This is Part 2 of my commentary on the Planning Commission meeting for November 12, 2007. (Here’s the link to Part 1.)

Apartments at the old Hallmark Location
Why are residential tenants worse than vacancies? Empty retail spaces are worse than occasional litter and disturbances from residential tenants. They’re a sign of our lack of vitality, our failure to promote incentives, and our perverse conclusion that nothing is better than an imperfect something. Vacancies make us weaker, and more vulnerable, to the next recession or unfortunate event.

Brodnicki and Bowen, Again.
Neither one can offer a tenant for the space, but they want to stop a plan that a private owner proposes. Odd, and laughable, was Brodnicki’s suggestion that she wants to attract young couples and empty nesters, those who “have money, who want to spend money in our downtown.” Fine — but that’s not the choice you face, is it? It’s a choice between first floor apartments and nothing but vacant space. What might go in the vacant space doesn’t matter — what will take the space matters. You’re not signing the deed, a private investor is doing that.

If part of one’s job is to recruit businesses to our downtown, and yet one is not attracting the businesses that one would like, perhaps a little humility would be in order. I suggest accepting those who will take the space, rather than insisting on one’s way or nothing. Nothing is good for…nothing. People in town might like to see all sorts of businesses, but if those businesses don’t show up, then we’re all left staring at is emptiness.

Bookstores? I’m sure there are people who want bookstores, but that’s a weak hope. Amazon, BN, and Wal-Mart have killed the independent bookstore, and that’s killed as in ‘not coming back.’

After listening to Brodnicki’s petulant, irritable presentation, I almost longed for the return of the politician-dentist. Almost.

America’s booming, with impressive growth and job creation, and yet we’re still beset by vacant storefronts. In July, I ran a post entitled, Vacant Whitewater,” showing empty storefronts. Several people rushed to tell me how upsetting it was to the current administration, with accompanying vows never to read this supposedly negative website.

I was unmoved then; I have three responses now.

First, the problem with these vacancies is not a problem for some well-paid municipal official. It’s a problem for the community. Some public official’s eggshell sensibilities are not the biggest problem in Whitewater – they’re not even on a list of the top 500 problems worthy of consideration. If the commentary in this site troubles a municipal official, then he or she is ill-prepared to lead. There’s free, robust commentary in cities across America. Many politicians, all over America, handle far more serious criticism with equanimity. We can, and should expect, that we can handle commentary as well as those in other cities.

Second, these properties are still vacant.

Third, one writes what one believes, and I’ll not trim my sails to attract readers. ‘Free and honest’ means free and honest, not ‘deferential to make appointed officials feel better about themselves.’

There’s icing on the cake, too, for being direct: traffic has been up each month at FREE WHITEWATER.

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.

The Common Council cannot tax more, spend more, and hire more, and expect Whitewater to grow more. Whitewater can easily do the first three, but it should not expect the final result. It is, however, what Council must expect now. Time will prove this expectation false.

It’s predictable, though, that — initially — competent planning will produce a few stylish results that will convince people of the merits of planning itself. Along the way, the planner will be certain that he’s right, that his years of experience prove to him that he must be right, and that there is no better way. It’s not just planning, in his mind: it’s his conviction in his supposed smart, clever, well-managed planning that will make these things possible. This is the unstated premise of most planning.

I have read any number of news releases in the Banner about recent improvement to our streets, and how stylish they look, with gushing mention of every detail, including the imitation red brickface etched into their walkways. I’d be remiss if I did not mention that any number of stagnant Wisconsin towns have that same look, now faded without having induced any growth whatever.

An increasingly planned and managed future will not benefit Whitewater. Wait even a few years, and we’ll find that the gap between our city and nearby towns will have widened, to our disadvantage.