- Address: 1158 E. Kane Pl.
Content referencing Kane Commons
The Kane Commons project located at 1142 to 1158 East Kane Place is another of many Milwaukee area projects utilizing green building concepts. Recently projects such as The Brewery announced various green building components such as capturing and processing all of the rainwater within The Brewery complex. The Edison Green project will feature many green features such as solar panels, wind turbines, and car-sharing. And the Kane Commons project will utilize straw bales as a key building material and geothermal heating throughout the buildings. The green features in the Kane Commons project should reduce utility bills, generate less of a carbon footprint and offer additionally quality of life benefits. The straw bales construction has an insulation R-factor in the range of R30 to R50 which significantly outperforms typical home construction. Unlike typical construction materials, straw bales are highly renewable which reduces the lifelong carbon footprint. Additionally it offers additional advantages such as improved fire resistance and sound proofing. The geothermal heating system will utilize the Earth’s natural warmth to heat the buildings requiring less generated energy thereby reducing bills and pollution. This project’s green efforts, much like the Edison Green project’s green efforts, may influence future developments in Milwaukee to look for new green ideas. Articles Long-awaited Kane Commons moving ahead Building homes with a purpose Kane Commons: Green Development on Lower East Side Proposed “Green” Development to Overlook the River at E. Kane Place Pragmatic Construction: Kane CommonsDec 15th, 2007 by Dave Reid
“Only a Fool has Himself for a Lawyer” –proverb On September 13th, 2005, Atty. Joe Kaye filed a lawsuit on his own behalf (“pro se”) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging a violation of federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) by a number of entities, including the City of Milwaukee, Ald. Michael D’Amato, Julilly Kohler, Lincoln Fowler and others, claiming they conspired to wrongfully deny him the opportunity to buy and develop city-owned real estate. The riverfront property at 1142-58 E. Kane Place was eventually sold to Kohler, who had been vice-chair of the City of Milwaukee Plan Commission. On July 11th, 2006, U. S. District Judge J. P. Stadtmueller dismissed the case, finding it to be frivolous, and ordered sanctions against Kaye, including that he “reimburse the defendants for their reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.” Kaye made many allegations in his complaints, including behind-the-scenes machinations between Kohler and fellow commissioner Fowler; that Ald. D’Amato collaborated with officers of the East Village Association [EVA] to create a historical preservation district that would exempt Kohler’s proposed development; that D’Amato, Kohler and others engaged in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the EVA election; that a wire fraud scheme existed; that D’Amato stole a yard sign from a neighbor; and that D’Amato’s actions constituted theft and extortion. The allegations were contained in a rambling 19 page complaint riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, reminiscent of “Riddley Walker,”a post-apocalyptic cult novel of which Kaye is apparently fond. His business address on court documents is listed as “Grooling and Smarling, 7355 N. Green Bay Av., Glendale.” “Grooling and Smarling” are neologisms introduced in the novel, which is either gibberish or inspired, depending upon the reader. [Editor’s note: It is gibberish.] The city attorney’s motion in November, asking to dismiss the suit, called Kaye’s case “a rambling, disjointed and unsupported complaint that fails to state a claim. “[Kaye’s claims are] fatally deficient in every material respect … [and are] linguistically and logically incoherent.” In other words, the sort of case one might find from a jailhouse lawyer, but not from a licensed attorney. In the court’s ruling yesterday, Stadtmueller said, “While we treat pro se litigants gently, a pro se attorney is not entitled to special treatment,” the veteran jurist ruled. “Although the court liberally construes allegations in a pro se litigant’s complaint … the court does not apply this principle of construction to Kaye’s complaint because Kaye is an attorney.” He added, “Kaye does not specify the many victims, the time frame involved, the five separate schemes or the distinct injuries. Kaye does not cite to any allegations within his complaint or to any exhibits. “Kaye’s RICO claims must be dismissed for another reason: Kaye has not properly pleaded the existence of an enterprise. … Each of the RICO claims, therefore, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. “Kaye should have known that his RICO claims had no legal basis,” he added. The amount […]Jul 12th, 2006 by Michael Horne