.
  • Respect and strengthen existing neighborhoods
    • Provide a mix of housing types that, together with the existing housing stock of the adjoining neighborhoods, provides a wide range of housing options within the Corridor.
    • Provide a mix of commercial uses that serve the needs of the adjoining neighborhoods and other development within the Corridor that are complementary with the existing commercial uses and districts located north and south of the Corridor.
    • Where adjacent to existing residential uses, adopt height limits and building setbacks and stepbacks to provide a compatible street level scale and adequate solar access.
    • Where adjacent to existing residential uses, incorporate building designs, materials and colors that are consistent with the existing residential environment.
    • Orient primary vehicular entries to side streets, where possible, and locate service areas in internal courts to minimize development related traffic and effects on East Mifflin and East Main Streets.
    • Provide building orientations and scales, streetscape features,and public gathering areas along the north-south side streets to create safe and inviting pedestrian and bicycling connections between the neighborhoods and East Washington Avenue.
    • Enhance street-oriented activities and concentrate streetscape amenities on corners with signalized crosswalks across East Washington Avenue to encourage and direct pedestrian traffic between the north and south sides of the street.
    • Provide transit shelters and other amenities that serve neighborhood residents as well as users of the development within the Corridor.
  • Firmly establish the corridor as an employment center supported by transit land uses.
    • Permit a broad range of employment land uses, especially on the south side of East Washington Avenue.
    • Permit a mix of integrated uses within areas designated as employment to support the needs of employees and employers (such as small-scale retail, personal and business services, and, possibly, limited residential or live-work spaces) - discourage freestanding commercial and residential development in these areas.
    • Encourage development of housing where identified as appropriate on the north side of East Washington Avenue that would be attractive to employees on the south side to increase livework options.
    • Permit intensive development of parcels identified for employment including a high percentage of lot coverage, high floor area ratios, and multiple stories as an off-set to high land costs and to maximize existing infrastructure investments.
    • Work with existing businesses to determine future plans and needs so they can grow and prosper in their current location.
    • Work with existing property owners to develop a complete inventory of available space, lease rates, and build-to-suit opportunities.
    • Develop marketing materials and a marketing strategy to actively promote the Corridor to new and expanded businesses.
    • Recognize East Washington Avenue’s designation as the primary auto and truck route into downtown to and from the east, and ensure that development patterns do not inadvertently direct through traffic to other east-west streets on the Isthmus.
    • Use TIF funds and other revenue sources to provide parking, transit, and related public amenities needed to attract new employers to the Corridor.
    • Provide incentives for employers/employees to use transit and modes of transportation other than automobiles.
    • Develop additional transit options including streetcars and/or commuter rail.
    • Use TIF and other programs to encourage the building of shared-parking facilities concurrent with new development.
    • Widen sidewalks and add streetscape amenities to encourage pedestrian activity along East Main Street.
    • Recognize that mobility is the key to area’s redevelopment and encourage a full range of transportation options to move people, goods, and services within and through the Corridor.
  • Create an inviting, vibrant Boulevard along East Washington Avenue
    • Promote a mix of active ground floor uses consistent with the land use plan.
    • Establish uniform minimum and maximum heights for buildings fronting directly on East Washington Avenue that may then step up or down away from the Avenue.
    • Incorporate uniform setbacks and expanded sidewalks to provide a comfortable environment for pedestrians by providing greater distances from moving traffic on East Washington Avenue.
    • Incorporate complementary building setbacks and stepbacks from one side of East Washington Avenue to the other to frame the Capitol and provide a consistent sense of enclosure.
    • Orient main building entries to East Washington Avenue by incorporating entry plazas and other ground level design elements.
    • Develop a consistent palette and design concept for trees and other landscaping within the East Washington Avenue setbacks, terraces, and medians to create a sense of unity from one end of the Corridor to the other consistent with the goal to protect views of the Capitol.
    • Create a consistent rhythm of street level facades from one end of the Corridor to the other.
    • Incorporate uniform setbacks to accommodate landscaping, entry plazas, and outdoor gathering and activity areas such as dining and art displays.
    • Incorporate design elements on the lower 3-5 stories, including stepbacks, that clearly differentiate the lower floors from the upper floors and that create a more comfortable and inviting environment for pedestrians.
    • Provide a high level of transparency on the lower levels of buildings - prohibit large blank walls.
    • Require a continuous, uninterrupted block face - prohibit interruptions for vehicular access from East Washington Avenue unless no other option is available.
    • Respect and highlight historic buildings by setting back and stepping back new development and additions.
    • Promote the use of high performance “green” building designs and materials that incorporate the reuse or materials, natural materials, energy efficiency, stormwater capture and reuse, green roofs, etc.
    • Prohibit new surface parking lots and other service areas fronting along East Washington Avenue as redevelopment occurs.
    • Incorporate transit amenities, such as shelters, at regular intervals along the Corridor.
Everyone agrees, these are great goals. But where the plan falls apart is where is makes the specific recommendations on pages that follow. Many of the recommendations about heights don't seem to accomplish the goals stated above, and in several cases, work at cross purposes with the goals.

2. The transportation piece of the plan is not complete. As one of the speakers pointed out, this plan is lacking in transportation planning beyond planning for parking. The plan is incomplete and we need to finish that piece of the discussion. Until we have a plan for transportation on the isthmus, increasing density of uses is problematic.

3. The plan conflicts with other isthmus plans. Unfortunately, many of the materials provided by neighborhood folks are not on legistar at the moment and I will try to link materials as I figure out how to get them on line somewhere. For the moment, suffice it to say, that it is miserable when we pass plans that conflict with each other and then a project comes forward. We need to make sure that we are consistent in our plans and that we are creating clear expectations for developers and not subjecting them to the whims of whomever is on the committees making decisions when a project gets voted on.

4. The plan lacks a comprehensive vision. As I was standing in the hallway, one of the neighbors commented to me that there were good elements in this plan, however, the vision for what the area should be was not clear. In short, if you had to summarize the plan, it is difficult as it seems that the plan tried to be all things to all people instead of accomplishing a clear and comprehensive vision for the area. In short, if we pass the plan as it is, we are setting ourselves up to repeat these arguments we are having today, for years to come every time a project gets voted on.

A couple things the concerns about this plan are not:

1. It is not only about height. Or density. (Remember, height does not equal density) Or sprawl. It is curious to me that sometimes months and months of work can sometimes be boiled down to one, overly simplified talking point. We have all of those great goals above, that everyone agrees on, and yet, most of the discussion is about if buildings should be 8 stories or 15 stories. The whole conversation is completely out of sync with reality. At the moment, we have 2 or maybe 3 story buildings and we are all in agreement to increase the density, dramatically. We will decrease sprawl. We will increase the density. We will have more height. We all agree that should happen. The issues are much more nuanced than how tall a building should be. This issue is about how density can be achieved while accomplishing all those other good goals we have listed above. And more importantly, will we get what we want in the goals above if we approve buildings that meet the standards outlined in the plan?

2. It is not a compromise. As is often done, several people have said that we should pass this plan because no one is happy and that is a good sign of a compromise. What is often forgotten is that compromise is supposed to be a win-win situation. Everyone being unhappy is the sign of a really bad compromise. And worse yet, in this situation, the major issue is that we should finish the work of the committee. Making sure that we have that common vision for transportation and the physical form that the isthmus should take is crucial. Without that, we have wasted $100,000 of taxpayer money and are dooming ourselves to re-discuss these same issues time after time, project by project, and we will end up the same old tired story where the business community is dissatisfied with City government and neighbors who will say that we don't listen to them.

The good news is, that we still have time to fix this and prevent an undesirable outcome.

Read more!

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Brenda the Bad Blogger

My apologies for my lack of blogging recently. About two weeks ago, all hell broke loose at work and sent most of my staff reeling in a thousand directions and a few of us had a few extra things we needed to do, while my staff tried to put their lives back together. Luckily, things are nearly back to . . . well, normal isn't exactly the word, but things are better and my staff are all surviving various nutty things going on in their lives. (You really wouldn't believe the odd series of events that happened to my staff in the past few weeks!)

Anyways, I'm going on a brief, much needed, vacation on Friday, and then I'll be back mid-week next week and back to my old blogging self. Don't worry, I won't go fishing and fail to return. Or go underground and disappear altogether, or give you a teaser and not keep blogging. I promise, when I return, I'll be back to blogging 4 or 5 times a week, I have so much to catch up on, it might even be more!

Read more!