One amendment to the budget is of particular interest to me. During the discussion of Lisa Link Peace Park, there was quite a bit of talking about what should be done. In response to all that talk, $50,000 for homeless services has been proposed to be added to the budget. In my estimation, its a drop in the bucked compared to what is needed. Here’s the discussion from last Tuesday:
Schumacher asks city attorney May if the ordinance prohibits homeless people from being in the park or just panhandling. May says the ordinance says where you can do it, not based on anything except the action. Homeless person who does not panhandle can be in the park near the ATM machine. ATM would remove panhandling, not the homeless.
Verveer says he’s sad that what should be joyous, monumental plan to renovate the park has been met with all the criticism this evening. It’s in his district. Spent alot of time on the project. When first elected, reached out to business constituents and learned that main concerns of merchants were parking and panhandling in Peace Park. Peace Park has been a concern for many, many, many years. Frankly it is an embarrassment. Would you be proud to represent a park that has been forgotten by everyone except police. This park has been forgotten. Appreciates people who came tonight and neighborhood meeting and plan commission. Says that the people who like the park are in the minority. The plan is to make park more inclusionary, not exclusionary. Downtown is so park deficient and green space deficient. Hardly anyone uses the park except a small handful and he’s so grateful some people do use the park. He says the nicknames for the park are insulting. Why don’t people use it? Most people do not have a positive image, it has a negative image. Perception is reality and what they are trying to do is make it more user friendly. Encourage more people to use it, not discourage. Not one word uttered that will discourage anyone from using the park, except for the panhandlers. Heard testimony at other meetings, not on e person can explain to him why the plan is scaring people off – no one would explain it. Yes, while they do construction people will be displaced, but everyone will be welcome back in August when construction completed. Nothing in the plans that will discourage anyone from using the park. It baffles him. Why is there this concern. Public restrooms will be heavily used. Overture is closest thing to a public restroom. Talks about bus tour. Interacted with users of the park. Proud of his record of social justice in this building all these years. Committee was inclusionary, hard to keep paying attention . . . repeats alot of what has been said . . . met in the park, not an exclusionary process. history lesson. Thinks park is pathetic and embarrassing. This is anything but Garden of Eden, he’s not talking about the users but condition of the park. Plan, Urban Design Commission, Parks and State St. Design oversight and Board of Public Works approved it. He talked longer than 10 minutes I’m sure, and he kept saying that he would get to the ATM in a minute, but he never did. Verveer keeps talking about the police closet – tiny work space, one or two people of slender build could fit into it. It has a computer and telephone for cops, no interviews will happen, no identification on outside of building, just a place to use restroom and check email. No squads, this is for cops on foot in the State St area. Police very much want this space and asked for it, it is not a police station, public safety issues in the park and this is where the first camera was installed. Peace park comes up over and over. It’s true, problem there. Hoping that park will look spectacular and have more users. People don’t use the park, wants them to use it. Not one penny of city money. $1M is being spent to build the building and not address root cause of homelessness. $387,600 raised, $650,000 in TIF. Under statutes TIF can only be spent on non-building items, park improvements, building is being paid for by private contributions. Not tax or general obligation borrowing. He says they could donate to another program. We know homelessness is the county’s responsibility, but proud tradition of spending millions on services. Tells people to come back next week to speak to the operating budget. Thinks there will be items of interest. [He still didn’t talk about the ATM.]
Solomon says he’s sad, he knows people worked hard on the plan. Says he knows homeless people, friends with people who are, were and on the verge being homeless and had homeless people tell him regularly about things like heard tonight. they are constantly pushed away from places in our city, harassed, no place to go. He talks about a guy who was homeless and moved to Florida, they gave him a suitcase and a bus ticket, he left because of his frustration of being homeless here in the winter and a health issue. He was harassed regularly because he walked around with a bag. Police knew and make assumptions – not blaming them, not targeting homeless for sake of targeting, but we know it happens. How often do was have 15 homeless people show up and talk to us about what impacts their lives. He likes the plan, but its not supposed to make it more difficult and more exclusive, the intent was not to do that and understands and believes that, but we just heard from a dozen homeless people who said the opposite. Would like to propose an ordinance that each time we make it more difficult for homeless we have to do something equal to improve their lives. Easier to be homeless or provide services to prevent homelessness. So many speakers, why? Why did they come and say this concerns them. There has to be something to that. Since on the council, it’s been a one way street when comes to homelessness and [Ok – he lost me here . . . he was talking about me and my proposal (for the record, there never was one) to pee in the park.] He says it was a desperate plea to say we have to recognize how hard this life is, this is our job to stand up and say it isn’t ok. Not speaking against the plan, it’s one thing after another in an endless cycle of displacement. Not against beautification of park. Every time we take an action it makes it harder to find a comfortable place to be. Not just intent but ramifications. Knows alot of poor people who are poor due to bad luck, bad choices, or they were born poor but poor people would rather not be poor. Homeless would rather not be homeless. We need to take stands for those who need us most. Beautiful plan, all things being equal we should rally beyond it, can’t support it as written. How will we address root causes of homelessness. How will be move forward with how to make it less difficult.
Rummel moves to approve plans and specs without an exterior ATM. Served on committee as an alternate. Learned alot together, talks about process and what she learned. She was selling books for 20 years on State St and got interested when the carousel was proposed, she thought this is too odd. She says it’s a good plan, supports it, not the ATM. UDC was one of the last commissions to make major changes to the plan and part of it was the visitor center showed up with original architecture that looked like something Kenton Peters designed. That bothered her. She notes she is just a citizen member, not a professional member. Over ruled but eventually she got rid of this thing and then it came back at the end with an ATM and all I could see was the division. Not worth $3,500. People didn’t intend this, put it inside. Send a really strong message. Maybe we can do some partnerships with the BID. It is a great plan. This isn’t a solution for homelessness which we still need to work on.
Kerr clarifies and ask if exterior ATM on the facade.
Rhodes-Conway says “amen” to Solomon and Rummel and the only thing she has to add is that this conversation makes us think about a few things. We need to think about the context of our actions – problem is not design of park or visitors center or the ATM, its these things in the larger context of what is going on in city and society. Can’t be blind to that. Should make us think about perception and how things are perceived by different people. She talks about the perception of police department, would like to believe police do its best to not target people because of their economic or housing status, but despite our wish and their best efforts there is a perception form some in our community that the police are not their friends and depending upon what we do tonight that we are not their friends. Clearly really important to think about impact and intention. Not much recognition that intention ends up with an impact. This has a negative impact on sections of our community.
Cnare supports the amendment, compromise, greater burden to fund the center, come back and trim hours and do something operationally. ATM and panhandling is reality and they need money – sad as it is, people will walk by and they are scared and don’t want to come in and rest their feet, efforts to be inclusive will allow people from different walks of life to be in close proximity to each other – someone you would never talk to – the park in its redesigned form should be where everyone can come together and it can feel exclusive now. Develop vision for a peace park. She said more which I missed, but said she might even add 5,000 to the budget for the visitors center.
Kerr says that supports amendment. Makes some sense. Feels badly this is a referendum on level of council compassion or not and how police treat people. Victim of Madison culture war. Thanks committee for their work.
Maniaci asks if they can put it inside. Saiki says more difficult and hours are so limited. She asks if there can be a foyer so it can be accessed when closed. He says ATM wouldn’t fit. If not on exterior no cuing space, changes storage dynamic. If not the way they have it doesn’t fit.
Verveer doesn’t support he amendment. Baffles him that this is what it is – a discussion about pro/anti social justice/poor people. Understands this is a heartfelt issue. If money not an issue that’s great. Pains him to sit here and believe this was all about keeping people out of the park. Talks about panhandling ordinance. No one likes to be panhandled. Seems like this is not the best way to help poor people. Only two places on State St. you can panhandle. This will make it one, is that such a bad thing? Especially sad – sound like Vicki McKenna or something – panhandling to survive and eat is hard to have a conversation. Doesn’t understand the conversation – understands UDC decision – parks voted unanimously with a ATM. He defends the 24/7 ATM. Not a disaster to the design of the building. This is about panhandling, would you encourage that in your district? Panhandling is a problem. This amendment is encouraging panhandling.
Bidar-Sielaff. Sad conversation and this has made a project a symbol of alot of things going on in this city. Good project, will make are more inviting. Will create more communication among people. By having people like us communicate with people who are homeless – life can take many turns and this project may encourage these conversations. Not taken as symbolic vote on if are for social justice and services to the homeless. CDBG resources for homeless services – stimulus money in August. We need to think about this conversation and continue it in other venues to address root causes. Thank them for coming and making sure voices are heard. Struggling since a social justice advocate and now need to continue having conversation within resources.
Palm asks city attorney if Princess of India put an ATM in their storefront, would we have any control. He doesn’t know.
Rummel said this is the tackiest ATM ever, she asked about the permitting process and opened a complaint to see if required a sign off from staff.
Palm asks if staff sign off comes to the council. Someone explains it is C4 and its not required. Conversation could be moot.
Solomon says this isn’t just about panhandling and ATM, some are about feelings of inclusivity and welcomeness and the police closet. Would eliminate the police closet but know it won’t get support. Each are symbols that we heard tonight from homeless and advocates that make them feel less welcome. Not ATM = panhandling, no one supports panhandling. Anyone who is poor probably would rather not have to panhandle. Not about that. Whether on right or left, in long term panhanding is not a good solution for anyone. Doesn’t think Rummel’s intent is to say this is to allow panhandling and then everything will be fine. This proposal makes them feel less welcome in Peace Park. They can do something about ATM, not police presence. Still has other concerns. Voting this down doesn’t improve those things, but we can make a strong statement that we hear them. If ATM appears doesn’t make it moot – if the city votes for this, we are saying something – we can come one or two steps closer to consensus – even if result is the same, our role is very different.
Kerr says that can’t think of anyone who has a greater commitment to social justice than Verveer, he is 100% on the right side of all the issues – anytime someone asks him to be on the right side he will co-sponsor or vote for it. This issue has left a cloud over him. Her friend and colleague does not deserve that.
Compton, says she is in her 6th term, talks about ambassadors and then I have no idea what she was saying, taking a plan that has been worked on with Verveer with whole heart and soul, lets look at the plan, good or bad – ATM will pay for upkeep. ATM is means to pay for it. Trusts Verveer. [At this point I muttered, if Verveer is counting on Compton to defend him, he should really know he is in trouble.]
Bidar-Sielaff – talks about root causes, says with that $5,000 we can spend it on really great things. Losing ATM and making up with amendment to budget, we could be using it to resolve root causes. Really symbolic, but really wants to focus on solving the root causes.
With that, they vote.
The vote is to put the ATM inside the building and avoid displacing panhandlers
AYE: Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon, Cnare, Kerr
NO: King, Maniaci, Palm, Pham-Remmele [Nearly sounded gleeful as opposed to others who at least tried to sound sad about their vote.], Sanborn, Schumacher, Clear [Also didn’t appear to sound like he felt bad about his vote], Compton, Eagon, Schmidt, Skidmore, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer.
Now the question is, how will they all vote on the amendment to add $50,000 to the budget for homeless services? Will they have forgotten about their discussion before they vote?
