This was one of the better, and worse, Council meetings that Whitewater’s recently had. (Dickens famously used the ‘best of times, worst of times’ contrast, and it’s been over-used since. As one more example of its overuse is only an infinitesimally small addition to the total supply of over-use, I’m a low-polluter, and almost … green.)
I’ll will offer a few comments, leaving aside some topics that may make their way into a series on planning beginning next week.
UWW Football Recognition. A fine, well-deserved recognition for a national champion.
City Funds for Art. Here the topic was additional public money for the archway near the Cravath lakefront. It’s possible to support art without use of public funds. By my count, only one member of the Council voted against the proposal, but one’s a start. So far has the public intruded on the private that an art project that needs more money can reasonably expect public assistance.
It is, after all, more public money, I think. There was public money before, and there’s more more now, after the Council’s vote. A project has less incentive to (1) budget well, and (2) adhere to the budget, and (3) test community support among private donors if its organizers can be sure of public funds, to cover shortfalls. It’s often easier to persuade one political body to use public funds than to commit to the harder work of testing community support through private donations.
Lake Planning Grant. I have not covered previously the deliberations regarding a grant to assess the condition and restoration of the city’s lakes, but the least one can say is that a grant should not presuppose that the entire city become a taxable, lake-supporting district. The most that one can guess is that at least a few backers of the grant have already decided that is what should happen, before any study is completed, and even before the application for the grant for the study.
Moratorium on First Floor Apartments in the Downtown District. I’ll discuss this as part of an upcoming planning series.
Planners Beware. I wrote last week that I do not consider politician-dentist Dr. Roy Nosek’s views “representative of planning, generally.” I affixed ‘generally’ only to give planners a shot in the ribs. It was a little joke at the expense of those who favor government intervention over private activity: be careful, planners, or someone will associate Dr. Nosek with your position.
That’s one albatross that would weigh heavy on any neck.
University Buildings, Parking Spaces, and Green Living. Here’s an example of the absence of planning. Dr. Nosek argued for a reduction of allowed parking spaces for university buildings that were ‘green.’
Consider two positions that one could take: (1) those in a ‘green’ building would rely less on cars, so would not need as many parking spaces or (2) the reduction would only shift existing cars unable to park at the building onto adjacent streets. Dr. Nosek took the first position, Craig Stauffer the second.
Stauffer’s position was the more realistic, and I found Dr. Nosek’s search for reasons to restrict parking unpersuasive. Nosek is now the champion of a ‘green’ position, and perhaps he always has been (although I did not notice that commitment in him until it involved a reduction in parking spaces for university students).
Nosek also mentioned that it was the university that was responsible for our traffic problem. He’s right that we do have a traffic problem; he just doesn’t understand what it is. It’s not that we have too much, it’s that we have too little. Nosek betrays no feel for the market — none. He has patients, but he does not understand customers.
Socialists in the Dairyland, Part 2. Here’s what I wrote on November 20th about Dr. Nosek’s request — tabled at that time — for the city to acquire the Dairy Supply Building:
Every time you don’t like a commercial development, does it make sense to ask the city’s taxpayers to purchase the property, to prevent the development from happening? No, because it shows that (1) you’re ignorant of economics, and (2) worse, your ignorance will wreck our economy. There’s considerable imbecility in an approach that favors municipal purchases of anything a cranky politician dislikes simply because he dislikes it. (Note to UWW students: Relax. The Thirteenth Amendment will keep you safe from an approach based on purchasing whatever a local politician dislikes.)
The proposal was back again last night, from Dr. Nosek.
Dr. Nosek invariably contends that his ideas and proposals represent the voice of the community at large, or that action is necessary for the sake of the people, etc. I had this to say on September 4th about Nosek’s conviction that he’s a tribune of community sentiment, for another of his proposals: “Too funny. Here’s someone who seems oblivious to the concept of selection or situation bias. It’s predictable that everyone says that to him. Selected acquaintances often either agree with one’s views on a subject, or know enough to pretend that they do.”
This is the same Roy Nosek who won his current seat, representing a single district, by a mere 2 — that’s two, one more than one — votes. I am convinced almost any opponent could defeat Nosek in a citywide contest.
(Quick aside: A while ago, over a year before I started publishing FREE WHITEWATER, some people asked me to run for local office. It was kind of them to ask, but I had no interest in doing so. They asked because they thought that I would make a good opponent as a campaigner, and in debate, against a candidate in a citywide race. I enjoy public speaking and debate, and stay calm and relaxed in those situations. The candidate was not Dr. Nosek, but anyone running against Dr. Nosek would have any number of interesting opportunities.)
One of the owners of ME & My Pets, Eric Lange, correctly noted that the expansion of his store surely indicates more support for his business, at its curent location, than Dr. Nosek’s imagined support for city acquisition of the building.
By the way, when Dr. Nosek contended — by way of clarification — that he did not want the city to purchase the building, but rather that he wanted the city to begin action to ‘acquire it,’ he was neither serious nor clear in what he wanted.
When a citizen speaks, at the podium, is it really too much for Dr. Roy Nosek — politician, dentist, champion of community aesthetics — to bear? For him, perhaps it is. He speaks, but he bristles, squirms, and asks for a time limit at speech in opposition.
Dr. Nosek should think more carefully about his proposed aesthetic standards. What if I offered a petition, online, to request that the city initiate proceedings to acquire a certain drab office building on Main Street, near Sentry? I would do so for purely aesthetic reasons, of course. It’s a squat, dull ranch home that serves as the business office of a local politician-dentist.
Main Street is a prominent location, and surely deserves a more appealing presentation in so noticeable a location. Perhaps the city could ‘acquire’ it, and then tear it down, to make all Whitewater look nicer. We could use a dog park in town; everyone loves to see cute puppies frolicking about, and the change would give Whitewater a soft, welcoming image.
I wouldn’t truly advocate the acquisition, of course. Dr. Nosek’s not so reticent, though, about his plans to displace others, in support of his sense of development and aesthetics.
I am sure that at least a few would find his sense of both development and community aesthetics lacking.