Doyle beats both Republican candidates in magazine poll

I'm not exactly a huge Doyle cheerleader (I cringe every time the man speaks in public, for instance), but I do recognize that, of the current field of candidates for governor, he's still the best choice.

So it's interesting to see that he came out ahead in a recent poll conducted by The Business Journal of Milwaukee, besting both Republican candidates (current Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and Mark Neumann).

It wasn't a huge win in terms of numbers (Doyle took 48% of the votes, Walker 41%, Neumann a blistering 4%), but considering the electorate for this tally was, presumably, made up of mostly business owners and related interested parties, it is a notable result.

According to a memo released by the DPW regarding the poll:

The Republican Party of Wisconsin was out in full force, beginning with a push via Twitter at 9:20 AM on Wednesday - http://twitter.com/wisgop/status/2653364739 - and then a statewide email action alert (attached) Wednesday afternoon when Gov. Doyle was the clear leader. Their statewide communication prompted a response from the DPW, independent groups and those in the business community wanting their voices heard.

I'm not going to read a whole lot into this lone poll, but neither do I think it should be written off entirely. One of the most frequent accusations leveled against Democrats in general and Doyle in particular by Republicans is that they are not business friendly. Time and time again, charges that Wisconsin has become a hellish pit of high taxes and no rewards for companies come flying fast and furious from some folks on the right.

And yet, survey after survey has shown that taxes almost never rank near the top of a list of concerns for business owners in the state. Companies move here on a regular basis. It isn't to say that everything's hunky dory and there's no room for improvement, but the doom and gloom scenario so often painted by partisans doesn't quite pan out, either.

And can you blame the voters here? Neumann's still pretty unknown, and Walker, where he is known, is most notable for accomplishments like getting the state to strip the county of its role in providing public assistance because of gross negligence and incompetence. That'd be the county he's supposed to be running, by the way.

My only concern here is that Walker showed as well as he did. I attribute some of that to the fact that Doyle has never made for the most exciting candidate, but still. At least he's on track with the high-speed rail project. And frankly, I'd rather Wisconsin be goverened by a herd of spitting llamas than Scott Walker. At least the llamas would get things done. Namely spitting.

Edgewater plans in hot water

I'm a little late to the game here, but I've been in the wild throes of moving to a new homestead in the last week, so I have an excuse.

Anyway, the game I'm a little late to is the debate over the planning process for the proposed Edgewater Hotel expansion and development. It has been fascinating, if somewhat confusing, to watch the slings and arrows being launched back and forth across the ol' interwebs between some of Madison's heaviest hitters.

Isthmus. Brenda Konkel. Paul Soglin. Mayor Dave. All of them have weighed in via the binary to express their concerns and dismissals of others' protestations. It's been a bit like watching a political game of pong.

Isthmus:

The Madison Trust for Historic Preservation is gravely concerned about a proposed $107 million expansion of the Edgewater Hotel. And not just about preservation....There may be reasons that the project developer, Hammes Company of Brookfield, is being secretive. It's engaged in what appears to be unreported lobbying. It's created a lobby group to back the project and what seems to be a dummy-front neighborhood organization. It's built questionable alliances with the mayor and Downtown Madison Inc.

Cieslewicz:

So, let's recap. A developer has an idea that will reinvigorate a landmark hotel, add needed rooms to help our tourism and convention industry and bring more resources into the community, add value to bolster city tax rolls, dramatically increase public access to the lake and create lots of jobs. And he had the gall to ask to meet with the mayor to talk about it… several times. Isthmus portrays this as the crime of the century. I guess I was supposed to tell him to take a hike.

Konkel:

Is that a joke? Do people believe that is 225 public meetings about the project? Or is that what they are supposed to believe? Is that how that is going to be spun? I mean, who took the time to count those meetings and for what purpose? I'd be interested in finding out how many of those 225 meetings were with Capital Neighborhoods or the Mansion Hill Neighborhood Association or public meetings.

Soglin:

Opponents to projects are not required to post every meeting and invite the developer. The opponents are not required to open up the discussion every time they meet or place a phone call to an alder.

WSJ:

Hammes spent months quietly seeking support from political and business leaders in the neighborhood, adjusting and refining plans along the way.

But the approach has disturbed some, who say Hammes selectively shared information and hasn’t resolved concerns about the height of the proposed tower, the effect on the nearby Mansion Hill Historic District, the view of Lake Mendota — protected by city ordinance — and traffic, noise and parking concerns.

I'm certainly of the opinion that a lot of transparency is needed when discussing major developments such as this - especially when we're talking about lakeside property. Issues such as erosion and run-off need to be taken into greater consideration when construction is being done right along the water. And I'd hate to see yet another tall building put up along the shore, further obstructing public views and access to the lake that are already severely limited.

Just as troubling, however, are those 225 meetings Konkel mentioned in her post and further scrutinized by Isthmus. Mayor Dave did little to directly address the concerns that were raised about alleged unregistered lobbying time, opting instead to simply brush off all concerns with a casual dismissal.

I honestly couldn't tell you what the truth is or whether or not anything truly nefarious is going on behind closed doors. What I can say is that the various parties involved in the process are handling things pretty poorly. Urban infill projects like the Edgewater have a great deal of potential in helping to cut down on sprawl, provide mixed-use space, and bring in more jobs and revenue. I'm all for that. But you can't just throw those words out into the aether and hope they'll stick without doing due diligence.

That is, make the process open to public input from the start. No quiet deals. Adhere to well-established and beneficial statutes that regulate the height of downtown buildings, greener building techniques, and public access to the lake shore. Madison has a pretty decent history of doing just that, and it's made this the city that I fell in love with after just 5 minutes of my first visit back in '99. I'd hate to see that ethic chipped away at.

And for heaven's sake, regardless of how you feel about people's opinions on the matter, don't simply toss their concerns aside without adequately explaining yourself. I suspect that most of the involved players want what's best for the neighborhood and the city. We can only get that by being more honest with one another.


(photo by readerwalker on Flickr)

Malt House, neighborhood, loses out to big developer

Want a great, if infuriating, example of why we're in our current economic mess? Look no further than the current trials and tribulations of Madison's own Malt House, a craft beer bar located at the corner of E. Washington and Milwaukee St.

The establishment's owner, Bill Rogers, very much wanted to add a little bit of outdoor seating for his patrons--three picnic tables and two chairs. Seems straight-forward enough, right? But unfortunately for Rogers, in order to get permission from the city for said seating, the adjacent parking lot, which is in considerable disrepair, would need to be re-paved. The cost of such work is estimated at about $5,000, a prohibitively large sum for a small business owner.

The City Plan Commission has been wrestling with this question, certain members trying to find a work-around so the Malt House could go ahead with the seating without having to re-pave, for a little while now. On Monday night, however, the final decision came down: they "OK’d a conditional use permit for outdoor seating at the Malt House but failed to lift a requirement that an adjacent gravel parking lot be repaved."

No dice.

It'd be easy enough to get angry at the Plan Commission for jerking around a small business owner on an issue that seems, at a glance, to be fairly cut-and-dry. It's just a few picnic tables placed on a cement slab, after all. No trees would be uprooted, no sight-lines interrupted. In fact, the Malt House is one of the few establishments along that corridor doing its level best to bring economic development and stability--especially since the vaunted Union Corners project that had been planned for the area was stalled when the economy took its turn for the terrible.

And that's where attention really ought to be focused. The Union Corners development was and is run by McGrath Associates, the Madison-based company that's also in charge of things like the Nolan Shore condos. Malt House owner Rogers has offered to buy the empty lot in question from them, but McGrath is apparently still holding out hope that Union Corners will rise from the dead and apparently isn't willing to sell.

In the meantime, a gaping hole in the city's landscape remains, and the one business that's actually working through the recession is getting slapped around for trying to do the right thing--not by the Plan Commission, which is simply doing its job by following the letter of the law, frustrating as it is--but rather by McGrath Associates.

The story has become all-too common. Individuals and developers got carried away in the building boom, working fast and hard to throw up as many buildings and make as much money as possible without much regard for solid, sustainable planning or realistic pricing. Somewhat predictably, everything eventually crumbled down around them, but instead of facing the facts, many of them are holding out hope that they can still make the money they promised themselves back in the halcyon days--instead of accepting their losses and moving on. And by not moving on, they often screw over those business people who are actually interested in doing something productive with the land.

It was and is that kind of hubris and poor planning that got us into this mess, and now it's helping to keep us down in it. Banks that won't let short-sales go through so that homes just end up going to rot, developers that stubbornly hold onto property even as it sits idle and molders. What good is that doing anyone? Instead of desperately clinging to the notion that everything will just go back to how it was Before, we need to take action to actually improve upon how these things are done--so that responsible businesses can go on being responsible, and so that we can avoid situations like this in the future.

72 hours of Wis-Kino

(cross-posted from dane101.com)

I've been participating in Wis-Kino's 48-hour "Kabarets" for quite a few years now, always enjoying the sense of urgency and rampant creativity involved in making a short film in just two days. I've liked it so much, in fact, that last year I volunteered to become one of the group's co-directors (along with Josh Klessig), taking over after founding directors Matt Sloan and Aaron Yonda decided to spend more time focused on their other filmmaking activities.

We've since streamlined things so that, instead of monthly screenings and Kabarets, Wis-Kino is just focusing on the big events. We're throwing three Kabarets each year (the one in May went spectacularly well), with the next one coming up this month. Only, we've got a little something special in store for this particular Kabaret. Instead of giving people the usual 48 hours in which to kill themselves making a movie, we've expanded it (one time only!) to run for three whole days.

The idea is that the added time will give filmmakers 1) time to make more than one film, or 2) more time to make just the one. It also means actors and other interested parties can potentially work on more than one person's film. Super cool! Or at least, we think so. And this is me, formally extending the invitation to come check things out if you haven't already.

Kabarets are great opportunities for both amaetuer and more experienced film lovers to test their mettle, get the creative juices flowing, and just have fun. Want to direct something but are lacking actors or technical help? Want to act in something or offer your sound/lighting/etc. expertise but lack a camera and a particular vision?

Whatever the case, show up to the Kabaret kick-off screening on Thursday, July 16th and we'll do our level best to get you connected with the people who can get you involved in a project. We'll provide a sign-up sheet where you can leave your name, contact info, and area of interest - and then others can look things over to see if you've got what they're looking for. We'll also use the kick-off screening to, well, screen some movies! We invite anyone who has a 5-minute or shorter film to bring it along to show, regardless of its theme (no porn, obviously--see submission guidelines here).

At the end of the screening, we'll have interested filmmakers pick their "secret ingredient" (a word, theme, or prop that must be incorporated into their movie in some way) and then set them all loose for the weekend! On Sunday, July 19th, we'll meet back up to view the fruits of everyone's labors.

What's even cooler? This all happens at the fabulously shiny Sundance Cinemas out at Hilldale Mall. The kick-off screening will be held in their North Lounge, and the final Kabaret showing will be in one of the big theatres. See your work on the silver screen! Both events start at 7:00p.m. - the first won't cost you a dime (we take donations, though), and the final screening just costs $5 (for both filmmakers and casual fans--no extra fee to make a movie!).

We're working on some very fine incentives for making films, as well as providing free, rental camera equipment and editing help for those who need it, so expect announcements about that soon.

In the meantime, I'd like to share a handful of past Kabaret films to whet your appetite. These were all made in just 48 hours! One for now, more to follow in the coming days....

(Film made by Craig Knitt and Tony Mayer for the Fall 2009 Kabaret)

Searching and seizing for fun and profit

Recently, Madison's mayor, Dave Cieslewicz, issued a three-page proposal of ways in which to combat rising gun violence in certain of the city's neighborhoods. It's good that these problems are being more directly addressed, but I can't help but have some serious concerns about one of the major points in his plan:

Madison police would enlist parental permission to search for guns in their children’s bedrooms...

Utilizing parental consent to a search instead of a search warrant approved by a judge is a way to move quickly — before the guns can do damage — when police are tipped off to the location of a weapon in the hands of a juvenile.

I understand the desire to move as quickly as possible when there's strong evidence indicating that someone is in possession of an illegal firearm. I understand that police and city officials are frustrated by the continued spike in crime in Madison. But is this really the best way to go about combating the problem? By circumventing, as far as I can tell anyway, one of the central tenants of the Constitution?

Not only would this plan potentially be a major violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it strikes me that it would only serve to foster greater mistrust between parents and their children, and/or children and their community.

I'm not saying we should never call out our young people on their more ridiculous or dangerous behavior. In fact, I suspect that a lack of good parental and community involvement is one of the key factors that leads some children to act out so rashly.

But is it going to help the situation to give police the power to rifle through a kids belongings without first obtaining a warrant? What happens when what they find is enough for them to level charges? Does the search just get thrown out for the lack of warrant?

What's more, when you really think about how such a policy would play out, you immediately run into hazards. How will police know/decide which kids to target? Do parents, friends, and other peers need to first come to the cops with information? Another option is one that The Sconz recently suggested:

Theoretically, the introduction of this plan suggests there is a group of cops who are keeping up with “gang politics,” per se. They are tuned into teen rivalries, they analyze youth arrests and try to figure out who is at risk to commit a crime with a firearm.

But like Sconz there, I'm a bit dubious that such a program exists, or that if it does, it's that sophisticated. Which leads one to wonder if this new policy wouldn't be ripe for abuse. Would there be a system of checks in place to look into the reliability of sources and make sure the searches weren't disproportionately (and unjustly) targeting kids from certain neighborhoods? That they wouldn't just be the result of petty vendettas?

I recognize that this is a terrible situation to be in, when things have gotten so bad that such ideas are being floated. And there are no easy solutions. But I can't help but cringe when yet another policy is invented that aims to take away the essential rights of minors. There's no better way to further piss off and disenfranchise them, which is precisely what we ought to be working to prevent.

So I have some questions, and until such time as those questions are satisfactorily answered, I have to object to this particular facet of Mayor Dave's new plan. I'm pleased that he and other city officials appear to be taking seriously the problem, but I worry that they're falling into knee-jerk reactions and scare mongering to address it.

Music, bikes, beer, and the great outdoors

What are you doing this evening at 6:00p.m.? Unless you're planning to come to the UW Memorial Union Terrace, it's nothing important, I can tell you that.

And why all the bluster from me? Because my band, Little Red Wolf, is playing a free show at that very time, in that very place, and you should come! We'll be running through an hour-long set of our original music, and the whole dang thing will be powered by people riding bikes. Seriously! What's not to love? Add the Terrace's friendly, convivial vibe, the close proximity to good drinks and food, and the fact that we'll be handing out free copies of our new, 6-song demo CD, and you really just can't go wrong.

More about the show here, here, and here.

And if for some crazy reason you can't make it, do check our Myspace page in the next few days when we'll be uploading some of those demo songs for public consumption. Hooray!

Then I'll be off to Chicago for the weekend, to spend time with my sister and celebrate Gay Pride (not to mention the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, aka the beginning of the modern gay rights movement). Enjoy your weekend!

Loitering laws lack luster

Once upon a time a person could decide to simply stand around without immediately falling under suspicion of shenanigans. Then along came anti-loitering ordinances to break up the stillness party. Under the guise of "helping to prevent crime," loitering laws gave police permission to stop and question anyone for the simple act of hanging out.

Now, sure, some folks who choose not to walk or run through neighborhoods at all times are up to no good. But so are some of those walkers and runners. And people in cars! Don't forget about them. Lots of criminals in cars. So why not institute a rule where anyone driving can be pulled over and questioned at any time simply for driving?

While the latter proposal (rightfully) usually goes over like a lead brick, loitering ordinances are a favorite choice of embattled and/or nervous police and local politicians. Take District 9 Alder Paul Skidmore (please! hey-o), who is currently trying to line up support for an anti-loitering law. Madison had one on the books until it expired in 2002, and now Skidmore would like to bring it back.

Only, selectively.

You see, some neighborhoods are populated entirely with God-fearing, law abiding stander arounders, while others are full of idle no-goodniks. So, clearly, application of a loitering ordinance should be a matter of picking and choosing.

Never mind that such a policy would, more than likely, lead to disproportionate hassling of minorities and young people (because that's just how it goes) in less affluent neighborhoods.

There are other, less discriminatory ways to clean up areas with high crime. Greater communication between police and citizens, faster response times to calls for help, more beat cops, better community services (like after school and childcare programs), and other such measures can all help to lower crime rates without needlessly disenfranchising people along the way.

And hey, WISCTV? What's up with the photo you ran with this article? Not only are the people in it all black (and wearing baggy clothes! Heaven forfend!), but they're walking. Isn't the piece supposed to be about loitering? Just sayin'.


(photo by The Life of Bryan on Flickr)