Another long one last night--I don't think we got out of City Hall until around 1 a.m. or so. Oshkosh Community Media should have the entire meeting available online soon. The link is here.
Some highlights:
Pioneer Inn "Class B" License (Res 08-212): We voted 7-0 to not renew the license. Lack of development activity at the site really gave the council no other option. The Pioneer representative argued that a lengthy dispute with the DNR, along with a bad economy for condo/hotel developments, are the main reasons why there has been no progress. The discussion felt like "deja vu all over again," as we have heard these arguments in the past.
People often ask under what other conditions an establishment can get a "Class B" liquor license. According to state law, a city can go above its quota and issue "Class B" liquor license to establishments that are:
*a full-service restaurant with a seating capacity of 300 or more or
*a hotel with 100 or more sleeping rooms that has either an attached restaurant with a seating capacity of at least 150 or a banquet room with capacity for at least 400 persons.
My belief is that the nonrenewal of the license is more likely to spark some kind of action at the site. Even if it doesn't, the rep made it clear to us that nothing was likely to happen in the near future anyway. So now at least we have a license to distribute to an individual or group that might actually spark some economic activity in the city (I have no idea who that individual or group might be.).
Park Plaza Parking Ramp (Res 08-222). I was the only councilor to vote against spending $96,000 to give the ramp away. Seems to me a potential new owner of the Park Plaza Hotel ought to be able to take on that cost just in return for getting it. But the major reason I voted against giving the ramp away was because I believe not enough discussion was held over whether or not the ramp might actually be an asset for the city. Cities with thriving downtowns tend to operate municipal parking ramps. Lots of people seem excited about the river walk--if that does get off the ground in the next few years, we might wish we had that parking ramp to accommodate what will (hopefully) be lots of visitors to the area.
Perhaps giving the ramp away was the best thing, but to me it just seemed like one more example (kind of like the water filtration tower) of how we want to "get things off our hands" before even having any substantive discussion of what role those "things" might play for us. Since high fuel prices are making suburban living passe' and across the country we are seeing revitalization of urban/downtown living, I think it's entirely conceivable that in 5-10 years we'll wish we had that parking ramp back.
Allowance of Claim/Sanitary Sewer Damage (Res 08-230): David and Rene Young have had ongoing plumbing issues at their Otter Ave. home. Improper installation of a sewer lateral has cost them thousands of dollars in plumbing repairs. City staff agrees that the sanitary sewer lateral was damaged, but disputes that the damage was the result of any city action.
The city's insurance carrier disallowed the claim, putting the Youngs in the position of having to take their case to the City Council. I found Rene Young and the plumber (can't remember his name) to be credible and convincing. They could not decisively prove negligence on the part of the city, but on the other hand the city's records regarding the property in question were ambiguous. Seems to me that when factual evidence in a dipute is inconclusive and does not clearly support either side, we then have to look at factors like credibility and motivation.
In the end, 4 councilors voted to allow the claim (Palmeri, F. Tower, McHugh, Esslinger), with the 3 no votes concerned that we might be opening up the doors to more appeals to the council to allow claims. I'm not bothered by that possibility, as the city's insurance carrier disallows claims as a matter or course and the city council (especially for middle-class and poor people) might be the only remaining avenue left for justice and fairness. The vote in favor of the Youngs does not require that we vote in favor of any other parties that might come forward; the facts of each case will be different.
Approve Combination "Class B" License/Fox River Pizza & Buffet (Res 08-231). This was the license for Jay Supple's restaurant proposed as part of the Akcess development. Some citizens told me that if we were going to deny the Pioneer license, we should deny Supple too since his license has not been used for several years. In the end we voted unanimously to approve Supple's license. I was persuaded by the fact that he is local and has a decent track record in the city and, more importantly, that he stated that if something does not happen soon with the Akcess development he will NOT be back next year asking for the license renewal.
Authorize sale of property at 120 Jackson St. to the Oshkosh Chamber of Commerce (Res 08-234). This will make it easier for the Chamber to sell their building. I was the only councilor to vote against the deal, largely because it is being driven by Akcess' need to have the Chamber as a tenant in the proposed office building. Last year I asked for staff and the council to come up with a "Plan B" for riverfront development, and did not get support for that. We are now in the absurd position where a project (the office complex) that has little public support might get built on the strength of having the Chamber of Commerce and a law firm as tenants. Don't you feel fired up?
We had a workshop on stormwater management that started much too late. At some point in the near future I will blog about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Watched much of the meeting last night, when not viewing the Brewers game. Some thoughts:
Pioneer Inn: Agreed. The group at Pioneer has had plenty of time to move on this, and there are likely others who would like a shot as the license.
Sewer damage: The people may have been credible in your eyes, but their lack of documentation worries me and places shadows on the validity of their claim. This seemed to be much more drawn out than it needed to be.
Parking ramp: We might want that one back in the future, but it's not really a good ramp. While it would cost more, I'd rather see it go into a better ramp, such as what Appleton has done over the past 15 years.
What worries me in general, after watching several meetings, is a general lack of trust that seems to exist between the council and city staff, and even between some council members themselves.
I was also saddened to see EAA remove their proposal from the agenda. Have you talked with them about your questions on the project? Again, there seem to be a lot of disconnects and between council and city staff.
I don't see the issue with the ramp. For the hotel to be viable, they will need that ramp and for the city to say they want it back at a later date would put a dent in the hotel's viability to the overall detriment of the city.
I do believe you are correct that viable downtowns have built their own parking structures, but unfortunately this one is both too small for a general city purpose and is also needed for the business that it is attached to.
Post a Comment