The Forum

One of the key locations for redevelopment in the recently completed Master Plan is the riverfront property just south of Capitol Drive.

I noticed this sign yesterday, showing the land as being for sale. This is the first indication that things on the riverfront are likely to change dramatically in the next few years.



If you would like to learn more about what may be placed on this site, refer to the Master Plan. (Warning: 22 MB File.)

Comments

"Steve: Congratulations on the observation. Thanks for the heads up. “5 acres of river front for sale.” Only in America, would we have river front for sale. This is commercial property and being offered for sale. An appropriate parcel for public acquisition or compulsory purchase. Good timing. The Village of Shorewood should purchase this primarily as park land property, permitting some part of to be utilized as commercial and for condos. But designed and controlled by the Village in its total development. Here is a place for open space if appropriately handled. We cannot permit this to be a private development. We need open space and an organized basis for developing along the river front."
- Joe Mangiamelli, From the Village Square, 7/28/07

The Shorewood BID launched a blog 3 weeks ago now, which promised to "to keep residents up to date on what's happening downtown." They stuck with the old BID branding, "Uptown, Upscale, Uncommon" as their blog title. This brand is also used on the Shorewood BID website.

Given the fact that we spent $225,000 on a marketing plan to come up with our new brand, I would argue that any semi-governmental body affiliated with the Village of Shorewood should be using the "Walk Shorewood" branding. Consistent communications and positioning are keys to brand success.



Comments

1. "Hi Steve! The Shorewood BID spent several thousand dollars three years ago on the Uptown brand. While we are supporting the effort of the new Shorewood Village branding, we are slowly implementing on our end. The board felt there was still value to be gained from the investment in the other campaign. I would think by this time next year you will find the BID embracing the "two-feet" and "heart of everything" themes and identities. Hope this help! As always, just ask!"
- Jim Plaisted, Executive Director, Shorewood BID

2. "Steve, Thanks for keeping your eye on things like this that make no sense! While you're at it, you could point out that the poorly branded 'blog' contains not timely observations, but just the same old tired press release blather--not exactly the kind of thing to make people think of Shorewood as up to the minute, or even up to the decade. With a grand total of only two postings in three weeks, one would like to think they could do better. You manage to!"
- Shorewoodian, 7/25/07

3. "Well, for that matter, Steve, what have we gotten out of our $225,000 PR campaign that started two years ago or so? We don't have a brand that sticks or any coordination between Shorewood groups to ensure that we're branded consistently. I haven't seen any evidence that the positive press Shorewood has gotten had anything to do with that campaign, have you? Once in a while the village sends some newsletters telling us what's going on...could someone maybe let us know what we got for our money except for a poll identifying that we think of ourselves as Brad Pitt-esque and a promise to someday do a "direct mail" campaign--an extremely outdated and ineffective way to advertise?"
- Shorewoodian, 7/26/07

Several people in the talkback forums and comments to various blogs have been questioning what they can do to oppose various parts of D2D or even stop D2D altogether. In our system of government, you do have specific legal remedies. Understand that I am not in any way advocating any of these alternatives. But for those of you who want to know what you can do, here are some of the options you have.

1. Put a referendum on the ballot. You can pass and ordinance about almost anything you want by collecting signatures to get it on the ballot. You could add an ordinance preventing the construction of air-inflated domes in the Village of Shorewood. You could ban the use of Astroturf. You could require public building projects of over $1 million go to referendum. You will recall this was done inb April of 2006 with the referendum on the war in Iraq. WI Statute 9.20 has everything you need to get started.

2. Organize a campaign now and run candidates who oppose D2D for both School Board and Village Board in April of 2008. If the candidates you support are elected, they are then free to reallocate spending however you see fit. Phase I of the project will be well underway if not completed by the time these candidates take office, but they would still be free to prevent any other phases from going forward.

Again, I am not advocating these measures. But if those opposed to the project would like to direct their dissatisfaction into action, the list above gives you several ways of doing so.

I have been out of town on vacation for the last week, so have not had a chance to add these additional comments I received after the last D2D post.

-------------------------
1. "Steve - To include everything, you need to add in the $350,000 left over from the Science Building Project that the School Board intends to put into the Athletic Field instead, and the donation made by Mr. John Nickoll for the bleachers, the exact amount I am not sure of."
- Dave Tatarowicz, Shorelines, 7/13/07

2. "Steve, In response to S. Cummings' response above, you may want to note that at the special school board meeting held back in the spring to offer the public limited details about the D2D project, we were told that the cost for the dome preparation that is part of Phase 1 would only be about $25K. Now we are told it is likely, though not definitely, going to be less than $100K. It's this lack of transparency, dearth of candor, and ever-so-vague (and ever-rising) numbers that are responsible for much of the skepticism about this project. By and large most folks want to have good facilities for the schools, but no one likes being played for a fool."
- Shorewood Skeptic, 7/13/07
--------------------------------

You will notice that the facts below do not all support or oppose the project. I am not arguing for or against this project. I am just trying to be sure that if we disagree, we disagree based on facts. If anyone disputes these facts, or has additional insight or information, please send your comments. That way, all residents will have the opportunity to make a fully informed decision on their support of or opposition to the D2D project.

By way of full disclosure, I was on the D2D committee at its early stages, left the committee several years ago, and have no ongoing affiliation with it other than the D2D sign in my yard.

1. This is a school program. Although there are significant private dollars going into the renovation, these dollars are going to renovate a public structure which is part of the recreational facilities of the school district. The school district would spend significant amounts to renovate the field whether or not D2D existed.

2. There was indeed a significant private donation several years ago for the new bleachers. The money was donated to the school district before D2D began. Once it became clear that we were not going to stop at the bleachers, the decision was made not to spend the money on the bleachers until the full scope of the project was determined. The School District has not spent the money yet because the bleachers are a part of the overall D2D project, and not a standalone project. The money is instead being included as a part of the overall funding package for the renovation.

3. Phase 1 costs will likely rise if the dome is included. The specifications for the stormwater runoff facilities may be altered, if the dome is to be included in phase 4. The cost of these additional facilities is not pinned down yet, but the estimate of $400,000 was discussed at the Village Board meeting. This has not been reported in the paper, which is why I bring it up now.

4. The date the contractor needs to begin dome preparations is Sep 1 of this year, according to the discussion at the Board meeting. As such, we cannot wait until Phase 4 to decide if we are going to build a dome. We cannot wait to see if the private funding will be sufficient to cover the dome, as is suggested on the D2D website. Preparations for the dome need to begin in Phase 1.

5. The Village Board’s contribution is $465,000. The CDA’s contribution is $250,000. The CDA had agreed to conduct landscaping of part of the grounds using TIF monies before the $465,000 was voted on by the Village Board.

6. The dome phase of the project will be privately funded, and will only be built if it is determined that it can be economically self-sustaining. It will only be up from November to March, and may be rented out to private organizations. Business plans are being examined using comparisons to Minneapolis seasonal domes to see if the Shorewood dome would be economically viable.

Comments

1. "Steve, Thank you for taking the time to present the facts. Just one comment for clarification. While it is true that some money will have to be spent to prepare for the dome in Phase 1, that number is likely to less than $100K. No public money will be allocated to this element of the project and indeed the dome prep work (and hence the dome) will not proceed if all project features, as described to the public, cannot be delivered in Phase one. In other words, the dome prep. work will not take money from Phase one amenities. The $400K number discussed was misinterpreted as storm water retention cost required for the dome when in fact storm water must be retained for the field, with our without the dome. Finally, I believe the School Board will not approve the expediture of any dome prep. $'s if they are not convinced the dome is likely to become a profit center for the school district."
- Sean Cummings, D2D Committee Co-Chair

The Public Policy Forum recently released its annual report comparing tax rates in southeastern Wisconsin. The report analyzes tax levy changes year to year across the various taxing bodies, and between municipalities, counties, and so forth.

Shorewood places second on the list of highest taxed municipalities in SE Wisconsin, behind only the Village of West Milwaukee, and just ahead of Brown Deer. (Read full report)

Below is the list showing the various municipalities in Milwaukee County. The full list is available in the report, which can be downloaded here.

- Village of Bayside $22.11
- Village of Brown Deer $22.68
- Village of Fox Point $21.49
- Village of Greendale $22.34
- Village of Hales Corners $20.65
- Village of River Hills $20.79
- Village of Shorewood $22.92
- Village of West Milwaukee $25.55
- Village of Whitefish Bay $20.31
- City of Cudahy $22.57
- City of Franklin $20.70
- City of Glendale $21.10
- City of Greenfield $20.56
- City of Milwaukee $21.03
- City of Oak Creek $18.97
- City of St. Francis $22.05
- City of South Milwaukee $21.61
- City of Wauwatosa $19.25
- City of West Allis $22.42



Comments

1. "This of course, gives wonderful logic to the $365,000 grant recently made by the Shorewood Village Board."
- Joe Mangiamelli, From the Village Square, 7/12/07

Pardon the headline. It was irresistible.

The Village Board took no action on the trampoline ordinance at this Monday’s meeting. Several residents who wished to comment on the proposed ordinance asked for the delay.

After the last post, I received several comments which suggested possible reasons for the ordinance being either safety, or privacy.

Privacy, I can see as being a municipal government matter, especially if it relates to the interaction between neighbors. Trustee Margaret Hickey explained the driving force behind the ordinance as follows. "As to the trampoline, it has to do with someone who is a neighbor to a family with a trampoline. They have put the trampoline right next to the person's bedroom window and are invading their privacy, both visually and noise-wise."

While I might personally wish that neighbors could work out these issues on their own, I understand this is not always the case. To me, the issue here is the invasion of privacy rather than the trampoline itself. Perhaps we should focus on the invasion of privacy as the primary issue in this dispute rather than the product that is enabling it.

I am less supportive of the notion that we need to establish ordinances relating to product safety on private property.

One commenter wrote the following. "Used incorrectly, trampolines can be extremely dangerous and result in death and paralysis....To me, trampoline safety is a serious community issue and I hope that we don't end up with an all-out ban, but that a serious discussion of safety issues is held and that parents pay close attention to safety rules (and check their homeowner's policy)."

While I admit to deficient knowledge in the matter of trampoline safety, I question the notion that potentially dangerous products are necessarily the responsibility of the Village Board to address. I am especially dubious of this responsibility if the primary danger arises when the product is used incorrectly. I have many potentially dangerous products in my home. I have garden clippers, saws, ladders, hammers, shovels, and garden hoses. Any of these, if used improperly, are dangerous, but I doubt anyone would argue that we need to step in and establish ordinances requiring me, for instance, to keep my fingers out from under the hammer.

So if we need to spell out that neighbors should not peek in one another's bedroom windows, then so be it. But can't we do that without the slapstick debate on banning trampolines?


Comments

1. "Steve, think of trampolines like you do pools and you'll see why there are ordinances against them and why homeowners' policies are strict about them. A kid sees an empty trampoline or pool not fenced off, can't resist sneaking over to use it, and... suddenly, there's a tragedy. This is why every community has some law requiring fences around pools. There are, unfortunately, times when as a community we have to step in and say sorry to step on your toes, homeowners, but that's a disaster waiting to happen."
- Nancy Peske Darrow, 7/6/07

Agenda item 7.b.viii for tonight's Village Board meeting reads as follows. "Consider adopting Ordinance restricting trampolines on private property."

I may not stay for the entire meeting tonight, but if I am still there for this spellbinding debate, I will definitely report back.

Comments

1. "As to the trampoline, it has to do with someone who is a neighbor to a family with a trampoline. They have put the trampoline right next to the person's bedroom window and are invading their privacy, both visually and noise-wise. We did not take any action on a proposed ordinance."
- Trustee Margaret Hickey, 7/4/07

2. "Actually, it doesn't seem like a bizarre agenda item to me. Trampolines are considered an attractive nuisance; many homeowner's policies are nullified when the homeowner puts a trampoline in the backyard. Every time I watch Supernanny, I'm disheartened to see yet another family bonding on their backyard trampoline and breaking at least 2 if not 3 of the safety rules.

Used incorrectly, trampolines can be extremely dangerous and result in death and paralysis. At the same time, they're a fabulous tool for giving kids exercise--and especially great for children with sensory integration issues who have a very high need for certain types of movement, such as jumping. To me, trampoline safety is a serious community issue and I hope that we don't end up with an all-out ban, but that a serious discussion of safety issues is held and that parents pay close attention to safety rules (and check their homeowner's policy).

A great compromise, by the way, is an indoor tramp such as the Jumpolene (although repairing leaks is part of owning one), a mini tramp, or a wooden launch pad."
- Nancy Peske Darrow, 7/4/07

As you likely know by now, AT&T is preparing to launch their new U-verse cable service, pending regulatory approval. As a part of this process, they will be placing approximately 15 large, grey boxes in the rights-of-way around the Village. One piece of good news is that the boxes will be placed in front of businesses rather than residential homes. Although the pending legislation, in current form, would not require this restriction, I am pleased that the Village of Shorewood has won this one concession.

I asked Village Manager Chris Swartz if he thought this meant that homeowners could count on not having a box placed in front of their homes. He described himself as "cautiously optimistic" is this regard.

----------------------
AT&T update
Village Manager's Memo, 6/21/07

The Village Manager reported that AT&T has repaired their small plaza located at Capitol and Oakland (just east of Stein Optical). AT&T has also agreed to provide an easement to their property to allow development of a public pocket park. The Manager also reported that AT&T will start submitting permits for their new cable TV boxes. AT&T has agreed to place them outside of the residential right-of-ways or within the right-of-way of business
------------------------

Comments

1. Steve I think you deserve a lot of credit for bringing the "gray box" issue to the forefront and helping to get the concession from AT&T."
- Dave Tatarowicz, "Shorelines," 7/4/07