I am. I really want the final vote to be tonight (as long as it is safe for everyone involved) and I really hope no one reconsiders. Of course, if the appeals passes, it will be back for several more votes. (Um, I’m talking about the Edgewater in case you’ve been living under a rock.) I’ll try my best to talk about something besides the Edgewater, but it’ll be tough . . . .
A BLOGGER’S DILEMNA
Important things first. At first, I had to be at a WYOU meeting to discuss next years budget, but that has been cancelled. So now, I have to decide, do I join Dusty et al at Amy’s Cafe for the drinking game, or bingo (thank you for the “Bruer calls a female Council member by her first name”), or do I show up and see all the good stuff you don’t see on camera? Truthfully, I think the drinking game would result in no blog in the morning, it looks pretty harsh, especially the council break – that could be brutal. I’m torn. Dusty’s party sounds like more fun.
MUSICAL CHAIRS
So, originally it was reported that Palm and Schumacher would be gone. Yesterday, the council members were informed of the following:
Due to a death in her family, Ald. Thuy Pham-Remmele will be absent from the city starting today, Monday, December 7 until further notice. (Please note that this absence will be updated as needed).
Ald. Pham-Remmele will not be in attendance at the Tuesday, December 8, 2009 Common Council meeting.
My condolences to Pham-Remmele and her husband.
I was also informed the following:
However, it is confirmed that Michael S. is returning to town to vote.
I suppose it is all very unpredictable given the snow, so we’ll have to see who really shows up.
SPEAKING OF SNOW
Why is Tim Bruer so eager to make sure the meeting is not cancelled tonight? He must not have gotten a good response to this. I’m sure it is all about manipulating the vote.
NOT MUCH FAITH IN THE COUNCIL
Wow, what does it say that the new poll on my blog is running 75 – 80 against the council actually following the law? Is it my readers, or the small percentage of them that actually voted? Or does the public really have that little faith in the council?
SLOPPY COUNCIL SUPPORT
Yesterday the council members received a list summarizing the emails that went to allalders@cityofmadison.com. It is skewed significantly in support of the project. However, a quick review shows:
– Some were listed in support AND in opposition.
– Some people against are listed as being in support.
– The emails came from all over including Stewsbury, MA, Cedar Rapids, IA, Sauk Creek, Middleton, Fitchburg, Verona, Monona, Waunakee and Spring Green.
– Many are listed with their businesses (some with more than one person from teh same company) including Building and Construction Traces, Epic Life Insurance, Madison’s, Building Trades, Hausman-Johnson Insurance, Chamber of Commerce, Alphagraphics, Professor of Zoology, Williams St. Art Center, Lindsay Stone & Briggs, Kelly Financial, Zebradog, Boardman Law Firm, Mansion Hill Inn, TDS Custom Construction, Mad City Style LLC, H&H Industries, WhoopDeDoo Productions, World Council of Credit Unions, HDR ONE Company, Badger Popcorn and the Edgewater.
– 25% did not indicate where they were from.
– Many listed with Madison addresses had a suite number attached to their address, indicating it was their work address not home address.
– Some who had testified on behalf of their businesses, didn’t have their businesses attached. (I’m thinking of Downtown Hotels)
Do you really think the Zoology Department meant to weigh in on the project? It’s kind of a bummer cuz it makes all that public input somewhat suspect and I’m not sure what it means. Were all those businesses in support, or just people using their work emails? It makes me want to disregard the document because its so sloppily done and seemingly inaccurate, but I can’t because 235 people took the time to send in their opinion. Oh well, if you want your voice counted, email allalders@cityofmadison.com and hope they read the email, not just the summary.
VERVEER, “FED UP”
I don’t know why, but it makes me giggle when Verveer actually gets mad. He’s so even keeled so often – too often. Which is what makes his statements to the Isthmus interesting, he’s too nice to say anything too critical. I think everyone knows that behind the scenes meetings happen, I don’t think they know to what extent, which is likely what has Verveer talking. But there’s something else here, that I pointed out on thedailypage forum, that is problematic. At what point, will the pursuit of getting this project passed cross the line for you. For some, its the TIF, for others it is the landmarks ordinance, but bring in the enviros, because if Verveer is right, their going after the Shorline Preservation Ordinance next:
Verveer says that besides anticipating the need to override the Landmarks Commission, the strategy team has focused on “having the Zoning Board of Appeals taken out of the equation” because the board was seen as a “danger” to the project.
“It’s a 100% citizen body, no elected officials on the body, and their decisions are appealable only to a circuit court,” says Verveer. “If Hammes wanted to prevail over an unfavorable ZBA ruling they would have to go to court, which would be difficult to overturn, generally, given past precedent.”
Under current city rules, the Zoning Board of Appeals must issue a variance to allow Hammes to build so close to the water. The board has not yet acted and Hammes has not yet provided it with materials or measurements. Verveer says this is because there’s talk about avoiding the board entirely by amending the shoreline preservation ordinance to exempt commercial buildings.
Says Verveer, “So all the way along, behind closed doors they have talked about how to get around the ZBA.”
Regarding the comments that follow the article, if you want to look at campaign finance reports, you probably should be looking for all the conduit and business contributions here (and here and here). And if you want to know how Verveer knows, well . . . people talk. Too much. Too often. And nothing is a secret if you keep your eyes and ears open.
MORE SLOPPY STAFF WORK – “OWNER”
Ok, I really, really, really tried to find an answer to this one that would make some sense, and I couldn’t. I asked another attorney who is relatively knowledgable in the way of the city and development process and their response was even more cynical than mine. Anyways, here’s the question. Who is the owner for purposes of this language:
. . . After a public hearing, the Council may, by favorable vote of two-thirds (2/3) of its members, based on the standards contained in this ordinance, reverse or modify the decision of the Landmarks Commission if, after balancing the interest of the public in preserving the subject property and the interest of the owner in using it for his or her own purposes, the Council finds that, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, failure to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness will preclude any and all reasonable use of the property and/or will cause serious hardship for the owner, provided that any self-created hardship shall not be a basis for reversal or modification of the Landmark Commission’s decision.
A second question that was posed was did Hammes have standing to file the appeal. I think they did, because in that case, the language says:
An appeal from the decision of the Landmarks Commission to grant or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness under Subsection (5)(b) and (c) may be taken to the Common Council by the applicant for the permit.
The fact that they use two different terms “applicant for the permit” and “owner” indicates to me that they didn’t intend for the “owner” to be loosely construed to mean the “applicant”, but that isn’t what Michael May emailed to the alders:
Folks:
I’ve received several emails concerned about the use of the word “owner” in the appeal section of the ordinances discussed in my recent memorandum. (Actually, the ordinance sometimes uses “applicant” and other times uses “owner.”)The Hammes Co. has pursued the required certificate. My understanding is that they have an option or agreement to purchase the property, which is a sufficient property interest to pursue those approvals and the appeal before you tomorrow night. For purposes of applying the ordinance, you should consider Hammes Co. as the “owner.”
I’m not buying it. It’s a rather loose interpretation with no back up and I searched and I couldn’t find anything that would justify this conclusion. While I agree that they have sufficient property interest to pursue the approvals and appeal, I can’t see how they are the “owner” for the balancing test. I can’t tell if the city attorney didn’t see it as two different questions, or if he didn’t realize the distinction – or if the cynical response is the right answer.
SOMETHING BESIDES THE EDGEWATER
This one includes WYOU, Campaign Finance and Labor getting taken advantage of by big business. Check out how much money went into passing the “Cable Competition” Act or “Cable Con” as it has been labeled.
WATER RATES SKYROCKETING
A 22% increase on top of the recent 13% increase. Where’s the taxpayer outrage here? Seriously, cuts to services at the city and county were rampant this year, and this gets little notice.
SPEAKING ABOUT GOVERNMENT BUDGETS
Are you feeling . . . .
Thanks to the smart ass who gave me the button! 🙂
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Someone, I don’t remember who, posted this on facebook yesterday. I cut and pasted it cuz I liked it, but I thought it would be a good quote for the day.
Economic growth without social progress lets the great majority of people remain in poverty, while a privileged few reap the benefits of rising abundance. John F. Kennedy
