Some people believe the 2007-2008 Common Council is one of the best in recent memory. Others think we are one of the worst. I thought last night's city council meeting was a good example of why strong arguments could be made for either side.
"Best":
*A thorough discussion of a gentleman's claim that he was being assessed unfairly for a road construction project. Staff were prodded to explain why the policy in place makes sense. Though the gentleman did not get the resolution he was looking for, and though we could not get 4 votes to delay a decision on his assessment, the quality of the deliberation succeeded in showing strong arguments on all sides. It's much less painful to "lose" a vote when the prevailing side is well argued and coherent.
*I thought the workshop discussion with Tom Stephany regarding the Parks Department's proposal to manage the Leach Amphitheater for 2009 was informative and worthwhile. Just about every member of the council asked some important questions, and even though the hour was late we did not seem to rush through the exercise just to get done.
*Citizen Statements: A gentleman from the Near East neighborhood, who had a bad experience with staff and ended up getting fined even though he made the changes asked of him, came to speak. Just the fact that he felt empowered to come tell his story, in spite of real or imagined fears of retaliation, is in my judgment a good thing. Most councilors get confronted with lots of heresay stories about people being treated badly by this or that department. But until people actually speak out on the record, it is very difficult to do anything.
"Worst"
*We approved new ambulance rates (I was part of the 6-1 majority), but we completely dropped any discussion of how increased rates affect those least able to pay. We gave lip service to that topic at the August workshop, and it did turn out to be just that: lip service. The painful reality is that this council or city government in general does not have in place any coherent anti-poverty program, nor do we seem particularly interested in developing one. We are all responsible for that; I am not trying to blame anyone.
*By a 6-1 vote (I was the lone dissenter), we voted to dissolve the Cable Television Advisory Commission. That means we now have in place no citizen empowered committee or commission to oversee a citizen resource. Perhaps my citing of the Oshkosh Northwestern editorial actually hurt the case for maintaining the commission or rewriting its mission. Who knows. I do think this was one of our "worst" moments because I could not locate a single compelling argument for disbanding the commission. Minds appeared to be made up before we got there.
*The discussion of how to proceed with riverfront development really was one of our low points, almost shamefully so. "Public input" on what to do with the riverfront will consist of one public meeting on October 8 at the seniors center. I'm not making that up. Five years, two failed and impractical proposals, countless hours of staff time, and you get one meeting on October 8th to hash things out. Talk about backwater town values. Aren't we better than that?
The new city manager claimed to want to "educate" the public about how the city's debt obligations in the area make certain developments more preferable than others. Then when I asked the manager to educate me as to how an office building proposal can succeed given the failure of Akcess, the city attorney said my question was outside of the meeting notice.
That's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Tony you forgot one of the best moments. Remember when you told that East Side resident to NOT pay his fines? What a classic moment for Council Member Palmeri. I know I for one now plan to not pay any fines/tickets etc. the city imposes on me. I plan on bringing them before the council and demanding my 5 minutes and I expect Council Member Palmeri to absolve me of my requirement to pay.
Who knew he also had the power to stop court ordered fines as well. Does his power, and observation, (plus pandering) know no end?
I plan to youtube this great moment of council discretion to all my friends, neighbors, strangers, so they too can behold this majestical power.
I had no idea such a first amendment guy would require all comments on his blog be approved. Stand up for free speech, unless he doesn't like it of course.
Ah, thank you for bringing that up! Youtube your heart away. If the fines were the result of the city bringing action against him for not fixing his windows according to some arbitrary timeline, he should not pay them. If the law says that a person has to pay fines for not meeting an arbitrary timeline set by city hall bureaucrats, then as Charles Dickens Mr. Bumble says, "if the law supposes that, the law is an ass."
Believe it or not, courts sometimes make bad decisions. And believe it or not, sometimes elected officials side with people over the courts.
It does seems a bit backward that only now after 5 years does the council consider the citizenry of Oshkosh important enough to ask for an opinion.
Were councilors listening when citizens spoke of all the empty office space downtown?
Were they listening when the Supple proposal for a hotel/ restaurant was praised.
Were they listening when citizens spoke against expensive condos?
Citizens spoke when they wanted a city manager who could provide experience with economic development. We have that IF councilors will let him do his job.
We have 2 options on the table for the development of different areas both for mixed use; which the city stated they wanted all along. The City Manager states he feels a delay could discourage developers.
Now after 5 years and spending over 6M on site development/clean-up the council choses to delay the process.
Will this delay discourage the current plans from the Dumkes' or the Lindemans'?
Tony,
While we all appreciate your concern for the citizens of Oshkosh, I couldn't help but notice the one question you did not ask the gentleman from the near-east side neighborhood was "why did you incur the fines and additional expenses?" I'm sorry, but the only reason he found himself in that position was because he installed the windows without talking to the commission first. Look into it and you'll find he's not quite the victim he portrayed himself as.
But you seemed ready enough to accept him as a hapless victim of "city hall bureaucrats." Of course that's an easy tune to fiddle, and one that resonates with your fans.
But the fact is in order to be part of the Near-East process, you just need to show up at the meetings - it is one of the more community driven things going in Oshkosh. The fact is, you generally have a year to respond to issues (assuming you don't just go ahead and make changes without things like permits), and can get additional extensions (like another year) in hardship cases. That doesn't really sound like a "an arbitrary timeline set by city hall bureaucrats" (although that quote sure would look good in the Northwestern). And the fact is, it is working.
So, thanks for your vote of support to the folks of this neighborhood who have put time and money into improving their property. And thanks for your confidence in the planning commission and other citizens volunteering their time to be part of this process out of nothing more than concern for the community. Really. Thanks.
Helen,
When Mr. Rohloff was hired he said that economic development "starts with getting to know what the community really wants." Under the assumption that people mean what they say, I think "getting to know what the community wants" has to include the waterfront.
Hey, if people want office buildings, a hotel, apartments, and (taxpayer financed) transient docks, great. I just think it behooves us to find out that's really what people will support before we repeat the same process that gave us the 100 block, Five Rivers, and Akcess.
I find the "discorage the developers" argument somewhat puzzling. Successful business men and women, it seems to me, become successful when they find a way to match what they can offer with what the potential buying public wants. If we would sincerely try to find out what the people wanted (and we are not sincere about that so it's only an academic issue), we would actually be doing the Dumkes and the Lindeman's a tremendous favor.
Hubris, we'll just have to agree to disagree. That someone could incur an $1,100 fine for being too slow to meet the requirements of resolution 06-167 as interpreted by staff is somewhat unbelievable. At the September 11 council meeting ALL councilors, not just me, supported efforts to create a new committee formation to address issues that have been raised.
A comment about the ambulance fee discussion, and the comments made by Dennis McHugh regarding the fire department getting out of the ambulance business: Don't listen to him!
While the revenue generated by providing ambulance service is nice, let's not get caught up in the money we make and lose sight of what the fire department really provides: a SERVICE, in an EMERGENCY.
Much like the military is to the federal government, local governments have the responsibility to provide protection against certain emergencies. If you have someone walking down your street with a gun, or your house starts on fire, or you wrap your car a round a pole and need to be taken to the hospital, those are all emergencies that governmental agencies should be responsible to mitigate.
The system that exists in Oshkosh is second to none. Let's remember the SERVICE that is there, and not lose sight of the importance of the service because of revenue generation. That's not what it's all about.
Tony,
Come on, agreeing to disagree is a cop-out :)
I’m not sure why you are having trouble understanding this. He did the work without permit. If he had followed the same procedure everyone else follows, he never would have found himself having to redo the new windows. And the fine was from the court – I think it's called "not following a court order." Not for not responding to 06-167 fast enough, but for not correcting an illegal renovation in a timely manner. And again, the regular process can give you years (assuming you follow it) - I don't quite see how that's unreasonable. I really would like you to explain how this is anyone's fault but his (without resorting to pandering characterizations of heartless bureaucrats and an uncaring city hall – and no, I don’t work there). Where is personal responsibility in any of this? Do your comments yesterday imply you believe anyone free to break city ordinances? Or just the ones you don’t agree with?
And yes, you did vote for the formation of the committee. You also voted to neuter the entire process by allowing anyone who disagrees with an outcome to appeal to you. What’s the point of the neighborhood committee (open to anyone who lives there) and the planning committee then? Do you know more about the neighborhood than the folks who live there? Do you have more at stake? That you seem to think it is nothing but a bunch of "city hall bureaucrats" involved in this process is somewhat unsettling (especially for someone who voted on it).
Perhaps an analogy might be in order. You teach at the university. How would you feel if your chair went and changed the grades of your students behind your back? (They do have that power you know.) Maybe they tell you something along the lines of "I don’t think you really knew what you were doing when you gave those grades." What would your response be? Seriously.
As you might imagine, I feel very strong about this. Here we have a neighborhood actively involved in improving itself with the help of the city. Then a few people start to complain (have you noticed how many of them don’t actually live there?) and the council takes the easy way out (well, four of you did).
I do appreciate your taking the time to read this. And yes, I'm hoping I can change your mind.
Hubris,
Thank you for your comments. My understanding is that the gentleman was fined for "Failure to comply with standards set forth in resolution 06-167." This in spite of the fact that everyone seems to agree that (a) 06-167 is a work in progress and (b) the gentleman actually DID comply with it--just not "in a timely manner."
No, I don't believe people ought to be able to ignore ordinances. But in this case, again, the ordinance was NOT ignored. It simply was not followed "in a timely manner."
I support the Near East program, but just to clear up some confusion, I did not vote for it because I was not on the council when it was passed (unless I am misreading your response, you seem to think I voted for the plan). I believe a consensus has developed that the problem is not in the Plan as much as it is in the implementation of it. Thus the mayor's pledge to reform the committee structure.
As for the Council reviewing the vote of the Plan Commission on rejected Near East building plans, I don't think the analogy of the Chair changing my grades really fits. But if you think about it, the analogy makes my argument; the students DO HAVE A LEVEL TO APPEAL TO WHEN THEY FEEL A WRONG HAS BEEN COMMITTED. Would I be upset if the Chair changed my grades? of course. But do I believe the students ought to have in place a grievance process to contest what they see as unfair grades? Of course.
I think a better analogy is simply with the language in our historic preservation ordinance. There, when the Landmarks Commission decides that a proposed renovation is out of compliance with the historic character of the neighborhood,the ordinance says explicitly that the property owner can appeal to the Council. Near East residents ought to have that same right, in my view.
I appreciate that you feel strongly about this. I do too; though I don't live in the Near East neighborhood, I am darn close. Also, there are people in the neighborhood who feel as strong as you do on the other side--too many of them, unfortunately, are too afraid to say anything in public for fear of retaliation.
Tony,
That fear of retaliation is bogus and you know it. There has not and will not be one shred of evidence that this intimidation exists. Do your friendly landlords not like that they are required to actually maintain their property? Based on the testimony before your council including the statement made by council member King, which she admits was directly from the landlord organization, these poor poor landlords are very unhappy. Too bad. Their tenants are finally being given a chance to live in decent housing.
Our neighborhood has taken the brunt of this experiment and we have worked darn hard to make it a positive for all residents. We frankly don't care a bit what these non-resident landlord think. But apparently you do. So why not give up your house on W Parkway and join us by moving into one of these lovely rentals. How about you just try it for a month.
Until you produce ONE shred of evidence of this intimidation, you will be considered a shill for the landlords. You rail about supporting the little guy. I have know, as many of us have for a long time, that you support one person only. Wanna guess who that is?
Tony,
I will say this one more time. The person made alterations to their home without following the process everyone else must go through. He got fined for not correcting a unpermitted project in a timely fashion. It is the same fine you or I or any other citizen would get for the same action *anywhere* in Oshkosh – do an unpermitted construction, don’t fix the problem when you get caught and the court tells you to, and guess what, you get a fine. And correcting it later does not make the fine go away (for you, for me, or for him). By your logic, I should not have to pay the late fees on my parking tickets either.
You appeared not to hear any of this as he spoke, only seizing on the fine as yet another example of what is wrong with the near east program. Facts be damned. Personal responsibility be damned as well.
Sorry about the other bit – I was perhaps too vague. I know you were not on the council when the original resolutions were passed. And yeah, that probably wasn’t the best analogy – I’m not good at those. I had in my mind more a scenario of the grade being changed despite missing homework or poor test performance – essentially creating a different set of standards over what the other students were subject to.
But your statement that residents have no appeal process confuses me. Item four of 06-167 states, “If the Department denies plans, applicants have the option to seek review and approval of said plans from the Plan Commission.” I can only then assume you mean that they don’t have enough *levels* of appeal and that you don’t trust the people you’ve put on the Plan Commission to make a proper choice in those appeals. (And we’ll ignore here the further appeals possible through the courts as our friend who spoke on Tuesday clearly demonstrated they on occasion apparently make bad decisions.)
Indeed, I seem to recall rhetoric at the previous council meeting that citizens should be able to appeal to an elected official – someone with “accountability.” (We will assume the Plan Commission members are therefore not accountable to anyone and that the council has neither the power nor the will to remove anyone from the Commission as that’s what these comments imply.) I take it then that it is your position that all disputes with any official acting on the city’s behalf should be arbitrated by the council – not through citizen statements, but through a sanctioned formal appeals process – right down to parking tickets and library fines.
And it is interesting that you bring up the Landmarks Commission process. Have you actually read it? Let me paste good ole section K.3.c in here:
"If the Commission elects to delay an application for alteration and the owner claims that such delay constitutes denial of all use of the property, or that a procedural error was made by the Commission, the owner may appeal such decision to the Common Council. The Council may authorize the application for alteration by a majority vote of all the members of the Council after a public hearing held after publication of a Class 2 notice and prior notice in writing to the applicant, adjacent property owners and Commission mailed seven (7) days prior to the hearing. If the Council finds that the Commission did not make a procedural error in making it's decision, or that the property owner is not denied all use of the property, the Council shall sustain the Commission's decision to delay the application."
I’m no lawyer, but there is only an appeal process for procedural errors and for cases where a delay would constitute a denial of all use. Maybe you just read the first sentence. But the sole two points the council may consider are: 1) was there a procedural error, and 2) would a delay result in a denial of use? If neither one of these are the case, the Commission’s decision *must* stand.
So tell me Tony, if we did hold the Near East to the same rights as a landmark property owner, how would you have voted for approving ADVOCAP’s appeal (assuming there was no procedural error)?
Or should the Near East be held to a different standard than landmark properties? Oh wait, you’ve already argued that they should...
Yes, the Near East process isn’t perfect. But I put forth that your comments on Tuesday and your vote to allow appeals to the council did nothing to help, and, if anything further hurt the process. It was certainly a blow to the folks I know.
Dear Tony,
First let me thank you for the effort that you put forth in your work on the council and on the behalf of the citizens of Oshkosh.
There seems to be a rather simple way to correct the problems associated with the Near East neighborhood ordinance. You as councilmembers need to clean up the lanuage. It seems quite clear that the community development department has it's own ideas about interpret the ordinance that does not jive with the taxpayers, and some councilors. Therefore, your only course of action in this form of government is to use your policy making power to eliminate subjective interpretation.
It is unfortunate that you have only this power, but if used wisely, it could control wild eyed
over reaching administrators from discouraging real and sustainable efforts in this neighborhood.
I do however find it interesting the the same administrator that are so eager to put upon average taxpayers, where the same people that allowed this neighborhood's landlord's properties to come into this direpair in the first place.
Breathless
Hubris,
I think my earlier statement to you still holds: we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one and, as the late Mr. Bender might have said, "leave it at that."
From the actual language in CCAP related to the charges against the citizen in question: "Failure to comply with standards set forth in resolution 06-167." (People have been calling me to ask why the sump pump hookup ordinance is not enforced this rigorously, or the weed ordinance, etc. etc. I don't have an answer for them because I don't know.).
I think we will keep going in circles on the appeal issue: either you believe that citizens ought to have access to their elected officials as an arbiter or last resort or you don't. I believe they do, and the majority of people who contacted me befor our vote shared that view, but respect the fact that people disagree.
I don't know how I would have voted on the Advocap matter. I believe there are strong arguments on both sides, but I believe the economic arguments that Ms. King made really do need to be taken quite seriously by the council.
Thanks for the discussion.
Tony,
Sorry about the delay. I spent the weekend working on my house.
The economic arguments made by Ms. King were a verbatim set of talking points fed to her by a group of landlords (c.f., the comment by "easty side"). Of course that doesn’t negate the validity of Ms. King's comments – but the foreclosure rate in the near east brings them into question. I challenge you to find any evidence that it is higher than anywhere else in Oshkosh, even the west side. Indeed, I would put forth that one of the better protections against bankruptcy is owning a house whose value isn’t dropping, which is the very purpose of the near east program – and it has been successful in this.
This isn’t to say no one is financially stressed in this neighborhood. Quite the opposite. Yet where in all the hand-wringing concern at that council meeting was any discussion of the block grants and other financing available to people to help them make needed improvements? Where was the discussion of the extensions (and we’re talking a year if not longer) for cases where financial hardship can be demonstrated? (And I still do not see how this fits your characterization of "arbitrary deadlines," except in the context of "arbitrarily long"). Where was any discussion of what else the city could do to financially help the people of the near-east improve their neighborhood? I know I didn’t hear any. A tight economy is not the time to walk away from the near-east plan, especially when the biggest investment most of us have is our house.
But I will give up now. I had hoped to be able to change your mind (or at least pry open a small crack of reconsideration). There is a good deal of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD as many of us call it) out there about this program – most of it being spread by landlords who have a vested interest in seeing it fail, and it is fanned on by others unfamiliar with the process or deeply distrustful of anything the city tries to do. One only need read the Northwestern comments to see it – fears of brown shirted porch police forcing elitist opinions of architectural beauty on the jobless & poor residents of the near-east. Unfortunately, we live in a city where that image resonates. And all of a sudden this is a flawed program run by the uncaring bureaucrats of city hall - to paraphrase your own comments. And I fear Tony that you have allowed yourself to fall for their rhetoric. The speed at which, during the council meeting, you assumed the troubles of our friend on Merritt were the result of 06-167 and not a failure of personal responsibility evince this well.
Access to elected officials as an arbiter of last resort is a nice sentiment and it would look good on a bumper sticker. And I would be OK with this position if this were a council with a long history (or even a recent history) of taking such a stance. But now it looks more like a handy flag to wave. (The only thing missing was “yeah, that’s the ticket” after accountability was first brought up.)
And again. It sounds nice and at first glance. But when it comes to decisions regarding detailed planning, zoning, building codes and city infrastructure, I prefer calls as to what will and will not work, what is and is not appropriate, be made by experts with a deep understanding of the issue and knowledge of the facts, circumstances, application, and statues. I do not want these decisions made by politicians who can’t afford to look beyond their next election and who are often to busy to look up all the details. Often the correct long-term decision will not be popular and it is the rare politician who is willing to take that risk. Elected officials should be and are responsible for the staff, commissioners, etc., and that’s where the accountability lies - if I have a problem with someone, I’ll let you know. Micromanaging and second-guessing with short-term priorities is simply not a good idea. I get enough of that from my federal government anyway.
On my way out I offer one last example of the FUD, though I doubt it will do anything to sway you. Many talk about the ordinance being “subjectively enforced” or “vague.” I’ve heard you say such things yourself. Well, here is the specific language in question:
06-167 (5)(b) Structures shall be designed to reflect the general style, construction materials and site placement of the surrounding properties in the area. Elements in this provision include but are not limited to building height and scale, roof pitch, primary materials, façade detailing, size and placement of window and door openings as well as setbacks for the principal and accessory structures.
I fail to see how this is vague or open to interpretation. Really. Because it doesn’t specify individual sizes, and materials, colors, etc. for every house in the neighborhood? Are you calling for that level of control by the city? No, of course not. The ordinance simply says don’t do something stupid or out of character for the house.
But perhaps we can learn more from an examination of the *two* denials which have been made in the last two years. Presumably these are the "subjective enforcements" as I do not hear people complaining about anything that has been approved:
1) ADVOCAP let their Victorian porch decay to the point where they claim it must be replaced. The proposed new porch would be the similar to a "deck" made from green treated and unpainted lumber (we both saw the pictures at the meeting the other week). I could show a child a picture of the planned ADVOCAP porch and as them if it is consistent with the house and they’re going to say “no” (OK, at least the ones I know would). I put forth that anyone who says otherwise has an agenda that doesn’t include the best interests of the neighborhood.
2) Our friend on Merritt. Good, I see you’ve looked up 2008FO000278 and noted the title. Did you dig any deeper? There’s a long history to be uncovered. Do me a favor – have someone familiar with the property fill you in. After hearing all of it, please tell me how it would have been different had this been any other homeowner in Oshkosh (near-east or not), whether the city gave the person ample opportunity to make things right, and what the role of personal responsibility is in this case. Seriously. Is this outcome the result of 06-167 and “arbitrary deadlines?”
Of course this is all water under the bridge, Pandora’s out of her box, and all that. I can only sit back and hope that the commission being set up recognizes the value of what is being done here – one of the few examples of citizens and the city working together to better a neighborhood. I also hope that you will be willing to accept the outcome if they find that nothing is wrong. (I promise I will accept their findings, sight unseen.)
P.S.: A friend was recently asked if I had some inside knowledge about any of this. I repeat what I mentioned earlier – I do not work at city hall. Nor do I know anyone who does, nor anyone on the planning commission, at the courthouse, etc. But you’d be surprised what you can learn by listening. For example, when someone tells a story about doing a remodel and being forced to pull new windows, it doesn’t take a super-genius to realize they are working without permit. The rest is easy to figure out.
However, I do chose to remain anonymous even as it weakens my arguments (I’ve no doubt been relegated to Tony’s “wacko one-sided picky arguing poster” file already). Should I ever appear before the council, I have my doubts that I’d be treated objectively were it known I wrote this. And yes, the irony is not lost on me.
Post a Comment