Four More Years
The Common Council approves the reappointment of DCD Commissioner Rocky Marcoux for another term.
Rocky Marcoux, Department of City Development Commissioner
Despite what has been a rocky road for Rocky Marcoux, the Department of City Development Commissioner, his reappointment finally passed the Common Council today, but not without one last bit of resistance.
“I would like to see a new commissioner of this department,” Ald. Nik Kovac stated as he began to reiterate his issues with Marcoux. At previous meetings he has chastised Marcoux for his alleged secrecy, transparency, and a lack of vision for Milwaukee.
Once again Kovac referred to the Historic Trust Fund Account as “the slush fund.” And he went on to remind the council that although it wasn’t criminal, the reallocation of funds from this account without council approval, which had been occurring under Marcoux until being forced to stop by the city comptroller, “clearly was a violation of municipal law…to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the term of a decade.”
Wrapping up his arguments against the reappointment, Kovac argued that residents and developers “deserve consistent transparent criteria…not a black box within city hall.”
At the last council meeting Marcoux’s reappoinment was sent back to committee, but unlike the previous debate, today’s discussion was minimal. Marcoux’s reappointment passed on a ten-to-four vote, with only Alds. Tony Zielinski, Kovac, Bob Bauman, and Jose Perez voting against it.
Political Contributions Tracker
Displaying political contributions between people mentioned in this story. Learn more.
- October 30, 2019 - José G. Pérez received $200 from Tony Zielinski
This city really could have stood above the rest. There really is no other city like Milwaukee in this country. But it is a shame that our city leaders can’t recognize that. Everything from poor development concepts on the “North End” to the garbled mess down by the lakefront. Everywhere you look, they are proposing ill conceived ideas for developments. Even on 27th and Wisconsin… a welfare office on a very busy intersection with freeway access. Which is also on a street that leads right into an area that desperately needs development. But no… they decide to build another ‘dead zone’. I am still waiting to see the design of the “last nail in the coffin”… AKA the new arena.
@Frank I’m curious and so I remember correctly, you think the MSOE garage is good but apparently think the North End shows ‘poor development concepts?’ I’m not sure what I’m missing here? To me the North End is pretty good, first floor retail, fairly dense, built to the street wall, not a lot of big blank walls, will include a plaza and riverwalk, and the materials seem better than many apartments built today..
@ Mr. Reid – Yes I do think that the MSOE parking structure is a good development. Keep in mind that it is not just an ordinary parking structure. I do not see it as an eyesore and I also believe that it will benefit the area. Not to forget to mention that MSOE really does need some parking. Concerning the North End development; What the developers failed to see is that area is all riverfront property. Not only that, but the Brady St/Water St. corridor is also a major artery from the eastside to the downtown area. The current developments there are not capturing the true value of the location. Plus all the building designs are an eyesore that don’t blend well with the other architecture in the area. If this city wants to attract businesses and residents, then they need to start recognizing that aesthetics can leave an everlasting imprint in someones psyche. Buildings that look like pastel colored shoe boxes doesn’t do that (at least not on a positive note).
@Frank It sure just looks like a parking garage to me, the soccer field is almost an afterthought in the design. Where the soccer field comes to ground they had a huge opportunity to do something great for students and the city by almost creating a plaza/entrance to the field, but didn’t. I know MSOE is D III (or so) but it has no amenities for fans or even teams on the roof. And the design shows no respect for street at all, with no active uses along the street. It is possible to build a facility for this purpose, and do it well but they didn’t. It will be fine for MSOE, but as an urban building it sure appears to be a failure to me.
As far as the North End
“Concerning the North End development; What the developers failed to see is that area is all riverfront property. ” They did? They are building a new Riverwalk section, docks, and a small plaza at the stub end of a street. Now they didn’t push the buildings to the river, and inserted a street, so I guess that could be a complaint.
“Plus all the building designs are an eyesore that don’t blend well with the other architecture in the area.” See here’s simply an issue of preference. Personally I think that One is one of the best looking buildings built in Milwaukee in years. And that we should have a mix of styles, not try to blend with the past per se.
“Not only that, but the Brady St/Water St. corridor is also a major artery from the eastside to the downtown area. The current developments there are not capturing the true value of the location. ” Now if you mean these buildings aren’t big enough well I suppose.
@Frank I’ll just say I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on these two projects.