A Lesson in Why You Look Beyond A Press Release

Courtesy of the Mayor’s office and his claims he is helping neighborhoods with his capital budget. I actually would not believe it if I hadn’t seen it in black and white. Check it out.

First, the Mayor’s press release from September 7th:

Mayor’s Capital Budget Supports Neighborhoods, Basic Services, Economic Development
Mayor Introduces Capital Budget Today

Mayor Dave Cieslewicz today introduces his 2011 Capital Budget. The budget comes in almost $2 million under the original borrowing target for 2011 and makes investments in basic city infrastructure, neighborhoods and economic development.

“In a time of recession, my budget makes smart investments in basic city infrastructure, neighborhoods and economic development,” Cieslewicz said. “Economic recovery has not come as quickly as we had hoped, but these are the type of investments that will position us to take full advantage of recovery when it does come.”

The mayor’s budget addresses three key priorities: neighborhoods, basic services and economic development.

Neighborhoods

• The mayor’s budget includes $100,000 to study and create a comprehensive set of criteria for development of new neighborhood centers and $3.5 million in 2012 for construction of a center or centers, consistent with the results of the study.

• Funding to complete the Villager Mall, a key project to the revitalization of South Park Street, one of the primary gateways to our city, and the creation of new economic opportunities for Southside neighborhoods.

Ok, you can read the rest if you follow the link. Now, the actual capital budget (see page 6, project 15):

This project provides funding to conduct a needs assessment and preliminary space study for potentially several new community centers in South and Southwest Madison. The City has been approached regarding financial assistance to move these various projects forward. Prior to any consideration of financial assistance, the assessment and study will provide solid base line information on the need for these spaces, the location of any potential center and the level of non-City support for moving the project(s) forward. The General Obligation debt of $80,000 in 2011 is reauthorized from 2010. $20,000 in other funding is from private contributions.

Funding in 2012 includes $3.5 million in private fundraising/grants to support construction costs of a neighborhood center.

Ok, how are these two things different?

Mayor’s press release says “The mayor’s budget includes $100,000” to do the study.
– Note, $80K is coming from the city, the other $20K will be fundraised, but it doesn’t really say by whom.
– This is money that is already in this year’s budget and didn’t/won’t get spent, i.e. reauthorized. I’m unclear what it is reauthorized from. I’m guessing it is project 4 from this year that didn’t require the $20K to be fundraised and was noted as such:

This project provides authorization for new funding for non-profit agencies to acquire, construct, or renovate facilities that will serve as public resources and generate positive neighborhood effects in those neighborhoods that address the Mayors neighborhood economic development goals. 2010 funding includes assistance for planning and development for a future Bridge Lake Point Waunona Neighborhood Center.

The press release says it is “create a comprehensive set of criteria for development of new neighborhood centers”
– The press release just says neighborhood centers. The language in the budget says it is just for the South and Southwest side of Madison. When he said a comprehensive set of criteria, I was led to believe it was about the entire city and was mildly surprised it was limited.
– Also, mildly amused in that this was money for Alder Bruer’s district and now it is money for Alder Bruer, Pham-Remmele and possibly King or Sanborn or Kerr. I wonder how that will work out for them?

The press release says that the budget includes “$3.5 million in 2012 for construction of a center or centers”.
– The budget amendment doesn’t indicate ANY city money will be spent, in fact, it says quite the opposite. “Funding in 2012 includes $3.5 million in private fundraising/grants to support construction costs of a neighborhood center.” That’s PRIVATE money, not city money. It seems odd that it would even be included in the budget if it isn’t even city money. And the press release seems a bit misleading.

What was covered in the news? Here’s the State Journal.

I’m not even going to get into the fact that the amount of money for neighborhoods compared to other priorities is minuscule or non-existent (esp. in 2012), or even if they other claim of “neighborhood” work is really for neighborhoods. Some of have covered that elsewhere (Thanks Kristin!) . . . what this post is about is why the press has to do a better job of looking into details before just taking press releases at face value. Details matter . . . and slick politicians don’t always want you to do there.

Which reminds me . . . where is that 90 page agreement that Hammes entered into with labor . . . I wonder what that really says, compared to what was reported and why Bob Dunn doesn’t want to give me a copy! 🙂

And while you’re at it, compare these two stories. One. Two.

Just a friendly little reminder . . . that we need journalists to dig deeper. I didn’t go to journalism school, I don’t work at a newspaper or get paid for what I do, I just know that in order for city hall/local government to run smoothly we need the press (including radio and tv) to help inform the public and that role seems more crucial now than ever. (And while I cover the city much more, I see this as an even bigger problem with County Board and the School Board, which is a completely different post, which I touched on a bit in today’s round up.) But when the press does cover something, we need them to go beyond the press release . . . and actually cover the news . . .