David and Leigh Mollenhoff’s advice to council members . . .
In an email entitled “Tell ’em to vote ‘no” then sent this note:
Dear Alders,
My wife and I were privileged to serve on the Madison Landmarks Commission for a combined total of 16 years. During that time the original ordinance was passed and the Mansion Hill Historic District was established. This experience and our keen interest in the ordinance since we “retired,” prompted us to write you a very brief one-page memo. We felt it was a needed response to the WSJ editorial last Sunday. We hope you find it helpful.
Thank you,
David and Leigh Mollenhoff
With this attachment:
Date: December 8, 2009
To: All Alders
From: Leigh Mollenhoff, 1501 Morrison Street (Landmarks Commission, 1970-1978)
David Mollenhoff, 1501 Morrison Street (Landmarks Commission, 1980-1987)
Subject: Edgewater Vote Must Be Based On City OrdinancesRemarkable, isn’t it, that some Madisonians must be reminded to observe the rule of law. That’s a favorite term of Western leaders when they lecture Third World governments on the benefits of civil society. Alas, such a lecture is necessary for the Edgewater Hotel project. The Wisconsin State Journal, in a banner headline atop a full-page Sunday editorial, urges citizens to rise up and call undecided alders. “Tell ‘em to vote ‘yes,” it screamed.
There is one serious problem with that exhortation: The Common Council today like the Landmarks Commission on November 30, must follow the rule of law embodied in the landmarks ordinance [Chapter 33.19 MGO]. And when a developer appeals a commission decision, the ordinance clearly says the council must base its findings “on the standards contained in the ordinance.” (Italics added.) All city council members and the mayor have taken an oath to uphold all ordinances.
So what’s the problem? Even the lowered hotel tower (the revised plan) can’t come close to passing standards established by the 1976 Mansion Hill Historic District ordinance. Nor does it have the right stuff to get a variance. Words and their dictionary meanings matter. At least they have until now. Much as project proponents would like to make the landmarks ordinance disappear, the Common Council can’t do this, certainly not with its integrity intact.
We find it surprising that such a sophisticated developer (with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and eleven other large American cities) could read our landmarks ordinance and think that such a huge tower could somehow be exempt from the rules that everyone else has to follow. We find it even more astounding that this developer proposed in his original plan to build a tower in the street right-of-way—Wisconsin Avenue—something specifically forbidden by the 1965 street vacation ordinance.
So what choices does the Council have? Really, they are starkly simple? It can follow the criteria and standards clearly set forth by the ordinance and uphold the commissioners’ decision. Or it can concoct new definitions and reach conclusions wildly inconsistent with the ordinance. The “positive” Council vote sought by the Journal and others can only be achieved by getting a super majority of alders to flout the law.
