Comments on: Hide House Debate. Historic Preservation Or?

By: Crusader Rabbit

Crusader Rabbit — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:00:11 +0000

I resent the implication of lower income publc housing equals “bad” people. I’ve lived and owned a home in Historic Walkers Point for the past 30 years. I once worked in Greendale. There I was asked why I lived in such a “bad” area of town. These were the same people who were up in arms because a proposed low income home for developmentally disabled individuals was being proposed for their community. The comment I heard was:”It will lower our property values”. I assume these people also went to church on Sunday. I love my neighborhood and good and bad things have happened to me here, the same as would have happened anywhere else in this city, and I have lived in other neighborhoods in Milwaukee. Verdict: good and bad people live everywhere. What’s going on at the Hide House (by the way, I had an art studio there for 4 years) is plain and simple old prejudice and fear. It is a very historic building but there are parts of it that are beyond repair. I think the proposed idea is a good one and would contribute positively to their neighborhood.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:16:30 +0000

I live and own a home in the Historic Brewer’s Hill Neighborhood. We have a WHEDA subsidized housing project (recently constructed) in our neighborhood. I would most certainly welcome another project of similar character. We have had no problems regarding that development and I’m certain the MPD will confirm the same.

The Hide House Lofts project meets the zoning requirements for the site and it does not require any public hearings or special approvals. If the local residents are concerned then they should have petitioned the City to change the zoning years ago.

The application of the Historic Protections for the Hide House is unfortunate in that it just delays the City’s ability to realize a significant increase in the property’s value and its associated taxes. Secondly, the Historic Protection provided by the HPC is for cultural value and not architectural significance opens the door for the razing of the least desireable and longest vacant portion of the building.

The complex was originally constructed as a multi-tenant manufacturing facility and was purchased by the Greenebaums in the 1920’s. The Kaiser’s purchased the facility in the 1950’s (Another Kaiser Tannery on the City’s north side was demolished to make way for……yup, another WHEDA project). The Greenebaum’s appear to have not treated their employees fairly and had Federal Court orders against them in the 1940’s……interesting that we’d want to perserve the history of an out of State business that treated Milwaukee residents so poorly.

By: Dave Reid

Dave Reid — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:20:09 +0000

@Patty I agree, in that I think mixed-use project with a mix of income levels could be better. That said, none of this has anything to do with Historic Preservation, that’s the problem. Our preservation laws are being twisted and spun in an effort to stop a project (likely because of the low-income component), and that makes the entire process a sham, removes certainty from the system, and opens the process up for legal challenges. I’ve seen time and time again that our preservation laws are used to stop development, not to encourage preservation and that’s troubling.

By: Patty

Patty — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:05:07 +0000

The developers will be getting guaranteed income from the tax credits, hence the attraction to having purely low income housing. A better use would be a mixed income development where there is a variety of incomes living in the same area, but then the developers do not have a guaranteed income, and it’s more of a risk.

By: Dave Reid

Dave Reid — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:16:55 +0000

@Suzanne The Hide House Lofts project is only 60 units so it really is on the smaller scale. To me it is important that we build out city in a way that allows all income levels to live an enjoy our neighborhoods.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:12:55 +0000

There are a lot of vacancies in the city already for one-bedroom apartments that run a lot less than $700. Many people can’t even afford $450 including heat: true fact. Another true fact: poverty is a complex issue. Simply put, crime makes the news. People helping each other out- or trying to- doesn’t make the news nearly as often. And, lastly, fear is a powerful motivator.
That said, I don’t believe that having big intensely-concentrated buildings full of families struggling with poverty is necessarily a good idea. Milwaukee’s scattered-site rent assistance program vs. Chicago’s Cabrini Green, anyone?

By: Dave Reid

Dave Reid — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:25:10 +0000

@Eric Agreed There is most certainly with this and well most projects an element of opposition that is all about preserving the status quo. In this case it looks to run a little deeper than even that.

Further you’re right again in saying that without the new development whatever toxins exist (my guess is it is a pretty dirty site) would remain in the ground, not be cleaned up. With the development some sort of cleanup is now likely.

By: Eric Thärnström

Eric Thärnström — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:39:22 +0000

The neighbor’s actual concern seems to be quite limited to the mere element of change, as well as concern for the “bad elements” that may come to live there.

But the “bad elements” could be the ones that already “inhabits” the area, such as the artists in other parts of the building, mentioned in one of the above articles. With a sort of cultural atmosphere already present the adding of affordable housing will only increase the dynamics of the area.

What is left with the neighbors is an unwillingness to accept change. This mere feeling should NEVER interfere with important projects such as this. Change is a natural state, there is no status quo in a dynamic and living city.

By that the builder will still have to take care of such things as pollutants (if there are any), but I am sure they will be happy to do it if they are only allowed to build. Actually, if they were not about to build then they would never do anything to the pollutants, which would still be left in the ground. This is an opportunity.