This is my quick writeup of the James Madison Park Disposal Surplus Property Criteria and Selection Committee meeting/public hearing of December 9th. (Who names these things? Seriously, that title isn’t very good no matter where I try to put commas) This is not the detailed, Brenda-quality meeting coverage that I wish I’d have been able to do, but it’s something. This is an example of alternative coverage that Brenda challenged us to do when called on us to “Be the Media”. So, next time you go to a city meeting, see if you can write up a few paragraphs. Editorialize a little bit, too – call things out, de-spin things if you can, spin things that should be spun.
For background, you can see these posts by Brenda:
Here we go again, from September, when this all “started”
The committee’s first meeting
The background of how this committee was established
I got there a few minutes late, and they were already in public testimony. I don’t have notes, so here’s who I remember speaking and what they were talking about. Apologies in advance to anyone who I forgot or have gotten wrong.
– Someone representing Aaron’s House – “The Aaron J. Meyer Foundation and Aaron’s House serves college aged men and women in recovery through a unique peer support modality, providing students the opportunity to live and study in a chemical-free environment.” Aaron’s House is located a few blocks up the Gorham, and they’re interested in using Collins House as a second location. Committee members were intrigued, because the foundation might be in a good position to secure donations/supplies/volunteer labor for the repair of the structure. This seems like it’d be a great use for Collins House.
– Someone speaking on the arts in Madison, and specifically, using the Collins House as a new home for the Edenfred Arts Residency, which is scheduled to close in a few weeks. That also seems like it’d be a great use for the Collins House
– Richard Linster, reiterating the Tenney-Lapham position that the other two houses along Gorham not be moved.
– Adam Plotkin, reiterating the CNI position that none of the homes in the park be moved, but instead sold, left where they are, and proceeds funneled back into the park. As Adam says, nothing has changed since CNI last made this recommendation, and so there has been no reason to change the recommendation. I’m pretty sure that it was during Adam’s testimony that Kevin Brisiki and Ray Harmon tried to claim that this wasn’t a do-over of the 2008/09 committee, and that this committee had a new mission and was formally different than the earlier committee and wasn’t a committee formed because the Mayor didn’t like the answer from the earlier committee.
– Sam Stevenson – Consider the potential damage to the homes if they were to moved, the disincentives to a potential buyer if it were stipulated the home needed to be moved a short distance next to the collins house, also thought the drive-by “vista” rationale was faulty as it inherently encouraged inattentive driving
– Joe Lusson, who lives right across the street, asking that the homes be sold and left where they are. Joe was questioned by the committee (I think Maniaci) as for future uses of the houses – his preference was selling them to family or some other use that keeps them active with people around them as much as possible. (One of the angles the committee was looking for was what did people think of using the houses for something like a law office)
– Ledell Zellers, asking that the homes be sold and left where they are, as well as warning that because the homes are not wood-frame, moving them is risky and there’s a good chance they’ll be seriously damaged or outright collapse if they’re moved. Noted that the view that moving the structures would create for drivers lasts for approximately 4 additional seconds.
– Jason Tish, Madison Trust for Historic Preservation, speaking on how the houses should remain where they are. Jason/The Trust had no position on the future uses of the houses, so long as they were shown sufficient historic treatment.
– Gary Tipler, speaking about how the three houses were historically related as part of the Collins Family compound, and the original builders/early occupants all had connections.
– One more person who had previously lived downtown but had moved to the west side, and had been involved with historic preservation, and how it was important (sorry, I was busy with something else while she was speaking and didn’t really catch most of it).
– I spoke in the middle of all of that, and I talked about three points:
1. A different use for Collins House for a live-in housing for high tech startups. That got its own blog post.
2. I was absolutely in the minority, but I wouldn’t be too upset if the houses were moved elsewhere in Madison – with the huge caveat that there’d have to be a good plan for how the new space could be used in the park. I wouldn’t ordinarily support moving houses like these, but I would like to see more space for James Madison Park. True, the east end of the park is underutilized, but we could put some more amenities on that end and increase usage. Moving the structures wouldn’t be my first choice on how to expand James Madison Park (someday I’ll write about my wild-and-crazy idea on westward expansion) but it’s certainly the easiest way to expand the park.
However, it’s absurd to think that the city is actually going to make any money selling the structures if they have to be moved – even if they’re just moving up the block to be placed next to the Collins House. If you’ve got an empty lot in Madison and want a historic home to place on it, you can get one for free. The past few developments in the neighborhood have all had houses demolished that the owners have said they’d gladly give them away – one even went as far as offering to pay part of the moving costs. There are plenty of people who would love to build new if they cheaply get rid of the old. Factor in the enormous costs of moving these things and the rehab they’ll need, and its hard to see why anyone would pay anything for them.
Given that, if we’re serious about protecting the homes, the only thing to do is to leave them where they are. They’re valuable because they’ve got amazing location with a lake and park view. That’s what people will pay for.
My third point was to call bullshit on Ray Harmon and Kevin Briski, and the idea that this committee is just a formality and not looking for different answers that the 2008 committee. If the 2008 committee was the planning committee, and the 2010 committee is the surplus committee, it shouldn’t have taken 2 years to form the surplus committee. Furthermore, if the plans were determined by the previous committee, things like moving the houses wouldn’t even be under discussion by this committee. To quote the bullet points from the recommendations of the 2008/9 committee:
FINAL List of Conditions for Disposal of James Madison Park Properties:
At the request of the James Madison Park Property Planning Committee, City staff prepared the following list of conditions for the disposal of properties in James Madison Park.
<…>
Worden House (640 East Gorham St)
5. This building shall not be moved.
<…>
Ziegelman House (646 East Gorham St)
5. This building shall not be moved.
Instead, Ray Harmon says, right in the minutes of the previous meeting:
He [Harmon] indicated that the Mayor would like to sell the two houses on Gorham Street on the condition that they be rehabbed, expand the park into the land vacated by the two houses…
Does…not…compute…error
Later in those minutes, in perhaps the understatement of the meeting, came this gem under “Review of the James Madison Park Planning Committee” (the 08 committee):
It was noted there were differences between the Committee recommendations and what the Mayor was requesting.
Why won’t the Mayor’s staff on the committee just come out and say “We’re redoing some of the planning process as part of this committee, the previous committee’s recommendations were wrong”?
After testimony, they reviewed their process. Dan Rolf, who is staff to the committee (as opposed to Ray Harmon and Kevin Briski, who are staff on the committee) has a draft of an RFP written, but its not far enough along to share with the committee yet. They debated what they want to put into the possible uses of the three structures. Maniaci asked a lot of questions about what should we say in relation to the zoning code and permitted uses of the structures – should we even ask for things that we know aren’t permitted, or should we look into changing the zoning to permit things we ask for? (This is prudent after Edenfred’s experience). Clear thought that they should bring in some people from the real estate division to get some guidance as for how much they might actually get for any of these structures, especially if they demand that they also be moved. Maniaci asked about including specific language in the RFP that says any move of the structures would not be permitted. (It wasn’t clear to me if that means “any move anywhere is prohibited” or “moving them up the block to the Collins House is permitted but anywhere else is prohibited”.) She indicated that she was going to make a motion to that effect at a future meeting. Harmon was opposed (surprise!) and thought that they should just take in any and all proposals.
They’re going to continue this discussion at their next meeting.
And with that, they called it a night.
