It would be kind of cool if the WSJ Editorial folks would actually write about facts, instead of making them up. Here’s their latest.
I’m not really sure where to begin, but here’s a few comments they write that just a tad bit off and my facts to dispute what they write:
1. “The fuss over what to do with James Madison Park is one of those classic Madison squabbles that stalls progress for decades.”
Actually, the stalling has been mostly in the Mayor’s office. We’ve been waiting for him to appoint all the members of the committee to make a decision for freaking ever. It’s not just me that noticed, even Bill Leuders at the Isthmus wrote about it.
2. “Preservationists don ‘t want to move two historic homes — even though doing so would better preserve and improve them.”
Really, how does moving them better preserve them? Selling them better preserves them and its nearly unanimous that the houses should be sold because the City has been terrible at fixing the things that need to be fixed. I don’t believe historic preservationists are standing in the way of that happening. Moving the houses has nothing to do with preserving them. In fact, moving them would, in many ways, detract from the historic context and familial relationship of the houses.
3. “Staunch park advocates don ‘t want to sell an inch of parkland near Lake Mendota — even though the public can ‘t access the land in question now anyway, and even though proceeds from the city land sale would help expand and improve usable park space.”
Hmmm . . . there is no guarantee that the money from the sale of the land would help expand and improve the park. In fact, the first proposal by the Mayor was to use it to fill gaps in the operating budget. He originally wanted to use it to pay for the Zoning Code Rewrite. I’m somewhat hopeful that this editorial is telling us something about a change of mind of the Mayor in this regard and that the money from any sales will be put back into the park, but I believe that would be a shift in positions.
Second, there would be plenty of money from the sale of the three houses that could make the improvements to park without selling any of the land.
4. “Madison needs to stop dithering and show that it ‘s a can-do city. Madison needs to get past the bickering of narrow interests to make James Madison Park bigger and better for all. The park and the general public deserve a happy ending to this drawn-out and tiring story.”
Lets give the credit for dithering where credit is due. As I noted earlier, what is truly amazing is the long time that the Mayor took to appoint the committee and then giving us a ridiculous timeline to complete our work – over the summer – when so many who use the park are gone and people are busy.
5. “Reject Ald. Brenda Konkel ‘s attempt to raid proceeds from the city ‘s building and land sales for her pet trust fund that pays for low-income housing. Konkel, whose district includes the park, also should drop the unreasonable demands she wants to make on the potential buyers of the buildings to be sold.”
First, “raiding” the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is the mayor’s game.
Second, we do have an ordinance in place that says the following:
MGO 4.22(3)(c) The Trust Fund may consist of funds derived from, but not limited to the following, subject to appropriation by the Common Council, upon notification from the Comptroller that funds are available.
1. Residual Contingent Reserve funds;
2. Amounts from the Operating Budget equivalent to City fees collected from
dedicated uses related to housing, such as reinspection fees;
3. Tax Incremental Financing Equity Participation Payments;
4. Proceeds from the sale or use of surplus City land;
5. Any other appropriations as determined from time to time by legislative action of
the Common Council.
Third, I want the money to go to the park first and just a portion, only 1/3, or whatever is left over after the improvements to the parks are made, to go to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. It may be that there is no money left over, and that is ok if then no money goes to the Trust Fund. Of course, let me state again, that we will have more money if the houses stay in place.
Fourth, I’m curious what the “unreasonable demands she wants to make on the potential buyers of the buildings to be sold.” I think they are talking about keeping the buildings in a “public use” instead of selling the bed and breakfast as a private home. Is that really unreasonable?
6. “City park officials have long wanted to improve James Madison Park but haven ‘t had the money.”
Ahem. There is $200,000 in this year’s budget that is just sitting there and they don’t plan to spend it this year. They have money that the council approved. Apparently, what they don’t have, is staff to do the work. Or, they have been instructed to stall. (I find it hard to believe that the money was a “surprise” last fall and that is why they can’t spend any of it this year.)
Well, there you go. Another classic WSJ-ignore-the-facts editorial. Do their editorials have any credibility left with anyone? Remember, they did support George Bush.
