This was mildly entertaining. A few special moments.
At the beginning of the meeting Fred Mohs, Gene Devitt, the model and a small handful of immediate neighbors were there. Mohs and Devitt spoke, stating the obvious [this will be a running theme of the meeting] that they were not against economic development, but this was about a narrow Landmarks decision.
At the beginning of the meeting, Bob Dunn was no where to be found. No Edgewater supporters in the audience. No Mark Clear. No presentation.[The must have concluded that any decision to support was also a foregone conclusion and would have little impact.
Ed Clarke (Vice Chair of Downtown Madison Inc.) says he was the one who suggested that they make a statement. [That’s quite the confession. I gotta wonder aloud, was he questioned about his ethics and why he shouldn’t be voting on the project since he’s on DMI’s board and they have taken a position on the project. Just like the Landmarks Commissioner (Gehrig) was questioned because the Madison Trust took a position and she is on their board and some thought she shouldn’t vote at the Landmarks Commission? Me thinks not.] Says there are good people on both sides. Says this is a choice between two goods and he is trying to strike a balance. He proposed that they not suggest Landmarks was right or wrong, they did as good as they could with situation. Not bad people, made best decision they could given the criteria they had. There was an appeal process and it goes to council where it is looked at in broader context, and the commission is here to advise city council. Mansion Hill is a gem, this project at this time at this scale is important for jobs, the city, and the economy. Says he encourages the commission recommend to overturn the decision. Notes it will create TIF, cash will be thrown off, which can accelerate development and repair and restoration of houses in the district.
Joe Boucher says he has lived here since ’74, lived on Doty St for 3 or 4 years, saw everything from deterioration of the square to rebounding of downtown in last few years. Extensive public money was put in to create other activity and it enhanced economic development of the downtown. He has worked in the National Guardian Life building as attorney, not much done to Edgewater since 70s , not enhanced, has been run down, in need of substantial restoration. Someone is going to do this, he doesn’t doubt that it will help with economic development, question is who is going to do it? Here we have a Madison citizen, who is willing to make a statement about economic development in the city and he’s glad they are willing to do it. If someone else was willing, wishes they would step forward. He says he’s not an architect, not knowledgeable out landscaping etc, building is dilapidated, 35 years in Madison seen improvements and until he sees an alternative and someone else is willing to redevelop the property, willing to support.[So, he went with the it’s better than nothing argument – didn’t address the laws involved – he just likes it.]
Julia Stone asked what the question before them is. If the question is “would this project have significant impact on economic development?” She would be in favor since it would create jobs and have a significant economic impact. She is in favor of a general statement to that effect. But, she is uncomfortable telling the council how to vote on overturning the Landmarks Commission. [And therein lies the problem for the commission that they will struggle with.]
Sandi Torklidson says this will have a positive impact, the downtown economics is that it has become an entertainment district, this will help the area, from that standpoint. We should also acknowledge this is a difficult time, there is a loss of construction jobs and this will give people who are hurting jobs – that is a good thing. She does not think that there will only be construction jobs only as long as the project is being built, but hopefully things are turning around and other jobs will be available after this project.
Mark Clear and Bob Dunn walk in together at 5:20. Clear apologizes for being late.
Peng Her says he has wrestled since the beginning with this project. As a committee member and community member he supports it because of the economic development. He says the commission strives to bring more jobs and investment to the city. He sees that in the proposal in terms of jobs and investment in hotel. However, as the Economic Development Commission (EDC) looked at the TIF and he was on the subcommittee on the TIF and one of the things that stuck with him was the “but for” clause. He personally has a hard time seeing it meet that clause of “but for”, because of the amount of money they are investing and what you get for the $16M for the citizens of the city. He has a hard time looking at the handout. [That was brutally honest and refreshing to hear from a commissioner, the Mayor’s appointment no less.] As Executive Director of EINPC, asks if we could use that money elsewhere? Mentions East Washington, Madison Dairy, Don Miller, Mautz Paint and other vacant buildings and notes this is the gateway to Madison, other opportunities there too. [Say it with me! EAST WASHINGTON!] From the 3 – 5 year strategic plans they said they wanted to encourage sustainable jobs, these are construction jobs and some part time or hotel service jobs which may or may not be more than min wage. Is there a way to invest in creating sustainable jobs that pay more than min wage and are long term and that would spur money in Madison – doesn’t know yet.[Wow. Eyes on the Prize! He really nailed it. Is this the right place to be making the investment and will we get the best bang for our buck. Good questions.]
Clear apologizes again for being late, asks if it would be helpful to get an update on where project is in process and what is before council tomorrow night. Clear says that two weeks ago Landmarks Commission denied granting Certificate of Appropriateness. They also considered a variance and the vote was 4 – 2. Says Dunn is here and can speak, Clear tells him to register to speak or answer questions, [but he doesn’t move or in any way indicate that he needs to speak.] Clear says Dunn filed an appeal which will take a 2/3 vote to modify decisions of council. Meeting was going to be last Tuesday rescheduled to tomorrow due to snow. Process to appeal is different than what Landmarks could consider, points out the City Attroney’s memo. [It was sitting on the table when we walked in. It’s odd, I couldn’t tell what they had before them, because nothing was attached to this agenda.] He says basically all that is before them is to grant Certificate of Appropriateness and if they should continue through the process not an up or down on the project, but developer will withdraw if the answer is no. Issues of TIF, jobs, PUD and all those things are not before the council, doesn’t mean they can’t take a position as a body. [Do I detect some re-spin happening here? The Mayor’s office and Council Leadership was saying this was all about the bigger issues. Now that the votes are looking a little tough, its a narrow decision. Interesting.]
Gabe Sanchez – says the reason he came to Madison was the diversity and that economically things are looking up here. He is worried that every time someone proposes a project, we say no. [I’d like to see the facts to back that up. Madison rarely says no.]. He wants to see reputation changed so people don’t go elsewhere with their projects.
Matthew Younkle says the Edgewater needs updating and that is not an “if” but a “when”. Says he can’t comment on if a variance or certificate should be granted, but development will happen at some point, it’s terrific given the timing and the economy, development is stalled everywhere else. Remembers hearing same thing about Monona Terrace and there are not many people who don’t think it is great now. Some of the folks against it today will think it is great once built. From and economic development stand point, it’s a good thing.
Selkowe asks if someone is going to make a motion so she knows what she is talking to. [:)]
Clarke says that the EDC should say the Council should reverse the landmarks commission decision because of the economic development impact on the city. Seconded by Boucher.
Vicky Selkowe says its ironic and a bit of a shame that they are taking action at all when so little in way of updates, they just got information through the press. She says they have gotten more info on smaller projects, and TIF projects. She points out there was no formal presentation, weighing in at all seems all seems a little out of form. Second, that motion is fine, innocuous enough, but a feel good reactive action which states the obvious. It’s not going to come as a surprise to anyone that the EDC supports this, not going to sway votes of council. It’s so obvious its almost irrelevant. Worse yet, telling them to overturn Landmarks is a uniformed decision. [She cut right to the chase.] She says they shouldn’t ask to overturn the Landmarks Commmission, we have a process, many commissions have ordinances that they have to learn and enforce and think through carefully. Commissioners need to be experts in that ordinance. We don’t know anything about those ordinances or whether they made the right or wrong decisions.[Oh, details Vicky, why don’t you just behave and say you support economic development and ignore all those pesky ordinances! Troublemaker.] She says they wouldn’t want our decisions overturned. We would expect respect. The fact that we are in tough economic times, doesn’t mean ordinances should get trampled. [Well, that’s it, now you’re not getting reappointed! :)] She says it is a slippery slope if they do that until recovery is declared, we are setting a precedent that is dangerous that will hurt areas of the city we all love. Landmarks was clear, they are not prohibiting a project there, we’ll get a chance to weigh in on that later. Now, if we pass this, we are just stating the obvious and at worst, making an uninformed decision.[Anyone want to take bets on if she survives the next appointment process?]
Clear says that it is inappropriate for us to take a position on if the Council should override Landmarks or not. This is not the body to weigh in on that. Can support or oppose the project from an economic standpoint. Does agree that this commission not briefed on the project, because it and the approval process is not before them. When they get a TIF application, it will be before them. We’ve had the override experience ourselves, with Danisco, happens to us and others and in this case there is a specific provision for an appeal. Hesitates to use reverse or override language, says it is simply an appeal that will be granted or not.[Again with the splitting hairs. Interesting re-spin from leadership/Mayor.]
Stone points out they are advisory and that they couldn’t stop the project.
Clear says yes, we are advisory, as is the case for most city committees. Handful of others have actual regulatory authority.
Torklidson asks what the question before the council is? Appeal? Grant the Certificate? Variance? How are they different.
Younkle says appeal language is esoteric, specific criteria.
Clear agrees, those criteria are more broad in number of factors that could be considered for a Certificate or a variance. They can look at two things that Landmarks couldn’t, hardship to owner and overall benefits of the project. His feeling is that those are two things put in there for a specific reason, not to burden Landmarks with more specific reasons – but he points out he is not an attorney.
Clarke asks if they should just ask them to grant the appeal.
Stone says that is the same as overriding the Landmarks Commission and doesn’t help.
Clear says they should be vague and say they support approval of the project, leave it to interpretation as to what it might mean.
Torklidson says its hard to approve a project they don’t know much about? What are we approving.[Good point!]
Sanchez says they are approving a concept, not the project.
[They want to approve this so badly, they just can’t figure out how. All their arguments lead them to not make a statement in support, but now they are here and if they don’t, it will look bad.]
Stone says Edgewater project will bring economic development to the area and without it that will be lost. Can’t weigh in on the appeal, doesn’t understand it. This will have devastating economic impact if not approved, so feels comfortable weighing in that, but notes that Selkowe is right, that is a painfully obvious statement and near meaningless.
Boucher says they city says “no” more often than yes. [Wow, that is just so blatantly ignorant it’s scary. I can’t believe that there are people on this commission that are so uninformed. It’s been a while since I saw the data, but at one point, we had said no to 4 projects out of over 300.] Monona Terrace took since the 50’s and all we said was “no, no, no”. Timing does matter. Even if city council does this tomorrow, still many months to get a spade in the ground and it will be a while. Some decisions get made for the wrong reasons, someone will do this, the question is who, and someone stepped forward – with all due respect to the critics, who is going to do it if this doesn’t go forward.
Stone says that local people investing in our community is good.
Sanches says if he puts on his Realtor hat – this is good because it is attracting more business.
Clear is writing a substitute motion, so people are filling time by talking.
Torklidson says that ultimately, all our decisions go to the council because we are not elected and they are and the buck stops with them, they take all the factors into consideration and she thinks they should weigh in – that is not a disrespect of the process. She asks if they would we be here if they had to be elected. She says alders put in time and have broader range of issues to think about. No disrespect to government, that is how democracy should work. Important to listen to constituents, committee power has to be tempered by that process.
Clarke says that he couldn’t agree with Vicky more about that fact that the committee has not talked about this and other things like library and downtown plan. [Interesting, but that didn’t stop him from making a motion to support it. Making the ethics issue look worse and worse. I wish he would make some smarter comments so I could say that he was thoughtful in his deliberations and not just swayed by the fact that he is VP of DMI. He’s not helping himself at all.] He says in long range strategic plan we said we should be weighing in and not wait until this is ready to die to weigh in. Agrees that maybe we can talk about how to get in front of these things.
Clear makes a motion that the EDC supports the Edgewater project for the economic benefits including job creation, tax base enhancement and improvement of the historic district and recommends that it get land use approvals.[I’ll get the final language at the end of the post. What amazes me here is that he didn’t listen to a thing they said about how they didn’t have any information or background to make a decision about the land use approvals. It’s like those comments were never made.] He says that he crafted the motion to make sure they stayed out of the Landmarks and TIF issues. [What? Isn’t Landmarks part of the land use approval. That makes no sense at all. Was that some attempt at a Rove/Bush not-so-slight of hand?]
Selkowe says she was tempted to second it because it sounded so pretty, she says it is an improvement and a better statement to make. She says they haven’t had a presentation, she doesn’t know how many jobs will be created, doesn’t know how much the jobs will pay, how long the construction jobs will last or what the economic impact of the project will be. [Details, details. Besides, the committee doesn’t need to make sure its decisions are credible? No one cares . . . it just has to look good in the headlines. Ya think the Mayor will use it in his blog today?] She says she would like to know that before they endorsed a statement like that. Doesn’t know any info beyond what they read in paper, some in the TIF information they were given, some in staff report. Project may change considerably before we know the answers, too many unknowns to support even that.
Clarke asks what the motion is now since there are two. They explain Clear’s motion could be friendly to his. He asks how to make it friendly. Torklidson asks if it is friendly and the body seems to agree.
Clarke asks what land use approvals covers?
Clear says UDC, Plan and other committees that need to weigh in to get construction approved, leaving out TIF. [i.e. Landmarks.]
Selkowe says worried about weighing in so strongly on something we don’t know about.
Yonkle asks if the project changes if they can change our minds and meet again.
Clear says could add language that says “as proposed today”.
Torklidson asks if we would like to have it move to the next step without saying support the project – she feels uncomfortable – not a complete project so to say they support it doesn’t know what supporting. Wants process to continue – but don’t know what that means. [And the struggle continues. They are clearly unclear about what they should do.]
Clear says knowing those details would be critical when considering TIF loan – that is exactly the details we need to know. Don’t need that level of detail to support the project itself. Those kinds of details won’t affect if he supports the project or not. [Really? Seriously. Sigh . . . so he’s voting for it cuz its pretty and shiny?] That is why he wanted to leave out any question of the TIF.
Boucher says that he printed out a whole bunch of stuff from the web, says they got a substantial amount of background [It’s all the land use approval information.] and says we don’t know how many jobs or multiplier effects. He thinks they got a lot of info to read. [But clearly didn’t read it, or doesn’t understand the motion, or what Clear claims the motion is.]
Clear says Dunn could give a presentation. Says he is willing to answer questions.
[Again, Dunn sits there with no clear desire to make a presentation.]
Torklidson asks if any more discussion.
Her asks for the words “as proposed” to be added to the motion because the project could change, but wants to support it based on what they know today. [which isn’t much.] He then asks if land use includes appeal process tomorrow?
I don’t think he got an answer.
Stone struggles with the land use proposal and process and endorsing something she doesn’t understand at all and that makes her uncomfortable. How can we weigh in on the land use? Understands the process, but not why we should weigh in on appeal.
Clarke says that she is being a little, “not naïve”, but if not overturned, the project won’t happen.[Love that tactic. Insult someone, (usually a man does it to a woman) but say you’re not while looking pained, somehow that is supposed to make it ok.] Struggling with it’s a good idea but today it is dead and unless something happens tomorrow, won’t be there the next day. What we are saying that when we look at it, is that it has a strong economic impact and wants the city to move it forward because it is worthwhile. [But that is not what the motion says. Sometimes its just better to say what you mean.] We have info on economic benefits, we encourage this to happen and others can weigh in.
Clear says we won’t see the land use, we don’t see that and we don’t want that.
Stone says that is her point, they don’t understand that.
Torklidson says to think about if you would you support project, not land use.
Boucher says they don’t know how many jobs will be created [Ok, seriously, he’s said this three times, isn’t this something the Economic Development Commission should know before weighing in?], but when there is a $90M project there ought to be quite a few. [Great, this is our leaders on our Economic Development Commission that are leading the city. We’re seriously supposed to take their advice and find them credible when they say something like that?] He fumbles around a little then says there are some numbers in something he is looking at. He says it will have an economic impact and spillover and will it help many other people develop projects in the area? Who knows?[My confidence in this commission is at an all time high about now. eyeroll. And, I have to say, that comment rankled the neighborhood quite a bit. They keep getting told this parcel is special and that other developments like this won’t be coming, but he just said the opposite.]
Selkowe says we know a little bit and it will create some jobs, but part of what she respects about the body is that they hold themselves to a high standards before they make decisions, this is based on 14 story tower and if that changes, who knows what that changes for what we support in the project.
Torklidson asks [The million dollar question] how important it is for them to weigh in and support it at this point in the process? She notes the city council didn’t give send this to them at this point. Do they care?
Clear [very carefully] says no one will be surprised if they support it. May have some influence over some members, but there are many issues at play. So, will it sway a vote or two or many? Probably not. Does that mean we shouldn’t do it? No. Still should do it. [How’s that for some nicely worded brutal honesty? He basically told them what they think doesn’t matter, but they should say it anyways.]
Boucher asks what if they say “no”?
Clear says “that would be surprising” and notes that if they support there is no story, if they don’t, that is a story for the media. [So, they now know they backed themselves into a corner, they have to say yes to something.]
Staff reads the motion, it isn’t quite right, Clear helps here out. This is what it ended up being.
The Economic Development Committee supports the Edgewater project as proposed for its economic benefits, including job creation, tax base enhancement and improvement of the historic property and recommends that it receive land use approvals.
Clarke says they are voting to approve project as proposed.
Roll call:
NO: Stone, Selkowe
AYE: Clear, Sanchez, Stone, Her, Yonkle, Boucher, Clarke and Torklidson. (I thought Stone voted no, but her vote was a very, very quiet yes, apparently.)
Motion approved. Move to adjourn.
The kicker is, who do you think they are sending to the council to speak on their behalf? To add to their credibility, the dude who kept saying they don’t have any economic data and made the blatantly false statement during the meeting: Boucher. Brilliant. Just Brilliant.
