Part V in the Mother of all Round Ups! This includes the items of interest from the Council briefing (mini recap) to open records request response and a little Maniaci meltdown.
COMMISSION ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Denied! Unanimously. Duh, who didn’t see that coming. Changing this law for one project at the expense of the environment makes the decision a major no-brainer. Kristin Czubkowski does a brief run down of what happened. There were a few interesting tidbits in her story. First there was this:
Clear and city zoning staff said Monday that the change to the current zoning code will likely be a part of the city’s zoning code rewrite in upcoming months and that the scarcity of non-residential lakefront development means the change would have little long-term impact.
Of course, that was countered by members of the public, I believe rightfully so, with this:
Several members of the public spoke against the change at the meeting Monday, though, saying that it would lower the environmental bar for commercial development and make converting residential properties into commercial ones more desirable.
What concerns me were these comments:
Clear disputed those claims, though, and said he doesn’t see the committee’s rejection of the change as a major hurdle. The proposed amendment will go before the Plan Commission on Feb. 8.
“There seemed to be a correlation between setback and environmental quality, which I think is bogus,” he said. “I think there will be a robust discussion at Plan Commission” about this amendment.
What bothers me about Clear’s statement is that he is just repeating the Mayor’s and Council leadership’s position that what committee’s decide doesn’t matter, cuz the Council knows better. Furthermore, his failure to acknowledge environmental impacts of such a decision should be alarming. But this is from a guy who had no problem wiping about 400 trees in his district for a road. I guess you can cross environmentalist off the list of descriptors for Clear.
MORE ON THE CHANGES TO THE LAW
Kristin Czubkowski followed up with another article on the subject, quoting city staff as saying:
When asked how often the city has amended its zoning code to accommodate one project, city zoning administrator Matt Tucker has an immediate answer: “It happens all the time. All the time. There are amendments to the text that relate to projects regularly.”
A few years ago, he says the City Council passed a zoning amendment related to a proposed hotel on the southeast side that made hotels a conditional use in a manufacturing district if the hotel was proposed on “lots not less than two acres in area and abutting limited access state and federal highways.” When Monona Terrace was proposed, city officials amended the zoning code to exempt a “civic auditorium complex” from waterfront development requirements.
and also saying:
After researching the potential effects of this change, including calculating how many non-residential parcels there are on the lakefront and how much of the shoreline they take up, Tucker says he could find little to no evidence that anyone has used the setback calculation for non-residential lakefront buildings. Rather, the setback calculation has primarily been used in residential areas to keep lakefront houses in line with each other and to keep property owners from jockeying with each other for better lake views.
“Waterfront development is always about houses. It always has been, it always will be,” Tucker says. “I’ve been here for five years, and all the waterfront development has been nothing but houses.”
Two comments. First of all, note how specific the changes he uses as examples are compared to how general the proposed law is – to eliminate commercial setback requirements on the lakefront. It’s one thing to carve out a narrow exception for a project to allow something with support to be in a zoning area. It’s a completely different thing to make a huge general change, for a controversial project to circumvent a city committee required by state law. Not. the. same.
Second, just let me say, 5 years does not equal always. This could open up the floodgates of commercial development and a series of changes in zoning from residential to commercial uses. This law may be one of the things that make it less likely that there would be commercial development and if it changes, who knows what else it might affect.
I’m also dismayed that this continues to be repeated:
A proposal similar to Clear’s is part of the current draft of a major revision of the entire zoning code . . .
While that might be true, it was in there without the knowledge of many who were following the issue the closest. There was no decision made by a committee to support this. And with good reason. Note the list of issues the committee on the environment had about the issue:
Setbacks are generally established as part of waterfront development guidelines in order to best preserve shoreline vegetation and wildlife, prevent erosion and minimize construction waste entering lakes.
Given all our talk about cleaning up the lakes, this seems to fly in the face of that. Most of time, lakes issues are more county than city, but this is certainly one thing we can do to assist in protecting the lakes.
FRAMING
Forward Our Motto says that the way the article Kristin Czubkowski wrote was framed incorrectly when she notes just a few people against the project. He’s right, that’s the way the Mayor’s office and Dunn et al have been framing it. And it might have been closer to the truth some time ago, but with each mis-step and attempt to force this down the throats of the community, there are more and more people who are concerned. Lukas mentions people concerned about TIF and the lakefront, but there are also those growing concerned about good and open government that should be added to the list of growing opponents.
WHAT HAPPENED AT BOARD OF ESTIMATES
A neighbor reports:
Also the Board of Estimates referred to their next meeting the agenda item to consider the amendment to the 1965 ordinance. The 1965 ordinance amendment was introduced by Bridget Maniaci. The amendment is needed by the Hammes Co to allow for TIF funding for their project and to wipe out the required 10’ setback from the Wisconsin Ave right-of-way.
As well as allow condos on the property. So, stay tuned for the next meetings.
NEW MATERIALS FOR URBAN DESIGN
– Application (The list of changes is not the changes since the last UDC meeting but from day one)
– Site Plans (Don’t necessarily match the images in the application materials)
– Elevation Drawings (Look at the elevation drawings from Langdon, you can’t see any of the public amenities)
– Elevation of Existing Hotel
– Color version of base of building
– Design Elements of Bottom, Middle and Top of New Building
– Detail elements, grade changes and other info
Here’s the State Journal coverage of the new information. The Daily Reporter reports that Urban Design Commissioners are concerned there aren’t enough changes to win their approval.
(BREIF) RECAP ON THE COUNCIL PRESENTATION
Just the highlights of presentations and alder questions.
Intro/Setting the scene
There were about 50 people in the room
– The mayor and 16 alders (missing were Palm, Compton, Kerr and Clausius missing)
– A dozen or so labor folks
– 14 city staffers (Comptroller Dean Brasser; 5 Planning Staff Brad Murphy, Bill Fruhling, Rebecca Cnare, Tim Parks and Matt Tucker; 2 City attorneys Michael May and Anne Zellhoefer; TIF Coordinator Joe Gromacki; Mayor’s Staff Larry Studesville; Traffic Engineering Dan McCormick; Economic Development Director Tim Cooley; City Engineer Rob Phillips; Council Staff Lisa Veldran)
– A handful of bloggers and reporters
– Susan Schmitz from DMI and her husband Gary Peterson
– Two plan commissioners, Michael Basford and Tim Gruber (oops, and Judy Bowser!)
Tim Bruer starts off by explaining that this is a briefing for alders. They will do all the presentations and then they can ask questions, and its only supposed to last two hours. [So, they really didn’t want people to ask questions, since they clearly did not allot enough time for it.]
Mayor says this is their opportunity to talk directly to each other without robert’s rules. This format allows for free flowing discussion. [Only it doesn’t cuz staff presented for 45 minutes, the developer for another half hour and then they had to ask questions in order of presenters. Perhaps they should have compared notes on what was supposed to happen?]
Schedule
Brad Murphy goes over materials he handed out. He has the schedule (modified by me by crossing out items that have gone by.) He also has a one page summary of development approvals required (same as last August except now need to amend PUD to add additional land to the PUD so they can use it to get trucks to the loading dock.) and notes it doesn’t include others approvals like DNR and handed out summary of standards used to make land use decisions before boards and commissions.
TIF
Joe Gromacki goes through the TIF presentation. There’s a mistake, at first they said the time to repay the TIF went down because they have the new mill rate, but then they discovered an error so you will see new numbers on one of the last pages I have attached. Gromacki was supposed to update the info an make it available, but if he did, I don’t have a link yet.[I found Gromacki’s presentation to be uncharacteristically uncritical of the project. Too bad he didn’t review it with the same vigor he reviewed the Gorman project, there was much to be questioned in there.]
All that took 45 minutes. Matt Tucker (Zoning), Tim Cooley (Economic Development Director) and Dean Brasser (Comptroller) were all asked to speak and all declined saying they were there to answer questions.
Developer Presentation
Dunn starts his presentation and takes about 25 – 30 minutes, which was, indeed “brief”. The briefest presentation I think I ever saw him give. In several areas he breezed over details saying they could review that later. I just kept wondering when later was going to be. They had previously sent this memo and a link to the old UDC materials for the alders to review. However, the following day they submitted new plans to the new Urban Design Commission materials (Scroll down the attachments and look at the several 020310 materials) and those materials were not yet available at the presentation, but were added into legistar on Friday. Much of it wasn’t new. There was more excuse making about how one problem creates another, it was kind of condescending.
Alder Questions
For an hour and 50 minutes alders were able to ask questions. What surprised me was that the alders who know the most about the project asked the most questions and several alders said nothing.
Zoning Ordinance Change Questions
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks about the zoning ordinance change and how frequently this comes up? Matt Tucker, Zoning Administrator, says waterfront setback requires average of principal buildings on zoning lots be considered. History we have is limited, most of conditional use projects and variances have been single family homes.
Bidar-Sielaff asks how many commercial properties we are talking about. Tucker says for individual commercial properties there are about 10: Edgewater, Verex, Machinery Row, single story club on Jenifer St, East Lakeside St office/residential building. There are some vacant land sites. Also, church in Tenney-Lapham, number of institutional properties, Mendota Mental Health, Warner Park, and other parks like Olin and Tenney as well as University land.
Marsha Rummel asks if a finer grained amendment would be recommended. Shouldn’t it be more lot specific instead of being open amendment. Tucker says lots of ways it could be amended, happens often, product ends up as part of the process, could have more focused approach or general. Often ends up refined to be more limited.
Lauren Cnare asks how the change happened in the zoning code rewrite, have they talked to the consultants and find out why there are no rules for commercial property set backs? She says this is a big deal. Tucker says it wasn’t a big deal until the high profile project. Consultant says not a big deal. Tucker says it was selfish from his point, looks at city and shore line and realized waterfront setback used in limited fashion, tried to include a provision to apply across city, including structures in parks, Mendota Mental Health and University. They knew exactly what they were doing, working on resolving the home problem. Homes on water are painful, too big, too close dominates conversation, intent wasn’t to just give them a pass, it was to keep the provisions the same. Homes have different issues.
Cnare asks how common this type of no set back requirement is across America, would we be unique? Tucker says still base standards, the average just doesn’t apply. Doesn’t know how we compare to others, we were focusing on houses.
Satya Rhodes-Conway asks if the setback amendment as drafted only for lakefront or all other bodies of water. Tucker says good question. Application of waterfront was only for lakes historically. Rhodes-Conway asks about language. It says “waterfront” open to interpretation. Tucker says years of practice has defined that.
Rhodes-Cownay asks about zoning code difference and what is written now. Tucker says that it is different, general standards are kind of similar, residential is different. Went through it in a meeting on Friday, comparing the two and thought they were different, one is silently drafted and one is specifically exempted.
Rhodes-Conway says ZCRAC has not not addressed it, seems like useful if possible to summarize the differences between the old zoning code and the current proposed amendment. Asks them to get back to us.
Rhodes-Conway talks about how it applies to other bodies of water, the letter of the law vs. practice. Tucker says that other bodies of water have few lots. Rhodes-Conway asked about Yahara and Starkweather creeks.
Rhodes-Conway asks about average setback maybe doesn’t have that much of an impact on water quality of the lakes, if we were going to prioritize water quality as an issue, what would the ordinance look like with respect to setbacks. Tucker says you can do a lot in small space compared to large space. Rhodes-Conway would like staff to get back to them with that answer.
Chris Schmidt asks how the project violates zoning setback rules? Tucker says not sure what setback is yet, don’t have a number. Says with confidence this will be an issue because visually they have huge setbacks and they are outliers and skew setbacks significantly.
Schmidt asks about the domino affect of rezoning. What does it take to change from residential to commercial? Murphy says the use of the property not the zoning, the principal use determines it. If underlying zoning allows residential then ok, if permited they just need to get an occupancy permit, rezoning from commercial to residential, same process as any zoning map amendment, public hearings at plan and Council and Council has the final decision.
Jed Sanborn leaves.
Grandstanding by Pham-Remmele
I’m not typing all this, but I admire staff being able to answer these questions with a straight face.
First, Thuy Pham-Remmele asks how the city compares to other cities development process. Do we have alot of hoops? Should we relax our process? Murphy says it’s complicated and would take to long to answer adequately. Says not appropriate to compare us to small village or large east or west coast cities. The question is, what do we want? Is it appropriate for us based on our comprehensive plan?
Pham-Remmele asks if we are being consistent in the review process, are we flexible in some cases and not others? Bruer tries to get her to focus on questions about the Edgewater, not general questions. Murphy says we are consistent. He notes it depends upon what is proposed and what the property is currently zoned. If what is proposed is allowed it is much more straight forward than if it zoning prohibits what is being proposed. Also more complex when overlays like a historic district, urban design district or there is development on a waterfront, then there are additional rules. Community discussion can be different too.
Pham-Remmele asks what influence the neighborhood has over the process. Murphy says that the neighborhoods participate in the review process and have the ability to influence review bodies and decision makers, anyone who is informed can participate in review. Neighborhood groups and any other group can make their recommendation, its really up to Council to decide if standards are met based on all information from everyone who participates.
Traffic Engineering
Rummel asks if staff have reviewed the traffic study by Schrieber Anderson? They did get a traffic study, not required for the project, they did a reasonable job, was good and accurate info, staff supplemented it with city information. No substantial or major concerns, one recommendation is to have all way stops at Langdon and Wisocnsin. Round about was considered. All way stops, pedestrian island and stronger operating is more simple. This allows for bus drop off on two levels. Development has 800 – 1000 cars today, parking seems adequate.
Rummel asks about driveway entrance and conflicts for pedestrians. McCormick says the design is a good one, Edgwater has given them a letter of operation – auto court is one way. Two layers, one in ramp and one up top, stronger than other hotels, more drop off areas. More capacity than most hotel developments.
Rummel asks what happens at Gilman and grade change, hard to see what is coming over the hill. McCormick says they can layer in improvements, city would take care of that in the future.
(missed a bunch)
Land Use/Development issues – Condos, Street setbacks, etc
Rummel asks how many condos. Murphy says ask applicant.
Rhodes-Conway asks Brad about street setback. Is it really only one little sections as developer said? Murphy says that only requirement would be eliminated with ordinance change, entire building impacted along the right of way. Murphy says would need to confirm. PUD can define setback for building. Info will be in their staff report. (He mentions some numbers later determined to be wrong, will not accurate info later in post.)
Street Vacation
Rhodes-Conway asks about the vacation ordinance. What was the agreement, what did we get, what did we give up? Zellhofer says we gave up the northerly portion of the street, we retained the southerly portion. What we gained was the 14 conditions in the ordinance, no money involved to their knowledge, no legislative history could be found.
Rummel asks Zellhofer how does 2 Langdon fit in to this? Zellhofer says they were not a party at the time, the 1940s building got the vacated portion.
Langdon St. Extension?
Rummel asks about extending Landgon street, was that in any plan? How does that impact National Guardian Life and how does that impact the project? Murphy says there has been some discussion, staff have thought about it, not in any adopted plans, it is at this point not a proposal being considered.
Murphy says that for R6H a front yard setback is 15 feet. For Office it is 20 feet.
TIF
Rummel asks about how the condos work in the gap. Gromacki says that the money brought in will equal the expenses. [So, what happens if they make an extra million or two on the condos? Couldn’t that be used to reduce the amount of money the city puts in? Why haven’t they nailed down how many condos will be there. I’ve heard 4 – 12, that’s a big difference. And, if they aren’t built and it becomes rooms which impact the operating costs, shouldn’t that be factored into the TIF as well?]
Rummel asks where the condos will go? Gromacki says the condo number is fluid, a lot is unknown for the planning of the space and viability of selling the units. They have heard interest. In the new tower, lake views, old tower not as conducive to condo development, not up to standards of condo buyers today. Heard 4 – 8 units, he’s skeptical, thinks more around 4 is the market reality. Not including value of condos in increment generation.
Rummel asks about hotel costs detail, I missed the answer.
Gromacki points out his error on page 8, which is where you see my handwriting.
Pham-Remmele asks about something, not sure what it was. Gromacki says we don’t do condos any more, we don’t factor it in, if it sells it sells, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. If don’t sell won’t hurt us.
King clarifies about condos. They are not included, if added in and do sell, only add to increment. [And the profit. I seriously don’t think this is what we anticipated when we created that rule.]
More Development/Land Use issues – Stormwater run off, Renovations, Condos, Parking Lot, Loading Dock
Bidar-Sielaff asked something I missed. What I got out of the answer was that the old building was 100% impervious surface, plaza and terrace more green helps with stormwater management. Also a water run off plan, instead of like today where it comes down hill and runs into the lake. Drainage swales to help improve waterfront. Also waterfront improvement plan, to mitigate impacts on waterfront. And a “whole series of other things he can get into.” [When?[ They are trying to keep stormwater on site and reuse in building. ?
Bidar-Sielaff asks about the 1940s bulding and renovation issues. They go over a whole bunch of issues we’ve heard before about ADA accessibility and why it is inadequate by today’s standards. As well as how it has water issues in the walls. They also talk about the 70s building being precast concrete and how they can’t take down a portion of the wall. Mechanical systems not up to code.
Rummel – how many condos and where? Dunn says that top two floors of building expansion are condo. He says there will be 4 to 12 condos, 12 is 2,000 square feet condos.
Rummel says that they said they have to have the height cuz program requires it, if the top two floors are ocndos, can’t we lop off the top two floors? Condos can draw dollars out day one, need it to support the deal. [Good question, but doesn’t that make the argument that it should be part of the TIF consideration?]
Rummel asks about the little parking lot and why it is being added to the PUD. They says the NGL parking lot will be maintained in new proposal, in gives them a place to turn a truck into the loading dock.
Push the new building back on top of the loading dock?
Rummel asks about moving bulding back on top of the loading dock. Dunn repeats what he has said before about why it can’t be pushed back further. Rummel wants to push the building back on top of the loading dock to meet the setback requirements. He answers something else first, Rummel re-asks her question. Dunn says it can be built, but open up issues like impacting abutting property, if anything built there eventually, need a setback if it has windows. Says a building cannot be successful if no windows, talks about it possibly being a hotel.
Rummel says there is already a foot set back there, he says yes a few feet there. When bought NGL property, their wall is aligned with NGL wall to keep lines to water. Willing to explore some of the ideas, not something that has no impact. Scheduling a meeting to discuss these ideas.
Bridget Manaici says that she is concerned about digging more of the hillside and losing 30 feet of trees and what that does to the character of the shoreline.
Rummel says its not more space, it would be built on top of the structure already built there for the loading dock.
Manaici is worried about the impact on National Guardian Life. She is happier with where it is now. She doesn’t want to go more into the hill [but it wouldn’t as Rummel proposed] She likes the symmetry of the site and if push it back it would be off center.
Rummel says it would line up with the civic boulevard that the architect talked about at Urban Design. It would be in keeping with set back of other buildings.
Dunn gives examples of other buildings with less setbacks. 100 Wis ave has a zero set back, that is a common condition, ending with the 40s building. The edge of the building is 42 feet off curbline of Wis Ave. Points out other zero foot set back, including Kennedy Manor, Manchester Place and says nearly everything built in recently past has minimal setback.
Changes in last 24 hours
Mike Verveer asks about changes to UDC, new info in last 24 hours, most haven’t seen it yet. Dunn says it is literally changing every day, design team working at rapid pace, getting weeks and months of work done quickly. [Two questions: One, why wasn’t all this work done before. Two, why not push the timeline back then?] He says they had a trenmendous dialog with UDC, great feedback, interesting ideas. Talks about the presentation to UDE a week and a half ago and what the building was like and then says that they took away some of the details, the building is less tradition, moved the entry off center, dsigned it differently from the lake, tried to engage the plaza more with the building, more glass. Detailed materials are not done, still more work to do.
Verveer says he got UDC info they got last week. Is there a similar document for next week? Yes, they got it yesterday, in legistar by Friday.
Verveer asks if it is possible to get the info in our council mailboxes? Amy says they tried, but understood council wanted info by Tuesday and the info wasn’t ready until Wednesday.
Jobs
Verveer asks about employment numbers, says general managers of other hotels say that employment numbers were inflated, where did the numbers come from. He shows a powerpoint chart that shows the jobs. Says they do alot of construction around the country, constantly doing estimates, thinks they have a good handle on it. Suggests a $93M project, 40% of costs is typical for labor. If consider 18 months and hourly wage, pretty quickly get to point where well in excess of 500 jobs, not 500 every day from day 1 to completed, ebbs and flows. Includes jobs on and off site. [Wasn’t that number twice that before?] For operations, first thing to be understood is this type of property does not exist in this market today, nor anything close to it. The program we have is very different than a typical, multiple restaurants, waterfront, terrace and plaza plus other spaces and program areas. Happy to sit down and discuss and detail, but the place to start conversation is to compare apples to apples.[So, I’m not sure he said how many on-going hotel jobs there would be.] Off site, have to rely on consultant team, when bring in this level of development generates off site development. When arrive at airport, take a cab, that is a job, employment is not just on site.
Construction Timeline/Impact on Neighborhood
Maniaici asks about construction timeline and individually on a daily basis how many jobs per day. Dunn says overall, average 400 and some jobs over the life of the project.[Now, it dropped even more.] If fabricating steal in shop on east side of Madison that is a job created by the project no different than a crane lifting the steal.
Maniaci says she is asking more from a neighborhood perspective – at times there will be hundreds, what is the construction period? 18 – 20 months given availability of labor more like 18 months not 20. Fairly straightforward construction cycle.
Maniaci asks about staging for construction, Dunn says they have a staging plan, one issue of concern is where workers park – they have to park remotely and walk or bus to site during the day, actual on-site staging. Can use the loading dock area for the crand and have room for deliveries. Rehab of 40s and 70s building can start while they are putting up the new structure. Bythe time the new building is up and then take the interior crews and bring them into the new tower. Interior work can start on day one, can compress the schedule, otherwise would have been a 24 month schedule.
Maniaici asks about what step one is? When will the intersection be redesigned? They do that at the end, don’t want to drive trucks across brand new intersection for 18 months. Not want to build it twice.
Staff is leaving in droves, its 9:55 and they’re still going strong.
Public Space
Bidar-Sielaff asks about the public space. Dunn shows diagrams, shows a current layout, autocourt brings you in and down 10 feet, then grand stair, two wings, bring you down to central terrace down another 10 feet. 50 foot drop to water form there. Shows a series of studies to activate the space 12 months out of year. Considered how space would be arrange for small concerts, wedding, exhibit space, extension of art fair, and daily use. Like Union Terrace. Designed to optimize operational use but be a great urban environment. Terraced firepits, landscaping lush feel 4 seasons of the year, wants you to know you are in Wisconsin, change with the seasons, strong orientation to Madison Wi. Sidewalk along the lake, places to sit along the lake in the current retaining wall. Activate the pier and Brigadoon Room. Lawn area to read a book by podium building. Working with NGL to expand walkway, use boathouse as a amenity.
Skating Rink
Verveer asks about ice skating rink? Dunn says they would like to pursue that, round area in some of the drawings is the icerink. Thinks it will be a mistake they will regret if they don’t build the rink. [How much is that going to cost? And what is the impact on TIF?]
Maniaici asked a question I didn’t hear and Dunn’s answer didn’t make alot of sense to me.
Bruer cut people off and says they are an hour over their time, so they leave.
Here’s the Badger Herald coverage as well as the State Journal coverage.
SEE FOR YOURSELF
The 1/28/10 Council Informational Presentation on the Edgewater Proposal will be replayed on City Channel:
Monday, February 1, at 8:30 p.m.
Friday, February 5 at 8:00 p.m.
Saturday, February 6 at 8:00 p.m.Channels:
Charter Analog Channel 98
Charter Digital Channel 994
AT&T U-VerseYou may also view it online at www.madisoncitychannel.com next week.
OPEN RECORDS REQUEST RECEIVED
Here it is, 165 pages of email between Hammes, Manaici and the Mayor. I wonder about text messages . . . and other communications. And I’d just note, there is likely a reason (below) that she is the subject of so many open records requests. There isn’t alot of trust with some of her constituents who feel they are not being represented as well as the developer.
MANIACI MELTDOWN
This is tough, cuz anything I say is suspect. Short story is, some people have been asking Maniaci to provide more info and engage in discussion via neighborhood listserves. She offered to meet with them in person, but won’t respond to the group as a whole. Seems odd given her
public complaints about the job taking too much time
. A quick email is alot easier then many private meetings. Anyways, here’s one response that is getting her in a little hot water with some folks, she’s likely being cheered on by others:
Fae,
I’m not about to be baited or bullied by the small-minded, incoherant drivel you and your ilk post on these list servs. -such an abuse of what’s meant to be a legitimate system for connecting information to interested parties.
This kind of activity weakens general interest in these listservs, making less of the public want to be a part of them.
Please kindly realize that this is a listserv for information notices and press releases, not the isthmus dailypage forums. That perhaps is the proper outlet and forum for your thoughts. I’m spending many long hours working for projects on the district and to support my responsibilities on my committees and on top of all of that handling enormous time demands that the Edgewater requires – all for $535 a month with no benefits. I’m getting to this at 3am. I’m expected to hold down a “regular” job as well. Please understand the constraints of this position.
My predecessor was blog-happy and was prone to long, laborious emails and internet postings. In keeping with just about all of my collegues on the council, that is not how I spend my time. Please do not expect something I’m not, and something that is not parcel to the job requirements.
You’ll also notice I’m taking the effort to try to communcate with you directly, individually and privately -not spamming all of the einpc world.
If Steve would like to know what I’ve been spending my time on, he’s more than happy to ask me (as are you), at this point he hasn’t, and spamming the listserv isn’t actually contacting me or making a good faith effort to do so.
If there is a particular district or city issue you’d like to take up with me, please do so directly at my alder email: district2@cityofmadison.com
Please be aware of your words and actions. I’m happy to listen and try to work with you, if you’re even open to that (which judging from previous conversations, it doesn’t seem likely) but this listserv stuff is just ridiculous. Kindly stop being a jerk.
Sincerely,
Bridget Maniaci
District 2 AlderSent from my iPhone
Others are calling for her to apologize for her comments in the Herald. A portion of that request:
There is so much I can say in response to alder Bridget’s email to Fae.
Similarly alder Bridget decided on a newspaper to tell the public about us– you can read the article in today’s Badger Herald:
http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/01/28/maniaci_reflects_on_.php
in which the alder is quoted calling us, residents of her district, “small minded” and “incoherent”, and that all we write is “drivel”.
This is the pathetic state of affairs with the “esteemed” alder. Bridget doesnt believe the listserve is good for discussion. She prefers it to be a board where people post things about meetings and thats it. Sounds to me like media control. One way communication from the superiors to the inferiors. So all we inferiors can do is get info, but how dare we reply or speak our minds and how stupid of us to try to discuss issues, or even ask others for their opinions.’
[snip]
I think we are all owed an apology, to say the least.
Soon I will try to meet this alder and explain my grievances, but I still want to communicate to the group on here and hear what they have to say.
[snip]
THIS WEEK’S NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Maniaci and Verveer are hosting a public meeting on the Edgewater on Thursday, the press release has more details than then meeting notice.
This is the info sent out the the neighborhood:
Alders Verveer and Maniaci are sponsoring a meeting to provide residents with more information regarding the Edgewater proposal and a chance for you to provide feedback.
Downtown Neighborhood Meeting
Proposed Redevelopment of the Edgewater Hotel
Thursday, February 4, 2010 – 7:00 p.m.
Madison Area Technical College Downtown Education Center, Room D240
211 N. Carroll StreetYou are invited to learn about and give feedback on a revised proposal by Hammes Company to redevelop/renovate the Edgewater Hotel. The proposed project would restore the current hotel, remove the top level of the 1973 hotel addition to create a 35,500-square-foot traffic circle and landscaped terrace, and construct a 14-story hotel addition (of which eight stories would be above grade) on the east side of the property. The entire project would include approximately 190 hotel rooms.
It’s not on the schedule for this week yet, but the Plan Commission has a Zoning Code Rewrite meeting scheduled for 5:30 the same night. Staff says they should be able to get to the meeting on time to hear what the public has to say since the first 45 minutes will be much the same as what they saw at the Council Briefing on Thursday. If not, it will be televised so they can watch it later.
WHAT’S NEXT
Here’s the revised staff schedule for the Edgewater, with a modification by me to cross out the items that have already passed. Note the items that still need to be decided after the 23rd. Also, I’ve been doing weekly summaries of the Edgewater meetings as there are extra meetings not on staff’s schedule and some of the items on the staff schedule aren’t yet publicly noticed. It’s hard to track all this and for those interested, I’m trying to make it as easy as possible, but in this political environment, more than ever, its all subject to whimsical change. 24 days and counting . . .
COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 23rd AND . . .
Channel three reports that the Edgewater discussion will not be another all-nighter, but spread out over several? a few? meetings. That doesn’t show up in the staff’s timeline and there are no specifics. So, stay tuned, I guess.
CONCLUSION
Well, that’s what I have, there may be a few more tidbits in my email, I’ll include on Monday if I run across them. I do have plans for a separate post on TIF and the public space.
