FREE WHITEWATER

City, Free Markets

Update on Housing

by  • 

I received an email on my last post that pointed out an option I did not address – a few privately owned, multi-unit, larger apartments close to campus. These new units would require modifications to zoning in some specific parts of the city.

They would have a large number of units, in a smaller area, so would meet demand more effectively than attempts – conventional or covert – to modify owner-occupied homes. They would likely offer a range of amenities that single-home conversions would not easily match.

Alterations in zoning, even in a few areas, would make this possible. Lessening of zoning restrictions in some areas might be matched, under this plan, by tightening in others.

(That’s a trade, where I would want to lessen restrictions only.)

There are two quick replies to the large apartment idea, but as I favor even fewer zoning restrictions, they’re not replies that I would make.

(1) There are some who would insist that students reside on campus, and there be no growth of any kind in off-campus student apartments.

(2) There would prove to be a not-in-my-backyard move against any multi-dwelling units, even among some who might relent to zoning changes (however targeted) in principle.

The campus is large relative to Whitewater, and it will not go away. (We would be ruined if, somehow, it did.) It cannot be regulated into place even with severe measures.

If not anywhere, then nowhere; if nowhere, then the present underground market will continue.

Thinking about my original post from 5/13, it focused too much on the limitations of a reclamation effort to take rental properties back to single family housing. Private construction of larger, multi-unit apartments would be an option to satisfy rental demand. That’s a growth option, too.

Here’s an objection to my proposal that new, single-family home construction be encouraged —

Edge-of-city subdivisions that would come with new growth would be undesirable to some homebuyers – they’d want homes like those currently located near the center of the city.

If homes near the city’s center are desirable in their present form, they’ll be on the market for those who want them in that form. If restrictions stifle opportunities for multi-unit, apartment demand, and that demand cannot be met, as it is not being met now, then those homes will remain attractive to multi-unit conversion.

If we have no other outlet for a demand that leads single-family homes in the core of the city being converted into apartments, we’ll not effectively prevent conversion only through zoning to protect those homes from change. Demand will work its will.

If we are to have significantly more single family homes (to bolster school enrollment, etc.), they’ll have to come from new growth.   Reclamation would yield far less by comparison.  There are well over a thousand more rental units, with rental construction still outpacing owner-occupied construction over these last few years. Changing that trend will require meeting rental demand while expanding new owner-occupied construction. Those new homes may be subdivision-situated, on the periphery of the city, attracting buyers finding them good purchases.

Daily Bread

Daily Bread: May 14, 2008

by  • 

Good morning, Whitewater

The National Weather Service predicts a high of 61 degrees with decreasing clouds; the Farmers’ Almanac predicts sunny skies.

In our school district, there will be a high school band concert in the high school auditorium tonight at 7:30 p.m.

For public meetings, there is a scheduled meeting of the Tree Commission at 6 p.m. There is a scheduled meeting of the Police and Fire Commission at 7 p.m. at the municipal building.

City, Free Markets

Common Council Meeting from 5/6: Housing Task Force Recommendations

by  • 

Whitewater’s Housing Task Force produced a set of eight recommendations for the Whitewater Common Council. These recommendations were part of the discussion on May 6th. They would require necessary Council action or city planning and drafting.

1. Whitewater and the Community Development Authority should establish a first time buyers’ program to encourage single family home ownership in the community.
2. Whitewater should encourage neighborhood associations.
3. Whitewater should amend the existing municipal ordinance on re-inspections.
4. Whitewater should establish a chronic nuisance ordinance like the one in Janesville.
5. Whitewater should amend a current ordinance regarding award of attorney’s fees.
6. Amendment to an existing ordinance in order to support better the quiet enjoyment of property.
7. Establishing a rental registration data (not involving names of individual renters but landlords) on the basis of public safety, etc.
8. Consideration of additional neighborhood services staff.

My remarks are not directed at any of these eight points specifically, but are more general.

In presenting the recommendations, the City Manager noted that Whitewater may have one of the lowest percentages of single-family housing in the state. That’s possible – we are somewhere in the mid 30s as a percentage, where Wisconsin’s and America’s averages are over 60%.

Benefits of Home Ownership. There’s little debate in America about the benefit of owning one’s home. Even in places where homeownership has historically been lower than America, people quickly see the benefits of owning their own home when it becomes possible.

The idea of owner occupied home-ownership as an advantage for most is undoubted.

Whitewater’s Circumstances. There are some peculiarities to Whitewater that make increasing the percentage of owner-occupied units challenging.

I believe that we have the largest campus to city ratio of the thirteen public, four year colleges in the UW system. As far as I can tell, there is no other city in Wisconsin whose UW campus is so large a fraction of the city.

There is, by fractional amount, simply less of the non-campus Whitewater population than in other campus cities. Or, to put it another way, our campus is just bigger by percentage than other cities’ campuses (and more than some care to admit).

Perhaps there are private Wisconsin colleges that are a greater fraction of their home city’s size than our university is, but I do not know of one. Of the thirteen, four-year universities in the UW system, seven are twenty percent or less of their home city’s population (Eau Claire, Green Bay, La Crosse, Madison, Milwaukee, Oshkosh, Parkside, Superior). One is between twenty and fifty percent (Stevens Point), and three are apparently over fifty percent (Stout, Platteville, Whitewater).

That’s a significant campus presence that presents demand for rental housing. The demand for rental housing might decline if (1) there were more on-campus housing, or (2) more students commuted. It’s unlikely that either will happen. If anything, new developments on campus may make residence (rather than commuting) more attractive for a few students.

The large number of rental units means that absolute increases in the number of single family home will not easily register a percentage increase in overall owner-occupied units. The existing balance shows far more rental units.

Incentives to encourage single family homes by reclaiming rental properties will face opposing pressures from campus changes that may make renting more attractive to students.

I am not sure how many incentives will be enough to spur single family construction, but reductions in fees for single family home construction, or their elimination, may be one component to spur additional construction here.

Merely rearranging the proportion of existing single family and rental units would prove a Herculean task, where the campus is so relatively large. Reclamation will prove, I am convinced, less fruitful than efforts to spur new construction.

Enforcement of Zoning. Whitewater, for better or worse, is close to an underground market in rental housing. Those who disapprove – some very strongly – of rental housing near the campus see this as a sign to increase enforcement and regulation of existing zoning regulations.

I would contend, as I have, that concern with zoning regulation, and a focus on reduction or elimination of many construction fees, might spur owner-occupied growth, albeit perhaps not so close to the university.

An underground market seems an odd situation for America – black markets are more common in poorly functioning, heavily regulated economies. We have black markets here, too, of course, but not so many as other places.

What to do? Try to enforce rental housing away, or reduce restrictions to permit additional private development of owner-occupied units? (I see the concern that reducing restrictions may transform near-campus areas, even if the overall stock of owner–occupied units would increase elsewhere in the city.)

It is, however, extremely difficult, to enforce a change in the overall percentages of single family homes and rental units solely from existing units.

(It’s far different from enforcing for noise, etc. When I mention reductions in regulation, I’m referring here to reductions in zoning more than nuisance enforcement.)

If it were easy, there would be no underground market now. Even societies far more controlling than anything in America struggle to prevent underground markets from operating (or tacitly allow them because of the benefits from their greater efficiencies).

There is only a limited gain to be had from trying to enforce zoning ordinances, though, to change the overall housing mix in a city where the campus is so large a part of the city, and thus where rental units so predominate.

Ultimately, growth of single family units apart from a reallocation of the type of existing units will be the only practical course.

Libertarians

Bob Barr’s Week

by  • 

Yesterday, Bob Barr, former Republican representative from Georgia, announced his candidacy (after earlier establishing an exploratory committee) for the Libertarian Party (LP) nomination. The nomination will be decided in the next week. Barr faces, among others, a collection of longstanding LP candidates and party members.

I do not have a preferred candidate in the 2008 presidential race.

Real Clear Politics has a story from Ben Evans on the impact that Barr might have, should he win the LP nomination. Ordinarily, the LP candidate does poorly, and in 2004 Michael Badnarik (unknown to most) received less than 1% of the national vote.

David Weigel has a libertarian’s perspective on Barr’s possible impact. Evans thinks Barr would make a difference in close states in the fall; Weigel attributes this in part to Barr’s ability to attract national press attention.

Daily Bread

Daily Bread: May 13, 2008

by  • 

Good morning, Whitewater

There will be a meeting tonight, beginning at 7:00, of the Common Council with the School Board and Whitewater Aquatic Center Board, at 580 S. Elizabeth St.

Elsewhere in our school district, there will be both a band concert and a PTO meeting at Lincoln School tonight.

On this day in 1918, according to the Wisconsin Historical Society, a murder trial began in Waukesha for Grace Lusk, accused of killing the wife of a man with whom she was involved. She was convicted, but served only part of her sentence after being pardoned by the then-Governor.

The National Weather Service predicts a slight chance of showers today, but a much greater likelihood tonight. The Farmers’ Almanac predicts sunny skies.

The Brewers are playing .500 ball, and are now 19-19 in their division.

City

Common Council Resolution on Free Expression

by  • 

The City of Whitewater Common Council approved a resolution at its last meeting regarding freedom of expression.

I will post the text of the resolution below, and link to it though a page of my website. It is an elegant and clear expression re-affirming American liberties.

Update: May 13, 2008 — It was Common Council member Lynn Binnie who introduced this resolution, and I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge his contribution. His resolution is a principled affirmation worthy of proper recognition.

A Resolution Re-Affirming the Commitment of the City of Whitewater to the Freedom of Expression Guaranteed by the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions.

“Whereas, the City of Whitewater fully supports the Constitution of the United States and its amendments, and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, and whereas these documents guarantee freedom of expression,

And whereas the preservation of civil rights and liberties is essential to the well-being of a democratic society and to the enjoyment of justice and freedom by all citizens and residents of Whitewater,

And whereas the United States Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment,

Now therefore be it resolved that the City of Whitewater Common Council calls on all citizens, public officials, and public employees to be vigilant in efforts to protect all guaranteed human and civil rights of all persons,

And be it resolved that the Common Council calls on all public officials and public employees to respect and promote the right of all citizens to legally express their opinions whether credited, anonymous or pseudonymous, freely and without fear of discrimination or reprisal.

And be it resolved that the Common Council calls on the City Manager and the Police and Fire Commission to communicate this expectation to the city employees and to hold any employee accountable for actions that give the appearance of disregarding the rights of citizens to express their opinions freely.”

Approved by the Common Council of the City of Whitewater, Wisconsin, May 6, 2008.

Daily Bread

Daily Bread: May 12, 2008

by  • 

Good morning, Whitewater

On this day in 1936, NBC talk show host Tom Snyder was born. Snyder, who has since passed away, hosted several late night programs on NBC, including the long-running Tomorrow program.

There are no public meetings scheduled in the City of Whitewater today.

In our school district, there will be a middle school choir concert at the high school tonight, at 7 p.m.

The National Weather Service predicts a high of 63 degrees and mostly sunny. The year in advance Farmers’ Almanac predicts sunny skies.

Note: There were significant developments at the latest common council meeting, including a welcome resolution on free expression, and housing task force recommendations for the city, among other matters. I will post on these topics tonight and tomorrow.

Planning

The Planning Commission Meeting from May 5th

by  • 

UPDATE: Friday May 9th:

My original remarks on the Elkhorn corridor do not address the possibility of any given commercial development, or any certain big box store. Considering the possibility of a big box store, there are a few likely objections: (1) that the store would be contrary to an existing plan (Elkhorn Road as a part of the east Whitewater plan), (2) that the store would be contrary to the common expectations of homeowners who expected no more than residential development nearby, or (3) that the store’s location would be impractical.

It’s possible to oppose the development of a given big box store – as I do in this case – without regard to a prior or proposed plan. Points (2) and (3), together or individually, could reasonably lead to a rejection of a large commercial proposal. That’s an equitable, and not a plan-based, decision.

It’s true, too, that Point (1) could lead to rejection, on the basis of an existing plan, and neighbors’ expectation of its continuation.

Points (2) and (3) are sufficient for me.

Often, when I think about commercial alternatives, I am describing alternatives that would be nowhere near Elkhorn Road. The question remains: will those commercial alternatives – light industry – come to Whitewater? I’m not sure how much of that will arrive. We may find that residential options are the more likely, and will continue to be so.

The May 5th Planning Commission meeting involved discussion of different options for a south Whitewater plan along the Elkhorn Road corridor. The meeting did not involve taking any action – it was merely to present a revised proposal from two earlier options.

(Whitewater’s often-cited master plan for planning is really a collection of documents for neighborhood plans. They act as guidelines for municipal planning, and one for the south of Whitewater would be the fourth in a quartet. The Elkhorn Road corridor was considered previously in a east Whitewater neighborhood plan.)

During citizen comments, someone asked if the final proposal might be submitted to a referendum. (The conventional procedure is for Planning Commission approval followed by Common Council certification.)

I’d side against a referendum: (1) starting out at a referendum would be a departure from prior practice, and (2) if a referendum would apply in this case, there are other equally significant maters where it might apply, but has not been used.

There will be additional meetings before the planning Commission votes on a final proposal. The proposal as it stands involves different nodes for development, some being commercial, and some residential. The Whitewater bypass plays a role in all these plans – it channels traffic around the city, but may yet aggregate commercial or residential development along some stretches.

Some favored the bypass as a way to reduce traffic in the city, but others opposed it. Those opposed were concerned that it would reduce shopping traffic, or would spoil the areas near their homes immediately or after additional development.

What if there was no neighborhood plan (and did not have to be one), and no zoning or other restrictions? What would happen to the Elkhorn Road corridor? There are a few possibilities: (1) no change, (2) predominantly residential growth, (3) predominantly commercial growth, (4) a mixture of residential and commercial.

From a libertarian point of view, you’d hope for the result with the least government intervention, and if government intervention, then that which would most closely follow private growth.

A consultant from planners Vanderwall and Associates noted that Whitewater is about fifteen miles or so from several major arteries with significant commercial development. Over the last year, I would have said that the best option would be to encourage commerce to come here, to complete with other locations, and increase jobs for Whitewater. (Generally, and not specifically in the area in consideration at the may 5th meeting.) That result would seem especially needed in light of our poverty rate.

If we took no government action, and there were no zoning restrictions, would that commerce show up? That is, if there were almost no barriers to setting up shop here? Or, would more residential housing come instead? I don’t know, but I wonder now if the more likely answer is residential, and not commercial.

If that’s the case, then Whitewater will have to ask what the cost might be to entice commerce here, above the incentives that exist already. (I know that, for example, some enticements include a rejuvenated downtown. I’m referring, instead, more to tax breaks or subsidies, etc. to encourage a specific commercial development.)

These are plans only, so those incentives are not in play. Perhaps they never will be. How much government intervention would still make sense? A smart growth advocate would say that the best plans are a partnership of business and government, a mix of residential and commercial, a sort of third way, so to speak. The partnership might lead to zoning changes, financial incentives, etc.

The market advocate responds that if the development wouldn’t happen privately, it probably shouldn’t happen at all. Ultimately, the government resources to make a project happen would be a misallocation.

We do not know how these proposals will continue to evolve, but the closer they hew to a limited role for government, the less likely Whitewater is to commit itself to an otherwise misdirected result. A private result, however, may not involve a balanced mixture of residential and commercial, but may significantly favor the former over the latter.

We may find that there will be less commercial development than we might have imagined.

If that’s what the private result would be, then I’m convinced that it would be the best one for us. It leaves a question though, to which we have not yet found an answer – how to provide broad opportunity for all parts of the community?

I would not ordinarily think that residential development, or retail, would be the obvious answers to that question.

Uncategorized

Friday Morning Cartoon

by  • 

Here’s a Felix the Cat cartoon from 1923. Entitled, “Felix the Cat Get Broadcasted,” it’s both an example of an emerging technology of the time, and a sci fi prediction of what might one day be possible. Enjoy.

more >>

Daily Bread

Daily Bread: May 9, 2008

by  • 

Good morning, Whitewater

Today in 1950, according to the Wisconsin Historical Society, the first sporting event was held at Milwaukee Arena. Rocky Graziano defeated Vinnie Cidone after four rounds.

In our school district, there will be freshman orientations at the high school.

There will be a Police Day ceremony at 3 p.m. in the municipal building.

The National Weather Service predicts a chance of rain and a high of 60 degrees. The Farmers’ Almanac calls for stormy weather.

Daily Bread

Daily Bread: May 8, 2008

by  • 

Good morning, Whitewater

In our school district today, there will be a middle school band concert at the high school tonight.

The Farmers’ Almanac predicts that it will become stormy especially in the Great Lakes. The more flexible forecasting of the National Weather Service predicts a different prospect — mostly sunny and 62 degrees.

According to the Wisconsin Historical Society, in this day in 1891, Arthur J. Altmeyer was born, in DePere. I had never heard of him, but they describe him as the father of Social Security.

There’s an alternative approach on Social Security — that some or all of it could be privatized. Over at Cato, they have a post on a successful privatization approach from El Salvador, a country that has a private pension system.

It hardly seems politically possible to take that approach here, but it has worked well elsewhere.

Quick note: still typing away on notes from recent meetings. More soon.

City

Library Stats

by  • 

I saw that the Irvin Young Library produced a small pamphlet highlighting some of the statistics from its 2007 annual report. I have advocated the construction of a larger library, and here are highlights from the pamphlet about services provided from the existing building:

450 adults attended 35 programs
3004 kids attended 143 programs
10032 items were lent to other libraries
There were 92710 visits to the library
3901 reference questions were answered
846 people signed up for new library cards
library computers were used 9970 times

These are impressive statistics for a community that much needs and benefits from a strong public library.

Register Watch™

Register Watch™ for the May 1st Issue

by  • 

Front Page. There are three front page stories in the Register for the May 1st issue: “An Arbor Day with Special meaning,” a story about a rock for peace concert, and coverage of a suit against the building of a new Lakeland School in Elkhorn.

The arbor day story centers on the planting of a memorial tree, and includes two color photographs. The story about the concert describes a UW-Whitewater organization’s plans for a concert at Starin Park. The third story is about the rejection, at the appellate level, of a suit against construction of a new, larger Lakeland School in Elkhorn.

Inside. The Register lists headings inside for different areas of coverage: Community, School, Business, UW-Whitewater News, Health Matters, On the Record, Opinion, and Sports.

This seems like a more recent design change — the sections are more clearly indicated than I remember them being in the past. It makes the paper easier to read, certainly.

Will it spur more local coverage? If format sets the agenda, then the answer should be yes. If the format isn’t fixed and decided, but can shift based on content, then it won’t have that same influence of driving efforts to collect stories of a certain type.

Over time, additional local coverage should encourage more local readership, and more local ads. It only works if the focus on providing content for the different categories is diligent.

We’ll see.

Insert. There’s an insert in the Register called American Profile, sixteen pages long, in full color. It may not attract new readers to the paper, but it will likely provide additional value to some existing readers.