Out with the old, in with the new

Madison has lately been taken of a need to tear down and build up, slowly altering its picturesque skyline so that it's gone a little less sleek and low and a little more big and tall. I'm not of a mind that all change and development is bad. Sometimes, to really revitalize a neighborhood and/or a city, fresh ideas and modern amenities are needed. But I believe in balance, including when it comes to development. Progress, after all, shouldn't be measured only by our ability to tear down old things and replace them with something entirely new and different.

Yet our city's historic neighborhoods face this exact mentality. The most recent example can be found in the area surrounding James Madison Park, where Apex Enterprises is working to construct new apartment/condo buildings. At a meeting with the neighborhood last weekend, their architect unveiled several different proposals for what might be done. One has a giant glass behemoth seemingly enveloping the historic Lamp House. Another splits the building in two, on either side of the house. A third proposes that the home be moved all together to make room for a narrower tower.

As Brenda Konkel laid out in her blog, these proposals also call for the demolition of several (eight at last count) other historic homes in the neighborhood.

I recognize that not every old home in the city can be saved once it reaches a certain level of disrepair. It's a shame, but it happens. But I also recognize that, here in the US, we are often far too quick to decide that, simply because a structure is over 50 years old, it should be razed to make way for something new. New isn't always better, though, especially when it fails to take into account the very attributes that make a particular neighborhood unique.

The James Madison Park area is what it is because of the large grouping of older houses it contains, access to and views of the lake, and its residential feel. Plunking a giant apartment or condo building into the middle of that would be like wedging an oversize foot into a tiny glass slipper.

Plus, do we really need more condo towers right now when so many of the recently built ones are still somewhat, if not mostly, vacant? And can Apex truly afford another private development when they're already working on several other large projects? These are honest questions that deserve serious consideration, I think.

I have to believe there are developers and architects out there with a better idea of how to integrate new ideas/buildings into older neighborhoods and landscapes. The notion of infill is important if we want to keep outlying land available for farming and plain old greenspace and avoid sprawl. But infill at the cost of the destruction of our city's history, aesthetic, and soul? Count me out.

Edgewater proposal subject of serious Rath

Jay Rath, writing for his blog at madison.com, has a massive takedown of the current Edgewater Hotel expansion proposal and its backers, the Hammes Co.

You really should read it. There are more than a few troubling aspects of the current process, and Rath goes into great detail about them.

Former alder Brenda Konkel is apparently now filing a formal complaint with the city over the company's lobbying practices, which don't appear to be properly accounted for in recent numbers released by the city.

In addition, Hammes Co. looks to have some seriously shady business dealings in their past (and present, as is the case with a lawsuit pending against them in Milwaukee). They're also asking for TIFF money from the city, though they appear to have ample funds of their own - as evidenced by substantial past campaign contributions to the likes of Bob Dole and George W. Bush, and more recently to a whole spate of local members of Congress and the like.

There's also this tidbit: "In all, according to the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Robert Dunn [president of Hammes Company Sports and Entertainment] is the registered agent of 18 active state companies, most of them limited liability companies (LLCs)."

This is fun, too:

Landmark X is the designated principal for Edgewater development lobbying. It has six registered lobbyists. Hammes also lists Landmark X as the "owner" of the completed Edgewater.

It's not unusual for a developer to create an LLC to combine interests during construction. The LLC Hammes is using is not new, however. Landmark X was created Feb. 6, 2004. It is "managed by members," according to its 1st quarter 2009 LLC report to the state. Whoever those members are, their business is "real estate, rental and leasing of property," according to state reports.

We don't know who those members are because the lobbyist registrations for Landmark X state that it is not an LLC, and therefore does not have to disclose that information.

According to the State Department of Financial Institutions, however, it is indeed an LLC.

Rath goes on to list a series of other lobbying irregularities for the company. Ever heard of the newly created Mansion Hill Neighborhood Coalition? It was formed as an alternative to the existing Capitol Neighborhoods Inc. group, and is chaired by a one Amy Supple--a registered Landmark X lobbyist.

And it goes on. Seriously, read the whole thing - it's a pretty epic piece.

It's hard to say what the truth of this whole episode is, and I'm not quite ready to say the whole thing is a bust. But I'll be damned if it doesn't look exceedingly bad. I'm glad, then, that Konkel, Rath, and a host of other concerned residents have taken up the cause and are giving the process greater scrutiny. A little transparency could go a long way to make sure we don't end up with one massive boondoggle the city would regret for years to come.

Edgewater plans in hot water

I'm a little late to the game here, but I've been in the wild throes of moving to a new homestead in the last week, so I have an excuse.

Anyway, the game I'm a little late to is the debate over the planning process for the proposed Edgewater Hotel expansion and development. It has been fascinating, if somewhat confusing, to watch the slings and arrows being launched back and forth across the ol' interwebs between some of Madison's heaviest hitters.

Isthmus. Brenda Konkel. Paul Soglin. Mayor Dave. All of them have weighed in via the binary to express their concerns and dismissals of others' protestations. It's been a bit like watching a political game of pong.

Isthmus:

The Madison Trust for Historic Preservation is gravely concerned about a proposed $107 million expansion of the Edgewater Hotel. And not just about preservation....There may be reasons that the project developer, Hammes Company of Brookfield, is being secretive. It's engaged in what appears to be unreported lobbying. It's created a lobby group to back the project and what seems to be a dummy-front neighborhood organization. It's built questionable alliances with the mayor and Downtown Madison Inc.

Cieslewicz:

So, let's recap. A developer has an idea that will reinvigorate a landmark hotel, add needed rooms to help our tourism and convention industry and bring more resources into the community, add value to bolster city tax rolls, dramatically increase public access to the lake and create lots of jobs. And he had the gall to ask to meet with the mayor to talk about it… several times. Isthmus portrays this as the crime of the century. I guess I was supposed to tell him to take a hike.

Konkel:

Is that a joke? Do people believe that is 225 public meetings about the project? Or is that what they are supposed to believe? Is that how that is going to be spun? I mean, who took the time to count those meetings and for what purpose? I'd be interested in finding out how many of those 225 meetings were with Capital Neighborhoods or the Mansion Hill Neighborhood Association or public meetings.

Soglin:

Opponents to projects are not required to post every meeting and invite the developer. The opponents are not required to open up the discussion every time they meet or place a phone call to an alder.

WSJ:

Hammes spent months quietly seeking support from political and business leaders in the neighborhood, adjusting and refining plans along the way.

But the approach has disturbed some, who say Hammes selectively shared information and hasn’t resolved concerns about the height of the proposed tower, the effect on the nearby Mansion Hill Historic District, the view of Lake Mendota — protected by city ordinance — and traffic, noise and parking concerns.

I'm certainly of the opinion that a lot of transparency is needed when discussing major developments such as this - especially when we're talking about lakeside property. Issues such as erosion and run-off need to be taken into greater consideration when construction is being done right along the water. And I'd hate to see yet another tall building put up along the shore, further obstructing public views and access to the lake that are already severely limited.

Just as troubling, however, are those 225 meetings Konkel mentioned in her post and further scrutinized by Isthmus. Mayor Dave did little to directly address the concerns that were raised about alleged unregistered lobbying time, opting instead to simply brush off all concerns with a casual dismissal.

I honestly couldn't tell you what the truth is or whether or not anything truly nefarious is going on behind closed doors. What I can say is that the various parties involved in the process are handling things pretty poorly. Urban infill projects like the Edgewater have a great deal of potential in helping to cut down on sprawl, provide mixed-use space, and bring in more jobs and revenue. I'm all for that. But you can't just throw those words out into the aether and hope they'll stick without doing due diligence.

That is, make the process open to public input from the start. No quiet deals. Adhere to well-established and beneficial statutes that regulate the height of downtown buildings, greener building techniques, and public access to the lake shore. Madison has a pretty decent history of doing just that, and it's made this the city that I fell in love with after just 5 minutes of my first visit back in '99. I'd hate to see that ethic chipped away at.

And for heaven's sake, regardless of how you feel about people's opinions on the matter, don't simply toss their concerns aside without adequately explaining yourself. I suspect that most of the involved players want what's best for the neighborhood and the city. We can only get that by being more honest with one another.


(photo by readerwalker on Flickr)

Malt House, neighborhood, loses out to big developer

Want a great, if infuriating, example of why we're in our current economic mess? Look no further than the current trials and tribulations of Madison's own Malt House, a craft beer bar located at the corner of E. Washington and Milwaukee St.

The establishment's owner, Bill Rogers, very much wanted to add a little bit of outdoor seating for his patrons--three picnic tables and two chairs. Seems straight-forward enough, right? But unfortunately for Rogers, in order to get permission from the city for said seating, the adjacent parking lot, which is in considerable disrepair, would need to be re-paved. The cost of such work is estimated at about $5,000, a prohibitively large sum for a small business owner.

The City Plan Commission has been wrestling with this question, certain members trying to find a work-around so the Malt House could go ahead with the seating without having to re-pave, for a little while now. On Monday night, however, the final decision came down: they "OK’d a conditional use permit for outdoor seating at the Malt House but failed to lift a requirement that an adjacent gravel parking lot be repaved."

No dice.

It'd be easy enough to get angry at the Plan Commission for jerking around a small business owner on an issue that seems, at a glance, to be fairly cut-and-dry. It's just a few picnic tables placed on a cement slab, after all. No trees would be uprooted, no sight-lines interrupted. In fact, the Malt House is one of the few establishments along that corridor doing its level best to bring economic development and stability--especially since the vaunted Union Corners project that had been planned for the area was stalled when the economy took its turn for the terrible.

And that's where attention really ought to be focused. The Union Corners development was and is run by McGrath Associates, the Madison-based company that's also in charge of things like the Nolan Shore condos. Malt House owner Rogers has offered to buy the empty lot in question from them, but McGrath is apparently still holding out hope that Union Corners will rise from the dead and apparently isn't willing to sell.

In the meantime, a gaping hole in the city's landscape remains, and the one business that's actually working through the recession is getting slapped around for trying to do the right thing--not by the Plan Commission, which is simply doing its job by following the letter of the law, frustrating as it is--but rather by McGrath Associates.

The story has become all-too common. Individuals and developers got carried away in the building boom, working fast and hard to throw up as many buildings and make as much money as possible without much regard for solid, sustainable planning or realistic pricing. Somewhat predictably, everything eventually crumbled down around them, but instead of facing the facts, many of them are holding out hope that they can still make the money they promised themselves back in the halcyon days--instead of accepting their losses and moving on. And by not moving on, they often screw over those business people who are actually interested in doing something productive with the land.

It was and is that kind of hubris and poor planning that got us into this mess, and now it's helping to keep us down in it. Banks that won't let short-sales go through so that homes just end up going to rot, developers that stubbornly hold onto property even as it sits idle and molders. What good is that doing anyone? Instead of desperately clinging to the notion that everything will just go back to how it was Before, we need to take action to actually improve upon how these things are done--so that responsible businesses can go on being responsible, and so that we can avoid situations like this in the future.

Vote 'yes' on the Garver Arts Incubator

Election day draws near (it's April 7, in case you forgot), and in amongst the many candidate and referendum choices available to Madison residents will be a question on whether or not the city should sell the old Garver Feed Mill to Common Wealth Development. And I highly encourage you to vote 'yes' for that move.

Why? Because CWD, a non-profit organization that has done a lot of good for our community over the years, wants to transform the beautiful old--currently vacant--building into an arts incubator. They're proposing a LEED-certified renovation of the space so that it will provide much-needed, affordable studio and learning space for area artists. According to a CWD press release:

The Garver Arts Incubator will include 40 art studios. Visitors can enroll in art classes, attend performances or view a gallery while interacting with artists. A three-story atrium, indoor/outdoor café, gift shop and rooftop garden are also included in the plan. In addition, the renovation will be a sustainable development project and the building will be LEED certified.

They go on to emphasize that the center will not be paid for with city taxpayer money. Instead, "If the referendum passes, the City of Madison will sell the Garver building to Common Wealth who would retain ownership of the land through a minimum 30-year lease." Money for the project would be gotten through private funds, tax credits, and some federal assistance.

Certainly there's added appeal for me in a project like this. I'm heavily involved in the arts community, and many of my friends are artists who would likely benefit from its creation. In fact, the idea reminds me very much of the Mellwood Arts & Entertainment Center in Louisville, Kentucky. A few of my Wis-Kino comrades and I went down to Louisville to participate in their 48-hour filmmaking festival, and the final screening was held in a very nice room in the center.

It's an old, converted meat packing warehouse that now houses artist studios, a cafe, fitness center, some retail space, galleries, and teaching spaces. I remember being very impressed with the look and feel of the building, and that the city had such a great resource for its artists. The Garver Arts Incubator could be just such a space for Madison.

The main reason it's had to come up for referendum is that, "Under the city's shoreline preservation ordinance, voters must endorse the project located near Starkweather Creek before construction can begin." I'm hopeful that, based on CDW's track record of working closely with the community and paying close attention to environmental concerns, shoreline preservation will be a top priority in construction plans. They've already made plans to have "on-site storm water management and a comprehensive transportation plan that minimizes parking," which is a good start.

I encourage you to read more about it over at the CWD website. They have detailed plans and proposals available. And if it means anything to you, The Capital Times has endorsed the idea, and my own alder, Marsha Rummel, has been championing the project as well.

Vote Yes for the Garver Arts Incubator.

Your daily spoonful of crazy, courtesy Mark Vivian

Former Fitchburg Mayor Mark Vivian wants his old job back, and apparently the ambition has driven him to Crazy Land.

At least, that's the conclusion one reaches after reading a recent campaign fundraising letter sent by Vivian to various members of the community. In it, Vivian claims that his opponent in the race, Fitchburg Common Council member Jay Allen, has links to a domestic terrorist group.

Wh-wh-what?

Here's what it says:

My opponent, Jay Allen, has introduced legislative action to use the City’s police powers to condemn land owned by the Novation Campus, and threaten 2.5 million dollars of your tax money to interfere in what should be a private matter between current tenants living illegally on Novation property and its owners. The illegal tenants have known ties to an organization identified on the U.S. Federal Government list of domestic terrorist groups.

Here's the whole thing:

(click for big)

I caught wind of this particular little work of political art last week, and today Bill Lueders, writing for The Daily Page, has a delightfully snarky piece up about it. You can read it here. When I first read the letter, I couldn't for the life of me figure out what group Vivian was referring to when he claimed terrorist ties. Turns out, it was Food Not Bombs, possibly one of the most innocuous, peacenik organizations around and hardly a candidate for domestic mayhem. They once gave me a nice, warm grilled cheese sandwich while I was at a protest rally in the middle of winter, so I may have some internal bias in their favor, but really--just look at their name. Then look at their website. Then look at their history.

Yeah, not so much down with the violence.

What really seems to be at issue here is how the land at Drumlin Farm gets used. Vivian accuses the current tenants of the land of being there "illegally" - though currently they do have a lease. He also claims that Allen's legislative action to condemn the land would "threaten 2.5 million dollars of your tax money."

Thankfully, Lueders sets the record straight:

Allen explains that he recently introduced a resolution to begin an eminent domain process against Alexander Co., which is developing the Novation Campus. He says the goal was to compel the company to discuss the possible sale of Drumlin Farm, a five-acre community garden that enjoys huge community support.

The stratagem worked: Novation is now in discussions with Fitchburg officials about a possible sale. That led Allen to table his resolution, about three weeks ago. Fitchburg’s current mayor, Tom Clauder, has said he’s been told the land has an appraised value of $2.5 million, the amount cited used by Vivian. But the Alexander Co. hasn’t set an asking price and the city hasn’t agreed to spent any amount ("threaten … your tax money," as Vivian puts it) for its acquisition.

Indeed, the nonprofit Madison Area Community Land Trust has expressed interest in acquiring the site, said to be the birthplace of Wisconsin’s urban agricultural movement. That means it could become a protected community asset at little or no cost to Fitchburg taxpayers – unless, of course, Mark Vivian gets elected.

Basically, Vivian's letter is a pile of crap, and an incendiary one at that. The issue of land use rights and specifically what happens with the Drumlin/Novation property is an important one, and deserves a higher degree of debate that that which Vivian appears to be prepared to offer. I can't imagine that someone who would put out a piece of literature as ridiculous as that would make an even remotely good mayor. But, ultimately, that's for the fine folks of Fitchburg to decide.

Buying up the land

Alexander Co. is a development company. Buying land for development is what they do. OK, fair enough, right? But I can't help but notice that their name has come up at the center of several contentious land-use and development debates over the past year or so.

They're currently in the midst of an argument over the future of Drumlin farm, a situation that certainly paints them as being somewhat overzealous and thoughtless about the needs and realities of the community. Recently, they tried to get permission to remodel the Acacia House in downtown Madison, as well as build a new apartment building in the small lot behind it (the proposal was shot down by the Madison City Council).

And just today it was announced that Alexander Co. has purchased the Northgate Mall complex on Sherman Ave.

I can't help but have mixed feelings about their plans for the space. While revitalization of the area is needed, the company's track record isn't exactly pristine. It's worth keeping a close eye on any future plans and proposals made by them--and other such companies--to make sure we create an environment that is both good for businesses looking to invest in city improvements and that fosters thoughtful, ecologically sound planning.

Hopefully, I'm reading too much into all of this and it won't become more of an issue. But I have a feeling that the people currently dealing with Alexander Co. over Drumlin farm would tell me otherwise.

UPDATE: This is a good step on the part of AC, so long as they don't end up asking a prohibitively expensive amount for the land.

Expanding interstates in the age of declining driving

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation wants to expand I-39/90 from Madison to the Illinois border to a whopping six lanes. Frankly, this makes about as much sense to me as does the Pabst Farms interchange project in Milwaukee: none at all.

Though they've come down from their recent extreme highs, I really doubt that gas prices are going to come down so much that we as a nation return to our big gas guzzling cars and frivolous drives to get our mail at the end of the driveway any time soon (if ever). Studies point to a major decrease in the amount of miles Americans are driving, politicians are finally getting the memo about properly funding things like public transportation and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods, and the general trend, though at times frustratingly slow to take hold, is toward a better mix of transportation modes.

Why, then, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an interstate expansion? The project also includes plans to upgrade old bridges, which I'm all for, but the part where they intend to make it six lanes is, I believe, ridiculous. That money could be better spent on more crucial infrastructure improvements--like the bridges, preexisting roads that are in sorry shape, bike lanes, sewer upgrades, etc.

To say nothing of aesthetics. Big, sprawling interstates are ugly, and the construction of them tends to tear up farm land and countryside, and cause more polluting runoff.

And anyway, should we really be encouraging more vehicles to be on the road? WisDOT is holding public meetings in two locations where anyone can come see and hear about the plan, and offer their input. I'm hopeful that there will be enough reasonable questioning of the lane expansion that it gets scrapped, but then the cynical part of me has been watching what's going on in Milwaukee and isn't so sure that reason plays as big a role as it should when it comes to decisions like this.

Preserving our history and our parks

James Madison Park, located on Madison's near east side and running along the lovely shores of Lake Mendota, has long been a green gathering space for students playing frisbee or football, families with young children who enjoy the playground equipment, people reading on benches, and folks wishing to rent canoes at the boathouse. It used to be the site of WSUM's Party in the Park, and usually hosts a few other festivals and gatherings throughout the year. It's a great resource, and one example of city ownership of lakeshore land in the interest of keeping it publicly accessible.

The state of the park and the various historic buildings that lie in and around it, however, is somewhat up in the air these days. Mayor Dave and certain development interests appear keen on moving those historic buildings, selling some of the land, and re-purposing sections of the park.

From my admittedly recent browsing (this issue has come up, off-and-on, for decades really), it's hard to really gauge the facts of the matter: why move the houses? how much would that cost the city? is it ever a good idea to sell off publicly held property, especially lakefront land? do the current residents want this?

Currently, a committee of alders and citizens, appointed by the mayor, exists to "report back to the Board of Park Commissioners on a proposal for the properties at 646, 640 and 704 East Gorham and the land under Lincoln School." This ad hoc committee has been mostly favorable to the idea of selling off the land under the Lincoln School, whereas the Madison Parks Commission has voted unanimously, on several occasions apparently, not to do so.

The ultimate decision may end up being left to referendum. According to a recent Capital Times article:

The decision to sell the houses, including the land under the Lincoln School Apartments, would likely be considered a change in the legal status of the park, assistant city attorney Anne Zellhoefer told the James Madison Park Property Planning Committee Thursday night. According to a 1992 city ordinance, changes in legal status as well major construction projects on parks bordering lakes and navigable waters require a referendum.

This seems reasonable to me, especially in light of the many passionate testimonials from residents regarding their feelings about the park and the historic buildings. You can read several of them in the meeting minutes from a public hearing held back in June. The overwhelming consensus, with which I pretty much agree, is that selling the historic houses is a good idea, but moving them is not. As for whether or not to sell the land under the Lincoln School, opinion seems fairly split down the middle--and for how little information I can find regarding what a sale like this would actually mean, I can understand why that is.

Selling the historic homes appears to be a good idea because the city has done a sub par job of maintaining them up to this point, and having private parties interested in historical preservation and good use would mean both preserving these places and saving the city a lot of money. In fact, the city would likely take in revenue from the sale of the homes and leasing of the land under them. You can read the original draft proposal relating to this here (click on "Conditions for JMP" link).

However, moving the homes would cost the city a great deal of money, and, in my opinion (and that of many others) take away from the historic character of the neighborhood. All designed by the same architects, they provide a great, cohesive corridor through a historic area of town that would be lost if jumbled around to different locations. Mayor Dave and his committee seem to be arguing that moving them would make for a better sight line between E. Gorham and the lake, but at present, I don't find anything aesthetically displeasing about their location. In fact, I would contend that it adds to the beauty of the park and the area, and encourages people to actually get out of their cars and walk around.

As for the Lincoln School plans, things get a bit more complicated. The current landlord of the building, ULI, has proposed buying the land under the school for a minimum of $600,000 or, if the number is higher, the appraised value (which we don't yet seem to have). Their designs for the site, though restricted from changing the exterior of the building, include turning the apartments into condominiums - something that (rightfully, I think) irks current residents and advocates of affordable housing like the area's alder, Brenda Konkel. The argument is that most of the folks now living in the building would not be able to afford the condos, and installing yet more of the buggers would only contribute to a growing income disparity on the isthmus.

ULI, it's worth noting, are apparently the same folks that wanted to demolish historic capitol square buildings (like L'Etoile and the Old Fashioned) in order to put in a nearly block-sized new development.

Plus, there's the issue of whether or not it's a good idea to sell off public, lakefront land at all. Currently, ULI holds a long-term lease on the land which, I can only assume, limits their ability to alter the use of the building. As far as I can tell, buying the land would allow them to make whatever changes they so wished to the interior, and certain city officials would then plan to use money made from the sale to, depending on what you read, plug holes in the operating budget or improve/expand the park.

But really, I have no idea what pro-selling advocates want to do with the park. That's never been made particularly clear, and that's what has most caught my attention.

It's important to balance historic and parkland preservation with responsible economic development. Finding private parties to maintain the homes seems like a sound choice, all around - but moving them, or selling the land underneath them, strikes me as a poor decision that would likely come back to haunt those who make it in the future.

I think the mayor, the committee, the alders, and the developers owe it to the community--especially the residents who actually live in the neighborhood--to be as open and honest about their plans as possible. We need to make an informed decision about these proposals, and it's understandably difficult to do so when there's so much stalling and lack of details.

Juggling the homeless

Last night, the Madison City Council voted overwhelmingly to recommend that an offer of free land from the federal government, to be used as a homeless services site, be turned down in favor of buying it for other uses:

The Truman Olson Army Reserve Center, 1402 S. Park St., which is scheduled to close within the next four years, was earmarked for homeless services under federal government guidelines.

But after prioritizing a plan from Porchlight Inc. to create 38 spaces for permanent and temporary housing for the homeless, south side council members Julia Kerr and Tim Bruer sought an alternate site for the plan, citing concerns about the south side carrying more than its fair share of housing for low-income residents as well as the transitional housing detracting from economic development plans in the area.

One of the suggested alternatives was a site on the far east side on Water Utility land at 4002 Nakoosa Trail, which would involve a paper transaction between the utility and city as well as the city's purchase of the Truman Olson site.

Ald. Brenda Konkel has been writing about this issue over at her blog, and I've been scouring the available documents (which don't seem to be loading anymore?) trying to figure out exactly what the reasoning behind all of this is. It hasn't been easy, though. Heck, if the alders can't get answers to their various questions about this, how am I, a regular ol' resident, going to do it?

At first blush, it would seem that an offer of free land for the development of a homeless services site would be a pretty cherry deal. Porchlight, Inc. and Goodwill Industries both submitted proposals for just such projects, and Porchlight was given priority with their plan of building both permanent and temporary housing for the homeless. The Truman Olson site, located at 1402 S. Park St. on Madison's near south side, seems like a good place for that kind of development: it's right on a bus line, nearby to grocery stores and both residential and commercial areas. If the people being served by such a facility are to be successfully integrated back into society, then they need reasonably easy access to cheap transportation, food, and other such amenities.

However, members of the City Council, the mayor, and developers decided that the Truman Olson site would be better used for more commercial development--part of an effort to bring economic progress to the area. Apparently, a homeless shelter wasn't part of the plans drawn up by the Wingra Creek BUILD Project, an effort to "conduct market and trade area study, identify business retention and attraction strategies, and develop alternative redevelopment scenarios for the area bounded by South Park Street on the east, Fish Hatchery Road on the west, and West Wingra Drive on the south."

So it was proposed that the city just buy the Truman Olson land (for an estimated $2.2 million in initial purchase and demolition), and find a different spot for the Porchlight plan. That site? Way over on the far east side of town, on Nakoosa Trail, nestled between the loving arms of a Wal-Mart, Cub Foods, a smattering of houses, and a bunch of industrial sites like a junk yard. And also pretty well off any sort of convenient bus line, which was supposed to be one of the requirements of any site chosen for the project.

The big argument on the pro side of this is that the Truman Olson site likely won't be ready for development until 2012, whereas a different site might be ready within a year or so. I'm all for timeliness in getting Porchlight's needed services up and running, but not at the cost of a) losing accessibility for the people who'll live and work out there, and b) millions of taxpayer's dollars.

Still, I can't entirely make an informed decision about this because all the facts have yet to be presented. That's what really makes all of this seem so weird. Instead of presenting a detailed argument for the land swap, alders and everyone else have essentially been asked to sign off on a pretty hefty check without knowledge of just what they're paying for. Somehow, that smells like a really bad idea.

The fight for James Madison Park

Thanks to Fearful Symmetries for pointing out this interesting little fight:

What happened to Jay Rath's rant that he posted this weekend up at POST? In it he was critical of this editorial by the WSJ regarding the use of land around James Madison Park. By "critical" I mean he basically told the WSJ editorial folks to go fuck themselves and to let downtown residents determine their own fate.

I went ahead and dug up the cached version of Rath's post to Post, which you can read in its entirety here. Basically, he strongly chastises the editorial for misrepresenting facts (for instance, that "the public can't access" certain parts of the park, which they can, in fact, do) and for basically arguing on behalf of the one lone voice that wants this sale to go ahead:

So far as I can tell, there's only one voice arguing for the sale of the property and nearby homes: the developer, Urban Land Interests. This is the same company that demands that the last portion of historic buildings on the Capitol Square be demolished (The Old Fashioned, L'Etoile and such), so it can put in a nearly block-sized development. This is the same developer that wants to demolish the oldest commercial building on the Square, the American Exchange Bank. This is the same developer that agreed to sell the Bartell Theatre property to the Bartell trust and Overture, and then reneged (because it wanted to demolish and put in a massive development), until forced by courts to comply with its own earlier written agreements; I reported all that, for Isthmus.

Yeah, I trust Urban Land. About as far as I can throw them.

Ald. Brenda Konkel has also weighed in on this bit of controversy.

It's strange that Rath's post on the subject appears to have since been removed from the website. I'm not sure if we should read some greater conspiracy into it, or if Rath himself decided to take it down for one reason or another.

Beyond that, however, those arguing against the WSJ article are all making good points. I, too, can't help but wonder why on Earth anyone would think the construction of yet more new condo developments would be good for Madison? Several current projects are already stalled due to the ever-tanking housing market, and that coupled with the general economic downturn doesn't exactly scream "Build more condos!" to me.

Why are we so intent on moving and/or demolishing the few historic structures we have in this town and this (relatively young) country anyway? And furthermore, why must every last scrap of undeveloped land go under the knife of "progress"? There's a major societal benefit in having more green spaces, parks, and just plain empty land. So how about instead of tearing stuff down and putting in yet more condos, we revitalize the existing downtown houses? There has been a plan floated in the city to create a fund to encourage families, etc., to buy older homes in the downtown area, so that if the current trend of students moving into newer housing and out of the old apartments continue, we won't be left with a slum. That's the kind of thing we should be encouraging. Leave the park alone.

Of Ads and Trails

The Wisconsin State Journal has an interesting article (something worthwhile on the front page? I do declare!) about a housing development threatening the Ice Age Trail and surrounding areas. So far, I'm definitely siding with the locals who have taken it upon themselves to organize against the proposal. Well thought out, sustainable, multi-use development obviously has its place, but I don't understand our drive to build over every piece of land we can possibly get our hands on. It's just not worth it and usually does more harm than good not just to the ecosystem in the area, but to the people who end up moving in.

It's short-sighted, and when it threatens an area specifically designated as being high-worth in terms of agricultural assets, history and ecosystem it becomes a special kind of stupid.

Do what you can to educate yourself about what's going on and (hopefully) make the decision to support efforts to stop it. For more info about the Ice Age Trail, visit iceagetrail.org and learn what you can do to volunteer or just enjoy.

...

I don't make a habit of ranting about national politics too much (but sometimes I crack and give in) on here because, let's face it, this is a local blog and the few people who read it don't come here for something they can get at far more qualified and comprehensive outlets. So in this case, I'll just point out a post on one of those outlets that sums up my feelings on a topic pretty well: Firedoglake on the MoveOn.org ad and its backlash.