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.

Don't leave tax incentives on the cutting room floor

No, no, and a thousand times no. Gov. Doyle has proposed eliminating the tax incentives for film productions in the state and offering a $500,000 grant in their stead.

And just when I was actually feeling mildly impressed by his new budget proposal, too. But hey, no one's perfect: that's why us uppity citizens are here to call Doyle and other elected officials out when they start spoutin' nonsense.

At first blush, it may seem like a good idea to limit tax breaks in the midst of a recession, but the film industry has already proved itself as something that creates jobs and brings millions of dollars in revenue to the state. It would be downright foolhardy to get rid of that now, just 13 months after first making the incentives available and after years of fighting to get them in place at all.

The upfront investment in film productions by the state leads to longer term benefits. It offers local industry professionals an opportunity to work near home instead of having to go to California. It creates jobs. And it brings cash to everything from hotels and restaurants to locations picked for filming and businesses that rent cars, do catering, etc.

So no, Gov. Doyle, now is not the time to cut out those tax incentives. It's tempting to start slashing and burning in the face of economic crisis, but that sort of tactic can often lead to the accidental chopping down of perfectly fruitful trees. Put down your axe.


(photo by gnecoffee on Flickr)

Doyle's budget plan remarkably sound

I'm reading over Doyle's budget plan and shaking my head - because, overall, it actually seems to make sense. Especially when compared to California's current budget gridlock, this is particularly refreshing.

Instead of the tired old (typically Republican) insistence on across the board tax cuts being the savior of us all, there's actually a proposal to raise taxes on those enjoying the top 1% income bracket. There are spending cuts which may result in some painful decisions for the affected organizations, but may well be necessary for the time being. He's also included funding for commuter rail (praise be that this is finally catching on nationwide). And the icing on this money cake? A cigarette tax hike and another proposed statewide smoking ban.

Two things in the budget likely to raise the most hackles are the income tax hike and the early release of certain "low risk" felons. The former strikes me as a non-issue - those people bringing in the most money should be taxed proportionally. Rep. Robin Vos, R-Caledonia, took umbrage at this proposal, however, saying that "the income tax increase would strike at small business owners who already have difficulty maintaining or creating jobs." Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly would this hike for the top 1% of earners affect small businesses? I'm willing to bet that most of them don't make enough to qualify for this in the first place. If someone can better explain this to me, though, I'm all ears.

And as for the early release program, done with the appropriate amount of thoughtful consideration, I can see this as being the right (if most controversial) step. Our prisons are wildly overpopulated as it is, and letting so-called low risk inmates out early could help solve that problem and save the state money. The trick, of course, lies in making sure these people have proper support once on the outside, so that they aren't as likely to reoffend.

I'm hopeful that Wisconsin can get this budget into place and make the necessary choices and moves to see our state through the economic downturn with as little pain as possible. It helps that we don't have the ridiculous 2/3rds majority rule for passage as in California, but we do have bitter partisan battles, so who knows. One thing's for sure: We need smart, swift action to stay on track - not petty power struggles and old, tired ideas.

Responsibility in the age of uncertainty

"The economy's likely to get worse before it gets better. Full recovery will not happen immediately." - President-elect Barack Obama

Today I'm attending a meeting about starting my own 401k--something I've wanted to do for awhile, but could never really afford (and still just barely can)--and I have to admit, current news is not filling me with a whole lot of confidence about it.

If I start contributing to a 401k now, do I just immediately start to lose money? Or will this be like getting in on the ground floor, just in time for the economy to begin some sort of recovery?

Word out of Washington and Wall Street is not encouraging.

Unless you're the CEO of one of the big, federally bailed-out corporations like AIG or Citibank, times are tough for all of us. Regular folks are not going to receive generous, no-strings-attached, don't-even-have-to-really-have-a-recovery-plan bailouts from the government. Instead, we're going to watch our jobs and wages cut, our retirement savings shrink, and, if this downward slide really gets chugging, a cut in our standard of living.

So why on Earth should I start paying into a 401k now? Frankly, I don't feel like I have any other particularly good options, and simply not attempting to save for retirement feels like a supremely bad idea.

Still, this has to be one of the worst times in a very, very long while to be jumping into adulthood and an attempt at financial prudence.

I worry, too, that the economic downturn will be used by moneyed interests as an excuse to forgo real efforts at developing viable alternative energies, cracking down on pollution, and generally trying to clean up our act before things really go to shit. The argument will be something along these lines: "We simply cannot afford to put money into those things that are unproven and/or prohibitively expensive when people are in such dire need of services right now!"

But people are in dire need of a healthy planet on which to continue living right now, too. And for all the billions (if not trillions) of dollars that are being pumped into the creaking, bloated, poorly-run corporations, we could instead be spending that on things like creating a whole slew of new jobs in alternative energy, green technologies, infrastructure improvement, education, and health care. Those are the things that are most crucial to creating and maintaining a viable economy and populace in the future. Not just investment banks. Not just car companies that actively block legislation that would have made them improve their games and perhaps even avoid their current dire straits.

I can only hope that we get enough of the right people into enough of the right positions to steer our country in a better direction. I am optimistic about an Obama administration, but even if they do manage to live up to their lofty rhetoric, they alone cannot make the difference that's needed. It takes a village, and all that.

In the meantime, I'm going to attempt to get my financial ducks in a row, and muster up the patience to see all of this through, despite any market or personal hiccups that are likely to come along the way.

The Recession and you

I am in my late twenties. I have a full-time job that pays a decent hourly wage and provides fairly reasonable health insurance. I have no retirement savings, no 401k, no IRAs, and (probably through my own fault) almost no regular savings of which to speak. I pretty much live paycheck to paycheck, as do quite a few of my fellow citizens.

Basically, if I were to lose my job, I'd be in a pretty shitty position. And my long-term prospects, as they currently stand, are not great. I need to start saving--and start saving soon--if I want to retire at any point before I get a nice certificate in the mail from the president congratulating me on being a century old.

My situation is not unique, and I'm not laying this all out to garner sympathy (I long ago came to terms with my artistic temperament and the personal economic situation it would likely get me into). There are a lot of people who are far worse off than me.

And that's just the problem. There are lots of people worse off than me. And I'm no great shakes. Being that we're either staring over the edge of / tumbling into the abyss known as Recession (whether we're there already or just well on our way is a matter of some contention, but everyone seems to agree that Recession Is the Future), this fact becomes especially onerous when taken together with this whole "bail out" thing Congress is currently in a tizzy over.

Honestly, I wasn't entirely sure what to make of the plan at first - certainly, the economy is facing a major crisis and some sort of major action needs to be taken to help stave off absolute disaster. But giving unfettered control of $700 billion dollars to one guy so that he could bail out the monstrously large corporations whose own stupid, greedy actions got us into this mess in the first place? That didn't quite jive, ya dig?

Some of the changes made to the bill by the House (like actual oversight) seemed reasonable to me, but overall, it still left a bad taste in my mouth. So I was somewhat relieved when the they voted it down, and frustrated when the Senate then passed a bloated version of the bill yesterday (Feingold, ever our rock, voted against it). Tax credits for hybrid vehicles are all well-and-good, but should this bill be the place for them? Especially considering some of the other wackadoodle stuff that ended up in there, too, like some sort of tax break for a company that makes toy arrows and various other pieces of blatant pork.

All this, apparently, to sweeten the deal enough to convince hold-outs to vote for the damn thing. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that some of our elected officials need to be given candy before they'll eat their veggies, but seeing it laid so bare is always a bit of a shock to the system.

Ultimately, pork or no, I think the bill is a bad idea. I came to this conclusion through my own meaty brain powers, but also by consulting with a lot of people what holds fancy degrees and credentials as actual economists. Apparently the vast majority of 'em, too, think the bill is a bust and would much rather the government buy out the bad mortgages instead of handing over a huge wad of cash directly to the banks. Glenn Greenwald over at Salon has a pretty excellent take on this, and I encourage you to give it a read before continuing on with my ramblings. Here's a sample:

...Jonathan G.S. Koppell and William N. Goetzmann of the Yale School of Management argued that a far preferable solution is to have the government pay off all delinquent mortgages -- which would transform the toxic waste into solid instruments and would prevent people from having their homes foreclosed....

Johnston condemned what he called the "atrocious" journalism on the financial crisis, and said "there's an enormous amount of just wrong reporting going on." In particular, Johnston documented the fear-mongering taking place among TV journalists that has plainly put the public into the state of submissive panic that Pearlstein wants them to be in, whereby -- exactly as was true for Iraq, eavesdropping, the Patriot Act and a whole host of other measures -- they come to be convinced that they better unquestioningly and immediately submit to the dictates of the political and media establishment, they better relinquish any belief that they should question what they're being told, lest they suffer imminent, inevitable, catastrophic doom.

And that's another thing that really puts me off: it was only for my insane blog-reading habits that I came across this apparently widespread economists' consensus over a better way to deal with the crisis. I've heard nothing about it on the radio or in newspapers (and I'm sure there hasn't been much on TV, but I don't have one, so I'm not sure), only the continued "we must act now or diiiiie!" quotes coming from Washington and a general sense of urgent beffudlement. Even Obama has gone in for this thing, which, while somewhat understandable, is still disappointing.

I, for one, would really rather not see tens of thousands (if not millions) of people lose their homes, their jobs, etc. So yes, action must be taken to stabilize the economy and put liquidity back into the credit markets. But bailing out the big banks that caused the problem in the first place? Hell no. How about some trickle up, instead of trickle down, for once? Clearly, there are alternatives to what's being championed by Bush and a strangely bipartisan coalition in DC, so what gives? Is it just a panic mentality, or is something more insidious, yet again, happening?

We've been tricked-through-fear into supporting and passing other terrible legislation in the not-so-distant past, so I can't help but wonder if this isn't just more of the same. Think authorization for the Iraq War. Think the Patriot Act. OMGactnoworwe'reallgonnadiiiiiie! Same sort of thing.

Only this time, the consequences won't just effect soldiers, Iraqis, dissidents, activists, etc., - ie: others. And that, apparently, is finally enough to make a broad coalition of folks stand up and take notice. Because the people guiding this bill--Paulson and the like--come from the very institutions that caused the problem, though, we're being led pretty fucking astray as to how to best go about dealing with it.

Meltdowns like this should be a great opportunity to start setting things right, to make sure we have a system in place that actually works to prevent the exact same thing from happening every decade or so. Sadly, and yet again so far in this case, we tend to go in for the same old stuff time and time again, no matter how roundly the methods have been disproved. And it will continue on like that so long as we allow for massive deregulation, cronyism, corruption, etc., to rule the roost.

I, for one, would rather the state of my personal finances be left up to my own devices--that is, if I work hard and play it smart, I might actually do all right for myself in the long-term--as opposed to having the deck stacked so firmly against me by people who make more money in a day than I'll see in years. I'd rather that be true for all of us. I'm not interested in "getting mine" and then pulling up the ladder behind me. I want parity. Ya dig?

Dey took er jerbs!

Through a series of Wikipedia-like random link clicks, I managed to land over at Widgerson Library & Pub, where I read a post by Deb Jordahl addressing Madison's recent fall from Money Magazine's "Top Places to Live" good graces.

We're still in the top 100, which is good, but we've fallen from our #1 slot in 1996 to #53 two years ago, and now, all the way to #89. Certainly, there are some interesting statistics cited by the magazine that point to problems in the city: lower math and reading tests scores than the national average, higher property taxes, and an increase in personal and property crime. These are all troubling statistics, and things of which I think/hope most Madisonians are aware.

As pointed out in the Wisconsin State Journal's op-ed about the ranking, though, it's important to be willing to take a hard look at our city and its various problems. It's also important, as they go on to note, not to place too much stock in the ever-changing qualifications for the rankings in the magazine. Madison may have dropped from its lofty heights on the list, but it's still in the top 100 out of tens of thousands of cities in the country.

Over at the Library & Pub, however, a much more dire picture is being painted, one where Madison is slipping into a dark abyss. The blame for this perceived state of affairs is placed squarely on the shoulders of "liberal policies" and "illegal immigrants," which is nothing particularly new. What's interesting is that this line of reasoning remains so persistent, even though 1) Madison still made the top 100, 2) the causes of slips in testing scores, employment opportunities, crime levels, and property taxes are many, varied and complex, and 3) there are pretty much no solid statistics or studies to back up their claims.

Do some immigrants sometimes commit crimes? Yes. Do some citizens also sometimes commit crimes? Yes. Will blanket anti-immigrant policies solve the crime problem? No, and they would likely just create a climate of fear and xenophobic nationalism, which is about as un-American as you can get.

The fact is that Madison has grown substantially in population and area over the last ten years, and coupled with the current national economic downturn, that's logically going to bring growing pains. We can't afford to ignore the problems, but we also can't afford to give knee-jerk responses to them. Pointing accusatory fingers at immigrants or liberals (or conservatives) isn't going to solve much of anything. We need to work together, and especially with those communities and populations most effected by the changes, to come up with comprehensive strategies that address not only the symptoms, but, more importantly, the root causes of the problems.

A larger gap between the wealthy and the working and middle classes, higher food and fuel costs, larger populations straining educational systems, less funding for school and community programs, and even pollution can all contribute to the things listed in the rankings. We need creative, compassionate, intelligent, and no-nonsense approaches to dealing with these various factors--not name calling, entitlement, resentment, selfishness or feelings of superiority.

Bicycle thieves go to the special hell

Perhaps in connection with the sluggish economy, perhaps with skyrocketing gas prices, perhaps any combination thereof, bicycle thefts seem to be increasing exponentially here in Madison (and probably elsewhere, too).

The stolen-and-recovered $8,000 bike story is more humorous cautionary tale than anything, but it's worth mentioning. And all one needs to do is troll the Madison craigslist bicycle listings to see other tales of woe. Plus, there's a whole thread on the Daily Page forums dedicated to the phenomenon.

Theft of almost any kind is wrong (I'll make exceptions for the Jean Valjean variety of bread stealing), but I hold a special malice toward those who take bicycles.

Thing is, there are so many programs that provide cheap, decent bikes to people in need, and plenty of second hand shops that sell them for next to nothing, that there's little excuse for the practice. I suspect that, rather than some real need, most bicycle thieves are in it for one of two reasons: stupidity, and/or greed.

And with the way the economy is going these days, petty crime in general is, perhaps unsurprisingly, on the rise. Bike theft is probably just one facet of a larger problem, but I admit that it provokes an especially strong reaction in me. I suspect, too, that I'm not alone in feeling this way. People ride bicycles for all kinds of reasons--recreation, transportation, fitness--and people ride all sorts of bikes. No matter if its a $20 Huffy or a $3,000 Trek Madone, stealing someone's bike is just as bad as stealing their car. To me, it's almost worse.

There are lots of folks who rely on their bikes to get them to and from work, to the grocery store, and to all sorts of other crucial places. On top of that, anyone who rides is, in at least a small way, helping to alleviate problems like air pollution and traffic congestion. Stealing bikes flies in the face of efforts that benefit everyone.

To compound this problem, it appears as though the Madison Police Department doesn't take bicycle theft in a manner that could be called "serious." I understand that there are more pressing matters on their plates than when someone forgets to lock up their beater bike and it gets nabbed. But many stolen bikes are taken by force, through someone cutting a lock and making off, bandit-like, with something that is, oftentimes, a person's main mode of getting around. This should be taken a little more seriously--at least as much as when someone's car is stolen.

Sadly, that doesn't currently seem to be the case. Bicycles are still seen by too many people as toys, as something silly that certain people ride, but certainly nothing worth serious attention. Hopefully, with fuel prices going crazier by the day and concerns over climate change increasing, more and more people will begin to look at the bicycle in a different, more positive light. And maybe they'll start taking bike theft a little more seriously, too.

In the meantime, there are steps you can take to protect your ass:

• Register your bike with the city. It's just $10 for a 4-year registration, and it will increase the likelihood that, should your bike be stolen and recovered, you'll get it back. It's not a foolproof plan, but it helps.
• Keep your bike in a secure, indoor location if at all possible.
• If you don't have an indoor place to stash your ride, invest in a heavy-duty lock. Check out consumersearch.com's reviews and recommendations for the best ones.
• If your bike is nabbed, keep an eye on the aforementioned Madison craigslist page, as it's not entirely unlikely that it may pop up there, and you'll be able to track down the thief.
• Push for better, properly installed bike racks at local businesses and on city property. And remember: not all bike racks are created equal. Also, look for places that provide bike lockers. There are several places around the city that do (certain city parking garages, and I think the Terrace--if anyone knows of other locations, please say so in the comments section).

There are also several good resources for bicycling in Wisconsin on the net that you should consider checking out:

• The Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin has a good FAQ section and other great resources.
  
• Dream Bikes provides affordable bicycles to people in need, plus great job training for at-risk kids. Consider donating an old bike to them!
• Madvelocity is a good community site for all sorts of bike-related info, plus it has a stolen bikes listing section.
• The "Bike-It-Yourself" column over at dane101 has lots of helpful info, as well.
  

It's also important to remember to be a conscientious cyclist, obeying appropriate laws, wearing proper safety gear (I don't care if you hate what it does to your precious hair, WEAR A HELMET), and generally not being a jerk. Too many motorists already harbor an irrational hatred of cyclists, so there's no reason to give them rational reasons, too.