Looking for Volunteers!

Wanna volunteer? I can put you to work . . .

I'm currently looking for volunteers in a variety of areas for a variety of projects, if you are interested in any of these, please let me know.

DUMPSTER DIVING
Today, at 10:30 until we move another 2,000 carpet square. Anyone? My office manager Erika and I, with the help of SJC board member and former staff Rick Fairchild during his lunch break and after work, have moved 1,000 carpet squares so far . . . but we're no where near done.

Come on, doesn't it look like fun!

BLOGGERS
Anyone interested in doing some blogging? I can teach you and you don't have to do it every day or scribe meetings like I do, you can give opinions, report on issues of importance to you and your neighborhood. It's really up to you, I just ask you keep it local.

TELEVISION STUDIO CREW?
What are you doing Sunday nights at 7 or 8pm? Would you be willing to learn to help out in the studio, help line up guests, run cameras if necessary, etc. If you're interested in helping out a night or two a month, or learning to shoot video and edit it, let me know.

RESEARCH
Campaign finance reports, lobbying reports, statement of interest forms, school budget, zoning code rewrite, researching old houses, various housing issues, funding resources etc etc etc. It all needs some research and work to be done, if you're interested, let me know.

ORGANIZING/COMMUNICATIONS
Don't mind writing talking points, press releases, and email alerts? Good with twitter, facebook and social media? Can you help get the word out on various issues?

GARDENING
Both the Social Justice Center and the James Madison Park gardens could use some help throughout the summer.

LAYING CARPET TILES
The Social Justice Center is going to have nearly 3,000 of them to lay. It may include helping move things.

HOUSING COUNSELORS AND MEDIATORS
We're always looking for people interested in helping with housing counseling which we will train or trained mediators that are available to to to small claims court on Tuesdays.

So, did you see something that caught your eye in that blur of work, political and personal interest of mine? If so, email me at brendakonkel@gmail.com or . . . call me at 345-8720. Most of it you can be trained to do!
Read more!

Property Tax Exemption: Where's the "Out"?

So, Attorney Tim Radelet has suggested how the City can get out of this situation. The Property Tax Exemption Subcommittee of the Housing Committee have also suggested several things (skip past the first part about the resolution - go to the part where Bill Clingan talks to the committee.) Bill Clingan, our Community Development Director recently appointed by the Mayor (i.e. expect the party line), was tasked with coming up with a report on our options, but the city attorney seems to have over-ruled that motion declaring it invalid and not allowing it to come back to the council. Meanwhile, here's what the council is going to consider at the next meeting. (HINT: If you're unhappy about this situation, plan on attending the May 5th Common Council meeting. Recommendation: If the entire council motion is over-ruled by the city attorney, the Council could ask for the reports they requested in this resolution.)

Here's the resolution, as the Property Tax Exemption Committee recommended. (The recommendation was to have the Council President have this under business by the President and not send it back to the Housing Committee, we'll see if that happens.)

WHEREAS, over the past many years, hundreds of housing units have been developed in the City of Madison by non-profit organizations specifically for providing affordable housing to low and moderate income residents; and

WHEREAS, the many non-profit organizations which have developed this housing did so with budgets and plans which included exemption from property tax; and

WHEREAS, the City of Madison has been involved in various ways with many of these housing developers, helping them develop this housing, with the understanding and expectation that they would be exempt from property tax; and

WHEREAS, these many non-profit housing developers, and including the Community
Development Authority (CDA), have been in operation for years with exemption from property tax; and

WHEREAS, recent circuit court rulings have been made in the fall of 2008 which interpret the state law, which provides for property tax exemption, in such a way that may result in all or most of these housing developers, and possibly the CDA, losing their exemption; and

WHEREAS, many of these housing providers are unable to adjust their budgets to
accommodate this property tax expense and may be forced either to shut down and thus
displace their low income residents, or if they are able to raise their rents sufficiently then they will no longer be affordable to low-income renters; and

WHEREAS, the City of Madison does support efforts to amend the State Statute to protect the tax-exempt status of these housing providers; and

WHEREAS, it is the understanding that the state legislature is considering a number of different options for amendment to the statutes related to property tax exemption;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council hereby adopts the following
resolution:

1. The Council directs the City's lobbyists to strongly urge Madison's State legislators, and also all other State legislators and the Governor, to promptly adopt the changes supported below.

2. The Council directs the City's lobbyists to strongly urge State legislators and the Governor to do so as soon as possible, but no later than the end of the summer, with the amendments being retroactive to January 1, 2009, so that the housing providers will not lose their exemption from property tax for 2009.

3. The Council directs the City's lobbyists to urge State legislators and the Governor to adopt a bill which has the terms formerly stated in Conference Substitute Amendment 1, to Assembly Bill 1 from 2008 (this is often called the Vetoed Language) attached, along with the following adjustments to Section 51 of the Bill:
A 70.11(4)(a) shall be changed as follows: Low Income Housing. (a) For purposes of sub (4) “low-income housing” means any single-family house or residential condominium unit described in sub (4a)(b)1., (ADD:any low-income housing project, or any) housing project described in sub. (4b) (DELETE: or any residential unit within a low-income housing project that is occupied by a low-income or very low-income person or is vacant and is only available to such persons.)
B Insert the following paragraph between 70.11(4a)(c) and (4a)(d):
(cc) For purposes of this subsection and sub. (4), "project" includes property located on more than one tax parcel if the parcels are owned or operated by the same person and are adjacent, separated only by a street or other public right-of-way, or within the same condominium development.

4. That the City's lobbyists provide monthly reports, whether in person or in writing, about the progress of their efforts on this issue, starting with one month after this resolution is adopted.

5. That the City take action, in the event the Legislature does not resolve this issue in 2009, to mitigate the impact of losing tax-exempt status on non-profit housing providers and the people they house.

I hope that passing this resolution is not the "out" that council members use to say that they have done something and wash their hands of the situation.

I'd recommend that they also:
- get more information about what the city attorney's office is doing when it comes to lawsuits, so that in the future they don't get caught like this again. In the least, they should get a report on the claims filed over a certain amount of money.
- find a local solution, in case the state legislature doesn't fix this situation. They need the reports that they asked for at both council meetings where this was discussed.
- get an affordable housing plan in place, ASAP. I think the Housing Committee should do it, and be given resources to get it done! In the alternative, the Housing Diversity committee that was formed when IZ went away in January should MEET!! They only have 2 months or so to come up with a report.
- instruct the city attorney to work with Attorney Tim Radelet and respond to his recommendations. I'd like to see them come back with alternative solutions if the city attorney's office shoots down all of Attorney Radelet's suggestions.
Read more!

Why the Council didn't meet to Take Back their Power

So, the council is past the time when it could have a meeting to rectify the obliteration of their recent actions on the property tax exemption issue. Who's fault is it that there wasn't a meeting called?

First, let me say, I'm aware that several alders tried to convince the powers that be that they should have a meeting and make a decision. I think there were some legitimate disagreements about if they should meet and what it would accomplish, and I'm certain there was a whole lot of arm twisting.

So, what's the explanation about why they aren't meeting. It comes by way of Council President Tim Bruer forwarding the following to the Common Council:

From: May, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:11 PM
To: Bruer, Tim
Subject: Special Meeting on tax exemption issue

Alder Bruer:

You asked about the procedure for calling a special meeting to deal with the tax exemption claims. Here is what I found:

1. Pursuant to sec. 2.01(5), MGO, special meetings may only be called by the Mayor. This is consistent with state law on the topic, sec. 62.11(2), Wis. Stats. Therefore, Council Leadership does not have the authority to call a special meeting (unless the President were Acting Mayor).

2. Even if Council Leadership could call a special meeting, you are going to run into time issues. The meeting must be preceded by 24 hours notice to comply with the Open Meeting law. Thus, even if a notice could be prepared and posted immediately, the first time the Council could meet would be on April 29, 2009. The deadlines for acting on the Greentree Glen and WHPC claims are April 29 and 30. If a notice could not be posted until tomorrow, the only item that could be taken up is the WHPC claim. The time for considering the Turners claim has passed.

3. I cannot think of all the legal issues that might arise if the Council were to grant one exemption and deny another of similarly situated property, other than to remind you of the constitutional requirement of uniformity of taxation. I am certain that there would be undesirable consequences to any such unequal treatment.

3. [sic] The ordinances do allow for "informal meetings" of the Council under sec. 2.01(7), MGO, but no business may be transacted at such meetings, so the claims could not be considered. I think such meetings have been scheduled in the past both by the Mayor and by Council Leadership, in consultation with each other.

Let me know if there is anything further you need.

Michael P. May
City Attorney

Of course, this information comes too late to do anything about it - at least according to the City Attorney's interpretation of the situation.

So, who's fault is it? The Mayor*. He was the only one that could have called a meeting. He knew about the situation on Sunday, could have called a meeting Monday morning and the council could have met to take action before the deadline, avoiding having the City Attorney declare the claims denied "by rule of law" (with a little help from the City Attorney, ignoring the will of the council and failing his legal duty to vigorously represent them). However, the Mayor got what he wanted, so why would he do that?

*And/or, if he was doing a good job, the Mayor consulted with the Council leadership and they made that decision together. In which case, council leadership shares that blame.

Sounds like the council needs at amend chapter 2. I thought about it when we were working through recent changes to our rules , but I was a good soldier and chose my battles and didn't take it on. You know, because you don't want to fix a problem that isn't there . . . yet. Hmmmm . . . now the problem exists, think anyone will have the guts to take this one on?

I'd recommend amendment chapter 2 to say that if a majority of the Common Council petitions the Mayor or Common Council President to call a meeting about a particular topic, s/he shall call a meeting, at a reasonable time, within 48 hours. Or, in the alternative (if its legal), that the Council President or a majority of the Common Council can call a meeting. I think Michael May is trying to imply that the second option isn't possible under state law - but I'd want to get a second opinion/formal statement from him on that.

I'd also recommend that this is the role of the Common Council President and/or Common Council Organizational Committee (safety in numbers). The appointments to that committee, which are made by the Common Council President, should be made at the next meeting. I hope those appointments are good and they are a group of people who are willing to make sure that the Council doesn't get completely run over by the administration and executive branch of government. But, with the council leadership basically being a spokesperson for the Mayor at the point, instead of the Council, I'm not very hopeful.
Read more!

Madison City Council Declared Irrelevant

Wow! I've never seen this! Common council makes a motion. Motion passes. City Attorney declares their action null and void. And doesn't think it can come back before the council.

The topic? What else - the continued struggle between staff, the Mayor's office and the Common Council - the property tax exemption.

I used to have alot of respect for City Attorney Micheal May. That has waned over the last six months and at this point, I'm just completely disappointed.

RECAP
So, the history here is long and sordid - and I'm not sure I understand it all, but here's what I think happened. Asst. City Attorney Larry O'Brien took two cases to court to "clarify" the law. Originally, the cases were about the "10 acre rule" which says that groups aren't exempt if they own more than 10 acres of land. In the process, the Asst. City Attorney also raised the "rent use restriction" issue. This issue was about how the agencies could spend the rent that they collected. More specifically "maintenance". Are property management services, mortgage payments for buying the property and other expenses "maintenance" costs of the property? Turns out, in the process of "clarifying" this issue, that the local circuit court and the Department of Revenue sided with the narrow interpretation of Asst. City Attorney Larry O'Brien and as a result, 40 non-profits with over 200 properties and 1700 affordable housing units could risk losing their property tax exemption. The result is that the non-profits will have to raise the rent on their units $100 - $250 per unit (if they don't have rent caps because it is, after all, supposed to be affordable housing), or defer maintenance (i.e. not do repairs), or cut back on services (the very services that make the programs successful), sell the units to the private market making them no longer affordable (and the people who live there homeless), or, in some (many?) cases, they will give the keys back to the lenders - which in many cases, could end up being the city. (For more info, here's the council briefing, the last council meeting part I and part II, and the subcommittee (notes) that is working on this issue.)

MOTION
At the last council meeting (part I and part II) the council passed a resolution that referred this matter for 60 days, directed the city attorney to work with the parties involved in the cases and asked for a report to tell the council what the local ramifications would be to the removal of the tax exemption and how much it could cost locally if we attempted to keep the units affordable. The 60 day delay was requested by the attorneys representing the non-profits in these cases. Placing the risk on the non-profits, not the City of Madison. As you can see from the council meeting notes, the alders asked many, many questions regarding the motion and its legality and the city attorney "hadn't researched" the full implications of the issue, despite the offer by the attorneys. But he didn't have any problem insisting that the Council had to follow his un-researched legal advice.

MEMO
Yesterday, the council members got a memo in their mailboxes (I think on Sunday they were emailed it?) dated April 27th. His memo states in part . . . .

To: Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, All Alders
From: Michael P. May, City Attorney
Re: Tax Exempt Claims of Greentree Glen, Madison Turners and WHPC; Effect of Council's Referral on April 21, 2009.

At the Common Council meeting of April 21, 2009, the Council referred these items for up to 60 days, with a request that our office seek an agreement to extend the time for the Council to consider the requests for tax exemption. I advised at the meeting that the Council should act at the time, and that while I was certainly agreeable to seek the agreed upon extension, I had concerns about the City's authority to do so.

Since the meeting, I have taken time to review the State Statutes governing tax appeals. The statues are clear that the effect of the Council's actions - non-action in fact - operates as a denial of the claims by operation of law.

[omitted cites to statutes 74.35, 74.35(5), 74.35(3) and legislative notes in section (3) the bolded/emphasized parts of the memo are here:

75.35(3) Action on claim. (a) In this subsection, to "disallow" a claim means either to deny the claim in whole or in part or to fail to take final action on the claim within 90 days after the claim is filed.

Legislative notes: Subsection (3) establishes the procedure for handling the claim. Pargraph (a) clearly states that failure to act constitutes disallowance. Under par. (b), the taxation district must act within 90 days after the claim is filed or the claim is considered disallowed. This will ensure timely action by the taxation district and provide certainty to the proceedings.]

Because the State Legislature has stated clearly that the passage of 90 days with no action constitutes a disallowance, there is no way for the parties to stipulate to extend that time. The City cannot by agreement or otherwise keep the days from advancing, and the City has no authority to amend the legal effect established by the Legislature. The legislative history noted above highlights that the law is intended to bring certainty to the status of a claim after 90 days. The language in the statute is effectively a finding by the Legislature that no taxing district may extend the time to allow or disallow a claim.

The rationale for this limitation in State law on deciding tax exemption claims is also made clear in the legislative notes, which refer to the need to "provide certainty" to the proceedings. Not only for the taxing district itself, but for all the other districts for which taxes are assessed, there is a need to know with certainty by a date certain as to which property is included in the assessment. [memo continued below . . . ]

QUESTIONS
- Why didn't the city attorney look at the statutes before the meeting and come prepared to the meeting? If Assistant City Attorney Larry O'Brien is spending 60% of his time on these types of cases, why couldn't they answer this questions much, much sooner.
- If this is so clearly the law, why would attorneys from top law firms in Madison have made the initial offer, at their own peril?
- The attorney talks about "no action", but the council took an action. It told the city attorney to work out a deal. Why isn't that "action"?
- Why not allow a court to decide this issue? If the city attorney is right, the council has given up its right to act, if not, they still have a chance to act. Why make this declaration, thereby ensuring the council cannot act? i.e. Why not let this play out since there will be no harm to the city? The risk is on the other parties.

THIS CAN'T EVEN COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL?
So, the memo continues . . .

The 90th day for each of the above claims is:

Turners: April 20 (Claim filed January 20, 2009. Note the 90 days expired even before the Council's meeting last week, a fact nobody noticed.)

Greentree Glen: April 29 (Claim filed January 29, 2009)

WHPC: April 30 (Claim filed January 30, 2009)

The next Council meeting is May 5, 2009.

Although the Council does not have authority to change the effect of its failure to act upon these claims, the City can, and I will, make an offer to the parties to delay sending the Notice letter required under section 75.35(3)(b) which will delay the time that any lawsuit must be brought to challenge the denial of the claims. Unlike sub. (a), neither sub (b) or (c) directly state what the result of delay will be; I read this as not restricting the City's ability to extend these time limits. Therefore, I will offer to each claimant the opportunity for the City to delay sending the Notice letters that start the clock ticking on their 90 days to file suit. A delay of 60 days is likely at the bound of a reasonable delay. Nor do I know if such a delay is of interest to the claimants.

Late Friday, April 24, I recieved a proposal from the attorney for Greentree Glen asking for the sort of extension that is not allowed under state law. I will be advising him that the City is without authority to do so.

Finally, I will be looking more closely at whether there is any basis for these claims to come back before the Council after the 90 days expire and they are denied by operation of law. My initial reaction is that, since there is no longer any action for the Council to take, there is nothing to be referred to a future Council meeting.

MORE QUESTIONS
- Why didn't the City Attorney's office notice the Turner's claim had expired? That's pretty sloppy work for an attorney's office! (In fact, I asked that question when the motion was made to refer - the copy of the stamp made it unclear if that was a "0" or "8" or "6" in the date.)
- (3)(b) says: The taxation district shall notify the claimant by certified or registered mail whether the claim is allowed or disallowed within 90 days after the claim is filed. What part of "shall" is ambiguous? Why can he find ambiguities in shall? But not in "action"? Seriously, he's hanging his hat on not knowing what the result might be if he doesn't notify them? Isn't that a big risk for the CITY that the court will be able to decide?
- Why offer a delay to the claimants now? Wasn't the delay so that the COUNCIL could figure out the ramifications of the actions of the city attorney and what their options were at this point?
- What are the consequences to the city attorney for directly ignoring the wishes of his client?
- Is there a process for disciplining a city attorney that directly ignores the Council's action?
- Can he be serious that he won't even allow the item to come back to the council - when the motion clearly asked for a report from the Community Development Director? Can't the council at least get the information that they requested and the public be allowed the chance to comment on that information?
- Why is he guessing again?!

Wow, just wow. They are seriously putting the screws to the council.

SLOPPY REPORTING
This is a bit of a sidetrack, but wow, the Wisconsin State Journal coverage of this issue was atrociously lop-sided. Why didn't they contact any council members who had a different opinion from the mayor, council president and city attorney? And, the facts are wrong, we are up to 1700 affordable housing units that are affected. I'm surprised by how sloppy this was!

WHAT I WOULD DO?
1. Get on the phone to Dean Mosiman and ask him to print the other side of the story instead of the folks that all agree with each other.
2. Get on the phone with Tim Bruer and get him to call an emergency meeting of the Common Council so that they can make a decision before the deadline. Only 24 hours notice is requried and they have a special briefing tomorrow night anyways. They could act tomorrow on the two claims.
3. Read the City Attorney's contract and research ethics laws and the duty of the City Attorney to his clients.
4. Investigate what it would take to hire an attorney for the Council that would do what they said.
5. Find a way to get this issue back before the council to get those reports.

I'm not sure I'd find the answers I want or be convincing with the powers that be, but I certainly wouldn't give up! This whole thing has been a disaster since day one. The wishes of the Council have been ignored/they weren't consulted by the City Attorney, the Mayor or Council leadership. That's how we got into this mess and it just continues to get messier. It makes me wonder, why have they dug their heels in this way? I've truly never seen anything like this before.

Read more!

Is Scott Milfred at the WSJ Stupid, Incompetent or Just So Arrogant He Doesn't Think People will Realize the Truth?

Or maybe he just thinks that the readers of the Wisconsin State Journal are dumb? Just when I think he can't top himself, Scott Milfred and the Wisconsin State Journal prove, once again, that they just don't care if what they print is the truth or not. Milfred's latest, PD Distraction Isn't Worth a Vote is just precious. I'll let the co-chairs of PD tell you about how dead wrong that headline is. And here's Lukas Diaz's expansion on the letter to the editor.

For me, Milfred's complete misunderstanding of how the City Council works is mind-blowing. Here's a few of his laughable comments:

1. "233 items for consideration". I don't think he realizes that of the 233 items "up for consideration", several of them are first being introduced and then referred to committees for action as well as several referrals. Several examples of how he gets this wrong will follow.

2. "Getting rid of a failed water utility director". This item is first being introduced and will not be voted on at the meeting.

3. "Courtesy of the hard-left political party Progressive Dane, the Madison City Council will debate whether to urge Congress to begin impeachment investigations against President Bush and Vice President Cheney." See above links about why this is so wrong. This was an initiative started and supported by the Green Party and the Democratic Party, Progressive Dane never even endorsed this resolution. (It was more of an oversight than a conscious decision.)

4. "Instead of pouring over a report on police overtime, instead of carefully considering the expansion of a city program to help more elderly people stay in their homes, a handful of PD council members want to pretend they are members of Congress." Most of us read the routine report on police overtime weeks ago and the city program discussed is on the agenda for introduction and referral.

5. "Forget about careful consideration of zoning changes that would allow larger garages and sheds to go up on certain property without city approval (Item No. 20)." This was an idea that didn't work and is being "placed on file" i.e. tossed in the garbage.

6. "And if the five PD supporters of the resolution soliloquy on Bush's follies for about five minutes each, that's another half hour wasted." This is laughable. The biggest time wasters on these issues are the 7 or 8 alders who make a speech about how this isn't City business. Thereby usually wasting more time than the item itself.

Nevermind the obvious that City Council members are perfectly capable of multi-tasking and dealing with more than one issue at a time. Nevermind that many of us Madisonians have friends or family members who served in the bogus war in Iraq and feel that this is an issue that affects us here in Madison. Nevermind the impact that the actions of the President have had on our state and local budgets while we spend billions of dollars in Iraq and Madison taxpayers are forced to fill in the gaps that the federal government isn't funding. Yeah, that's right, the war in Iraq and the President's actions have nothing to do with Madison . . .

For me, my vote for impeachment will be dedicated to those who survived Hurricane Katrina, and even more so for those who did not.

p.s. Here's what is really on the agenda for tonight. Read more!

What would you ask?

If you could ask the Mayoral candidates anything you wanted, what would it be? Obviously, I have my own list of things I'm looking for. Progressive Dane is holding a Mayoral debate at the Warner Park Recreation Center on Wednesday, February 7th at 6:30 and we're asking for you to help us come up with some of the questions. We are particularly looking for some "speed round" questions that can be either "yes or no" questions or "either/or questions" (ex. boxers or briefs). Oh, and humor is encouraged.

We're hoping that the candidates in this race and the general public can start talking about something other than if people think trolleys are a good idea, if the Mayor bungled the water issue and if Peter should have known he would have to take a leave of absence (and if Mayor Dave had anything to do with his leave of absence). We're hoping it can be about the things that matter in our daily lives and that we can talk about the future of this City. Some don't think we can get much out of these candidates, but I don't think we should give up. If you have ideas, please feel free to share. Read more!

An agenda for the City

This spring's elections need to be about more than water, trolleys and taxes. Yes, our water needs to be safe to drink. What candidate isn't going to say that? Yes, we need to keep our taxes in line. What candidate isn't going to say that? And trolleys, well, there's so little support, or need, for them they're hardly worth talking about. We need to get down to some issues that the City of Madison will have to deal with in the next few years, that haven't gotten so much attention. Here's a list of things I worked with Progressive Dane members to come up with, that we hope to hear this spring's candidates talking about and hopefully supporting. Don't let candidates running for office get away with vague statements about supporting economic development and local small businesses, improving Madison Metro, supporting creation of affordable housing, etc. Ask them, what they intend to do to work on these issues. Here's a few of our ideas.

Economic Development

• We need the Economic Development Commission to finally get that Economic Development Plan for the City done. The last time we had a plan was 1983.
  
• We want to see a local small business bus pass purchasing pool so small businesses can provide free bus passes to their employees similar to programs of large employers at local hospitals and the University.
  
• We need a local purchasing preference for City purchases so that when we can, we keep our money in our local economy. (Local doesn't mean limiting our purchases to businesses in the City of Madison, we can look more broadly at the regional economy.)
  
• We need to make sure that when we talk about job creation, we are not only talking about high skilled bio-tech jobs, but instead, jobs that people with few skills can get into after some training and have a career path or chance for advancement.

TIF

• When talking about TIF, we need make sure that the City of Madison is setting the goals and priorities, not simply responding to individual developer proposals.
• We want to make sure that there are clear community benefits to providing TIF assistance. The City should set goals for the number of jobs and amount of workforce housing we need. We should also prioritize areas we feel are in need of redevelopment.
  
• We should work on methods to have TIF assist small businesses, perhaps by helping them buy affordable condo space for their businesses.
  
• High-end condos in the downtown are no longer needed to spur revitalization of the downtown; we need to be looking at workforce housing throughout the City.
  
• Finally, as with economic development, we want to make sure the jobs we create or retain with TIF funds are jobs that low skilled people can obtain with a little training and have opportunities for advancement.

Allied Drive

• We need a plan; an agreed upon strategy for redeveloping the neighborhood. We need this sooner rather than later. We need to agree how much affordable housing we want to have in the area and how affordable it will be. We need to agree on how much of the new housing will be rental vs. ownership.
  
• We need a clear strategy to keep people in the neighborhood, not pushing them around and simply moving low-income neighborhoods throughout the City as we have done in the past. Removing people from the neighborhood and moving in all new people should not be considered a success.
• As landlords are forced to clean up their properties, we need to make sure that families who are not a part of the problem are not displaced from the neighborhood. The City owned properties should be part of the solution to preventing displacement of current residents.
• We need to utilize the City owned properties to help residents with less than stellar rental records or credit records rehabilitate their records to help move them into successful housing - either rental or ownership, as appropriate.
  

Strong neighborhood services

• If we're going to have a "one stop shop" for businesses, we can have something similar for neighborhoods
• We need strong neighborhood plans for more areas of the City that are new to seeing development proposals.
• We need to be more customer-friendly to neighborhoods, not just for developers.

Neighborhood policing and preventative services

• We need more neighborhood officers, not less. We need officers in the neighborhoods in the evenings when social services providers go home for the day. Neighborhood policing is a key to prevention and removing the neighborhood officers is a step backwards.
• We need to be increasing preventative social services to address issues with people prior to turning to our busy police department for law enforcement.

Safe, affordable, reliable mass transportation

• We need mass transit in this City that works for the people who work non-traditional hours. 2nd and 3rd shift workers should be able to use the bus to get to work and home again. During the holidays, bus schedules should match extended retail hours.
• We need more frequent bus service so transit dependent people don't spend hours trying to get to where they need to go and to encourage more riders to feel like the bus is a viable option.
• Express buses between the transfer points and during peak hours.

Childcare

• When it comes to childcare, we need to continue to work to continue to fill the gap for those who have low-income jobs. If you're working and 50% or more of your income is going towards childcare, it quickly becomes unaffordable to live in this City. While we increased the funding for the childcare tuition assistance program this year, we still have not closed the gap.
  
• High quality affordable childcare is key to the future of our schools and our community. We need to work to make high quality childcare available and a viable option for more families in our community.

Affordable housing

• We need to fund the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the moment, it is going to take over 20 years before the fund grows to the point where it generates significant money to invest in affordable housing. Putting $300,000 - $500,000 a year into the fund is not putting our money to its best use. Capitalizing the fund quickly simply is more effective, it, too, is an investment in our future.
• We need an affordable housing strategy for Madison. With State restrictions on what we can do when it comes to affordable housing, we need to invest money into affordable housing and we need a strategy to do that most effectively.

Transparent, accessible government

• We need better information available to the public in a more timely manner.
• We need a clearer budget process with more information.
  
• Our public input process needs to be more meaningful and generally speaking, the public needs to feel like their voices are being heard and the government is serving them.

To sum it all up, our government has to work, not only for the business community, but also for the people that make the business community successful, their employees. An affordable safe place to live, an affordable dependable bus system to get to work, daycare that doesn't eat up half your paycheck and a job with opportunities for advancement are just as much basic services our government should be addressing as plowed streets and safe drinking water. We need to make sure Madison is a high quality place to live for everyone, not just catering to the needs of the business community.

p.s. More to come. I know there are criticisms of some of our issues and I will address them in the coming weeks.
Read more!

Dizzy from the Spin . . .Paul Soglin, WSJ and tdp

A few comments about experiences with Paul Soglin, the Wisconsin State Journal and Jason Joyce at thedailypage.com - all in one day. Sometimes, so much is said that is wrong, one hardly knows whether to respond or not. Today, I can't resist. There's just so much material.

It started my morning by responding to a suggestion by Jason Joyce on the thedailypage.com where he basically said that Progressive Dane endorsed elected officials had to vote in lock step against Zach Brandon. I presented several facts to prove not only do we not vote in lockstep, but we don't vote in lockstep against the nice Alder. And I also pointed out how our good ideas one year get voted down, and the next year, are sponsored by the same people who voted against them the previous year.

Then, I had read Paul Soglin's latest in his recent obsession spreading untruths about progressives and Progressive Dane. In this case, he that repeated the often repeated myth of the Progressive Dane oath. Specifically he claims:

PD basically demands a loyalty oath from all candidates seeking its endorsement. The absolutist position of PD in regards to candidates is one of the reasons that the present mayor, no longer needing them to establish his left credentials, is not renewing his membership.

I don't remember raising my hand and taking any such oath. And I'm wondering what Paul knows that I don't know about why Mayor Dave isn't renewing his membership, cuz this wasn't mentioned when he got the call about renewing his membership. And for what its worth, this is the so-called loyalty oath.

Finally, I got around to reading the Wisconsin State Journal editorial about the oath of office elected officials and committee members take. This one baffles me to some degree. Their article on the oath identified me as the sole sponsor of this initiative. And they repeated my name in their editorial, but as I pointed out on thedailypage, I'm not the only sponsor. This is sponsored by Brian Benford, Austin W. King, Brenda K. Konkel, David J. Cieslewicz, Michael E. Verveer, Zachariah Brandon, Judy K. Olson. And typically the first person listed is considered the lead sponsor. So, since the Wisconsin State Journal reporter hadn't talked to me, you have to wonder how she decided to only list my name as a sponsor. (You also might want to read the City Attorney's response to the legal issues regarding the oath.)

These are just three examples of why you have to be careful when you believe, and repeat, what you hear on the internet and even in the media. There's so much spin sometimes it makes you dizzy. Oh, and before I forget, PD didn't stack the Dem meeting. Several Progressive Dane leaders were busy having our monthly Steering Committee meeting while the Dems were doing their endorsements. It's getting deep out there, and I'm not talking about the snow. And that spinning, isn't tires. Read more!

It's agreed, we're "Skeptical"

Last night, at the Progressive Dane General Membership meeting, we had a little discussion on trolleys. Some of our candidates were hearing quite a bit of anger over the trolleys when they were knocking on doors and we decided to get a sense of the membership. Needless to say, there wasn't anyone willing to stand up and tell us why trolleys were a good idea. Some of the comments are as follows:

1. We want affordable, accessible, frequent and 24 hour transportation choices and we're not convinced trolleys can be affordable.
2. What is the problem we're trying to solve? The busses already run where the trolleys would run. Why would loyal bus riders get off the busses and pay more to ride the trolley?
3. A thought that there were other options to be explored and while we want to consider innovative and new ideas, this doesn't seem to be the answer.
4. Experiences in other cities might not be all they are saying that they are, we heard anecdotes of people not liking the expensive trolleys and their construction in other cities.
5. The only argument for them are that they are "cool" and that's not enough.
6. Many weren't convinced that the argument that this would create economic development was a solid argument.
7. There are questions about how trolleys interact with bike lanes and the danger of crossing the tracks for our many bikers in this City.
8. Will the overhead wires lead to more butchering of our trees ala MG&E?
9. There's no demand for trolleys.
10. While we are "skeptical", no one seemed ready to vote against them until we saw the results of the study.

I'm sure you can add many other things to this list like trolley tracks can't be flexible, fix the bus system instead, why would we rip up streets we just reconstructed (State St and E. Washington), they should run to the airport and downtown hotels if we're going to do it and much giggling over Shelbyville and the monorail. And I'm sure there are many more comments. Bottom line is, I'm hard pressed to find people in this City that are behind the trolleys. And at best, people are skeptical. Read more!

Trolleys - Not a Progressive Dane Initiative

Someone, please tell Mitch Henck that the trolleys are not a Progressive Dane idea. Please!

I have no idea why he's been ranting on his radio show or in today's State Journal about Progressive Dane's trolleys. I happen to be the co-chair of the party and I can tell you that we have never taken a position on trolleys, or streetcars as I am told I am supposed to call them. They are not in our platform. They haven't been a part of our slightly out of date priorities. I've been asking around within the membership and there doesn't seem to be strong support but instead skepticism and luke warm support at best, with one or two exceptions. Unfortunately, one of them is Mayor Dave himself, which is why no one wants to speak up too loudly against the trolleys.

I am here to tell you unequivocally, Progressive Dane has not taken a position in support of trolleys. I dare you to try to find anything on our website that says otherwise. Folks I have talked to in the party are more interested in a bus system that runs more frequently and later at night. Also, more interested in light rail options that would use existing tracks.

So Mitch, please stop spreading lies. Trolleys are not actively supported by Progressive Dane. I think as a member of the media, you have a responsibility to be more accurate in what you say. Read more!