The recent Common Council (ZND) Committee hearing on Reed Steet Yards TIF suggested that alderman will take issue with how the Department of City Development is proposing to approach this. Concern was raised about investing such significant public infrastructure for, what they described as the direct benefit of one owner. Suggestions were made to either have the owner take more responsibility directly for these improvements first or that the City pursue an acquisition strategy – much like at Tower Automotive – to completely control the site. As a business owner in the area, I could also certainly cry foul and agree with the aldermen, since I am not getting the same direct investments for my properties, but I think that would be incredibly narrow thinking. This strikes me as exactly the type of opportunity TIF was designed for and a smart strategy to approach it by the Department of City Development. That said, I would be interested to know what other UM readers think about these aldermanic objections. They will likely become substantial potential obstacles in the way of the eventual Common Council approval necessary to allow the project to proceed. I think robust debate on their concerns can help further clarify the issues and get us to the best outcome.

I don’t know much about the Milwaukee art community, or if there would be environmental issues… but I thought perhaps a similar project could be undertaken to turn this somewhat blighted area of Milwaukee into something interesting (without spending large amounts of money to tear these buildings down or remodel them into living / office space)… just an idea.

I agree that the area that you’re referring to would be an ideal site for water related businesses. But there are so many different landowners in that area, it would take the City years to piece together land deals to make something happen there. There are still a number of functioning businesses there (such as boat storage businesses) that would have to be taken by the City for clearing.

The Reed Street Yards site is totally empty (no displacement issues) and has one owner who is ready, willing and able to get started on something. It’s a clean slate, a large contiguous site, making it more accomidating to businesses with varying space needs.

I guess what I’m saying is South Water Street in an ideal world would be great as a water hub, but Reed Street Yards is more feasible right now, and a pretty fantastic setting for water related businesses, to boot.