Hizzoner is not a diplomat

Hoo boy, this is going to start some fires. As if this issue wasn't contentious enough. Email today direct from Mayor Soglin himself, regarding the ongoing debate over the presence of homeless people at the City County Building downtown (and how the city treats homeless folks in general):

Last night about 5:20 when I returned to the City-County Building from the Board of Estimates meeting a heated dispute was taking place at the chairs adjacent to the entrance to the Park Division office. 

Sitting on the left was Man A. He was talking on his cell phone at the time and continued to do so during the entire incident. Sitting in the center was Woman B. Wearing a gray hat she refused to move. Sitting next to her and closest to the door to the Parks Division office was Woman C. She was yelling at Woman B and telling her to get up and leave. Standing over Woman B was Man D who was yelling in a threatening manner at Woman B ordering her to move. 

I stopped to watch the incident and when it became clear the matter was escalating, called 911. Before the officers arrived, woman B got up from the chair, staggered over to Woman C and continued to yell at her. Man D took the center seat and asserted his claim that the chair was his. Man A continued with his phone call. I could hear him saying that the background noise was because of an argument. 

Woman B, Woman C and Man D continued to argue. As the police officers arrived Woman C threw a punch at Woman B. 

We can build and spend money on more libraries, day shelters, night shelters, restroom facilities and none of these behaviors are going to change. The people of Madison deserve better. Therapy, treatment, and counseling, with constant supervision are needed for a significant number of people who hang out in this building and the surrounding area. No number of shelters or amount of money is going to address their needs unless it is focused on treatment for mental health and substance abuse matters. Frankly I see no sense in spending public money for buildings, shelter, day centers, or housing for individuals who will either refuse to use them or will be banned from them for behavior reasons. 

Someone has some explaining to do. Why is there no treatment, voluntary or compulsory? 

If the individuals in question had not been fighting and arrested they could have gone up to the third floor where the City-County Liaison Committee was meeting and joined in the testimony that a security guard was not needed in the lobby. It appears that at least one of these individuals was involved in a fight on Friday. 

Paul R. Soglin - Mayor City of Madison 

He's right that a lot more money and focus needs to go toward mental health and substance abuse treatment, I absolutely agree. But throwing shelter facilities and other resources for the homeless under the bus in the process is incredibly wrongheaded and short-sighted. Not all homeless people are mentally unwell and/or addicts. And even those that are will need resources for seeking out services and then being able to access those services on a regular, reliable basis.

It would be nice if the discussion about these issues could be had without needlessly inflammatory sniping (the Mayor is not the only guilty party here). Too many people's actual lives and well-being are on the line.

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)

The conundrum of Allied Drive

For many years now, Madison has struggled to both recognize and deal with the problems facing the Allied Drive neighborhood. The area of housing between Verona Rd. on the west and Seminole Hwy on the east has been described as everything from "troubled" to "the ghetto of Madison," though I think the latter phrase is a gross overstatement. Still, the neighborhood has been somewhat plagued by violent crime, drug offenses, gang activity and tends to be populated by mostly lower income and Section 8 renters.

Part of the problem seems to be downtown Madison's unwillingness to acknowledge the problems that face Allied Dr., at least until fairly recently. Fitchburg, the "city"* against which the neighborhood borders closely, especially seems to want nothing to do with it. It's gone so far as to refuse to support connecting a road between the neighborhood and Fitchburg, as was originally asked for in the multi-million dollar city of Madison redevelopment plan. Some folks have even gone so far as to accuse Fitchburg of "elitism and racism" because of it, and as inclined as I am to agree, that really does remain to be seen.

It has been interesting to watch the redevelopment plan unfold, both from the rosy-hued perspective of the city government and from the more reasoned point of view of the residents.

While the redevelopment plan's focus appears to lie primarily on creating Section 8 housing, residents are calling for more focus on a wide-variety of housing and, perhaps even more importantly, programs in the area that offer economic and cultural opportunities and things like job training (Paul Soglin has made some good arguments to this effect). Plus, there remains the hard fact that many families don't even qualify for Section 8. Where would these people go once they're forced out of the neighborhood by that filter?

In the end, shouldn't we be working to diversify our neighborhoods? Instead of packing nothing but low-income residents into one area, might it be more helpful to offer affordable housing in various places all over the city? Cloistering these folks into one or two specific zones smacks of isolationism and fear that their very presence in your neighborhood might lower property values or bring in the criminal element. Which is a little bit reactionary and bigoted, don't you think?

I don't think anyone would argue that Allied Dr. doesn't need help. The problem lies in figuring out just what kinds of projects and strategies would be most effective in achieving that goal. Listening more closely to the people who actually live in the neighborhood would help, and considering adding more than just housing, and one kind of housing at that, is crucial, too. But you have to make sure everyone has a place to live, instead of just undercutting what's there now and not providing alternatives.


*Downtown Fitchburg - it's a state of mind!

Hell hath no fury like a biker scorned

Generally, I agree with a lot of what Paul Soglin has to say. But not everything. It would appear that I'm not the only one who took umbrage with his recent rant against winter bicyclists. Check out the comments section on this sucker. That's what the kids call a "hornet's nest" after it has been thoroughly poked.

And frankly, he deserved the virtual tongue lashing. Like I said in my own comment to the post, riding in any kind of weather, but especially inclement weather like we've been having, without proper safety gear and adherence to the laws of the road is stupid. But riding your bike in the snow in general is not stupid. In fact, I wish I could do it (well, technically I could, but it's a 16 mile ride one-way to work for me and I just can't face that in the snow). I think it's pretty dedicated and hardcore.

Recently, I met this awesome lady, probably in her 50's, who surprised me when she started telling me all about the ice biking she does up on Lake Superior. Holy crap, ice biking? And here I thought riding in the rain was hard. People like that put me to shame, but they also motivate me to get off my duff and try new things, even if they're difficult. Maybe there's a pair of studded tires in my future after all....

Point is, a bicycle on the road during the snowy season has more to fear from cars than cars do from them (and same goes for all-year-round, frankly). But with some common sense and efforts at safety by both sides, risks can be greatly reduced. And hey, there's that whole bikes-don't-tear-up-the-earth-and-the-air thing, too. Don't forget about that. And get off your cell phone!


(image credit: www.nemba.org)

Blogs Speak: Ziegler and Shoebat

My what an opinionated bunch we are (I guess that's why we blog):

Paul Soglin has a take on the UW-M/Walid Shoebat affair that's interesting and very reasoned. I do agree that they have every right to bring Shoebat in to speak, but I also still think Shoebat is an extremist who pays a lot of lip-service to being pro-Israel but is then prone to making statements like these:

Your third offense is your sheer stupidity, a thing the Jewish people cannot afford for their survival. It was sheer stupidity that cost so many Jewish lives. Many Jews tend to trust the wrong people, but when the right people come along they doubt. Jews trusted in Oslo and were sold, Jews trusted in Germany and were killed, Jews trusted their Arab employees and where slaughtered....

When will Jews ever trust the right people? Better then this question is this - why should rightous gentiles stand with the Jewish people, risk everything to get stung by so many Jews who doubt them?

Again, I'm trying to find his love and respect for the Jewish people, but it's hard to sort it out through the thick clouds of condescension.

Rick Esenberg weighs in on the Judge Ziegler conflict of interest debate and, despite his many typos (seriously, these things do have a spell check function), makes some valid points.

Now, while everyone else is wailing and gnashing their teeth over not being able to watch the Packers-Cowboys game tonight (well, everyone except those who live in the designated "home viewing areas" of Green Bay and Milwaukee and those with satellite), I'll be desperately trying to get my novel up to the 50k mark before midnight Friday, which will include a marathon writing session tonight. Wish me luck!

It's a trick, get an ax.

This has nothing to do with Madison or Wisconsin...or even the Midwest, for that matter. But damn if it isn't the coolest thing I've seen all day.

Clerk uses ax to fight off robber. Watch the video, it's worth it.

Was it crazy for her to do that? Absolutely. Was it also completely awesome? You betcha! Though I'm not sure if this whole thing would be an argument for or against the right to bear arms. Does it apply to axes?

In other news, apparently Paul Soglin has some similar thoughts on Dave Blaska. Crazy, man, crazy.

C-c-c-criiiime!

OK, I can't help it, this post is about local politics. It happens sometimes, all right? Especially when it's an issue that I think is really, really important.

But I'm going to rely on wiser blogger's than I to make the case. Paul Soglin has this crazy idea that fighting crime in Madison involves fighting the root causes of poverty and disenfranchisement. What on Earth is he smoking? (You can read my take on it in the comments section)

I don't place all my faith in Mr. Soglin to solve the problem--it takes many ideas and many people to make something effective--but he does a good job of summing up the issues. He also does a good job of drawing the right-wingers out of the woodworks to expose their prejudices and poorly conceived ideas to the world. So that's fun.

Be sure to read his follow-up posts (and related posts about Milwaukee) here and here and here, too.

P.S. Apparently I'm not the only blogger who thinks so.