Hammes' ham fisted attempts to curry favor with frats

So does this strike anyone else as just a tad suspicious?

In the latest community lobbying attempt from both sides of the Edgewater debate to garner University of Wisconsin Greek house support, the hotel developer Hammes Co. bused members of fraternities to a luxury box at Lambeau Field Sunday for the Packer game.

While at Lambeau, Bob Dunn, president of Hammes Co., gave a presentation on the Edgewater plans, detailing some of the neighborhood concerns with the original proposed plans and offering some insight into potential redesigns.

Dunn also said he did not expect the free trip to jeopardize any objectivity from the fraternity members in their view of the Edgewater project. All he could do, Dunn said, was present the facts of the project and listen to the creative ideas generated.

Oh no, a free trip to Lambeau Field with luxury boxes and free spirits won't do anything to jeopardize objectivity.

If it weren't for the fact that I question just how much influence those fraternities will ultimately have on any final decisions regarding the Edgewater redevelopment project, this would be sending up quite a few more red flags than it already is.

The "we're just showing them another of our projects as an example" line of reasoning seems flimsy at best, especially when that other project of theirs just so happens to be the home stadium of Wisconsin's beloved Packers. How that sort of trip wouldn't be expected to impress college students (or anyone, really), I'm not sure.

Of course, there's probably nothing illegal about this. It just seems awfully...untoward.

Edgewater complaint filed

Former alder Brenda Konkel is another of Madison's concerned citizens hot on the trail of what appear to be less-than-transparent lobbying efforts on the part of Hammes Co. in their pursuit of building the new Edgewater Hotel.

Konkel just posted the contents of her first full complaint against the process. Read it here. I only hope that more people jump on board with this effort to find out the truth and hold the company responsible for any violations. Having it be Konkel alone who files these complaints leaves the effort open to easy poo-pooing by officials who've grown sour with her activities in the past (which is a shame, because though I don't always agree with her, Konkel has been a tireless champion of what she thinks is best for Madison--and you have to admire that tenacity).

I will be very curious to see how the City Attorney handles the complaint. I would think that, with this much solid documentation, they'd pretty much have to at least investigate the charges. Regardless of the verdict, I expect at least that much to be done.

If, on the other hand, the whole thing is dismissed out of hand, then we need to seriously reexamine 1) the meat of Madison's lobbying ordinances, and 2) how we go about enforcing them.

UPDATE: Everyone's talkin' about the Edgwater it seems. The Sconz weighs in here, and is actually interviewing some of the developers soon. Over at the Cap Times, they raise very reasonable objections to the request for TIF money to help fund the project.

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)