Committee Delays Consideration of New Downtown Hotel

The Moxy Milwaukee Deer District hotel. Rendering by Gary Brink & Associates.

Does the Common Council have the authority to reject a zoning change for a proposed seven-story Moxy Hotel for the former Bradley Center site?

That’s the legal question before the city and the reason a council committee held off taking any action Tuesday after nearly two hours of presentations and debate.

The real issue behind the scenes is a contested election regarding the other Deer District hotel, The Trade. Allegations have flown from the organizing union that hotel owner and operator NCG Hospitality engaged in illegal practices. The National Labor Relations Board is reviewing the claims. Some Common Council members are not happy about this.

But you wouldn’t have known that was the issue if you only attended Tuesday’s Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee meeting, where NCG and the Milwaukee Bucks were pursuing a zoning change to allow NCG to develop a 156-room hotel on a portion of the former Bradley Center site, 430 W. State St. The city can’t legally consider the union issue in deciding on a zoning change, so no one explicitly talked about it.

After more than an hour of testimony, the Moxy Hotel zoning change appeared headed for a divided committee vote.

But Milwaukee Bucks real estate attorney Bruce Block, in giving a lengthy background on the Bucks’ positive relationship with the city, opened a new line of questioning: would the city be acting in bad faith by encouraging the Bucks to develop a second Deer District hotel in order to get the hotly-contested FPC Live concert venue approved and then rejecting the hotel?

Block said the city couldn’t reject the proposal as configured.

“You do not have the authority if it meets the parameters of the [general planned development],” said Block, referencing the arena district conceptual zoning package that envisions between a four and 20-story building on the site.

That brought resistance from committee chair Alderman Robert Bauman. “You’ve thrown down a legal gauntlet we feel very uncomfortable proceeding under,” he said later in summarizing what happened.

The committee delayed any formal action on the proposal. “And I would attribute that to your argument,” said Ald. Russell W. Stamper, II to Block during the meeting.

Sidestepping The Trade union issues, which can’t legally be considered, some committee members appeared to have found a pathway to reject the deal. Based on report from the council’s Legislative Reference Bureau, it could be rejected because it would not meet a definition of being the “highest and best use” for the site. Bauman has argued against the proposal, ostensibly because it’s not big enough. “I still believe a hotel in the appropriate use for that site, just not 156 rooms and seven stories,” he said.

“We did not hear any objections about the size of this project until the first part of this year and that stunned us,” said Block.

The Department of City Development, which supports the deal, issued its own memo in response to the LRB report and said the council should approve the deal on the basis of the general planned development zoning plan.

Alderwoman Milele A. Coggs said she wanted the opinion of the City Attorney about what authority the council has regarding the zoning change. Several council members, including Coggs and Scott Spiker, said they were briefed in advance of the meeting, but that Block had introduced a new argument. Coggs said she would abstain without clarity on her authority.

But City Attorney Evan Goyke said he wouldn’t render an opinion in open session and that his suggestion to include a closed session notice wasn’t reflected in the agenda. With the meeting not noticed for a closed session discussion about potential litigation, Bauman succeeded in his push to hold the proposal.

“We have all these legal issues to consider, and now we’re getting into some deep weeds,” said Bauman about why a closed session briefing was necessary.

After a five-minute recess in which Goyke could be seen talking to council members, including once to a three-member quorum of the committee — a violation of the state law for public meetings — the committee returned to vote on the motion to hold.

Coggs, Stamper, Bauman and Spiker voted for the hold, with Spiker citing advice rendered by the City Attorney’s Office as the reason for his vote. DiAndre Jackson voted against holding the proposal.

The item could next return, with a public hearing, in three weeks. Based on the dozens of people in attendance Tuesday, there will be plenty of public input given at the next hearing. Trade unions are strongly in favor of the deal, while the Milwaukee Area Service and Hospitality Workers Organization, MASH, is leading the opposition.

“For the record, we object to it being held,” said Block.

“Objection noted,” said Bauman.

For more on the hotel’s design, see our coverage of the February City Plan Commission hearing. For more on The Trade union fight, see our coverage from Monday.

Renderings

12►

Legislation Link - Urban Milwaukee members see direct links to legislation mentioned in this article. Join today

Existing members must be signed in to see the interactive map. Sign in.