“Today I’m a little disappointed in my alma mater,” said Supervisor Lipscomb at the Thursday, May 21st Milwaukee County Board Meeting during the discussion of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s purchase of part of the Milwaukee County Grounds for an engineering school.  As a graduate of UWM’s School of Architecture and Urban Planning his words and actions showed he understood how this proposal flew in the face of the school’s own teachings.

The concept sounds good, build an engineering school and business park close to GE Medical and the Medical College of Wisconsin in an effort to expand UWM’s research in the medical field, and there’s no doubt that some research and jobs will come out of this effort, but the bigger picture is that the continued hollowing out of the urban core isn’t good for UWM, the City of Milwaukee, or the region.  That by design this site will inherently have issues with pedestrian access, transit, and forced auto dependence.  That by developing this site natural habitats will be lost, congestion will be created, and additional pollution will be generated.  That this site would further discourage and disenfranchise minorities and limit their ability to attend the school.

Supervisor Lipscomb wasn’t the only board member to see the bigger picture.  In fact Supervisor Weishan did all he could to improve the deal or slow the process to allow time for further improvements to the agreement.  He offered multiple amendments, one which tried to specify the allowable uses for the purpose of encouraging the development to be more mixed-use in design, and another that would have created a scholarship fund for minorities to attend the engineering school.  Both of these amendments attempted to address some of the big picture issues regarding the proposed school location, but received little support from other members of the county board.  He went on to make it entirely clear as to why he felt other members of the board supported the proposal, stating that he felt “the majority of this board has made up their mind that they just want the money.”

As this proposal has been an topic we’ve felt strongly about we do appreciate that Supervisors Dimitrijevic, Larson, Lipscomb, and Weishan voted against this proposal, and do hope UWM works to provide better transit access to the area, creates a facility that respects the Monarch Trail, expands other programs in the city, and finds a way to diminish the environmental impacts of this development.

As the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors barrel ahead towards Thursday’s vote on the Milwaukee County Ground land sale to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee word comes, according to the Daily Reporter article Main Campus Still in Play for UWM Engineering Building, that UWM’s own planning includes possible development sites for College of Engineering and Applied Science buildings on the East Side campus.  I’ve long suggested a variety of sites downtown and near downtown as better options for expansion than the Wauwatosa site, but expanding on the current campus is of course a logical choice as well.  This site make sense because the issues of the lack of affordable housing, limited access to transit, and the negative environmental impacts of sprawl are alleviated by developing within the urban environment.

That said, these plans, although great and preferred, and confusion to the issue and clearly bring up a series of questions that deserve answers.  Why hasn’t this idea been thoroughly investigated by the UWM?  What exactly is UWM proposing to build on the Milwaukee County Grounds?  What is the rush to close on the land acquisition if these plans are a possibility?  There has been a lot of discussion about collaboration and research within the areas of bio-medical research, but what about computer, chemical, civil, construction, and the numerous other fields of engineering will they be staying on the East Side?  At first UWM proposed the land would be used for the “engineering school,” then it was “just graduate students,” still later “just research,” but at the same time the discussion expanded to include a boutique hotel and restaurant.

It appears the “plan” has gone through significant changes from the beginning until now, and more questions have arisen than have been answered, all of which need to be answered and spelled out clearly for the public prior to any approval or land sale.

The Milwaukee County pension troubles are a serious issue that affect everyone in the Milwaukee area.  By eating a significant portion of the county’s budget every year in the form of increased pension payments, the pension scandal has forced cuts in county services and tax increases.  Milwaukee County has taken Mercer to court over the highly-flawed pension system, and a decision in Milwaukee County’s favor could relieve a lot of stress at the county level.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an excellent series of short articles on the case, the players, and the history that educate you with everything you need to get started.

We often hear about the lack of “transparency” or that “the process wasn’t followed,” and it is actually my belief that often enough this isn’t true.  Most of the time public meetings go fine, input is taken, and decisions are made respectfully and properly.  That said what I have recently experienced were a couple of poorly run, if not rude, unprofessional public hearings on high profile issues.  Hearings like these give the public pause, divide communities, and do a disservice to the process.

The first troubled meeting was a special meeting of the Community & Economic Development Committee which was held to take action on the M.O.R.E ordinance.  Because this meeting was held to cover such a controversial and significant ordinance it deserved a special meeting to be held, so that all sides of the issue could be given time to be heard, but Alderman Davis ran the meeting with a strict adherence to time limits, cutting off people regardless if they were making a point or in the middle of wrapping up.  Of course there is only so much time in the day, but on topics that have wide ranging, long running impacts, it would be good to give people a little leeway in speaking their mind and if needed have multiple meetings prior to voting on an issues.  Understand, the value of letting the public be heard, is to encourage the broader conversation, to hear the possible costs and benefits of a proposed change, and simply to insure a fair process was conducted.  The input was limited to the point that there was little discussion on the topic, and almost no questions were asked of those in opposition, which gave the appearance that their concerns were irrelevant to the discussion.  Finally, this special meeting was held the day prior to the Common Council meeting which was to take action on this ordinance.  This meant that there was little time for the press and the public to weigh in on the issue.  This combination of limiting speech and enforcing short time frames eliminated much of the public debate on the topic, which at the time left many questions unanswered.

The second troublesome meeting was held by Milwaukee County with the intention to take public input regarding the proposed land sale of a portion of the Milwaukee County Grounds to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.  A large crowd showed up to speak out against the land sale, some members were concerned with saving the Monarch Trail, some felt greenfield development wasn’t desirable, and there were some of us who were there to argue expansion in Wauwatosa isn’t the right choice for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee or our region.  The issues with this meeting started with arbitrarily short time limit for individuals to speak, and ended with an even more arbitrary meeting end time.  Around 7:45 pm Supervisor Clark announced the meeting would end at 8 pm and although numerous, if not thirty people, hadn’t had a chance to speak she explained that some of us have to get home to take care of our children.  Further, she explained that concerned citizens could submit their comments in writing.  Although submitting input in writing is important and should definitely be done to insure it is part of the record, this statement attempts to invalidate the purpose of public hearings.  To insure the public is heard.

I understand that nine times out of ten a committee, board, or commission has generally made up their mind regarding an issue prior to the meeting, and taking public input might not be the most pleasant or enjoyable activity of a politicians life, but there is value to giving people the opportunity to speak.  When you truncate, cut off, or limit a person’s speech people feel the process is tainted, or that it is a “done deal.”  I do hope that in the future our public officials keep this in mind and allow the public to be heard.

The proposed Regional Transit Authority recommendations were on the agenda after being delayed at a previous meeting of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors.  At the previous meeting a task force was created and charged with putting together a positive message from the county supporting regional transportation.

Supervisor Jursik explained that despite the task force’s work and positive output the Transportation, Public Works and Transit Committee unfortunately rejected the findings.  She expressed her displeasure with the committee’s actions saying “I’ve been very depressed the last few days”.  She then made a strong plea to deny the committee’s rejection so they could then move to take positive action on the task force’s recommendations.  She also referred to a public meeting held on January 13th saying “I was really quite surprised by the consensus of the speakers in terms of regional transit”.

The concerns over governance and control popped up again when Supervisor Coggs stated “my concern is the governance issue wasn’t brought up” and that “I think it needs to be strongly said that we do need representation”.  Supervisor Larson attempted to quell these concerns saying that “we’re trying to issue our opinions on this” and added that “there’s a coalition building and I think Milwaukee County should be part of it”.  He felt Milwaukee County needed to step up as even “the business community is willing to step up”.  He was part of the task force that put forward the recommended response.  Supervisor Thomas added his support to the task force recommendations saying “if we don’t get outside of this room we’ll be talking about this for at least another 30 years”.

The board took an extended lunch to work out an amendment to the task force recommendations to gain majority support from the board.  This amendment added specific governance recommendations, including additional appointees for Milwaukee County and diversity requirements, to the RTA’s configuration.  In the end the board rejected the committee’s action and voted positively in support of the task force’s recommendation with the additional amendment in place.

The Milwaukee County Board Task Force on the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority Recommendations, chaired by Supervisor Patricia Jursik, met for the first time on Monday December 29th, 2008.  Other members of the task force present at the meeting included Supervisor Chris Larson, Supervisor John Thomas (who arrived late), Thomas Kujawa (formerly of MCTS), and Lloyd Grant (attending on behalf of Ms. Anita Gulotta-Connelly).  The goal of the task force is to present recommendations to the Transportation Committee, which will then be presented to the full Milwaukee County Board on February 5th, 2009.

George Torres was called on to explain his vote against the recommendations of the RTA, and almost immediately went on the defensive for his boss, County Executive Scott Walker.  Torres was called because he is Scott Walker’s representative on the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority.

Torres appeared to have every excuse for why he voted no, most of which appeared to be solved by the inclusion of a local management committee (included in the recommendations that were passed 6-1 by the RTA).  He expressed concerns that the state would dictate what happened with the RTA, that the RTA would be the sole recipient of revenue from the sales tax, and that subcontracting was worded to occur with current transit operators, not potential future operators.  Torres also aired concerns that the appropriation of funds was too focused on the KRM.

Thomas Kujawa asked Torres what the County Executive wanted as a funding source, to which Torres primary response was the diversion of gas tax money.  This follows a typical Scott Walker model of avoiding a tax increase to fund anything, and simply stealing money from another pot.

A refreshing critique came in the meeting when Supervisor Larson took issue with the comments he was hearing from Mr. Torres and the fact that Scott Walker had paid for ads against the successful 1% sales tax referendum.  He also took issue with Torres saying that only 3 out of the 18 communities in Milwaukee County had passed it, noting that Torres failed to mention that those that didn’t failed by the slimmest of margins.

Kujawa at one point exclaimed the “RTA isn’t brain surgery, are we going to solve the problem or not?”  Throughout the meeting he clearly displayed displeasure with the responses Mr. Torres was giving.

It’s worth noting that a handful of supervisors not on the task force were in attendance at the meeting, including Supervisors Weishan, Lipscomb, and Borkowski.

Supervisor Jursik ran through a list of individuals that will be invited to the next task force meeting.  They include the following:

• Chairman Holloway
• Chairman Mayo
• Julia Taylor
• Kerry Thomas
• A member of the Cudahy Chamber of Commerce
• Alderman Witkowski
• Ken Yunker
• Samual Jenson (Transit Riders union)
• Matt Nelson (Transit Riders union)
• Richard Riley (ATU)
• Supervisor Broderick
• Pete Bietzel/Tim Sheehy
• Rob Henken
• Sharon Robinson
• Bill Sell
• Mayors McCue, Zepeke, Ricahrds, Bolender

Towards the end of the meeting Supervisor Jursik explained that the goal of the task force would be to develop a consensus statement to take back to the Transportation Committee and ultimately the County Board.  It will be interesting to see what the task force comes up with.  I would expect it to be pro-RTA with some potentially legitimate concerns included because of the involvement of both Supervisor Larson and Supervisor Jursik, who both showed a genuine interest in progress at the last Transportation Commitee meeting.

This meeting of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors featured the much debated resolution regarding the proposed Regional Transit Authority.  Supervisors Mayo, Clark, and Weishan led the efforts to pass a resolution rejecting the RTA’s proposal.  They raised concerns regarding the proposed governance structure of the RTA, and that not all of Racine would be included in the taxing area.  In addition to these concerns Supervisor Clark added that she doesn’t want the RTA “take our authority away, and then took aim at the RTA’s proposed use of a sales tax funding source saying, “all of a sudden they have a novel idea.”

Speaking in support of laying the resolution over, Supervisor Larson pointed to Milwaukie, Oregon, a town of about 20,000 residents, as an example of city that has been able to move forward with new rail service while Milwaukee, Wisconsin hasn’t been able to move forward because of a lack of action.  He also argued that with the pending federal stimulus package that if Milwaukee County doesn’t find a local funding source it will lose out on millions in federal dollars.

Looking beyond the concerns raised by other board members Supervisor Jursik moved to lay the resolution over.  She argued that the resolution in its current form took such a negative tone and that by laying the resolution over the board could put together a resolution stating Milwaukee County’s position in better terms.  The resolution was laid over on a vote of 7 to 12.

The Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors held a special meeting of the Committee on Transportation, Public Works and Transit to further discuss the proposed RTA.  Supervisors Larson and Jursik hoped to put forward a positive response to the proposed RTA in place of the committee’s overtly negative response that came out of the last committee meeting.

Supervisor Jursik expressed her support for the KRM line and the RTA by stating “the south shore route is extremely important to my community.”  She also reiterated the importance of returning with a positive response asking if the committee would “reconsider the rather harsh tone that was taken towards the RTA.”

Speaking in opposition Supervisor Clark at times tried to say she wasn’t against the RTA or the KRM but at other time said “I definitely don’t support the KRM in its current configuration” and added later that “I still don’t support us paying into the RTA.”  She also claimed that the proposed KRM line “doesn’t help the citizens of  Milwaukee very much,” because the KRM line didn’t go beyond the Intermodal Station.  Finally she had issues regarding the governance structure of the RTA, comparing it to SEWRPC.

Once again Supervisor Larson appeared to be transit and regionalism’s strongest champion on the committee.  He pointed out that if the county board doesn’t act now that Milwaukee County could lose out on million of dollars of federal funding in the upcoming stimulus package.  He also attempted to point out the overarching issue facing mass transit in the region when he said that “the idea of working together is somewhat foreign in this region.”  Possibly the most telling moment was when he explained that “Milwaukie is getting rail, unfortunately it is Milwaukie, Oregon,” he added that “we’re paying for rail, we’re just not getting any of it.”  Supervisor Larson wrapped up his strong support for regionalism and mass transit message saying “I’m for an RTA.”

Supervisor Weishan took issue with the media’s characterization of the committee’s recent action as an anti-regionalist and as stopping efforts to improve mass transit in Milwaukee.  He made is beliefs clear stating that “our vote did not stop anything.”  He also at times talked down the recent referendum’s approval, in regards to it be an indicator that the citizen’s of Milwaukee County support expanding mass transit saying “lets not read to much on the 1% sales tax.”  He argued that the citizens of Milwaukee County wouldn’t accept an RTA because it is made up of an unelected board and would have taxing authority.  Despite effectively voting in opposition to a proposed regional transit solution, all be it with some flaws, he attempted to explain that “this doesn’t mean we’re against regionalism.”

Supervisor Mayo complained that “we want to be part of the solution, not told what to do” and added various comments to the same effect indicating he felt the County Board deserved more power and control.  He made mention of his working on regional transit solutions going back to 1994 but failed to note those efforts have resulted in no progress in bringing rail service to Southeast Wisconsin.

In the end the committee’s vote to reconsider their previous measure regarding the RTA failed on a vote 2 to 5 with Supervisor’s Larson and Jursik supporting the measure.

The Milwaukee County Board’s Transportation, Public Works, and Transit Committee, chaired by Supervisor Michael Mayo, held a meeting on Wednesday morning to discuss the recommendations approved by the Southeast Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority. Julia Taylor, the Governor’s Appointee on the RTA, was on hand to answer questions along with Carl Mueller, the RTA’s PR consultant, and Ken Yunker, who has worked closely with the RTA in his role at SEWRPC.

Supervisor Toni Clark, Vice Chair of the Transportation Committee, made it clear during her opening statements that she wasn’t even open to considering an idea of a transit authority. She referred to the past RTA proposals and recommendations as “terrible”. Supervisor Clark questioned how the RTA would be able to pay back bonds, questioning if the “5% sales tax [sic]” would be used. Supervisor Clark’s questioning continued with wondering how the management of the funds would occur with such a disproportionate share coming from Milwaukee County. Julia Taylor responded by indicating that the funds stay in the county and a locally appointed group decides what to spend them on. This theme of how the money works was repeated throughout the meeting, It was repeated over and over again by Taylor that Racine and Kenosha had the same concerns, and that a “firewall” had been put in place to ensure that the funds stay within the county. Supervisor Clark ended her questioning by saying “it doesn’t make sense.”

Next up was supervisor John Weishan, who represents a western area of Milwaukee County.  Weishan I anticipated would be critical, as I had heard his opposition to local funding for a commuter rail line at Milwaukee Transit Rider’s Union meeting.  He had indicated that he believed the state should be paying for any type of inter-county service.  Not surprisingly, his questioning of the RTA beat around the bush of the position I previously learned he held.  At one point even saying he wasn’t sure “why this isn’t a state project.”

Weishan also had objections to the makeup of the RTA board and was critical (and potentially jealous) of the ability of western Racine County to be excluded from the RTA.  He went as far as to propose that western Milwaukee County be left out of the current RTA.  What the RTA representatives failed to hammer home is that western Racine County isn’t currently served by any public mass transit system, unlike western Milwaukee County.  Racine County west of I-94 isn’t getting a free ride, it’s not getting a ride.  Furthermore, and a point that Ken Yunker made, there isn’t the density west of the interstate to support a mass transit system (as of the 2000 it is not classified as an urbanized area, while east of I-94 is).

If the idea behind having an RTA is to create a dedicated funding source that is only for transit and can enable regional efforts to actually move people to where they need to go, then leaving western Milwaukee County out seems like lunacy.  Under Weishan’s idea of leaving western Milwaukee County out, MCTS would still exist to serve the western half of the county, while a system would exist in eastern Milwaukee County that would actually connect with the rest of the region.

Supervisor Patricia Jursik was up after Weishan.  Her immediate concern was that the RTA could change the federal funding formula for Milwaukee County.  Ken Yunker assured her that “federal funds must stay in the county to which they are designated.”  He also went on to mention how the region gets an extra $8 million annually for having a transit authority.

Supervisor Jursik continued her questioning with her indicating that she thought the RTA was biting off too much.  To which Julia Taylor responded that there was a need for the commuter rail and bus systems to be together so that they can work together to move people.  She also reminded the committee that Milwaukee County passed a resolution stating that it wouldn’t support a commuter rail system without a funding source for buses.

It was at this point that Supervisor Jursik took aim at SEWRPC referring to them as “road and highway friendly” and questioned their lack of support for transit.  Ken Yunker responded that “what’s missing with transit is the money to implement transit”.  He indicated that the RTA had voted on and approved a plan to provide the money to implement transit.  Jursik hit on a point that perhaps is often left out of the SEWRPC debate and that is that SEWRPC can only play the roll they are asked to.  In the case of the RTA, SEWRPC has helped find a way to make transit work for the region.  I think if Milwaukee (especially the Common Council which has been critical of SEWRPC) could find a way to better leverage SEWPRC to do more work like they are doing on the RTA they would be much more pleased with the result.

One of those things SEWRPC has proven to plenty skilled at is identifying trouble areas in the MCTS budget.  Supervisor Jursik didn’t mention how much MCTS has come to rely on those previously mentioned federal funds (given for use on capital expenses), and how both Scott Walker AND the Milwaukee County Board have misappropriated those funds year after year for operating expenses.  This has created a situation where there isn’t funding available to pay for new bus purchases (which have been put off) and to sustain the routes we have (which have been paid for to-date with the money for new buses).

It was at this point that County Board Chariman Lee Hollaway’s (who hadn’t been in the room long at all) phone went off interrupting the meeting.  Committee Chairman Mayo reminded the room to turn their phones off.

At this point it was time for Freshman Supervisor Chris Larson to begin his questioning of the RTA.  He began by asking if the RTA’s proposed .5% maximum sales tax was in competition with the County Board’s 1% sales tax plan for transit, parks, and EMS service.  Julia Taylor and Carl Mueller responded that it was not.

Chris Larson claimed that he was “inclined to be for the RTA.”  He was the only Supervisor on the committee who seemed interested in actually hammering out the differences between the RTA and the County and reaching a solution.  This came as a pleasant surprise because Larson not only overrode Walker’s veto to put the Advisory County 1% Sales Tax Referendum on the ballot on November 4th, but was the public face of the Vote Yes campaign.

At this point Chariman Lee Holloway, who had just moved his chair uncomfortably close to the RTA representatives, interrupted the meeting to address his fellow supervisors.  He told them that Julia Taylor, Carl Mueller, and Ken Yunker (whom he continually referred as “the people to my right”) had zero experience running a transit system, and that as a committee the supervisors had plenty.  He told the supervisors that “we can be the RTA itself” and that the RTA was merely an administrative cost.  Holloway exited the meeting shortly thereafter.

Supervisor’s Sanfelippo and Borkowski spoke after Holloway, but neither had much of interest to say.   San Phillipo merely indicated that he wasn’t against the KRM commuter rail line.  Borkowski, typically a Republican voice on the board, accused the RTA of piggybacking on the success of the county sales tax referendum (which he did not support).

It was at this point that, Chairman Mayo took the chance to personally rip Julia Taylor.  He accused Taylor of not involving the County Board in the RTA (ironic because Taylor had met with Mayo about the issue as well as other members).  He also told her he hoped she represents Milwaukee better in the future, as if finding a local funding source for a collapsing transit system and promoting a regional solution wasn’t supporting Milwaukee County.

Supervisor Clark would then state that the “RTA would hurt Milwaukee” following a factually incorrect rhetorical question from Mayo, “didn’t we just pass a .1% percent sales tax?”  Awkward infighting would emerge later in the meeting between the two regarding Clark’s support of a City of Milwaukee vote on SEWRPC and Mayo opposing it rather oddly in front of the entire audience.

Weishan made a motion to reject the recommendations of the Regional Transit Authority.  After considerable debate, including Jursik attempting to hold the measure, all of the committee members with the exception of Larson voted to reject the recommendations of the RTA.  Larson argued that a vote no would be seen as more inaction by the Milwaukee County Board.  It was clear that at least Mayo, Clark, and Weishan knew the motion was coming (from which Weishan read verbatim from a printed copy), but that Supervisor Larson and potentially others were kept in the dark.

By the end of the meeting it seemed clear that every supervisor on the committee with the exception of Chris Larson was interested only in the power of having complete control of the transit system with no regard to how fast it’s driving towards the edge of the cliff.  Only Supervisor Chris Larson demonstrated the interest in taking what is a strong bargaining position for the Milwaukee region and especially Milwaukee County and turning it into a legitimate transit solution.

We have previously endorsed the RTA as a good proposal for fixing the region’s transit woes.  Outside of the reasons detailed in that column, there are a couple other strong factors.  The sales tax generated in a county goes first to cover the cost of the KRM line to connect the three counties (.15%) and the remaining portion stays in the county to be managed by a local management board (of elected officials).  Second, the RTA is firmly grounded in reality and has political support from multiple levels of government as well as regional support.  A county itself can not pass a sales tax, it needs state approval, and the RTA has laid a plan to do just that.  Milwaukee County passing a sales tax could fix our local bus system, but it still doesn’t address regional connectivity issues, the RTA presents a great start to connecting the entire region.

The committee members raised legitimate concerns over representation, but failed to agree that a solution has been put in place.  The solution, which we believe is satisfactory, is two-fold.  First, for any RTA action a super-majority is required, so while there may not be representation by population, the suburbs do not possess any controlling power over Milwaukee because Milwaukee County through the Governor’s appointee (who has to be from the city), the County Executive, and the Mayor’s appointee have enough power to block any anti-city moves.  Second, once the tax is enacted it will be controlled by a local committee.  Money will be spent to support regional connectivity in the form of the KRM, but the rest is completely under local control.

Furthermore it’s not clear what the current management of the County Board is giving residents.  Yes, an advisory sales tax referendum has been passed (and kudos to the board for having the courage to override Walker’s veto and put it on the ballot), but to-date they have allowed the system to crumble and become an embarrassment to the region.  There was a claim by Supervisor Mayo that in 2003 Milwaukee had the best system in the country, but unfortunately it’s not 2003 anymore and the blame Scott Walker game is just that, a game.  They have allowed Walker to balance the budget by reducing the system to shambles and raising fares, and have failed to make it a priority until now.  The RTA has been at work since before the 1% measure was put on the ballot trying to find a sustainable funding source and Holloway’s labeling of the RTA as “carpet baggers” was about as accurate as the Chicago Tribune calling the 1948 election for Dewey instead of Truman.

It was extremely dissappointing to see that the County Board is drunk with power following the passing of the advisory referendum.  They are not in a position to get a 1% sales tax enacted to support MCTS, and from the meeting it was clear they don’t have a state lobbying plan in place to get the funding before the system completely implodes.  It was, however, refreshing to see Supervisor Chris Larson support the RTA and have a legitimate interest in a compromise that will work for both his constituents and the region.  It would be wise for the rest of the board to follow Larson and push for a compromise that leverages the extremely powerful lobbying position of regional support through the RTA and local support through the referendum for a legitimate transit funding solution for the Milwaukee region.

Milwaukee should explore how land sales are managed in order to achieve the highest and best use.  If Milwaukee can become better at converting land from public and vacant to private and developed it will only be a benefit to the entire city by building a better urban fabric and raising the city tax base.

Currently land sales in Milwaukee, be it those executed by the state, county, or city, don’t allow for speculation and restrict developer freedom with the current purchase options/request for proposal process.  The process currently in place is designed to protect the interests of the city and to attempt to create a level playing field for developers.  It succeeds, sort of.

The current request for proposal (RFP) process involving publicly-held land works by announcing a request for development proposals, judging the replies, and granting a time-limited purchase option for the land to the winning party.  The system is not without flaws.  Submitting the proposals is burdensome for developers and requires a clear picture for the use of all of the land in the parcel before ownership is even granted.  If a developer wins the option to purchase the land, there is very little control on their execution of the proposal.  The option contracts also are often structured as such that the time component is virtually meaningless as they are frequently extended to avoid having to restart the process.  The final large problem is that the process is slow and does not allow a market to form around the land as it would for private land.

The Changes

Applying more market principles to the RFP process might speed the transition from public and vacant to private and developed for publicly-held parcels.

The first of such adjustments should be to allow speculators into the market.  With the current process, developers are effectively the only parties that can buy parcels with a requirement that a proposal be submitted first.  By regulating the use of land with zoning the desired use can be created flexibly after the sale of the land.  Zoning codes would need to become more detailed to include explicit minimums (and potentially maximums) along with use types to ensure that any development of the land benefits the area around it.

The second of such adjustments should be to make the public land more closely mimic the properties or private property before it is developed.  Currently the RFP process requires land to frequently be bought as a single parcel, with no flexibility to sell portions to others.  Speculators should be able to obtain a contract for a plot of land at auction and have the ability to parcel it out to others to develop.  Parceling of large blocks of land could be done after the contract was obtained, not before as is currently required.

The third adjustment to the RFP process should be to enhance the time-limited option contracts currently created.  Allowing speculators into the market has the danger of creating parcels that remain undeveloped for years, and a safe guard is needed.  To encourage the ultimate goal of getting the land developed, contracts should be granted with yearly fees that grow annually.

A per square foot cost can be assigned to the land, so if a specular wishes to sell or develop a portion of a parcel they may.  When the land is ultimately developed, the portion used should be paid for in full, instead of just the option cost.  However, the amount paid on the option could be applied towards the cost of the land.  This would allow higher option prices to be charged, while further enticing development the longer a parcel is held (coupled with the higher option costs each year).  The price paid on the option will be able to exceed the actual cost of the land, encouraging the land to be developed or to let the contract lapse.

If a contract owner wishes to exit their obligations of the growing annual payments, they can simply sell their contract to another party or notify the land-holding agency that they wish to release their remaining contract options.  This would allow partial development (to corresponding zoning codes) of a parcel, while not forcing other portions to remain undeveloped.  To prevent the building of a structure by a developer and the failure to build any landscaping on small portions of the land remaining (which would then be released back to the government unit undeveloped), the contract would have to stipulate a minimum divided parcel size.

The Intended Effects

How would this change Milwaukee as it is now?  In the past ten years the largest example of the RFP process has been the reclaimed land from the former Park East Freeway spur.  While small border parcels are being infilled, almost all of the land that has come under the ownership of the county has remained undeveloped.  Why?  Simply the lots are too big.

By allowing speculators to buy the land at auction without proposals (but with strict zoning codes) and affording them the flexibility to sell smaller parcels, much of the land may have been developed already. Furthermore, the escalating annual payments would have begun to push developers like RSC & Associates off their block of land, opening it up to the market again.

Developers like Robert Ruvin, who win RFP option contracts, then struggle (or fail) to actually develop the land would be given options to reasonably scale back their projects by using less land (at less cost).

The state of Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) will soon begin selling the parcels used during construction of the Marquette Interchange.  Allowing them to use a more market-based approach would allow them to sell options on the land to private interests, begin to see a revenue stream immediately, and have private interests searching for developers.

If you’re questioning the possibly that such a plan allowing subdividing would work, look no further than the former Pabst Brewery.  The Brewery Project stewarded by Joseph Zilber has successfully parceled off buildings that will create an entirely new neighborhood.