Good morning.
Tuesday in Whitewater will see afternoon clouds and evening thunderstorms with a high of 85. Sunrise is 5:25 and sunset 8:17 for 14h 52m 53s of daytime. The moon is a waxing gibbous with 95.5 percent of its visible disk illuminated.
Whitewater’s Lakes Advisory Special Committee meets at 9 AM and the Common Council meets at 6:30 PM.
On or about May 21, 1673, Fr. Jacques Marquette, fur-trader Louis Joliet, and five French voyageurs pulled into a Menominee community near modern Marinette, Mich.
On this day in 1792, a lava dome collapses on Mount Unzen, near the city of Shimbara on the Japanese island of Kyushu, creating a deadly tsunami that kills nearly 15,000 people.
Witness conflicts of interest and hear self-serving claims long enough, and one risks becoming accustomed to them. The claims offered may be no better than a child’s connivances, yet repetition will cause hesitation even among reasonable and independent-minded people. FREE WHITEWATER published a few words on Monday about Whitewater’s new Common Council and Community Development Authority majorities. See On a New Common Council & New Community Development Authority. Today, a few remarks will follow about specific contentions from holdovers of yesteryear’s CDA.
The video of the Whitewater CDA meeting from 5.16.24 is embedded above. In remarks below, I will refer to specific claims from that meeting, and from earlier public meetings.
A few points worth remembering:
1. Whitewater lacks adequate housing. This condition should be evident to everyone and anyone. See Video, CDA Meeting of 5.16.24 @ 33:02.
2. Whitewater’s new CDA majority has proposed a residential development on South Moraine View Drive. See Video, CDA Meeting of 5.16.24 @ 31:47 and professional reporting from WhitewaterWise, CDA recommends approval of 128-unit multifamily development on Moraine View Parkway. This proposal is well-located and would provide a needed boost to our housing supply.
3. Rents in Whitewater are high for many residents.
4. A former CDA chairman, a second-generation landlord, when arguing against these new opportunities for others, concedes his belief that the proposed developments will affect his financial condition:
He [a consultant] mentioned that it would have no effect on student housing. And he’s absolutely wrong.
See Video, CDA Meeting of 5.16.24 @ 36:14.
It’s a candid admission: an acknowledgment that his view is particular, specific, and biased, impacting his interests.
These are not the views of an independent, unbiased analyst. It’s as though someone asked a Volkswagen salesman on commission which car to buy. (Be careful: someone may try to slip in some TruCoat.)
It is an implicit concession that rents will decline in conditions of steady demand and increased supply. With holdings in incumbent properties, this gentleman has a financial interest in preventing an increase in supply that might affect his bottom line.
5. He follows with a disingenuous assertion that he knows of no instance in which the city has provided financial assistance to a project like this. See Video, CDA Meeting of 5.16.24 @ 36:37.
The closer you look at his claim, the less you see.
The claim that there hasn’t been an effort to subsidize is disingenuous because policymakers (and self-interested men) can influence policy not merely through spending but through zoning. They can pay to make something happen, or they can argue against zoning regulations to limit competitors.
These gentlemen once backed zoning liberalization in the mid-Aughts when they wanted more opportunities for rental properties. See from March 2014 Last Night’s Zoning Rewrite Meeting (Residential Sections).
Later, when, as incumbents, they decided that they’d rather not have competition, they began to argue against others’ new properties. From 2014 see Daily Union, Whitewater council eyes zoning for Campus Edge development, where the CDA chairman produced a parade of horribles against more development.
See also FREE WHITEWATER @ Boo! Scariest Things in Whitewater, 2014 (“So a new apartment building at Main & Prince is ‘too extreme’ in design for Whitewater? Well, I would guess that existing landlords must think so. [Update: For consumers, it’s a good thing, and a bad joke that anyone from the CDA would shill against it.]”)
Years later (they’re tenacious!) they similarly fought in 2018 against a project on Tratt Street. See Daily Union, Common council rezones annexed land.
That project has been quite helpful and attractive.
As with the 2014 effort, they argued up and down against more supply to meet demand.
6. Perhaps, as someone now contends, he’s simply an advocate of affordable single-family homes. No, he’s not. These gentlemen have argued against affordable homes in Whitewater. In 2022, they argued against smaller homes, insisting on larger ones instead.
See from 2022 Housing Opportunity and Opportunity’s Adversaries, where these men argued against smaller lots for more modest, affordable homes. Fortunately, at least some lots were approved.
Whitewater’s Common Council, by a vote of 5-2 at its 9.20.22 session, sensibly approved on first reading the creation of an R1-S zoning district for detached, single-family homes on smaller lots. A zoning change that offers some builders and buyers, even in limited areas, more options is, prima facie, the right decision.
So what a this lights on for us, lights off for you public policy? It’s this:
A tiny clique of landlords has for years addressed this issue opportunistically. These few wanted to liberalize Whitewater’s ordinances to permit more student housing. And so, and so, there were more student apartments in the center of town. Ah, but when competitors sought approval to build on Prince or Tratt Streets, an incumbent landlord (and sometime public official) used one claim after another under the city’s ordinances to prevent or restrict those competitive projects.
These are proud, private businessmen right up until the time they hold public offices and entreat public bodies to bend to their special-interest desires.
The larger homes these men advocated would have been out of reach for many residents.
It’s as though you told a struggling person that he should hold off buying tuna until he could afford caviar. A person taking that advice would go hungry waiting.
They opportunistically shift from one position to another while leaving residents without genuine, real options. Wait a bit is easier for men who already have than men and women who would like something affordable.
These gentlemen want the law liberalized when it liberalization suits their bottom line, but want the law restricted when restriction suits their bottom line. They could not be more obvious if they tried. (In my own case, the best policy would be fewer restrictions all the way down, but that’s not the point here. The point is that their views have shifted with their interests rather than the common good, and their interests are not the same as the city’s interests
7. Tax incremental funding comes up as an objection to this project. One should remember that the new CDA’s program here is to meet an existing need for affordable housing. A reminder: food, clothing, shelter. Any tax incremental fiancing now would meet a fundamental need. (I write this, by the way, as a long-standing critic of tax incremental financing; yet, this critic can see that some cases are more important than others, are more understandable than others.)
For years, these older men were involved in tax increment financing for Whitewater. They weren’t critics then; they’re raising doubts now they see competition. (These are not free-market men; they’re a few self-helping businessmen.)
See from the 2013 Whitewater Register, TIF districts reviewed by city’s CDA:
Expressing optimism with perceived economic improvements, members of the Whitewater CDA recently discussed a number of the areas of the city designated as tax incremental financing (TIF) districts.
Officials briefly went over TIF districts 5 to 8 during a meeting Oct. 23. TIFS 5 and 7 are designated for mixed-use, a term denoting a blend of commercial and residential uses. TIFs 6 and 8, meanwhile, are earmarked for industrial use.
“We’re kind of getting out of the doldrums of this economy,” said CDA Chair Jeff Knight, expressing optimism of future development within the city.
Our current housing needs are, by far, greater than those of any tax incremental plan or other plan that a former CDA has ever advocated in this city.
If these few holdovers from another time would like to lecture others about tax incremental financing, they should first look to their past roles in tax incremental financing in this community.
Most important of all: it’s a city of 15,000 equal people, many of whom have good ideas for our future. A few older men who keep insisting ‘we’ve never done it that way’ or ‘that’s not our history’ only bolster the case for encouraging new officials, new voices, to advance a different way. We’ve not benefited from the public policy advice of the last generation. See A Candid Admission from the Whitewater CDA and Whitewater’s Still Waiting for That Boom.
It’s time — well past time — to blaze a new trail.
Yeah one hundred percent.Some of us thought their way would work but was that ever wrong.It’s all the same talk from these guys but all about their places.Sorry guys you had your chance you left the town poor while you got rich.
Once upon a time, in the bustling town of Whitewater, there lived two notorious figures known as “Robbing” Hood and Little Lobbyist. Unlike the legendary heroes of old, these two characters were masters of a very different kind of redistribution.
Robbing Hood, a landlord with a heart as cold as the coins he hoarded, had a keen eye for squeezing every last penny out of his tenants. His properties were as old as the hills and twice as decrepit, yet he charged rents that made even the wealthiest weep. Robbing Hood had perfected the art of securing votes against any new development that might dare to challenge his monopolistic kingdom of crumbling empires.
Little Lobbyist, on the other hand, was the town’s smooth-talking charmer. Employed by an ensemble of businesses and landlords, his silver tongue worked tirelessly to masquerade their self-serving interests as public policy, spinning tales of progress and prosperity, all while ensuring that the town’s resources flowed directly into the pockets of the rich and powerful.
Together, they were an unstoppable duo. They prowled the halls of the Community Development Authority (CDA) and the Common Council, stonewalling any initiative that threatened their dominion. With grand gestures and eloquent speeches, they convinced the townsfolk that their decrepit empires were the only way forward, all while the town fell deeper into decline.
Robbing Hood and Little Lobbyist did not work alone. They had a band of catspaws, their very own merry men, who infiltrated the council, the CDA, and other committees. These operatives, always ready to serve their masters, tirelessly spread disinformation and blocked progress at every turn. For years, they successfully sowed seeds of doubt and maintained the status quo, ensuring that the riches continued to flow upward.
The merry men of Robbing Hood and Little Lobbyist had their numbers shrink over time as the townsfolk began to see through the charade. The promises of prosperity made by Robbing Hood and Little Lobbyist had resulted in nothing but misfortune and decline for the community. Gradually, the people of Whitewater learned that the tales spun by the duo were mere illusions designed to keep them subservient.
As the new, sincere officials took their places within the Common Council and the CDA, the influence of the merry men waned. The independent and principled leaders, prioritizing the needs of the entire community, began to dismantle the web of lies and deceit woven by Robbing Hood and Little Lobbyist.
The townsfolk watched with bated breath, hoping for a day when their city would no longer be held hostage by the greed and manipulation of Robbing Hood, Little Lobbyist, and their dwindling band of catspaws. They dreamed of a Whitewater where prosperity was shared, and the needs of all were met.
And so, the tale of Robbing Hood, Little Lobbyist, and their merry men serves as a cautionary reminder that true heroes work for the good of all, not just the wealthy and powerful.
the tuna/caviar divide makes the point. lots of people are struggling but a small group wants everyone to wait or pay them. it’s like other people don’t get to have chances if it’s not what the oligarch junior wants. hey it’s all about him isn’t it? he has his nice place doesn’t he?
Good post. Tough but true. The reality is that they’ve had too too much influence over policy. That’s why it is possible to describe their approach as something a one horse southern town. The peak for these guys was like 10 years ago. Not that they were some great thing, but it’s been downhill since. They won’t let go, and it crowds out other voices.
They are in no way used to people disagreeing or having different approaches. They expect the city to do things their way and the way they want. (Credit to you that no matter how critical you are you see that what happens is a collective decision that’s not yours to make.)
These guys want people to think they are on top of their game but they lose their cool fast. They want people to fall in line and get hot when it doesn’t do their way. Hard to say what kind of public relations it is that gets angry at the podium and waves papers around.People really noticed that. Along with the insane negotiations over the pool and weird school district shenanigans these guys have just worn people out. Everybody sees it coming a mile away.
The argument that policies should remain unchanging because ‘we’ve never done it any other way’ becomes an argument in which upcoming generations are hostages elderly ones, enslaved to the past, and forced to live as the oldest generation demands. It would be a world where every future generation listened to phonographs, drove gas guzzlers, and watched only a few channels of black-and-white television.
No generation deserves that much power over others.
No successful American community has the motto: the same policies forever and ever.
Go ahead: innovate genuinely. It’s what made our civilization the envy of the world.