Preservation is an important component of Milwaukee’s built environment, but that doesn’t mean that adjustments to our preservation ordinance aren’t in order.  Unlike Alderman Witkowski’s proposed changes, my suggestions are about freeing the process from politics, reducing the ability of lobbying and money to impact Milwaukee’s history, and at the same time making the process a touch more developer friendly.

Two recent development projects, and the process they went through, have shed light on the what the real issues are with Milwaukee’s historic preservation legislation.

Hide House Lofts Construction

One story is about a workforce housing development, and the effort to stop it from being built.  General Capital Group planned to demolish a portion of the Hide House warehouse structures to develop an apartment building that was funded in part with WHEDA tax credit financing.  Shortly before demolition was to begin, in what was a transparent effort to stop the project, Alderman Zielinski nominated the building for historic designation.  Opposition to the project stemmed from the proposed development being built with WHEDA tax credits, not because it might be historic.  This abuse of our historic preservation ordinance did damage to the process, by making it about low-income residents and not historic preservation.  This isn’t the only time this distortion of motivation has entered the debate, and this case might have encouraged others to follow this example by ‘putting a wrench‘ into another project.  The wrench being our historic preservation laws being used for all the wrong reasons.

Marriott Hotel Site Demolition Work

The second story, involved the construction the new Marriott Hotel in downtown Milwaukee.  The proposal required the demolition of numerous buildings in the long established Historic East Side Commercial District.  This proposal immediately became political, as a public relations firm was hired, a scapegoat was found in Alderman Bauman, and an enemy was selected, historic preservation.  It quickly became about Milwaukee being open for business, instead respecting the process and our history.  Despite the perception of this process taking a long time, it took a total of 77 days to go from a partially filled file to Common Council approval, which was significantly quicker and faster than any project in recent historic.  Not only did the commission move quickly, but in the end the development was able to move forward, despite this being a clear case of demolition by neglect.  Unfortunately, for our history and our process, it became a political process that distorted our laws, disregarded procedure, and vilified preservation.

In both cases the developments ended up moving forward, but more importantly each case shows an example of how the process has been tainted by politics.  In the first it was to stop ‘low-income’ housing.  In the second the motivation behind opposition to a project was to protect a historic district (not just the individual buildings), but was twisted into a belief that the ordinance was anti-business.

Clearly, our historic preservation laws  should balance development and preservation.  But more importantly it should act to remove politics from preservation cases, not deepen its influence.

So lets critique Ald Witkowski’s proposed legislation (note his legislation was loosely defined, and the final language has not been presented), and then I’ll make some of my own suggestions.

1. Establishes a $25 fee to nominate a structure or district.  There have only been a eleven properties nominated in the past five years, and a $25 would not have stopped any of these properties from being nominated.
2. Restricts the nomination of a property or district to the property owner, a Common Council member, or by petition from at least 25 city residents.  During the Historic Preservation Commission meeting on this ordinance Randy Bryant, HPC Chair,  stated that this,  “is really not a problem for us”, because the vast majority of the commission’s actions have been upheld by the Common Council.  Although it is true that most of the commission’s actions have been upheld some refinement is still needed, because it isn’t simply that their actions are upheld it is also about protecting the process.  The recommend change makes designation slightly more difficult while still allowing influence to enter the debate.  Instead the ordinance should to allow the property owner, or 25 city residents to nominate a property, but remove the Common Council member’s ability to nominate a property.  This will limit the political nature of the process, and although it raises the bar for designation, Milwaukee has two active preservation organizations that should be able to find 25 citizens willing to participate if the nomination is worthwhile.
3. Demolition by Neglect.  Speaking at the commission meeting Alderman Bauman said it right, “to the extent that this can be toughened up, I’m all in favor of it”.   As the Marriott case pointed out, this is an area that needs improvement, as today it is common to wait for buildings to deteriorate to the point that demolition becomes the acceptable option.  Perhaps the city could enact new grant or loan programs to help restore historic properties, while at same time the city should work to ensure better and stiffer enforcement of code violations so that buildings don’t fall into disrepair.
4. Removes the provision requiring the HPC to wait 30 days for a further public hearing after a CoA application has been initially heard by the HPC.  The large turnout and extensive development team’s appearance at the first commission meeting regarding the Marriott proposal made it abundantly clear that almost no one on either side of the issue was aware of this 30 day waiting period.  Remove it or leave it as part of the process, but either way the key here is to clarify the language in the ordinance so that everyone, the commission members, the developer, and the public are keenly aware of the process so as to avoid any appearance of arcane tactics and political maneuvers being utilized.
5. Voice of the Owner 1 – Requires that the commission attempts to obtain a written statement of the owner’s preference in the designation of a historic property.  This would simply be the codifying of current policy, and therefore is a reasonable change.
6. Voice of the Owner 2 -  If the owner of a site or structure, or 35% or more of the owners included in a proposed district, file written objections, the designation would not become effective without super majorities (2/3) of both the Historic Preservation Commission and Common Council.   Alderman Bauman put the impact of this change well saying, “this waters down the entire thrust of historic preservation”.  The designation process does need improvement, (addressed in a bullet point below), but this would set a tremendously high bar for designation.  At a minimum the super majorities should be dropped to simple majorities, and the property ownership required to stop designation should be at least a majority.  Without these changes this ordinance might very well might become what Alderman Bauman called it, “the absentee landlord empowerment bill”.
7. New construction design review - Requires the HPC to consider the Department of City Development’s design review recommendations when considering applications for certificates of appropriates for new construction.  Having DCD involved in the discussion of new construction could lead to better projects, and in no way negatively impacts the saving of historic structures.
8. Timing of Demolition Permits – Reduces the deferral period from 12 to 8 months. This might be an “olive branch to the development committee” as Jim O stated, and it seems reasonable, besides once it’s gone, it’s gone what difference does it make if it takes a year or 8 months.
9. Proof of Financing for Issuance of Demolition Permit.  One of the primary concerns with the Marriott proposal was that the historic buildings would be demolished, and nothing would be built in their place, an all too common occurrence.  Avoiding this bait and switch, is a critical improvement that needs to be spelled out in detail in the ordiance.
10. Consideration of Economic Hardship – Directs the HPC to develop a procedure to permit CoA applicants to make a case for economic hardship.  Opening up the commission to consider economic hardship cuts away at the fundamental purpose of the commission, this should be handled through an appeal process through the Common Council.
11. Legislative Oversight.  Allows the Common Council, by resolution, to consider and act on any application for a CoA that has been on file for more than 90 days.  No.  This would move place historic preservation policy firmly into the political realm, and as Alderman Bauman explained could become “a new roadmap to applications, who don’t want to respect the system”.
12. De-Listing 1 – a 3/4 (12 votes) vote of the Common Council (and commission) is require to terminate a historic designation (owner, common council member, 35%).  Matt Jarosz, a commission member, summed up the fundamental  issue with this change saying, “a minority of a neighborhood being able to change the character of a neighborhood is just a terrifying thing”.  Clearly,the minimum requirements of 35% of a district being able to push de-listing of a historic neighborhood  should at least be changed to a majority of property owners.  Further, an individual Common Council member shouldn’t be able to bring a de-listing forward as that circumvents the other protections.
13. Historic Plaque Program.  Although, memorializing the failure to save our history seems sad its result is irrelevant to actual preservation, and therefore is an acceptable change to the ordinance.

Our additional suggestions.

• Tighten criteria for designation.  To the public it appears that just about any old building can receive designation.  The current criteria should be further clarified, and potentially narrowed to eliminate this perception.
• A Common Council member should not sit on the Historic Preservation Commission.  The Common Council already has the ability to weigh in on a CoA, or a nomination through the appeals process, by having a Council member on the commission it opens this portion of the process to the appearance and potentially influence of politics.  Additionally, it amounts to one vote being predetermined at the council level.
• A Common Council member should not be allowed to vote on any nomination they submitted to the Commission.  If the ability for an Common Council member to nominate a property is not removed, as suggested above, then at a minimum the council member should not vote on the matter, as this also amounts to one vote being predetermined at the council level.

“Hopefully we can improve the ordinance”.  I couldn’t agree more Alderman Witkowski.

Bookends North (Proposed)

Odds of New Land Enterprises project getting off the ground in the next twelve months are slim to none. Probably worse with the recent announcement that New Land satisfied a potential foreclosure by surrendering their Transera/Goll Mansion property.

Brewer’s Hill Lofts (Proposed)

Commonwealth Development Corporation received $1,313,568 in WHEDA tax credits to help finance the proposed 45-unit Brewer’s Hill Lofts on the corner of N. Holton Street and E. Brown Street. No other public details have emerged on this project yet.

Mercy Housing Lakefront – North Avenue (Proposed)

Perhaps the most active of any proposed project in the Milwaukee-area. After a number of revisions by Korb Tredo Architects and Mercy Housing Lakefront, this $8.5 million, 5-story, 54 unit project finally appears ready to seek full Common Council approval.

Mercy Housing Lakefront's proposal

North End Phase Two (Proposed)

The speed at which this $39 million second phase leaves the drawing board and breaks ground appears largely in the hands of the city at this point. Despite the eagerness the city had to finance The Moderne and the Bookends North proposals, the city to-date has not yet pushed through any type of financing the second building at The North End. The project would include two six-story buildings at 1551 N. Water Street. The Mandel Group had hoped to break ground in the spring of 2011.

Park East Commons (Proposed)

This project seems unlikely to move forward in the next twelve months, and may be dead all together. CommonBond Communities had agreed to buy a portion of the Park East block (bordered by Milwaukee, Jefferson, Lyon and Ogden) that RSC & Associates bought from Milwaukee County. CommonBond’s proposal was for 87 apartments, 61 underground parking spaces, and street-level retail (11,000 square-feet, owned by RSC). CommonBond was placed “on hold” by WHEDA for the $1,672,644 in federal affordable housing tax credits for which they applied. Prior to the CommonBond deal, RSC was approved for a $30 million bond issuance by RACM in January. To-date RSC has been unable to develop anything on the land.

The Moderne (Proposed)

The Moderne has had more false starts in the past year than the Chicago Bears. Initially, with financing from the city they hoped to break ground in November of 2009. That didn’t happen, so it was on to a planned December 2009 ground-breaking after the city awarded the proposal financing in early November. December didn’t happen, which led to Developer Rick Barrett believing February would see shovels in the ground, but due to a delay at HUD that didn’t happen. Next up was a September or October groundbreaking, which again didn’t happen because of HUD even though they awarded the project final loan guarantee approval in late August. Technically it could still happen in November, but now it looks like The Moderne will finally break ground in December of 2010 with HUD expected to finally close on the deal.

Nighttime rendering of The Moderne

Wangard Properties (Proposed)

Wangard’s proposal to develop an apartment building next to the HighBridge Condominiums on North Water Street received zoning approval in January of 2010. Wangard, as of August, was seeking a loan guarantee from HUD for the proposed 68-unit building, and had hoped to break ground in October 2010. Similar to the The Moderne, this project is still waiting on HUD to move forward.

Beerline B Apartments (Under Construction)

General Capital Group broke ground on the Beerline B Apartments in November of 2010. The project is financed in part by $2,345,310 in WHEDA tax credits. The project includes 140 units, and will occupy the long vacant corner of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street in Milwaukee’s Beerline neighborhood.

Beeerline B Apartments Rendering

Jackson Square Apartments (Under Construction)

Nearing the completion of construction in the Third Ward is Robert Joseph’s 81-unit Jackson Square Apartments.  When finished the project will feature 100+ underground parking stalls, and 9,000 square feet of retail space.  Rents will range from $800 to $1,600 with units split between one and two bedrooms.

Jackson Square Apartments Construction

National Lofts (Under Construction)

Dixon Development (Tim Dixon, Iron Horse hotel, Kramer Lofts) has begun demolition of the former Barry Trucking facility on the northeast corner of National Avenue and 1st Street. This development will be the first on the site, and will be placed at the back of the lot. It is being financed through $1.5 million in federal affordable housing tax credits.

South Water Works – Building Three (Under Construction)

Lighthouse Development is in the process of building an additional 52-unit apartment building at the South Water Works development. Construction is expected to be completed by March of 2011. Average unit size in the new development will be smaller than the neighboring Bridgeview apartments (800 vs 940 square-feet).

Corcoran Lofts (Open)

Mandel completed the Corcoran Lofts in the spring of 2010. The building is connected to the existing Gaslight Lofts, and includes 76 apartments and 3,400 square feet of retail space.

Corcoran Lofts Construction

Hide House Lofts (Open)

The Hide House Lofts were completed in November of 2010. The Bay View development features sixty units on four floors. General Capital Group and Joseph Property Development built the apartments after a contentious battle with area residents in 2009, which largely centered around the building’s use of WHEDA tax credits to finance part of its construction. The Hide House Lofts replaced the portion of the Greenebaum tannery complex built in the 1940′s, the portion built in 1898 still stands.

Hide House Lofts Construction

Latitude Apartments (Open)

The Latitude Apartments were completed in August 2010. Originally a project of New Land Enterprises, the Latitude Apartments won full zoning approval from the Milwaukee Common Council in December 2008 and was sold to Dermond Property Investments for $2.1 million in January 2009.  The project is located at the intersection of Kenilworth Ave. and Farwell Ave. just across from the Kenilworth Square Apartments.  The $13 million project features 90 units, and 7,500 square feet of street-level retail.  The units are broken down into 71 one-bedroom units and 19 studios.  Units range in size from 650 to 1,000 square feet.  The project includes 90 underground parking spaces, with 13 reserved for retail tenants.

Latitude Apartments

Both the General Planned Development, and the Detailed Planned Development for the Rivianna project were approved at the Common Council meeting.  The $80 million Rivianna project consists of three 15-story towers that will include apartments, a hotel, and first floor retail. The developer, Rivianna Development Group, intends to break ground soon after obtaining financing, and has pledged to meet the requirements of the M.O.R.E. ordinance despite not requesting any city financing as of this time.  The associated file for the project were approved with only Alderman Bauman being recorded as a no vote.

At the recent meeting of the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee the committee overruled a interim decision by the Historic Preservation Commission which designated the entire Hide House Complex as historic .  The ZND Committee found that only the buildings built in 1898 were historic, and removed the more recent buildings from protection.  Alderman Zielinski, who has been working with neighbors to stop the Hide House proposal, made a motion to amend the ZND Committee’s decision and restore the historic preservation to the entire Hide House complex.  Despite the matter at hand specifically regarding only the historic designation of a property, not the proposed development, AldermanZielinski continued his line of discussion regarding the lack of a public meeting saying “I think that just about every alderman here would want a public meeting.”  It is important to note that the proposed low-income apartment building is legally allowed under its current zoning.

Oddly, Alderman Zielinski pointed to Empowerment Village as a positive example of his intervention in development projects saying “we defeated that proposal for development along the river.”  He indicated that he helped the developer of the Empowerment Village find another site, and that the developer was content with the new site.  Although Empowerment Village was eventually able to be built, albeit as a smaller project than originally planned, in that case the property owner was the City of Milwaukee, whereas General Capital Group currently owns the Hide House property and has invested significant funds into the sites redevelopment.

Weighing in on whether or not the process use to split the historic designation was proper Alderman Bauman compared the Hide House complex to a single home saying, “it’s one address, one building,” and made the analogy that the home had various additions added to it after its initial construction.  He argued that “we’re saying part of the house is historic, part of the house isn’t historic.”  Because of this he argued that the motion made at the Historic Preservation Commission was the appropriate motion and added that “I didn’t think it was legally appropriate to split a parcel.”  This argument seemed to be a response to Assistant City Attorney Gregg Hagopian’s statements at the ZND Committee meeting that indicated the designation of an entire complex wasn’t within the bounds of interim designation law, and that the law only allowed a single structure to be designated.

Alderman Witkowiak explained that “we had this debate for three hours at committee,” and asked the council to vote against Alderman Zielinski’s simple amendment.  The motion to approve Alderman Zielinski’s amendment failed on a 4 to 10 vote.  This vote upheld the decision of the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee which will allow General Capital Group to begin the demolition of the existing structure and start work on the 60-unit apartment building.

Deputy DCD Commissioner Martha Brown explained that the official staff report recommended designation of the 1898 buildings, although not the 1940s buildings.  Alderman Zielinski , took issue with this characterization of the staff report saying the front line historic preservation staff who don’t have any political motivations recommended interim historic designation for the entire development.

Bruce Block, the attorney representing the developer, pointed out that the development team has in the past “received national recognition for development excellence,” and that the proposed building, and use are allowed under the site’s current zoning.  Further he noted that it wasn’t until they had obtained a building permit and WHEDA tax credits that Alderman Zielinski requested the interim historic designation.  He laid out the reasoning for the appeal.  The major points were that the case for designating the structure is marginal at best, the 1898 portion is not at risk, rehabilitation of the 1940′s section is not economically viable, the proposed project is within zoning, and the project is consistent with Southeast Side Plan.

Reference was made to a December 2006 Business Journal article in which the developer stated their intention to demolish a portion of the Hide House complex to build condominiums.  At the time no nomination for historic designation was brought forward by Alderman Zielinski, in fact it wasn’t until after WHEDA tax credits were received, and building permits were pulled that the papers were filed.  There was debate over whether or not the Southeast Side Plan supports this type of project.  Attorney Bruce Block pointed to page 94 while Alderman Zielinski fired back pointing to page 99 on the plan saying that it contradicts the developers view of the plan.  Bruce Block expressed the development team’s belief that historic preservation laws are being misused in this case saying “it’s an inappropriate use of the city’s landmark ordinance.”

Alderman Zielinski brought his own theory to the table indicating his belief that there was something unusual going on saying that “basically what we’re seeing here is the executive branch using their pull and power to override the interests and the will of the neighborhood.”  He also on numerous occasions railed on about the lack of a community meeting, and specifically stating “there’s a big difference between an open house and having an actual public meeting.”

The development team had contacted the Wisconsin Historical Society and hired John Vogel, Ph.D., of Heritage Research LTD, an expert in the field of historic preservation, when this issue arose to determine if an appeal was warranted.  The Wisconsin Historical Society found that the Hide House complex consisted of unremarkable architecture, and was no nexus to Milwaukee’s tannery industry.  Specifically the Wisconsin Historical Society findings indicated that no portion of the project would be eligible for protection under history or architecture.  John Vogel , Ph.D. remarked “is something significant simply because it is old?  The simple answer is no.”  He explained that the Hide House was not the headquarters building, and it was not the primary facility of the Greenbaum Tanning Company.  Further, the structure itself has no distinguishing features of an architectural type, and lacks any company branding.  He went on to point out that it is not a unique example of south side industrial architecture, and that numerous other buildings of this style still exist on the south side.

Sig Strautmanis, one of the developers, explained that “the vast majority of the space have been vacant for decades,” which has led to the serious decline of the 1940′s buildings.  Just a few of the issues included items such as roof sections collapsing, structural slab failure, severe water damage, and some of the buildings were built with salvaged brick which is deteriorating.  He added that they don’t allow employees into these buildings anymore and that “this is beyond repair and salvation.”  Additionally, he explained that these buildings are functionally obsolete.  Saying that “the layout makes no sense,” the floors don’t line up, and some levels have no windows in large parts of the building.  He also explained that yes at one time the apartment building would have needed to go before BOZA for a variance, but that they had adjusted their plans to insure it conformed to the current zoning.  Referencing the nomination for historic designation he said “needless to say, the timing isn’t curious, it’s blatant frankly.”  Finally, he stated his belief that the opposition “isn’t about history,” that in fact “this is about thwarting a high quality affordable housing project”

A large number of Bay View residents spoke in opposition of the appeal.  The general argument for historic preservation spoke of the working class history of the neighborhood, and that the Hide House complex is part of this history.  It was said that Bay View workers  put their blood sweat, and tears into their homes, and the tannery.  Sandy Palokonis , a Bay View resident, summed up the opposition’s argument for historic preservation stating “it’s part of our houses, it’s part of working man’s history.”  Another common thread that rang through was that the neighborhood felt a community meeting should have been held regarding the project.  In addition to the dozen or so people who spoke in opposition, seven additional neighbors were counted in opposition.

There were residents, and tenants of Hide House that spoke in support of the appeal.  Marilyn Walczak, expressed her belief that the reason behind the interim historic designation “has nothing to do with historic preservation” she indicated that from what she’d seen that the opposition was about the low-income housing component.  Gibson Bathrick , whom initially attempted to redevelop the Hide House, explained that precedences had already been set at Hide House as other structures had been demolished due to safety concerns.  He added that redevelopment of the north end “wasn’t in the cards,” and that “it’s just not feasible.”

Assistant City Attorney Gregg Hagopian pointed out that “interim designation is on a structure basis,” not a complex basis indicating that the action taken by the Historic Preservation Commission may not be in line with the ordinance.  Recognizing the implication and in a clear attempt to find a balance between the needs of the community, and the rights of the property owner, Alderman Murphy made a motion to in effect “split the baby,” and designate buildings 1,2,3, and 4 as historic.  In reference to the other buildings he stated “in my opinion [they] don’t meet the definition of what is historic.”  Alderman Zielinski opposed the motion saying “I don’t follow the argument of splitting the baby.”  The appeal was granted on a vote of 3 to 2, in that it removed the historic preservation designation from buildings built in the 1940′s.  This action will now be taken up at the next meeting of the full Common Council.

At the Monday July 20th meeting, prior to a presentation by the development team, and prior to any public commentary, a motion was made to adjourn the items related to the possible demolition.  Alderman Bauman argued that because the developer had also appealed the interim designation, that this request for a certificate of appropriateness wasn’t “ripe.”  Additionally, the commission argued that it didn’t need to hear this more than once and that by adjourning these items it would save everyone time.  Despite, this argument the result was that this maneuver lead to a lengthy discussion with Assistant City Attorney, Gregg C. Hagopian, regarding the possibility of legal issues that may arise by taking this action.  He warned the commission to “error on the side of caution,” but his advice was largely ignored by the commission as they adjourned the items.

A point not mentioned during the meeting, but one that makes this maneuver questionable, is that both Alderman Bauman and Alderman Zielinski sit on the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee so the chances of the interim designation being overturned on appeal seems on its face, pretty unlikely.  Once the significant items were adjourned the attorney for the development team, Bruce Block, was given a brief moment to speak during Item 7 as it had been noticed for public comments.  He explained, “to delay this for a month for no reason is definitely a hardship.”

This delay may only add a few weeks or a month to the project, but any delay to a project adds cost, and in this case threatens the entire project due to the time sensitivity of the WHEDA tax credits.

The next step in this process is the appeal of the interim historic designation which will go before the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee on Thursday July 23th, 2009.

This designation seems questionable.  For one it is questionable as other tanneries throughout Milwaukee with similar histories have not received historic designation.  In fact a few tanneries have been demolished to allow for new development projects.  For example, to make way for Mandel Group’s North End project the Pfister & Vogel Tannery on Water St. was demolished.  Further, the Wisconsin Historical Society didn’t deem the complex worthy of historic status.  Finally, and most importantly this designation is questionable, because of the statements by community residents and actions by leaders in opposition to this project that revolve around its “low-income,” component and issues unrelated to preservation.  For example these are just a few of the comments and quotes on the topic:

This comment was left on the Bay View Compass article “Development struggle at Hide House,” by a user named Paul.

There are a few issues not addressed in this article.

First, No matter what it is called, it is still LOW income. Where else can you get a one bedroom apartment for $300? The going rate in Milwaukee is about $700. Low income usually brings in a bad element, even if it is not intended.

Second, there was standing room only at the hearing, all from the neighborhood and 95% were against this project. In fact, the article failed to mention that the owners had applied for a permit to tear down the building and start begin the process the day before the hearing…this seems like they have some other motive.

Third, this is a fairly landlocked area, and bringing in 60 units with 2 cars each would add a heck of a lot of traffic to my neighborhood, which has a lot of kids.

Finally, I will be presenting a request for a ground contamination study before any work can be done. Tanneries had often used Chromium and Mercury in their processes in the past. This entire site could be contaminated. The last thing we want is for a large number of poor people to get sick and then bring cases against the city for approving this project.

This comment was left on the Journal Sentinel article “Bay View apartments project at former tannery hits road block,” by Susan Robitaille.

Hello,

Just to clarify…

These apartments are not ‘moderate income’, they are most definately LOW income.  The residents were not allowed to speak about the upcoming development… it was merely a meeting (the first we were given by the way), to speak our minds about our feelings about the historic nature of the Hide House.  In response to the person accusing anyone of racism… at what point is poverty a matter of race/color/creed? Not one person around here gives a rip about that sort of thing. There are all colors and cultures in this neighborhood and we celebrate our diversity.

The fear of a low-income housing rental structure in our neighborhood is the issue… along with the fact that there is no outlet to major streets, means we will have more cars racing down our quiet neighborhood.

Be real. Ask yourself if you would want that extra burden of traffic coming into your direct neighborhood… would you want the extra noise associated with that?

If low-income housing is so great… why not welcome it with open arms into your neighborhood? No? I thought not.

This quote is from the Daily Reporter article “Hide House developer seeks local support” said Michael A. Lana, who lives near the Hide House.

Low-income apartments, no matter how they are sugarcoated, will attract “undesirable” people.

These are just a few of the troubling statements being made regarding the Hide House Lofts project.

Another indication that this debate isn’t about historic preservation is that Alderman Zielinski didn’t bring this historic designation forward when General Capital Growth was intent on demolishing this section of the complex to build condominimums on the site.  In fact it wasn’t until the project received WHEDA tax credits that the he nominated the complex for historic preservation.  Further, according to the Bay View Compass, in an email dated June 17, 2009, sent from Alderman Zielinski to the developer, Alderman Zielinksi wrote:

In order to make sure the residents know exactly what you are proposing I am requesting a meeting where your staff can make a presentation to my constituents. Afterward, there can be Q and A etc. If you can convince my constituents that the ‘entire’ building should not be preserved then I will change my position. Whatever my constituents support then that is what I support.

It appears that Alderman Zielinski is saying his stance on the issue is based on constituent vote, not on whether or not this building deserves historic preservation.  This is troubling to say the least.  Now, it is possible that the Hide House complex deserves hisoric status, but these comments and actions makes it clear that the opposition to this development has little to do with historic preservation.  This hurts the process, and does a disservice to our city.