As I’m writing this, they’re still talking and I just didn’t feel like typing 5or 6 or more hours so I watched the meeting and here’s the highlights. Sorry, its lacking in detail, but I just didn’t feel like it, I had too many other things to do.
STEVE’S LIQUOR
Staff did a long powerpoint presentation on history of the project making it seem like a done deal. It lasted about 20 minutes.
Some questions were plan commissioners. There are no standards for them to review this against, they look at the current plans and public purpose and necessity. Real estate staff explained the condemnation process for the owners, which are different than the renters (Steve’s Liquor). This gives them the authority to negotiate, they get an appraisal, they make an offer. Owner can get their own appraisal within 60 days. The tenant could have relocation benefits. They would negotiate a fair value with the owner. They would provide them with properties that are similar to what they currently have. If they can’t reach agreement with the owner, the city could use eminent domain. They could contest for 2 years. If we are not right with our fair market value, and we’re off by 15% we might have to pay the legal fees. The business who leases have 90 days from time of award to vacate. They are trying to do that by February, so they would have to vacate 90 days from then. They have looked for places to relocate to, the city has provided contacts, and have even asked some places that are occupied.
4 people spoke against. They think the city can have a cheaper option and could save money. They think that other road improvements might improve the intersection and that they should wait. They also said that this is the second time that they have been relocated by the city.
Paul Skidmore, the alder, went through the history again. He supports it so Menards and University Research Park can get what they need. (Hey, wait, doesn’t Skidmore or didn’t Skidmore work as security for Menards?)
Plan Commissioners ask questions of staff. They continue with the issues that this has been planned forever and University Research Park and Menards need this. They do point out that this is the only way they can do this and that this is a much bigger project than just the intersection. They also say this will help pedestrians and bicyclists. Rummel questions how they did the economic impacts in the study, didn’t seem to get a good answer.
Schmidt moves approval, King seconds. There is no discussion. I think it was unanimous on a voice vote, couldn’t really tell, but I heard no, nos.
HOUSING DIVERSITY PLAN
They have two main recommendations of any consequence, which are hardly a substitute for Inclusionary Zoning. Those recommendations are that the city do planning around school districts and include a school board member on the Housing Committee along with some other cross appointments. The latter was done, but not formally, so will disappear with time. The former had some issues from staff. They’ll tweak the language to say that it should be one of the things considered but staff had concerns about the boundaries changing. Rummel called it their “big idea” but also moved to weaken the language. Therefore, the report is essentially useless. Surprise, surprise.
CHURCH WARS
Lutherans vs Episcopals. Throw in a catholic or two with an opinion and lobbyists who are a Methodist and a Jewish person. Lots of guys in clergy collars, lots of church jokes, a Joni Mitchell quote. There were concerns about the kids in daycare, the traffic, the impact the building next door has caused (Grand Central), the historic nature of the building and the area/block. The building was called functionally obsolete, but it was revealed that is only because they choose not to use the larger chapel. In the end, it was referred for 90 days (or less) to solve the light issues during all times of the year in the morning. (I forgot if it was 8 or 9 am). There is a potential that Luther Memorial building will be landmarked during that time. It was unclear how that would affect the application. There were some other concerns raised by the members that were not part of the motion but included the shadowing/light for St. Frances House and demolition issues. I think there were also concerns about how this fit into the comprehensive plan.
HOLY ILLEGAL LANDLORD PRACTICES
During the church wars former Alder Judy Olson asked Jim Stoppel of Madison Property Management what they are doing about the concerns of vandalism and throwing things out the windows and other nuisance behaviors by residents of Grand Central. Stopple says he wasn’t aware of the issues until the police brought them up. The emplyed security service on Thursday, Friday, Saturday evenings and Halloween etc. There were issue with people throwing cigarette butts off the balconies but they have cameras now that are in every hallway and every side of the building and now they get a $500 fine.
WAIT WHAT!!!
That’s not legal. That’s called liquidated damages and that number is no where near what it actually costs them as a result of having to pick up a cigarette butt. Besides, the landlords have a remedy, its called eviction. How long have they been getting away with that and why the hell aren’t the students questioning that! I suppose maybe they have and STEM has told them its perfectly ok. Students get so screwed by some of these landlords, I wish they would question things like that instead of just paying.
U-HAUL
It got approved with some amendments and some confusion over what their proposal actually was. Mostly the issues were about how much they needed to advertise what they were doing and if this use being there would prevent a grocery and other uses on the property.
MCDONALDS
Also approved, despite neighborhood and library opposition and concern about kids and pedestrian conflict with drive through.
That’s about all in the items of interest, meeting lasted over 5 hours, but like I said, I had other things to do while watching it.
Re butts:
the cig butts are still burning when tossed. And though the don’t always dammage, when they do it’s bad. Car finish, hair, awnings, blow back into other lower apt. To avoid fine use an ashtray.
Lived at co op where this was a problem.
You missed my point. The fine itself is illegal. That is not the legal remedy for violation of the lease. $500 is totally random, and just fills the landlord pocket and has no relationship to the actual damages. If there are actual damages done that the landlord has to pay for, then a fine for the actual amount may be appropriate. But being fined for what might have happened is not. The appropriate, legal remedy is eviction – serve a 5 day notice and tell them that they will be evicted if they do it again.
Having said that, I’d also say, don’t be an ass and throw shit off your balcony. But if you do it, know what the appropriate landlord response is.
Think about it, 20 students pay a $500 fine in a year, that is $10,000 per year for the landlord, for what purpose besides profit? You think they lower the rent, or make improvements with that money? Or pay our for damages caused by cigarette butts? Or just pocket it?