If you haven’t been obsessed with the Edgewater for the last two weeks, the last you might have heard was the Council rejected to overturn the Landmark’s Commission and three alders were gone, leaving the possibility of reconsideration a possibility. Well reconsideration is tonight! Here’s what’s been going on over the holidays plus a whole bunch of new stuff to consider. It’s as thorough as a run down as I can muster . . . Sorry I didn’t put all the links in, you might have to go to the post and then find the link there.
THE DECEMBER 15 MEETING
Here’s some of the recaps of the last meeting.
Isthmus Live blog/chat
Cap Times Live Blog
Edgewater by the numbers
Recap of Council Discussion and Grading the Council
ROUND UP SUMMARIES AND PRE-CHRISTMAS ITEMS
The day or two after . . . includes suggestions on how the meeting could have been better planned and run, sleeping staff, problems with city channel and technology, Paul Soglin chimes in, more recap links, Schumacher making rumblings of potential reconsideration, leadership out of touch and declaring project dead.
The week after round up. Where’s the Economic Development Director on the Edgewater?, forons discuss how many jobs might be created, ironic mayoral comments, landmarks commission the punishment committee, National Trust article on the Edgewater, Mayor threatens to strip Landmarks of their power, Cap Times ed board chimes in, Dunn suspiciously quiet . . . and thank your alder.
Alders MIA.
Schmacher out of town a ridiculous amount of time.
Pre- X-mas Eve Round Up Mayor’s screwball logic, a back of the envelope calculation on how many jobs will be created, the article on Fred Mohs, comparison to the Overture, Levitan explains landmark’s decision, speculation on reconsideration, back peddling and finger pointing and leadership telling developers and bankers we’re too hard to work with as a city.
THE WEEK NOTHING GETS DONE – X-MAS TO NEW YEARS ROUND UP
Mid-week Round Up – Reconsideration is on and who will be absent?
End of Week Round Up – More suggestions for better planned and run meeting on the Edgewater.
New Year’s Eve – Schumacher hints at a compromise, planning department explains what approvals are needed, former hotel rejection good according to ex-Mayor, kinda.
A great video on what would happen if we ignored planning laws. Totally worth watching.
THIS WEEK AND MORE, MOSTLY NEW THINGS, TO CONSIDER
If all of the above isn’t enough, I suggest you check out this website devoted to the Edgewater. Also here’s some comments and thoughts from a neighbor, with a great photo that says volumes about . . . compatibility. And, an analysis (sorry the formatting got screwed up) of the 70 pages of materials that Hammes handed out on the 15th.
Brian Solomon writes about his vote.
Schmacher getting cocky?
What I find even funnier is “his compromise” appears to be the same one Cnare offered at the last meeting and had the council members been more conciliatory, we wouldn’t have to be going through this again at all.
No one wants the meeting to go until 5:30 again, but I don’t think the WSJ understands why it went late and it seems as tho they are assuming the three alders who missed the meeting watched the whole thing, I’m guessing all three didn’t, so there may be a need for redundancy from the public and the alders. Additionally, I believe Hammes has new information to present tonight and staff have now had a chance to review that 70 page packet of materials handed out at the last meeting, so there may be some need for new discussion. Plus, two of the people who missed the last meeting are two of the three that talk the longest and argue through questions instead of addressing the council. But, I’m sure the WSJ ed board can’t be bothered with those types of details.
Governing Magazine looks at if cities should be involved in the mega-hotel business.
This article explores why Mansion Hill is important to the entire city.
Also, here’s an article about how landmark’s status impacts property values.
Finally, I’m wondering why the schizophrenic attitude by Alder Schumacher. Here he says there are 14 votes (article from yesterday).
“I am cautiously optimistic that we have the potential for 14 votes to override the Landmarks Commission. But, this is a very polarizing, hotly contested debate. A lot of issues can emerge … and you don’t take anything like this for granted,” said Schumacher.
Eleven votes are needed to get the second override vote to happen. If it does, Schumacher said it’s highly likely there will be a motion to refer the project back to the city committee process, setting aside the question of a Landmarks’ override for the time being.
But, also yesterday, to his neighborhood listserve he writes:
Given the interest in the Edgewater Hotel, the Channel 3 article captures best the latest development. I’m hoping the Council will be able to come up with a compromise that allows the hotel project to move forward without having to overturn the Landmarks Commission. A New Year Wish?
http://www.channel3000.com/news/22125197/detail.html
Ok, so which is it? 14 votes? Or what you told your neighborhoods? And yes, that is the same article as above where he says there are 14 votes that he links to. What makes me suspicious is his facebook post combined with his issues that can “ermerge” language . . .
So, there’s what I have. The rumors are flying so fast I can’t keep up, several of them directly contradictory. Hard to tell what is going on. Will there be a “compromise”? Will it be referred until after Plan Commission and Urban Design Commission look at it? (That’s where I’d place my bets.) If forced to vote, what will Pham-Remmele and undecided Compton do? No matter what, I don’t think we’ll be there til 5:30. I’m hoping . . . 12:30 . . .
Oh, and how’s this for irritating. One rumor was that if they over-rode the Landmark’s Commission tonight, Clear was going to introduce legislation that change setback requirements, to get rid of more laws standing in the way of the project.
