Yes, there’s enough about the Edgewater for a round up dedicated to this subject alone . . .
I expect that this will be at the council on Tuesday, fierce lobbying has begun all around, seems like folks are scrambling, so here’s a round up on some of the issues.
COMMENTS AND A FEW THINGS WORTH READING
I wish Dusty had been at the Landmark’s meeting before commenting on it, I think if he had been there, he may have walked away with a different conclusion. The Landmark’s Commission has specific ordinances that they have to look at and had a rather narrow decision to make. Levitan explains it well here. Dusty’s arguments, much like Maniaci’s would be better for when the project is ready for a council vote, but the city and commission have specific missions, with specific charges and ordinances to follow. Blaming the Mansion Hill folks for the Landmark’s Commission votes ignores that it really was a coalition of preservationists, neighborhood groups (including the Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Association who voted unanimously) and activists that turned out that were concerned about the future of historic districts in the City of Madison and that there were complicated ordinance issues at play. Dusty disappointed me on that one!
Kristin, however, who was at the meeting did a good job of laying out the “what’s next” issue as well as looking at the data presented to the Landmark’s Commission that created the difficulties they had in approving the project, the fact that the building is 3 to 16 times bigger than buildings in the visually related area.
Other news has the Mayor urging them to go to council on Tuesday, Verveer urging them to go back to the drawing board, Bruer is predicting “game over”, Clear is waiting for the Mayor to tell him what to think and Hammes is sticking with “no comment” in everything I have read, but they have to decide by noon today if they want to appeal and be at the council on Tuesday. Meanwhile, alders are getting lobbied, so if you want your opinion to matter, email them at allalders@cityofmadison.com to give them your opinion pro or con, my guess is they’ll be dealing with this Tuesday night.
The Forward Thinking folks are still wondering about the anti-labor vote.
And then there’s still the issues about if this is the right time and place to be building a hotel downtown.
IS MANIACI IN TOUCH WITH HER DISTRICT? 60 – 65% SUPPORT
This is the statement that had many of the neighbors and neighborhood associations that I am in touch with concerned.
“I would say that overall, my district is 60 to 65 percent [in support],” Maniaci said.
Any questions I have seen posed on neighborhood listserves about her position on this matter (and others) have largely gone unanswered (publicly and I think also privately) and I expect that she won’t answer this either:
I am wondering how you know what percent of the neighborhood supports the Edgewater project? Is it by phone, letters, e-mail, personal conversations, etc? For the record, I do not support the project in its present form, nor am I aware of any type of survey of our neighborhoods opinions on it.
Lake front development does not require any TIF money. It is unethical to publicly subsidise one hotel that will unfairly compete with other hotels in the immediate area. It is just plain bad business, as well as not making any sense.
Also, the scale of the project does not fit in with the historic district. Among the many issues which still need to be satisfied, these are the two major reasons why I cannot in good conscience support this project. If the project were scaled down in height to fit the natural and historic surroundings, AND if TIF money was not a part of the project, I believe that it would be supported by a majority of our neighbors.As you know, the TLNA Board voted unanimously to write a letter of concern to the Mayor, the City Council and the various Commissions regarding numerous concerns regarding the Edgewater project. I think there has been a rush to approve this project for the wrong reasons. I am not totally against this project, but certainly am not in favor of it in its present form.
I think that comment pretty fairly reflects the opinions of many, its not a “stop the project at all costs” mentality, but rather a long list of concerns that haven’t been addressed. Additionally, Maniaci’s lack of response to those (District 2 residents NOT in Mansion Hill, i.e. the rest of her district) who have asked questions about the Edgewater is unsettling.
MAYOR DOESN’T RESPECT THE LAW OR CITIZENS
You can read the Mayor’s blog post here . . . or below with my purple comments below . . .
It would dramatically improve public access and public views to the lake. It would create 1,000 construction jobs at a time when one out of three workers in some trades is unemployed. It would produce over $1 million in new tax revenues per year. And it might not happen because a handful of unelected people on one committee think the building is too big.
[I generally think the Mayor is a relatively bright guy, so I’m a little confused about why he is choosing to make the “handful of unelected people” argument when the RTA and a referendum are looming out there. He should know that will be used against the RTA over and over and over and over until none of us want to hear about it anymore. It just seems wacky!
A second point here, is that he ignores that what is “too big” is defined in the ordinance that the Landmark’s Commission needed to follow. If he doesn’t like it, he could have proposed a change to the law at some point in the last 7 years.]
Last night’s Landmarks Commission decision to not approve the Edgewater Hotel project reveals a broken City approval process that needs to be fixed. It’s broken in two fundamental ways.
[Really? He pulled out that argument? The “broken City approval process” argument. We’ve also been “fixing” the broken process for at least 4 years, if he’s unhappy with it, what’s his proposal to fix it? The “one-stop shop” has been stalled for years by his office and many of the other recommended proposals have been implemented.]
First, the commission could only look at a very narrow question, which was essentially: does the size of the proposed building detract from the historic district? [It’s much, much more complicated than that, you can see what they had to consider in my blog post from yesterday. I know the Mayor doesn’t like to be bothered with the details, he just wants others to fix it to get him what he wants, and he doesn’t care what the ordinance and rules are, but this is a gross mis-statement.] That is an entirely subjective decision. [Ugh, that’s not true either, they had quite a bit of language to help them make that decision. They had to look as specific areas and at specific issues. Not all the language was as clear as many would have liked, but its not as simple as he states. Again, read yesterday’s blog for details.] When I look at the drawings provided by the developer, I don’t see it as too big. But what really makes the case for me is the model provided by the opponents of the Edgewater themselves. When I look at that model, I see a building that fits in with its site. Some people on the Landmarks Commission just looked at the same information differently. [Yeah, they followed the ordinance and were deliberate in their discussions instead of just supporting a project at all costs.] But regardless of how you feel about it, nobody was allowed to take into account any of the bigger, more important issues than the relatively less significant question of the size of the building.[Interesting framing, when commissions consider things beyond their mission, the Mayor accuses them of mission creep. When they don’t consider things beyond their mission its a problem. I know politicians and consistency is a rarity, but that’s another biggie along with the “unelected” issue. You really can’t have it both ways.]
Second, under our ordinances, the decision of a handful of unelected individuals on the Landmarks Commission can only be overturned by a supermajority (14) of the twenty elected representatives of the people on the Madison City Council. This is fundamentally undemocratic.[He is soooooooooooooooo going to get bit in the ass on that one . . . and at least in this case, there is an appeals process.]
I am not necessarily placing blame on the Landmarks Commissioners. While I disagree with their subjective judgment, they were trying to follow the hazy prescriptions of the ordinance. [Funny, it sounded like he was blaming them.]I do think they erred significantly in that effort by interpreting the language of the ordinance with regard to “buildings directly affected by the project” to mean all buildings in the historic district. How can a building which is blocks away be directly affected by this project? [Well, ask Mario, he was there, he should be able to explain it to you.]And by the standards of the immediately surrounding buildings, I see this building as being compatible.
Second, the landmarks ordinance itself makes it clear that the commission can grant a project greater flexibility and imagination if it substantially complies with the basic intent of the ordinance. The Edgewater project does that in two ways. Most commissioners agreed it complies with four of the five criteria required for approval. In addition, by restoring the 1940s Edgewater Hotel, restoring the view of Lake Mendota and creating a public plaza for all to enjoy, the project advances other portions of the landmarks ordinance. [Yes, they could, but they couldn’t make the findings they needed to make that exception.]
Lastly, even the opponents of the Edgewater concede that under these standards the revered Kennedy Manor apartment building could not have been built.
In the long run, we need to reform this process. [Ok, Mayor, tell us how. Just get rid of historic districts? Ignore their plans and ordinances? And if it is so broken, why haven’t you fixed it in the last 7 years?]In the short run, I hope that the developer will ask the City Council to make the final decision on this. There is just too much at stake for the Council not to have the final say.
[What, no harsh words about the neighbors? No thanks to people who worked hard? No propping up your allies? That must be a post that is still coming.]
A MODEST PROPOSAL
Someone commented on my facebook page in response to my Edgewater Denied! post. Their response was this:
maybe they will take their pesky private sector jobs with them. keep celebrating.
It sort of set me off due to the business communities reluctance to have a job guarantee when they promise jobs to get TIF. I responded:
Maybe they could design a building that complies with the ordinances. Or should we eliminate all ordinances and standards as long as they produce jobs? Just let it be a free for all . . . but then, could we at least get a job guarantee and have them pay back the TIF if they promised jobs don’t materialize? Just sayin’
The conversation continued a bit and then someone said:
How about eliminating zoning laws, similar to what Toronto and Houston did, so that every neighborhood could have the potential for high density. Think of all the jobs it would create.
Alternatively, I wonder if $16 million offered as $160,000 low-cost improvement loans to owners of a thousand buildings downtown would make any difference in the economy. Renovation creates more jobs than new construction. Google it.
Now I’m curious . . . what would be the calculation on that? And what would that have meant if they renovated the library instead of going with new construction? Hmmmmm . . .
