Epic public participation FAIL! I think I found a project that has even WORSE public participation than the Edgewater. Of course, they have the same alder. Sigh.
RUSH JOB – 2 WEEKS!
On November 15th, last Tuesday the Common Council referred the sale of the property on the 700 Block of E Washington to Plan Commission, Board of Estimates and Economic Development Committee. Most people would think that is quite a bit of process and there is time for people to participate in the decision. NOT!
Last night, during the week of Thanksgiving when many people are getting ready for the holidays and being grateful the budget is over, all three committees met. I got to the city-county building at 5:10 and here’s what I found.
Board of Estimates – The meeting was already over, I met Don Marx walking out of the building. I watched it this morning, the meeting was only 28 minutes long, and on this item no members of the public appear. Don Marx from Real Estate explains the process the selection committee went through. He explains what is proposed. Residential, commercial and parking. They are selling the land for the costs the city has in the property. He says there is a 180 day contingency period for the developer to get the land use approvals, financing, CSM and do inspections and testing. The city has that time to adjust the TIF boundary (they have a TIF application they are reviewing), get capital budget authorization, change the redevelopment boundary and get funding for the median break. Palm asks about landbanking and did we meet the goals. Marx says they did an appraisal and the property is coming at 20 and 25 per square foot (assuming the site is clear) and we’re selling it for $15. We acquired it for $14 per square foot. The price difference in the properties are from the appraisal and is due to the density allowed. They are expecting it to cost $3 to 5 to clean up the soils. Rhodes- Conway confirms that they are in charge of cleaning the site. Clear asks about costs the city is looking at. Marx says the sales price does not include foregone taxes and debt costs. Motion passes unanimously on a voice vote.
Economic Development Commission – I missed the public comment, no members of the public were there. They were discussing their concerns that we would sell this property and it wouldn’t get built and the developer could sell the property later at a profit and meanwhile the property would sit there vacant. They were particularly concerned because the property will increase in value if the other projects move forward. That was the extent of what I heard, and then I went to plan commission.
Plan Commission – DOH! I walked across the street and saw a sign that said that the meeting was at the Senior Center. They were holding public testimony open til 6:30 on two other items to allow members of the public to get there, but not this one. I didn’t bother trying to get to the Senior Center Building because this was item one and by the time I got there, it would be over. And the kicker is, it wasn’t available on city channel and I’m not sure if it will be, since it wasn’t on line this morning. I’m guessing no public showed up.
And there you have it, that’s the public process to sell the land to this developer. This will be on the agenda for the council meeting next Tuesday, November 29th.
WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL
This is one of the projects where the city held secret meetings and then decided the neighbors couldn’t talk to the developer. The public meeting was held in late August when people were taking vacations before school started. More info on the projects is here.
So, now we have illegal meetings where members of the neighborhoods were not allowed to participate and were not publicly noticed, but the business community and others were invited to attend. We are being told that we have to go with one particular developer and we are selling them the land before we deal with land use approvals (doesn’t comply with the neighborhood plan) and an unknown TIF request amount. We aren’t allowed to look at the other proposals that were submitted, we’re just being told this is the one and then we’ll have to agree to the land use and TIF or we’ll be obstructionists.
I don’t know if the project is a good one or not. I went to the neighborhood meeting they tried to cancel and found out quite a bit of information, but there is so much that is unknown. I feel pretty uncomfortable with this process and selling this land for nearly $1M under these circumstances, given we know it doesn’t comply with the neighborhood plans and involves TIF and I think it will require exceptions. I hate to have another developer go thorough all this and end up where the Edgewater did . . . hopefully we can back up and do this one right.
If we don’t, is this the way all development projects will now be handled in Madison?
Oh- but this is supposed to be different because it is being pushed through the process by the all knowing Mayor Soglin. He respects the “process” you know.
Don’t get me wrong- something needs to be done on East Wash- that is awful- but the Mayor helping ramrod a development through the system after he complains about how the last administration pushed projects through is hypocritical. I am finding myself more and more disgusted with this mayor and his staff.
And a public participation success….!
Tuesday night (11/22) saw a high turnout at the Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Motor Vehicle Commission meeting. More than a dozen residents, mostly from the McClellan Park neighborhood, registered unanimous opposition to a planned 60,000 square foot food store planned for construction on Cottage Grove Rd between the Interstate and Sprecher Rd.
Before the Commission was a proposed amendment to the Sprecher Neighborhood Development Plan which would remove language opposing “large businesses, or uses requiring extensive parking [which would not] be compatible with the compact, pedestrian oriented development concept” and replace it with language allowing development of a grocery store up to 60,000 square feet as an anchor business.
The issue was referred to the PBMVC from the Common Council by Alder. Jill Johnson (16th District, just south of the planned development). Speakers included Mr. Brian Munson, representing Veridian Homes, which is the developer and owner of the land. Mr. Munson said that after several years of seeking developers of a smaller grocery store, such as Trader Joe’s, and finding no takers, Veridian decided to act on advice of a consultant who explained that grocery stores of less than 60,000 square feet are not viable.
Residents expressed dismay at Veridian’s decision to abandon the concept of New Urbanism and development of a small, pedestrian and bicycle friendly community. That was what brought them to purchase homes from Veridian in the first place. They also voiced concern for their safety and that of their children due to increased traffic in the area, and also the negative impact a large grocery store would have on the Sentry grocery store just over a mile to the west on Cottage Grove Rd. One speaker noted that based on comments to past Plan Commission meetings, between 60% and 80% of residents are in opposition to the big-box development.
After more than two and a half hours of discussion the Commission voted 6 to 1 in opposition to the amendment. The issue next goes the LRTPC in January and then the Plan Commission.