Here’s their initial responses. They are still taking input until tomorrow at noon, so if you live in the neighborhood and have some thing to add, please do! Info on how, below. And, don’t forget about the Neighborhood Summit Saturday morning 9 – noon at Trinity Lutheran Church (1904 Winnebago).
1. The Development Departments of the City Should Present a Constructive, Positive Attitude Toward Development.
• City staff and citizens react to what is presented to them. Being artificially positive to everything as presented would be a waste of time and money for all, especially the developer.
• Is there a mission statement for city departments?
• Critical thinking and analysis should be involved as well.
• The process should be consistent!
• Everyone should be treated courteously. At times, helpful comments can be construed as negative because it isn’t what we want to hear.
• I believe that the “perception” of unfriendliness is a hammer to get something.
• Professionalism and consistency is important. Willingness to be of service.
• Developers need to listen to community feedback and work constructively with neighborhood residents and associations to make appropriate changes to their initial plan. In a development near my parents home, the developer was not willing to work with the community. Plans presented in subsequent meetings did not make significant changes. He was rude and downright nasty to residents especially outside of the meetings. For example, the residents complained about the parking problems his development caused because there was inadequate parking for the library and the condos he built in phase 1 and was requesting approval of phase 2. He replied that he sold it to the city so it was not his problem.
2. The Roles and Jurisdictions of Various City Boards, Commissions, Committees and Agencies (“City Unit”) Should be Clearly Defined and Understood.
• Training already happening.
• Formal neighborhood feedback should be posted on line with other project documents.
• Training for boards and commissions is a good idea. Need to clarify boundaries and avoid scope creep.
• Metrics should include adherence to neighborhood approved goals and plans.
• At times politics can drive decisions that honor that arena, but don’t always fit a neighborhood.
• Commissions should be staffed. Decisions for staffing should not be made solely by the mayor.
• Great idea. A little too pie in the sky. The “project manager” might be too difficult to do, and too important in controlling information.
3. Supermajority Votes Should be Critically Examined.
• Committees with expertise add value; supermajority seems reasonable way to respect their recommendations.
• We need to have a way to deal with differences of opinion not just give developers what they want.
• Supermajority votes are our checks and balances written into our democratic code. Having said that, they should be employed cautiously.
• Supermajority votes should be used for approving all financial decisions over $10K with private corporations.
• Yes, this is exceptionism pure and simple. These occur when one group perceives, at one point in time, that another group is running roughshod over decision making. Get used to it. We’re human.
• Supermajorities are in place to avoid purely political decisions. They have their place and are not necessarily negative.
4. The Role of the Neighborhood Plan Within the Comprehensive Plan Should be Clarified.
• Neighborhood plans very important. Help provide context of site. Provides info that can take a good plan and make it great.
• In context with #5, neighborhood input is valuable, provided sufficient input is secured. I think the neighborhood plans would be considered as so called “sufficient secured input.” They have neighborhood input with more insight than the city’s comprehensive plan.
• Neighborhood plans go through extensive process and should be honored. Change is needed by they should be starting point.
• Neighborhood plans go through months – years of broad neighborhood input. Why ignore them?
• The frequent occupation of neighborhoods changes and thus all previous plans should be reviewed even if laughed at.
• Do not disagree with providing clarity regarding the multiple plans and which trump which.
• Neighborhood plans must be seriously considered and not disregarded because of an opportunity.
5. Neighborhood Input is Valuable, Provided Sufficient Input is Secured.
• In this day and age, we are all very busy. A small group who attends meetings doesn’t necessarily correlate to a small interest base. Can be delegation.
• This point helps to point out why neighborhood plans are so very important.
• “Too often, a small…. When they do not.” Base on what set of statistics?
• Neighborhood meetings are attended by those who care strongly about an issue. The number of people is not important, but the ability to be heard is.
• Neighborhood associations are volunteer organizations and should strive for democratic representation of community. But also active builders of community even if small in number have contribution.
• Include MNA development guidelines with letter.
• Neighborhood association board members are typically elected by members of the association to represent the neighborhood interests within their specified boundaries.
• Alders and the planning department need a larger budget to post card notify neighbors to get sufficient input.
• $ for notification.
• “Sufficient input” – this sounds very subjective. Who is going to decide what is sufficient?
• If widespread sentiment is needed then widespread notification is needed for what is going on. Does that mean more $ in budget for such?
• The sociology of neighborhoods can be easily understood even without decreeing some magical structure. Activity will wax and wane. People will perpetually feel “left out of the loop.” However, at present the city notification system is in disarray. Plan B probably wouldn’t have happened if procedure was followed. People who demand “cutting government” are our least useful members.
6. Advance Notices of Intent and Engagement in the Development Processes Should be Standardized.
• The timeframes of 30-60 days are not realistic because some projects are poorly resigned and need lots of work.
• Ditto!
• The pre-application process is key. Outreach to alder and neighborhood association in advance of application will help facilitate process.
• The city should not dictate the neighborhood process, but the neighborhood must keep things moving too.
• Concern: Transparency & neighborhood awareness is important. Projects should not be expedited at the cost of public notice.
• Yes this is very important.
7. A Streamlined Approval Process Should be in Place for Smaller Projects.
• A streamlined process for “smaller” projects could be good, but “smaller” would be difficult to define. A 3-story building mid-block surrounded by single story homes may not cost much, but would it be considered “small?”
• Not about “small” vs. “large” but about resources, capacity and issue of developer and project to be realistic.
• Smaller projects can be risky. They at times can be taken on by the inexperienced developer.
• How do you define “smaller projects”? Very subjective. Too many variables to consider. If whole development process became more efficient, then there should be no need for more than one process.
• Projects that fit move through quickly now. It is the project that doesn’t that moves slower and for good reason.
• The new zoning code should eliminate this issue altogether!
• The generalization that “smaller is less trouble” is false. Envelope issues are more likely where non-conformity will be tried “because it’s just a little bitty thing.”
• Land use approval = land use approval. Size shouldn’t matter.
8. Miscellaneous Items.
(a) The Lobbying Ordinance Should be Simplified.
• Registration process could be improved and clarified overall.
• It is critical that the citizens know who is lobbying who about what and at what cost! $$$
• Lobbying ordinance is already simple; it just needs to be complied with.
• On it signals a helpful financial reality check to developers knowing your costs ahead of time helps to budget.
• Persons presenting an appearance or opinion for or opposed to a project must be required to check off if they will directly or indirectly benefit from the project. Contractors, realtors and other persons may have a direct benefit. Realtors who sell properties may indirectly benefit if aspects of the proposal will not directly benefit but may benefit from precedence or in some other way.
(b) Time for Presentation.
• Speakers should be allowed to speak. Applicants should be given more time, but questions should come at the end.
(c) Room 201 Needs Work.
• Room 201 CCB and 260 MMB are awful.
• Room 201 is fine, maybe dated, but does not affect the process.
• Serviceable fine – sleek ?
• We are cutting valuable services to the community and we’re talking about sleek?
• A TV (or 2) w/ the City Channel should be installed in the lobby outside 201! My former small city did this. It reduces chat in the audience while allowing viewers to see & hear while outside chambers.
• Yes the physical layout as process is almost hopeless. People do watch City Cable. In 201 opponents or people just wanting to know more cannot see the architect’s easel.
Downtown Madison Incorporated – Neighborhoods
• Every “membership” is for a reason. The reason(s) are the advantages for people to join such groups. Last decade there was a nominal group exercise at Immanuel, the membership was salted with aunts, friends and co-workers of the developers. They were about 10 of the 30 attendees.
• Neighborhood associations are made up of people who care about issues. It is important that we hear from everyone who wants to be heard, but the number of people participating should not determine the validity of their views.
• As it should.
• DMI tolerates neighborhood associations. However, every buzz word “stakeholder” has its moment but gets overused way before it should be forgotten. DMI has specious membership just like any other social group of humans. They shouldn’t throw stones.
• Our neighborhood association has a very well developed process for input and approval (or non-support or conditional support). Attach plans/process.
• Delegation is common @ all levels. One neighbor can represent many.
• DMI does not represent all downtown business and should not substitute itself for a business association. How well do they represent all downtown stakeholders?
• DMI should represent all businesses, and other downtown stakeholders…not just major corporations and large property owners.
• Issues are not the same throughout the city.
• Representiveness: About 1960 a zoning proposal to rezone the 6th district for zero-lot-line development. The 6th district alder thought it was alright. The “neighborhood” didn’t see it that way. So “we” went to the 5th district alder, Paul Soglin and got it stopped. We’ve done our own zoning ever since.
• Neighborhood plans do include all stakeholders – extensively.
Here’s the email and info to contact him:
The attached document includes reactions from your neighbors to proposals to “streamline” Madison’s development process. If you were unable to attend last night’s meeting and would like to weigh in, please send me your comments.
Here are links to the issue documents on streamlining the process:
http://legistar.cityofmadison.com/attachments/842df5de-86f2-4a62-8530-e1b7d616524e.pdf
http://legistar.cityofmadison.com/attachments/d3ba875c-1817-4669-b49d-dd64958c789e.pdfPlease have your comments to me by noon Friday (July 30, 2010).
Thanks,
ScottScott B. Thornton scott@kreweofmadison.org
President, Marquette Neighborhood Association
www.marquette-neighborhood.org
1104 Jenifer St
(608) 255-5969
