The Forum

A frequent complaint I heard throughout the campaign was the lack of news available about Shorewood, especially on the internet. People complained at the reduced space given to Shorewood when the North Shore Herald format replaced the old Shorewood Herald. So now that we have ShorewoodNOW.com, our own news source that we can control, where is everyone? You can write your own stories, start a blog, or submit pictures. Why are so few people taking advantage of the opportunity to solve the problem they identified?

Other municipalities have 7 or 8 bloggers, and far more pictures and community-submitted news stories than we do. I know from experience that Shorewood residents have a great deal to say about events of local interest. So type your thoughts up, and start a blog, or submit a news story.

What kinds of topics could you write about? If you are part of Grass Roots North Shore, tell us about your recent meeting. If you are part of a Village commission or committee, tell us about your meetings. What about the PTO? How are they reacting the possibility of shuttering one of the schools? Do you live on Glendale or Woodburn? If so, how has the construction affected you? What do you think about the idea of redeveloping the whole of Oakland and Capitol, as is currently proposed? What do you think about the Gores house coming down? Do you like the new BritInn on Oakland? What about the renovated Village Pub? Are there enough books in the Library? What did you think of the Iraq referendum? What should be done with Atwater Beach? The Oak Leaf Trail (bike path)? Should Shorewood restaurants and pubs be required to go smoke-free? What are your thoughts on Starbucks opening on Oakland? Did you enjoy Savor Shorewood? What should happen to the SHS Football Program? Should Shorewood spend money on a marketing program to attract new residents? As a Village, do we spend too much on consultants? How can we solve the school funding problem? Should we bring back sidewalk snowplowing? Are taxes too high? Too low? Does your street badly need repaving? Do you think we need overnight on-street parking? What should be done about the vacancy rate in rental properties? Should the Village refrain from using pesticides/herbicides on Village property?

These are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves every day as a Village. I know many of you out there have strong opinions on one or more of these topics. So start typing, and join the conversation.

I can tell you from personal experience that campainging for office in Shorewood is difficult and time consuming. I thought I had discovered the perfect substitute for going door to door. Then I found this ordinance and it stopped me in my tracks.

_____________________________
Section 13-715 Dropping Litter From Aircraft

No person in an aircraft shall throw out, drop or deposit within the Village any litter, handbill, or any other object.
___________________________

In a post I wrote last week, I accused the Village of Shorewood of adding an "outrageous markup" to the actual cost of a parking permit. It is only fair that I should defend this claim.

The parking system costs the Village $162,710 to operate, according the 2006 village budget. It takes in $198,581 in revenue. Part of the $35,871 difference is transferred to the General Fund for use in other programs, and the rest is taken as "Operating Profit." In other words, the Village marks up the cost of each permit by 22% and keeps the difference. The actual cost of running the parking program is approximately $33 per permit, not $40. The other $7 is pure profit.

On a related note, on March 13, 2004, the following statute took effect:
________________________________
66.0628 Fees imposed by a political subdivision.
(1) In this section, “political subdivision” means a city, village, town, or county.
(2) Any fee that is imposed by a political subdivision shall bear a reasonable relationship to the service for which the fee is imposed.
________________________________

How can we claim that the parking fee bears "a reasonable relationship to the service for which the fee is imposed," when the fee includes a 21% markup? A $33 fee would bear such a relationship. A $40 fee bears no such relationship.

Looks like I was pretty close to the mark with my assessment of AT&T's Huge Grey Box Initiative, codenamed "Project Lightspeed".

The following is from a recent Barry Orton column in the Journal Sentinel

Internet speed must not be based on ability to pay

"The remaining big phone companies, led by AT&T and Verizon, are trying to persuade Congress to let them offer video services without bothersome local contracts that protect consumers. Time Warner and Charter have these traditional agreements with the municipalities that they serve in Wisconsin...

Instead of continuing the tradition of local control, the bill would allow phone companies to be granted national video franchises by the Federal Communications Commission.

It would completely prohibit local governments or the FCC from requiring what is now standard for cable television providers: agreements to serve everyone within municipal limits."

It also would appear that there are legitmate questions about whether the proposed bandwidth of AT&T's Lightspeed would be sufficient. A recent Wisconsin Technology Network Article asks this question.

AT&T should set sights higher than repackaging DSL with Project Lightspeed

"After all the fuss, is 6 Mbps enough bandwidth? What is the maximum speed supported by these new boxes? With HDTV and other applications on the close horizon, how soon will you be able to increase speeds to 1 Gbps? California has a broadband initiative of 1 Gbps or bust by 2010."

At last weeks Village Board meeting, the Board unanimously approved the Central District Master Plan. The plan, in its own words, will be "used to guide future public and private improvement and development initiatives." It contains extensive plans for the redevelopment of Oakland Ave, Capitol Dr, and small section of the river front which currently has Milwaukee PC and several other buildings on it.

Throughout the process, Shorewood residents were given the opportunity to express approval and concern with various aspects of the plan. A frequent response to citizen criticism/concerns was to point out that the Master Plan "is a road map, not a straitjacket." In other words, although the plan is intended to guide future development, it is not necessarily binding.

Unfortunately, I am not sure this is correct. State statutes reads as follows.

66.1001 (3) ACTIONS, PROCEDURES THAT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.

Beginning on January 1, 2010, if a local governmental unit engages in any of the following actions, those actions shall be consistent with that local governmental unit’s comprehensive plan:

(g) Official mapping established or amended under s. 62.23(6).
(h) Local subdivision regulation under s. 236.45 or 236.46.
(j) County zoning ordinances enacted or amended under s. 59.69.
(k) City or village zoning ordinances enacted or amended under s. 62.23 (7).
(L) Town zoning ordinances enacted or amended under s. 60.61 or 60.62.
(q) Zoning of shorelands or wetlands in shorelands under s. 59.692, 61.351 or 62.231.

In other words, if The Master Plan says a given area is for commercial buildings of a certain height, we may be required, as of Jan 1, 2010 to zone that area accordingly. So this Master Plan may yet be a straitjacket, limiting and guiding future development. While this is not necessarily a deal breaker, it is definitely a question we should get answered before we tie ourselves to this plan for years and decades to come.

Other references, if you are interested, include the following statutes, which can be found on the WI Statutes Home Page.

WI Statute 66.1001 “Comprehensive Planning”
WI Statute 62.23(3) “The Master Plan”

This chart, taken from US Census Data, shows the steady decline in our population over the last few years. I am irritated with the way this site displays such fuzzy graphics. But if you want to see the actual numbers, click on the chart, and it will show up in higher resolution.

Yesterday's post was about the problems I see with the Village of Shorewood's off-street parking program. By way of illustration, I offer this story sent to me by a friend of mine and former Shorewood renter.

From Julie:

"I decided that I would rather pay $3.00/night for on-street parking than paying for the priveledge to park far away and put myself in danger at night. This meant that I had to drive to the police station in Shorewood every weekday night, give my address, license plate #, and pay my $3.00. I asked the people in the police dept. and at city hall: "Why doesn't the city of Shorewood allow on-street parking and have people pay monthly and/or use parking stickers instead of making residents physically go to the police station every night?" The answer was that city government had voted on this parking rule and listened to the home owners, who evidently didn't want cars on their streets, period.

Now that I am away from my parking experience in Shorewood and my emotions have cooled, I'm still at a loss for how a community government would punish its citizens who have no other option but to park on the street, if they care about their safety. I believe that renters are treated as second-class citizens in Shorewood, and the likely affect is higher turnover of renters, contributing to less stability in the neighborhoods. "

As you likely already know, I find the off street parking program in Shorewood to be appalling. I will have a great deal to say about it in the next few months. For now, let me set out the list of the problems I see, so you know why this program causes me a headache every time I think about it.

By way of introduction, the village rents about 420 spaces in a dozen or so lots around the village. The village then re-rents these spaces to renters who either have no on-site parking at their building, or where the parking is insufficient for the number of residents with cars. So what are the problems with the program?

1. The program is inefficiently managed. The paper and pencil system is still firmly in place, with no sign of moving toward online payment or automatic renewal. Instead, those who wish to rent from the village are still snowed under by an avalanche of self-addressed, stamped envelopes, and paper checks.

2. The parking fees represent a regressive tax. We in Shorewood should be ashamed that, in our progressive community, we charge a fee exclusively to the lowest income residents of our village. In addition to paying for the parking program itself, the fees include an outrageous markup which goes into the general village coffers. Most programs, such as trash collection and street repair are paid for as a part of the property tax. Why should our lowest income residents be required to pay a special fee with a huge markup for a program only they need?

3. The parking rules renters must live by are oppressive. In some of the parking lots, the parker is not allowed to use their space until after 10 PM, and must be out by 7 AM. This requires organizing evenings and mornings around shuffling the car from place to place.

4. These rules have the effect of creating an "underclass" of renters. Having recently been a renter myself, I can tell you that most renters do not feel the red carpet is being rolled out for them here in Shorewood. When I rented, it was my perception that the Village viewed us renters as a nuisance to be minimized.

5. Treating renters like this drives out the residents we need to retain. Today’s 27 year-old single grad student is tomorrow’s 42 year-old father of two. The 21 year-old waitress will be the 36 year-old CPA and mother of three. If we shove these residents out the back door before they get their feet on the ground, we will have to spend money on fancy marketing programs to attract them back, just like we are right now.

6. There is no legitimate reason the program could not be changed. Overnight, on-street parking in high density areas (Oakland, Capitol, and Wilson) is long overdue. The village has been dragging their feet on this for years now, delaying with expensive, consultant-driven studies and endless discussion. It is time for action.

I don't care how hot it gets. No sleeping in your basement.

______________________________

Section 9-707 Minimum Space, Use and Location Requirements

No space in a basement may be used for sleeping purposes or as a dwelling unit.
______________________________

At the Village Board meeting this past Monday, several residents of N. Stowell complained of the sudden appearance of a massive grey communications box near the intersection of Stowell and Capitol. What is the box? Did the Village explicitly allow this eyesore to be placed there? Do we have any recourse to have it removed?

OVERVIEW

I did some searching on my own, and the box appears to be related to an AT&T initiative called "Project Lightspeed," which according to an AT&T's webpage, "will deliver a whole new portfolio of integrated, digital TV, high speed Internet and voice services - all under the AT&T U-verse brand."

These boxes have been cropping up in towns all across the region and the country, alarming residents and government alike. There has, in many cases, been no explicit authorization from the municipality for AT&T to install the boxes. Preventing AT&T from installing further boxes has, in other areas including Northern Illinois, required emergency ordinances to be passed, resulting in extensive legal maneuvering by both sides.

Because AT&T is intending to deliver video services through the boxes, there are questions about key aspects of the revenue sharing arrangement between the municipalities and the cable company. For Shorewood, the Village receives roughly $110,000 per year from this arrangement. As such, problems with this contract are of serious concern to us.

We need to stop construction of these boxes until we know for certain what they are (Although I believe they are related to Project Lightspeed, I am not certain). We also must require that AT&T work within the appropriate legal framework to seek permits. This issues affects you, even if you do not live on Stowell. Unless we take action, they will keep cropping up, and may soon visit your own street. Click here for a list of the current Village Trustees and their email addresses.

THE DETAILS

The problems with this onslaught of ugliness extend beyond the boxes' comprehensive lack of curb appeal.

1. Village attorney Ray Pollen explained at the meeting that AT&T has certain rights to install equipment in the village, based on their status as a provider of telecommunications. However, there are legitimate questions as to whether these rights extend to the installation of video (read: TV) equipment. Since these boxes are part of the infrastructure that AT&T intends to use to provide television programming, it is not at all clear whether they have the rights to install these boxes.

2. In addition to this lack of clarity, there are also concerns about the impact this service would have on the cable television agreements between the cable companies, and the municipalities. Cable companies share some portion of their revenue with many municipalities. Will AT&T be required to do the same? Will their entrance into the market make the cable compacts void?

3. Additionally, cable companies must adhere to a vast array of regulatory requirements. AT&T has attempted to argue, in other municipalities, that because their service will be carried over the phone lines, they do not have to adhere to the same regulations.

4. There is also the issue of zoning rights. Shorewood's village government ought to have the right to determine when someone is allowed to build a 6' x 3' x 3' metal box in the middle of the public right of way. Although AT&T has the right to install certain types of equipment without seeking a seperate permit, they appear to me to have abused that privilege in this case.

Articles about other municipalities dealing with Project Lightspeed

1. AT&T Says We Are Not Cable Television
2. Aurora holds off on AT&T plan challenge
3. Cable cries foul
4. AT&T threatening to pull plug on state

A story from today's wires:

_____________________

Improvements coming slowly to Fallujah
By: ANTONIO CASTANEDA, Associated Press Writer

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Clean water should flow to 80 percent of Fallujah's homes this fall, and by summer's end a planned wireless network will provide phone service and Internet access to thousands, a technological leap unimaginable just months ago.
_______________________

I have received responses from several of the officials I contacted regarding the school funding idea. As you can see, there are some valid questions that need to be answered. However, as the emails below show, there is interest in this concept.

Here are the responses so far, for your reading pleasure.

____________________

FROM: Ruth Treisman, School Board

Steve,

Thanks for the good information. The Superintendent, Blane McCann, is checking with the village about this. He also has spoke with the business manager of the School District.

Ruth Treisman

____________________

From: Blane McCann, School District Superintendent

Dear Steve:

Thank you for bringing this idea to me. I promise I will check it oit with our interim business manager and see if this could save any money.

Blane

_____________________

From: Margaret Hickey, Village Trustee

Steve
I do not know much about the amounts we are talking about. How much would the school system need and for what term? As you may know, we have been having meetings with a consultant to help us set policy with regard to the fund balance and other issues.

Thanks. Margaret
______________________

Shorewood Schools, like school districts throughout the state, have experienced budgetary difficulties over the last number of years. We are searching for creative solutions to these problems to ensure the continued excellence of our schools. On the Village side, all Trustee candidates and current Trustees seem to express the desire to find ways to help the School District.

Below is a letter I sent to both School District and Shorewood Village officials, outlining an idea for one way this collaboration might happen. It is an idea I brought up during the campaign, but that is not original to me.

The idea itself was first proposed by a School Board member closely related to me who has since left both the Board and the country. However, since nobody seemed to pick up the idea and run with it after it was proposed, I brought it up again during the campaign. My hope is that by giving this idea the light of day, we can explore it further, and see if it has merit. As I state in the letter, there are definitely some legal issues we would need to consider before proceeding. But if it could be put into practice, it could be one small step toward alleviating the funding shortfall our schools are experiencing.

________________________________

All -

Given the continued funding difficulties within the school district, I continue to be interested in the possibility of intergovernmental loans between the Village and the School District. I mentioned this as an idea at one of the campaign forums, and it seems more timely now than ever. WI Statue 61.34(4) seems to specifically authorize this activity.

"The village board may loan money to any school district located within the village or within which the village is wholly or partially located in such sums as are needed by such district to meet the immediate expenses of operating the schools thereof, and the board of the district may borrow money from such village accordingly and give its note therefor. No such loan shall be made to extend beyond August 30
next following the making thereof or in an amount exceeding one-half of the estimated receipts for such district as certified by the state superintendent of public instruction and the local school clerk. The
rate of interest on any such loan shall be determined by the village board."

It would remain necessary to determine whether it would be possible to effect such a transaction in a manner advantageous to both parties. If the short term borrowing costs for the school district exceed the rate of return the village is getting on the same amount over the same time period, there may be a real opportunity here to benefit both sides. If would also be necessary to determine the effects (if any) of this activity on current school funding formulas at the state level.

Best Wishes,
Steve Koczela
4526 N Woodruff Ave

___________________________________

Section 13-218 Keeping of Other Animals Prohibited

It shall be unlawful to keep horses, swine, fowl, sheep, goats, cattle, or other animals of a wild or destructive nature in the Village.

Update: From Suzanne Rosenblatt

Strange, but enforced. Our former neighbors wanted to have a goat to keep their grass short, and they weren't allowed.

Suzanne

As you all likely know by now, the appointment process for Guy Johnson’s vacant Village Board seat was completed with the appointment of Dawn Anderson of 2511 E Menlo. Nine applicants of diverse backgrounds and qualifications applied for the position.

I did a rough breakdown of the qualifications of the candidates by briefly paging through their applications, and this is what I found. (Note: Not everyone put the same items on their applications, so it is possible there should be more names in the categories below)

4 Masters Degrees (Mangiamelli, Toutenhoofd, Koczela, Taylor)
1 PhD in Urban Design and Development (Mangiamelli)
1 Former Trustee (Erickson)
2 Former unsuccessful Trustee candidates (Koczela, Carr)
1 Former School Board Member (Taylor)
Several business professionals (Stehling, Toutenhoofd, Koczela, Erickson)
PTA, PTO, School activities (Carr, Anderson, Erickson, Taylor)
All applicants had an impressive array of volunteer activities
All are long time residents

Newly appointed Trustee Anderson has a Bachelor's Degree in Journalism/Advertising, and has spent the last number of years volunteering for a variety of cancer related activities. While this is an excellent cause, I question the relevance of these activities to serving as a Trustee in Shorewood, especially in light of the qualifications of the other applicants who put their names in for consideration. She herself points out this fact in a recent North Shore Herald Story,

“As I told the board, I have seen the village through a few different set of eyes. My intent, my goal is to be a citizen voice on the board. I am not an attorney, I’m not a financial wiz or any of that, but I am really invested in the community.”

The part about being "really invested in the community" could have been said by any of the applicants, all of whom have lived in the village for decades. However, many of the other applicants are financial/business wizzes, or would bring other specific professional expertise which would be of immediate use to the board.

Trustee Anderson goes on to point out the problem inherent in appointing someone with no experience dealing with Village Board issues, which I would have thought would be readily apparent to the Trustees doing the appointing.

“You really gain the background on all of the issues as you are running [for Trustee]. You’re learning as you go,” she said. “So by the time you are sitting on the board, you feel pretty well informed. I am doing a lot of homework, when I volunteer for something, I give 110 percent.”

Mangiamelli, Meeker, Carr, Taylor, Koczela, and Erickson would not have had to add this disclaimer. We have all been significantly involved in Village Government, either as former Trustees, former candidates, or as frequent meeting attendees.

Let me close by thanking all nine applicants for their interest in serving. This posting is in no way intended as a personal attack against anyone. Anyone who is interested in participating in village politics should be commended. I do, on the other hand, hope you now share my perplexity on how exactly the appointment process eliminated so many clearly more qualified applicants.