Here’s my commentary on the November 12th Planning Commission Meeting, Part 1.
Intricacies of Public Meetings
Public meetings run the risk of devolving into intricacy, ‘inside baseball’ commentary, and jargon unfamiliar to most residents. When there are a few committees involved, the risk grows greater. The politics of the Community Development Authority, Planning Commission, and Downtown Whitewater might seem familiar to the small number of citizens involved on them, but it’s unlikely that much of this matters to others. It’s not difficult to understand; on the contrary, it’s often presented as more difficult than it actually is. It’s that most people sensibly don’t care about small, inside matters.
Storage Sheds
A business owner wants to build more storage sheds, and a member of the Planning Commission wondered if Whitewater already has enough storage shed space. It’s a legitimate question, best answered by the business owner, who’s likely to be in the best – though not inerrant – position of knowing.
Apartments at the Dairy Supply Store
The Question: Should the City of Whitewater allow a conditional use of residential space on the first floor of the old Dairy Supply Store? You might say yes, or no. Imagine though, someone who proposes a third option: the city should purchase the property, and destroy it.
That’s so reactionary it’s bold: despite an identified, private, conventional, residential use, the city would buy and destroy the property. That’s probably the worst idea possible. Here are a few of the reasons: (1) The city’s role as real estate purchaser places a burden on the taxpayers to fund these purchases, (2) the city would expend this cost despite an identified, viable private activity, (3) city purchases will encourage unviable enterprises to seek taxpayer-financed purchases, (4) a municipality’s deeper pockets will offer a competitive advantage against the private real estate market, (5) municipal purchases of this type are designed to take a property off the market, thereby decreasing supply, and increasing shortages, (6) taxpayer-financed purchases that take property of the market act are a boon to other commercial owners at the public expense. I could go on, but you see my point…
Presentations: Tami Brodnicki, Bill Bowen. Downtown Whitewater Director Brodnicki read two statements — one from her organization, and a personal statement. Her organization’s statement was not as definitive as she would have liked, and so she stated her opposition herself. It’s a political mistake, surely. The mention of two statements only reveals the gap between her position and that of her organization. It’s a sign that she cannot sway her group’s majority her way — evidence of organizational weakness. When Bowen mentioned that Downtown Whitewater only adopted the milder statement after it could not muster a majority for Brodnicki’s stronger one, he only confirmed Attorney Simon’s point to that effect.
By the way, when Brodnicki mentions the term ‘walkable urbanity,’ she’s referring to a term that urban planner Christopher Leinberger coined in “Turning Around Downtown: Twelve Steps to Revitalization.” His paper’s available from Brookings.
What neither Brodnicki nor Bowen demonstrated is how the proposed project would prevent or appreciably inhibit walkable urbanity. If they want to contend persuasively that walkable urbanity is threatened, they owe it to others to show how that would measurably happen in this case. Otherwise, all they offer is unquantifiable, measureless speculation, wrapped in a clever term. That’s not what Leinberger had in mind.
Presentations: Lawyer vs. Dentist
Attorney Mitchell Simon and Councilman-Dentist Roy Nosek were on opposite sides of the Dairy Store issue. Attorney Simon represented DLK before the board, and sought the conditional use for residential, first floor housing. Dr. Nosek spoke against first floor residential space in the building, fearing that it would prove a “death-knell” for the area.
I can see the value of having an attorney as a both a social matter, a suggestion of the importance to the client, and as evidence of the ability to contest an adverse decision. Everyone in the room knows the attorney, he’s reputed to be skilled in real property law, and his client might be able to use his services if the decision at the Planning Commission proved unfavorable. There’s value in all of that.
When a principal opponent of the conditional use rose to speak, did his remarks – in form and substance – surprise anyone? I cannot imagine that they did. Next time, I’ll start a drinking game for references to death-knells in the neighborhood: a shot of Chivas for each and every time that expression is used. I’ll coat my stomach with buttermilk to make it through the evening.
There’s a theory that some professions attract people who are more risk averse than others. Does this mean – and I’m being serious here – that dentists are ultra risk averse? I only ask because a person who often argues against free market projects may simply dislike the risk, volatility, and vibrancy inherent in all free markets. Fair enough – perhaps someone doesn’t like it, and would favor a regulated, code-enforced, highly-managed municipality. That would be an easy position to take, I suppose, if one received a steady income in a small town from, say, dental patients.
It’s a recipe for stagnation and mediocrity for everyone else. This is not manorial England, and we’ve not produced so much, of such quality, through the techniques of the guild, exclusive charter, and the state-dominated concern. You may imagine yourself as you wish, but the role of stodgy, country squire is ill-suited to America’s tradition of growth and prosperity.
A position is not an argument – you may dislike residential housing, etc., but why — in this case — would it harm the downtown? Why would it harm the downtown more than an empty building with no retail use? To say that it’s inconsistent with other plans is only useful if you can show that consistency makes sense. The presumed importance of consistency is often a false presumption. In most matters in life, it will not harm anyone to have a bit of variation, with one exception: it will offend those for whom inconsistency is a bugbear. It’s harder to make meaningful distinctions than it is to enforce comprehensive uniformity. The imposition of uniformity, though, has an ersatz intellectual power about it – people sometimes fancy themselves clever when they spot differences that they can correct into consistencies.
I’m seldom impressed.
Sensibly, the conditional use was approved on a 4 – 3 vote.