FREE WHITEWATER

Monthly Archives: February 2012

City, Development, Planning

Sundry Topics about Planning

by  • 

Remarks on Whitewater’s Planning Commission, and planning generally –

Planning for Competion, or Planning against Competition? There’s an easy difference: one sets rules of the road, the other decides which cars get to use the road, or get built. It’s clear that some on Whitewater’s Planning Commission don’t see a distinction, and some others don’t care.

If a commissioner’s telling people that Whitewater already has an after-hours restaurant, he’s implying that he — and not consumers — should decide how many Whitewater will have. That’s sheltering an incumbent business against a new entrant who might offer more and better to patrons in Whitewater. (The new entrant might also spur the incumbent business to offer more, of fare, value, or ambiance.)

It’s as though someone said that because there’s Crest toothpaste, no one needs Colgate. Isn’t one brand for everyone enough?

Whitewater’s planners either don’t see, or don’t care, about a limited role — they are deciding market outcomes that only consumers (thousands upon thousands in the city) should be deciding.

Reform of Business Zoning Regulations. Liberalization of business zoning is for naught if commissioners act as a bottleneck or barrier to marketplace decisions. The Planning Commission’s over-reaching calls Whitewater’s liberalization effort into question.

Misunderstanding Impressions. Those advocating an interventionist approach have been doing it so long they don’t see how odd it looks to those not part of their small circle.

Misunderstanding the Spread of News. Some others in city government — and beyond — most definitely understand that denials and picayune requirements look bad and inhibit economic revival.

Oddly, I think some really think that if they control a few sources of information (an insider’s website and an obliging afternoon daily) they’ll limit the harm from over-reaching administrative decisions.

There’s not a chance of that, and that’s not because of blogging — it’s because of email, text messages, Facebook posts, etc. – people in and outside of town hear about these decisions even if insiders try to limit the damaging revelations.

This is especially true for business people beyond the city — they know about restrictive decisions from their own contacts. There is no way to combat that impression with a few puff pieces in a town website, little-ready afternoon daily, or even the occasional soft story from farther away.

Those who might come here make their own inquiries of existing merchants, and either ignore or politely nod in reply to the standard sales pitch that so-called development gurus offer.

There’s getting it right at the point of decision, and there’s the mess that’s everything else.

Daily Bread

Daily Bread for 2.16.12

by  • 

Good morning.

It’s a day of gradual clearing with a high of forty-two for Whitewater.

On this day in 1923, from the archive of the New York Times,  the story of how Tut-ankh-Amen’s Inner Tomb is Opened Revealing Undreamed of Splendors, Still Untouched After 3,400 Years.

Google’s puzzle for today asks about a place, with a cuisine as the clue: “Your spouse blindfolds you and jets you away for a weekend adventure. The blindfold isn’t removed until, seated in a restaurant, you’re handed a menu that serves manok, lechon baboy and kinilaw . What country are you in?”

How ’bout a morning cartoon? Here’s a Road Runner – Wile E. Coyote Cartoon from 1960 — still looks great, I think —

Business, City, Free Markets, Planning

Whitewater’s Overpowering Fear of a … Family-style Restaurant with a Liquor License

by  • 

Update: 2.16.12 – video recording of session embedded below.

Whitewater’s taken more than one bad turn in recent years — sadly, it took another one Monday night.

Introduction. Following a unanimous January denial of a conditional use permit to operate a sports bar on the main business district in Whitewater, the city’s Planning Commission this week unanimously denied the applicant’s significantly-modified request to operate a restaurant that would serve alcohol.

(For a discussion of that earlier decision, please see The Overpowering Fear of a …Sports Bar.)

I’ve often thought that bad goes to worse — this decision proves the truth of that adage.

And yet, it’s not merely a decision against economic liberty — it’s more than that. In his attempt to justify the denial of the new request, Whitewater’s planning commissioner and council member Lynn Binnie offers an argument about alcohol that is deeply mistaken.

It’s not that Binnie’s not smart — he most certainly is. It’s not that he’s not sincere — I have no doubt that he is sincere.

It’s that if his argument should be right, then most of what Whitewater’s doing now has been wrong.

The Commissioner & Councilmember’s Basis for Rejecting a Restaurant that Serves Alcohol. To his credit, commissioner-councilmember Binnie correctly dismisses flimsy arguments over parking, etc. About that he’s surely correct –they’re trivial objections, and transparent efforts to impede the business on any grounds whatever. The former establishment operated just fine without difficulty over parking, deliveries, or — for that matter — liquor sales.

Here’s Binnie’s argument for denial, in excerpt, during the discussion:

….if this applicant wishes to run a restaurant there without a liquor license, this application wouldn’t even be in front of us…it’s the liquor license that’s the critical matter….

I don’t doubt that the applicant would want to run a respectable business. But the reality, as has been said, is that when patrons over-indulge in alcohol, there’s not sometimes a lot that the license-holder can do to control the behavior….

(The recording is not online — I will add it when it becomes available on Vimeo. Updated 2.16.12)


Plan Commission Meeting 02/13/2012 from Whitewater Community TV on Vimeo.

All the careful discussion from an experienced applicant, applicant’s attorney, architect, and the current business owners, and a commission-councilmember reduces all of it to a question of alcohol.

Commission-councilmember Binnie’s Assumption. One big assumption stands out — to serve alcohol is to facilitate — necessarily — over-indulgence. For Binnie, that’s an inevitable consequence of a liquor license at this proposed establishment.

The Failure of the Status Quo. This contention is, in fact, a startling admission. It’s not that people don’t think this way (they do), or say as much (they do) — it’s that they are seldom so candid about regulation when on camera.

Consider what Binnie’s sincere admission says, assuming (for now) that his view should be correct.

It says that Whitewater has done so poor a job of managing supposed risks from alcohol — despite endless boasting about not tolerating problems — that this city’s leaders fear even a restaurant with a liquor license on the biggest business avenue in the middle of the biggest business district in town.

I don’t believe that there’s such a risk, but if this should be
right, it says that existing policy has been a failure.

Previously, Binnie’s listed a parade of horribles that may result from over-drinking (even though he cannot quantify how frequently they will occur). Despite the enumeration, so carefully designed to sway emotions, how has a punitive and prohibitionist approach stopped the supposed problems he still frets over?

By his own account, it hasn’t.

The Truth about Public Health. Binnie contends it’s alcohol that’s at stake, but he could not be more wrong.

It’s not, and has never been, about alcohol – it’s about alcoholism and other addictions. These are not the same, and conflating them only avoids an effective solution to a real problem.

If commissioner-councilmember Binnie thinks alcohol is the problem, then I have a proposal for him….

Why Not Ban All Alcohol Sales in the City? If Binnie should be right, and alcohol sales lead to problems in the center of town that can be prevented only by a denial of a liquor license, then why not take away all the existing liquor licenses in town?

Why stop with one license, and leave so many other residents vulnerable to nearby establishments with liquor licenses? If
a councilmember believes alcohol itself is the problem, does he not owe it to this community to save all neighborhoods from that problem?

A supposed protection should not be extended only to nearby senior-home residents, but to all the city.

Failure to do so, by consequence of that reasoning, would be to leave thousands of residents vulnerable to the putative scourge of alcohol, itself.

Whitewater’s next Common Council meeting is February 23rd. If Binnie believes in what he’s saying (and I have no doubt that he does), why not propose a ban on alcohol in the entire city?

There would be a business cost to a ban, but if one truly worries over health, safety, and security, should the community not bear that cost? Wouldn’t failure to do so put a price on safety that would otherwise be improved under a ban?

I don’t believe that license-denial or a ban will improve public health, but for those who do, I would ask: do you value health, safety, and security less than someone’s pocketbook? What a cold calculation that would be.

Making Whitewater Dry Won’t Make it Dry. What if all Whitewater were dry? There would still be drinking, there would still be alcoholism, and our existing approach would still be nothing more than show.

Restaurants are Safe Environments. It’s embarrassing that I have to say as much, but is Whitewater so dull and pinched it thinks a restaurant is a problem? It’s safer than just about any alternative — including some homes.

The View from the Community Development Authority. It’s almost a parody of sense that a representative of the CDA spoke at the meeting about alcohol policy in the city.

That’s too funny — not content with a town of empty stores, dilapidated buildings, a half-empty business park (so vacant they plant corn in the lots!), a failed tax-incremental district, and dodgy excuses for failure to understand simple conflicts of interest while building a multi-million-dollar taxpayer-funded project, now one hears about…alcohol policy!

I well-understand that community development is broader than business development. But if one truly understood anything about community development, one wouldn’t be arguing for a reactionary, prohibitionist alcohol policy that (1) does nothing to improve public health while (2) perpetuating vacancy.

Business Liberty. If you can’t have a new restaurant with a liquor license on Main Street in Whitewater, you can’t have it anywhere that makes sense.

Why Not Try Harder to Make Whitewater Unmarketable to the World Beyond? Decisions like this make Whitewater laughable to sensible people thinking about relocating to a hip, prosperous, successful town.

Listening to a lengthy, somnolent recitation of all the worries over a bar from a nearby business owner – worries about pool tables, pub food, etc. — is like a bad re-enactment of a scene from The Music Man — trouble, that starts with ‘t’ and rhymes with ‘p’ that stands for pool…

A new restaurant can’t sell alcohol when a prior establishment at the same location did?

Oh, my.

The Reflexive Approach. This may be the least-thoughtful Planning Commission Whitewater has ever seen.

Not one from among the commissioners even ponders aloud a counter-argument to councilmember and commissioner Binnie’s position.

Even if Binnie should be right, is there no one on this commission even willing to offer a counter-argument?

Uniformity this pervasive fails Whitewater.

Neither personal nor economic health benefits from decisions like these.

Daily Bread

Daily Bread for 2.15.12

by  • 

Good morning.

It’s a cloudy but mild day ahead for Whitewater today, with a high temperature of forty.

At 4:30 PM, Whitewater’s Community Development Authority meets.

For an example of the diversity of life, consider World’s Tiniest Chameleons Found in Madagascar. How small are they? Really small —

Images: Glaw, F., et al., PLoS ONE via Wired.

Google’s puzzle for today asks about an object: “You’ll find me with wings, overlooking the intersection of Regent Street and Shaftesbury Avenue. What do I stand on?”

Inbox Reader Mail

Inbox: Reader Mail

by  • 

Here are summaries of some of the questions or email comments that I’ve received recently. There is no particular theme to this assortment. They’re summarized, but accurately reflect the questions and my original replies.

Why are you publishing drink recipes? Do you drink a lot? No, that’s too funny. I don’t drink much at all. In fact, it’s because I drink so little that a single drink from a recipe for a Pickleback or Michelada seems so much the treat.

Whitewater is always on my mind, and thinking about the recent fuss over a possible establishment along Main Street (more on that tomorrow), really brings home how poorly Whitewater’s supposed elites present this city to the world beyond. When I wrote a sketch-post entitled, How to Make Whitewater Hip and Prosperous, the mediocrity of the city’s and the Community Development Authority’s efforts to promote Whitewater hit home.

It must seem more than ironic to Whitewater’s governing class that it’s a critic who’s mentioning as much. Still, all these years, all these supposed grand projects, but there’s still worry over a license here or there.

Many (but not all) of the people who run the city manage it as though Whitewater were a perpetual Stick-in-the-Mud convention. It’s all what someone can’t do, shouldn’t do, dare not risk, etc. There’s a rampant, unjustified fear of disorder, a defensiveness that’s unattractive to the tourists and newcomers worth attracting.

Simultaneously, there’s much that’s quaint about rural life, but no one will come here for a Fifth Annual Butter-Churning and Hog-Grooming Festival, for example. (Actually, tourists would, if townspeople presented that festival as a spoof, but they would never do that.)

Deadly earnest is deadly dull. Deadly dull is dead-broke.

This municipal problem can be fixed, and by the end of this week I’ll re-organize my blogging to begin the very project to fix it. One can easily demonstrate how Whitewater should present itself, and how it should not.

If no one in authority will help make this town hip, I’ll do it myself.

Do you dislike/hate people in government? No, of course not. At the same time, I don’t care what they think of me. A smaller local government would suit us, but with only one definite exception (now long gone), people in local government aren’t somehow bad. Many are wrong about the reasonable exercise of public authority, however. There’s much too much over-reaching, and few are coached effectively against that over-reaching. Mistakes are met with lies or flimsy excuses – proof that coaching is poor throughout government.

Does Whitewater have any future at all? Yes, certainly, and I think — in the end — a bright one. It will take years to get there, but when the current generation of leaders retires, we likely will get there.

A New Whitewater is worth fighting over. I think we’ll have one — there’s reason for long-term optimism.

Who’s been the best politician in town? I answered this considering officials in government, from among leaders in the (1) municipal administration, (2) common council, and (3) school board and district.

There have been many fine leaders who have, and still, serve the community. I will admit, though, that I came too late to see the obvious talents and insight of former District Administrator Suzanne Zentner. I was a critic at the beginning of her tenure, but very much an admirer by its end. Even in a city filled with thousands of accomplished people, she was exceptionally well-educated, intelligent, and creative.

Is there a secret to blogging? Perhaps only one — write about what interests you. Observe, read, and then write — that’s a good order. For every word written, there should be many words read, many spoken in conversation, and more time still in observation of ordinary conditions.

On Romney, poverty, and the middle class (from an exchange with a sharp reader). I have just the place for a post on Romney, poverty, and the middle class.

On the supposed TSA air marshal arrested at Occupy Boston. Follow-up is on the way, later this week.

Daily Bread

Daily Bread for 2.14.12

by  • 

Good morning.

Just a bit of a wintry mix for Whitewater this morning, on a Valentine’s Day with a high temperature of thirty-four.

It was heartening to see in the results of last week’s poll that, for the overwhelming majority of respondents, there’s still a place on Valentine’s Day for flowers or chocolates. There’s something endearing about flowers and chocolate, I think.

And yet, for it all, every valentine is an effort to fulfill one desire only — whatever Beauty wants.

The Wisconsin Historical Society describes Valentine’s Day traditions from years past —

When you’re all worn out from wandering the malls in pursuit of the perfect gift, click over to our gallery of historic valentines to see where this custom originated.

Years ago, people didn’t buy mass-produced cards from multinational corporations in chain stores. They made valentines themselves as a personal expression of their feelings. For example, here are the winners and entries in the 1932 Capital Times valentine contest.

Of course, merchants have always tried to capitalize on the holiday sentiment of their customers. Here’s the main floor of Manchester’s Department Store in Madison with valentine displays in 1941. Within a year of that display, American couples would be torn apart by war. This rhyming valentine was sent by a soldier in the Pacific back to his wife back in Wisconsin in 1943.

We don’t know when school children began exchanging valentines in classrooms, but one aspect of it that seems to have died out is the crowning of a king and queen like these two in Milwaukee. Compulsory expressions of affection between children always struck some people as odd, but to compete for king and queen at it is an especially strange twist.

You can view more Valentines Day photos at our Wisconsin Historical Images collection.

 

Daily Bread

Daily Bread for 2.13.12

by  • 

Good morning.

A bit of snow today — less than an inch — is in store for Whitewater on a day with a high of thirty-three. In Butte, Montana, there’s just a slight chance of snow, with a high temperature of thirty-five.

Whitewater’s Planning Commission meets tonight at 6 PM, and the Library Board meets at 6:30 PM.

The Wisconsin Historical Society notes a long-ago problem, with a bad solution, from this day in 1935:

On this date, to stop gasoline price wars, the state of Wisconsin established a minimum price of 16 cents per gallon for gasoline. [Source: Janesville Gazette]

Price competition was an overall good, no matter how much a few might have thought otherwise. Thinking otherwise matters little; manipulating gas prices through state intervention during a depression matters much more.

Google’s puzzle for today asks a question about an English monarch: “Did more of this English king’s six marriages end with annulments or beheadings?”

.

Twitter

Recent Tweets, 2.5 to 2.11

by  • 

10 Feb
Mice upset with cats, too: Dem Superintendent Evers upset with GOP Gov Walker over education bill bit.ly/w6UfRQ

9 Feb
No easy path: Foreclosure Deal to Spur U.S. Home Seizures – Bloomberg bloom.bg/Ag98Bw

9 Feb
100% Ridiculous: Mississippi Bill Changes Name of ‘Gulf of Mexico’ to ‘Gulf of America’ bit.ly/Aw1VIQ

7 Feb
One of biggest WI stories in months: Lawmakers were made to pledge secrecy over redistricting bit.ly/wrnoL5

5 Feb
February 5th: On This Day in Wisconsin History 1849 – University of Wisconsin opens bit.ly/wcsgvS