FREE WHITEWATER

City, Police

Police and Fire Commission: Minutes

by  • 

Weeks ago, when I first thought about this series, I visited the City of Whitewater website for the minutes of the PFC meetings. By its own standards, there should have been four meetings each year (and at least that many as a matter of good policy, apart from the law). When I checked the city webpage at that time, I saw that there were quite a few minutes missing. I wrote to a representative of the city, and asked for copies of minutes that were missing. Here’s what I wrote:

I hope that your week went well, and that the week ahead is equally good. My name is John Adams, and I am the author and publisher of FREE WHITEWATER, an independent, local website offering commentary on Whitewater, Wisconsin. My site is published at www.freewhitewater.com.

I am writing to see if you could please provide electronic copies to me of the minutes from Police and Fire Commission meetings for those sessions that are missing from the City of Whitewater website.

At the website for the Police and Fire commission minutes, http://www.ci.whitewater.wi.us/Your_Government/Minutes/
policefcminutes.html, several meetings are listed without an accompanying document. I am writing to see if you could send me copies of the minutes for those sessions.

The dates listed on the website without attached minutes are 8/24/05, 2/03/06, 2/07/07, and 5/23/07.

One other question, if I may: Has there been no other meeting since May in 2007?

Electronic copies would be more fine; I do not need any particular certification.

Please reply to me, at your convenience, at adams@freewhitewater.com .

Best regards,

John Adams

I received a helpful reply from someone who was neither part of the PFC nor the police department. It’s telling that there were gaps in the dates with available minutes on the city website, dating back years, but no one from the PFC, including its secretary from that time, filled those gaps. The missing minutes represented a gap of about one-third of the statutorily-mandated number of meetings from 2005-2007. Some missing minutes were not posted until I wrote to the city, and someone not on the PFC had to collect the information that she could.

Here is a snapshot of the City of Whitewater website page, after I wrote to the city, and after other minutes were added, listing meeting dates, and availability of minutes for those meetings:

First, I well know that the copies on the web are not certified copies. It doesn’t matter: citizens should be able to see minutes of a public commission, on the web, without waiting years. It’s not as though city website doesn’t have other documents posted promptly. The minutes of the PFC are more important, I am quite sure, than any number of other papers, videos, and charts that are posted quickly. It should matter more than it has mattered, in any city.

Second, I have been in professional and civic meetings for my entire professional life — decades — and these are among the paltriest minutes that I have ever seen. Did no PFC member care to write thoroughly and carefully? Most of the minutes, as I’ll show, gloss over vital topics. The problem with most organizations is that minutes are too lengthy, too copious. It’s the opposite with these minutes — they offer too little.

They are revealing, nonetheless. I’ll offer more on that in my next posts. The PFC series will continue Monday, with an assessment of how well our town has been meeting the reasonable standards for a police commission and a citizen complaints process.

City, Police

Police and Fire Commission: Reasonable Standards

by  • 

This is the third post in my series on the Whitewater Police and Fire Commission. The first post was an introduction to the series, and the second post cited the authority of our PFC under Wisconsin law. In this post, I will suggest reasonable standards for Whitewater’s PFC.

Every reasonable person can agree on a few clear principles for public meetings of legally-required boards and commissions:

1. The commission should fulfill its legislative mandate.

2. The commission’s meetings should begin at a fixed, regular, and published time, so that citizens can reliably attend.

3. The commission should produce useful and thorough minutes of its meetings.

4. The commission should offer citizens reasonable and fair opportunities to present grievances concerning the organization of
which the commission has oversight. A complaint process must be (1) easy to understand, (2) easy to use, (3) offer safeguards against fear of reprisal.

5. The nature and role of the commission should be listed in the same places as all other community information.

6. Information about the commission should be clear and easy to understand.

7. Information about the commission should be available in the principal languages spoken in the community.

These standards should apply no less to our PFC than to any other body. In fact, they should apply with greater care, as the police department over which the PFC exercises authority may lawfully investigate and use force against their fellow citizens.

Of these seven reasonable suggestions, our Commission meets only two — and fails to meet, or meets only partially, the other five.

Some of the most important roles of the PFC involve reasonable standards for handling citizen complaints. The Department of Justice offers sensible suggestions for managing citizens complaints fairly. In a paper entitled, “Principles for Promoting Police Integrity” the U.S. Department of Justice sets forth good police practices. In a section of that paper entitled, “Complaints and Misconduct Investigations,” the Department of Justice offers five guidelines for good practices for handling citizen complaints.

1. Perception of Fairness. “Agencies should provide a readily accessible process in which community and agency members can have confidence that complaints against agency actions and procedures will be given prompt and fair attention.”

2. Complaint Forms. Civilians should be allowed to file complaints in-person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile transmission, or, where possible, by e-mail. A complaint form should be offered, but completion of the form should not be required to initiate a complaint. Individuals should be able to obtain and file complaint forms at places other than law enforcement agencies.

3. Officers and other employees should be prohibited from refusing to accept complaints, or attempting to dissuade a civilian from filing a complaint. Civilians should not be required to meet with or speak with a supervisory officer as a requirement for filing a complaint.

4. Complaints should be accepted from all individuals, including those who request anonymity. Complaints should be accepted from third parties to ensure that witnesses of abuse or misconduct can file complaints as well as victims of such misconduct.

5. Knowledgeable Investigator. Misconduct investigations of serious misconduct allegations, including allegations of excessive force, false arrest, improper search or seizure, or discriminatory law enforcement, should be conducted by an entity that has special responsibility for conducting misconduct investigations.

We fall short in each and every one of these standards for handling citizen complaints. In my next posts, I will show how, over the last three years, our community has not fulfilled basic standards for PFC meetings and has failed to establish a fair, reasonable, conventional complaint process.

City, Police

Police and Fire Commission: Importance and Authority.

by  • 

This is the second post in my series on the Whitewater Police and Fire Commission. The first part was an introduction to the series. In this post, I will outline the powers of our Police and Fire Commission (PFC) under Wisconsin law.

The PFC is a legally-authorized and required commission under our law. It both has authority, and under Wisconsin law, it must be established and exercise that authority. There is nothing voluntary about a PFC — it’s neither a civic group nor an ‘optional’ organization. This makes sense: wherever and whenever a community needs and authorizes a police department to be armed and use force for the protection of others, prudence requires that some impartial, judicious group outside the department be empowered to exercise oversight of those who may use force. The authority is too great, the task too important, to be left merely to those within a police department. In Wisconsin, that authority rides with a PFC.

The basic provisions for a PFC are found at Chapter 62.13, et seq.., of Wisconsin Statutes.

What does the law tells us about the authority of a PCF? Wisconsin’s statues set forth basic provisions:

Number of Members. “Each city shall have a board of police and fire commissioners consisting of 5 citizens, 3 of whom shall constitute a quorum.” 62.13(1).

Different Political Parties. “No appointment shall be made which will result in more than 3 members of the board belonging to the same political party.” 62.13(1).

PRC Must Keep Records. “The board shall keep a record of its proceedings.” 62.13(1).

Board Shall Appoint, May Remove Police and Fire Chiefs. “The board shall appoint the chief of police and the chief of the fire department, who shall hold their offices during good behavior, subject to suspension or removal by the board for cause.” 62.13(3).

Board Shall Approve a Department’s Subordinates. “The chiefs shall appoint subordinates subject to approval by the board.” 62.13(4)(a)

Board Shall Establish List of Hiring Standards. 62.13(4)(a)

Commission May Suspend a Subordinate. 62.13(5)(a)

Entire Commission, or a Commission Member, May File Charges Against a Subordinate. 62.13(5)(b)

PFC meetings, unless otherwise involving specific and definite business, must by our law be open to the public. It’s not a private body, either by nature or practice. The assurance of citizen oversight is necessary.

It’s no small responsibility to be part of the commission. In many ways, it is an unenviable task: our community wants and needs protection (as do all communities), but suggestions or criticism of current practices may be met with scorn, derision, or accusations of ‘unsupportive’ behavior.

City, Police

Police and Fire Commission: Introduction

by  • 

Readers know that I am a critic of the Whitewater Police Department, and its chief, Jim Coan. In this series, I will consider our Police Commission, and its role — by law and practice — in overseeing the Whitewater Police Department.

My views on the city are those of a libertarian, and libertarian thinking informs my opinions on economics, politics, and education.

Who are Libertarians? We are a fundamental part of the American political tradition, from the earliest days of settlement on this continent. Although we have never claimed an exclusive role in American history, we have always played a prominent part (in fact, long before the term ‘libertarian’ was coined). From Paine and Jefferson, to Thoreau, Friedman, Goldwater and Reagan, we have always been committed to the American dream. If someone tells you that libertarians aren’t committed to America, you can tell him or her that that’s a mistaken view. We are committed to the American promise of “individual liberty, free markets, and peace” (in the apt words of a fine libertarian organization). The libertarian tradition is part of the American tradition.

Who am I? I am the publisher and author of a website about life in Whitewater, Wisconsin. I believe that aspects of life in our city have strayed from the American tradition of liberty, and that a few people here disregard individual rights, free markets, and seek to inhibit a free and vibrant culture. I am a critic from principle: my writing follows the tradition of commentary in which the views matter more than the man.

Nonetheless, I have described myself plainly: I am a resident, citizen, and homeowner in Whitewater, Wisconsin. I am a common man, the son and grandson of two extraordinary men. My father and paternal grandfather were intelligent, serious, and strong advocates for free markets and personal liberty. They loved and defended this beautiful country. The were well-read and well-traveled; they made lasting friends abroad who shared their love of liberty.

By any standard, I have led a charmed life. I am the descendent of a proud tradition, the son and grandson of great men, received the education of my choice and hopes, have traveled widely, and have married well. I have a beautiful family, lovely home, and interesting work.

I have all that I have ever wanted. I write polemically, but I live peacefully. In the thinking of some here, I should surely be a champion of the present scene.

I love our small city, and it is natural that other people also love it. Sometimes, the defenders of a broken institution will defend it by accusing its critics of being strangers, or of personal bias. Neither is true in my case. Sometimes, people worry that by criticizing local officials, they will fail their community.

No one fails Whitewater who embraces America.

What is good and true in America — a Declaration, a Constitution, a Bill of Rights — ennobles Whitewater. We are far more than a small town; we are a small town made great when true to this free republic. No one will disappoint Whitewater, or America, by holding fast to the great people and principles of our democratic tradition.

City, Development, Free Markets

Planning Commission Meeting for December 10, 2007 (Part 2)

by  • 

This post is part two of my coverage of the December 10th Planning Commission meeting. I posted Part 1 earlier.

Residential Space on the First Floor of a Downtown Building. A prior Planning Commission session debated, and the Commission rejected, two residential units for the first floor of the old Hallmark store building on Main Street. At the December 10th meeting, the architect and owner of the building presented a proposal for one first floor apartment. The location is now vacant.

Statement of the Evening. Commission member Harriet Kaluva (term expires 5/1/2009), when asked her preference between a vacant building and a first floor apartment in the back of that building, answered candidly: “…I would prefer having an empty building until a developer comes along that would meet the requirements of the retail aspect or the retail mandate of Downtown Whitewater.”

Not everyone shares that view, of course. It’s forthright, and it is the risk that planning runs — a world where the plan supersedes ordinary needs. There’s ideology and then there’s blind ideology. (I am usually unconvinced of slippery slope arguments, and the notion that because we do something, we’ll do anything.) My point is not that blind ideology is inevitable, but that it should be avoided.

One way to avoid imposing a plan or ideology over human industry and creativity is to adopt policies that maximize the opportunities for free, creative action. A commitment to emptiness is, itself, empty. It’s easy to say ‘planning guidelines or nothing.’ Fear of being inconsistent devolves into unwillingness or inability to exercise judgment about reasonable distinctions and differences. If never really means never, ever, then the opportunity for reasoned debate is eliminated.

On Citizen Comments — a few residents spoke for or against the plan. I will address the most interesting remarks.

Bill Bowen. Longtime readers know that Bowen and I have corresponded previously. Bowen asked the question, “What are people thinking….Why would people sign statements of support for this [first floor residential space]?” He offered the suggestion that soon we’ll be flooded with demand for student housing, and that demand will swamp the downtown.

Why? It’s a slippery slope argument — approve this, and then a deluge will follow. As I noted above, one would hope for a municipal commission that could make distinctions. If it’s all approval, or all rejection, all the way down, why have a planning body at all?

One might venture that some property owners supported this proposal because a lingering vacancy is undesirable.

Tami Brodnicki. The director (or is it executive director?) of Downtown Whitewater seemed as persuasive and congenial as when I last saw her at a meeting. Brodnicki read a statement contending that neither pedestrian malls nor sports arenas are of benefit to a downtown revitalization program.

Good to know. I have one question, though: Did Brodnicki pick up the wrong statement? Perhaps the one from which she read was for a city that might actually, someday, have a sports arena in its downtown. Whitewater (population 14,000) is not likely to be that city.

Property Owner/Applicant. Frustrated, angry, and hostile — here was a woman who nearly pulled defeat from the jaws of victory. As she went on, and on, was the architect for the plan thinking, “Oh well, there goes another project down the drain?”

She remarked that the property should not be called the Hallmark building, but instead by her family’s surname. I am sure that she’s proud of her family, but if they did not make a sufficient public impression previously, it’s a bit late to insist on the point while before the commission as an applicant. I’ll call it the Hallmark building, because that’s how everyone in town knows it.

The Planning Commission approved the application, with several conditions, for first floor residential space on a close 4-3 vote.

City, Development, Free Markets

Planning Commission Meeting for December 10, 2007 (Part 1)

by  • 

Two items stood out for me from the December 10th meeting: (1) a discussion of a sign for a downtown restaurant, and (2) a request of an owner to rent a first floor apartment in the back of the old Hallmark store location.

I’ve mentioned before that while one’s opinions should not change from forum to forum, one’s manner and presentation should fit the forum. I write polemically (that’s perhaps an understatement), but what’s possible on the page way not be effective in person. Anger plays poorly in person, and on television. Sometimes I’ll use an italic font to emphasize a word in print, but I might not emphasize the word when speaking. Different forum, different manner: same point.

At the same time, the world’s a messy place, and sometimes people will get angry, make faces, etc. That may be, by turns, ridiculous or frustrating. There is something satisfying and reassuring about a person who stays calm while those nearby lose their cool.

Restaurant Sign. A local restaurant in our downtown wanted a sign for its window. The plans for the sign were in black-and-white, and did not specify colors. Planning Commission member Rick Gilpatrick asked this question, “Wouldn’t the city have interest in having a record of what the colors are?”

It’s a rational question, and one typical of planning meetings in all sort of places. It’s certainly a conventional request and a conventional outlook.

It doesn’t have to be this way, though. What if we lived in a society where a restaurant owner could display a sign without filing a colored drawing with the city? If a shopkeeper decided one day that teal would be more suitable on the sign than navy, must a municipality know (and approve)? My question is not about conventional practice — it’s about the possible, about what could be.

I do not believe that this level of planning and municipal oversight is necessary for a town to function, let alone function well. This isn’t planning to compete, it’s not even reasonable planning for aesthetics (an often dubious concept, to my mind), it’s just planning. If the restaurant owner said that she thought orange and gold would make a good sign, what would one say? Orange, but not — absolutely not — tangerine orange?

I know full well planning commissions often ask questions about color, etc. My question is why it’s necessary of the city to inquire. Refraining from inquiry wouldn’t mean disaster; it would be an improvement. It’s not planning for order, but planning merely necessary to permit a spontaneous order, that we should favor. The true advantage of more spontaneity is not a calculated efficiency or cost savings; it’s liberty and the creative, unpredictable, amazing possibilities that liberty affords us. At the end of the day, I am convinced that a less-structured, less-inquisitive municipality is a better one, for moral and prudential reasons. It’s not that the current system is all bad; it’s that a less inquisitive system would be better.

I believe in a community where ordinary judgments about beauty are left to individual homeowners and businesses. Neither my neighbor nor my community’s elected representatives should, for example, restrain or restrict my ability to paint a house or sign a given color. (That hasn’t happened to me, by the way; my point is general.) I favor a world with the freedom to choose the shade I want, without filing a document, or asking permission of a committee. Left on their own, people will typically choose wisely, and its patronizing to think otherwise. If they don’t, then I’ll not trouble myself about the result. Most choices will be as good, or better, than managed choices. That these choices will have been made without intrusion or oversight makes them even better.

We should be strong enough to accept the free aesthetic choices of others.

Uncategorized

Coming Attractions for the Week of December 10th

by  • 

Last week’s posts included discussion of Dr. Roy Nosek’s views on student housing, the campus before exams, the contradiction of public officials supporting confidentiality in municipal litigation, the last Planning Commission meeting, and the last Common Council meeting.

This week’s coming attractions include —

• Planning/Architectural Review Board Meeting for December 10th

• Beautiful Whitewater: Video

• Choice in Education

• Common Council meeting for December 11th

• A Police Commission Series

• Friday Cartoon Feature more >>

City

Common Council Meeting for December 4, 2007

by  • 

I’ll make two quick comments on the Common Council meeting for December 4th, 2007.

First, there’s a serious point to be made about how tax incremental financing is less advantageous and riskier than appears. That’s not apparent until years after a district is established. Tax incremental financing — old or new — should be a last-ditch effort.

Second, get your tape measures out — the Baymont Inn’s sign might be too big! Too funny. As against, for example, the golden arches of McDonald’s? What’s nearby? A gas station, a bowling alley, a Wal-Mart, a hardware store, and an auto dealership. The Baymont’s blue sign is as suitable as what surrounds it. It’s just silly quibbling to waste time on the matter.

City, Development

Planning Commission/Architectural Review Board for November 26, 2007

by  • 

I’ll catch up on my coverage of the Planning Commission with a post on its November 26th meeting. One topic stood out: should the Planning Commission meet once or twice a month? Under the rules of the Planning Commission, the chairman can make that decision, but he sensibly allowed it to be a board decision. (How often one meets is something that all members should have a chance to discuss.)

I have advocated previously that less is more, and that meeting once a month would be a good idea.

Common Council president and voting member of the Planning Commission Marilyn Kienbaum favored keeping a twice-monthly meeting schedule, as (1) it would provide more opportunities for developers to meet the Commission, (2) more opportunities would allow a greater number of approvals, (3) Attorney Mitchell Simon — who handles fair amount of real estate work, and whose opinion she respects — supports the current, twice monthly-schedule, and (4) hinted that Whitewater might not need a city planner if the Planning Commission met only once monthly.

(Ordinarily, one might expect that I would be inclined to the view that we could do without a city planner. When someone says that the city might not need a planner, it’s almost like date music to a libertarian. I do not think that it was meant as a serious suggestion, however. In any event, it’s not the main question, but rather a possible, and only possible, consequence of deciding the main question. The main question is about how often to meet.)

The idea of meeting once-monthly is the more reasonable position. Kristine Zaballos noted, among other points, that (1) other communities’ commissions meet monthly, and (2) meeting monthly would provide an incentive for businesses and developers to submit complete, informative proposals (lest they have to wait another month). Presumably, it’s also an incentive for the planner city planner to gather all needed information for the commission (lest he be accused of inefficiency).

There is no competitive disadvantage where our commission would meet with the same frequency as others’ commissions. I do not believe that meeting more frequently has given us an advantage; in fact, it seems that meeting more frequently has led to less respect for the submissions process, the tendency to carry items from meeting to meeting, and more discussion of small matters. Part of Mrs. Zaballos’s point was that a change in process (meeting monthly) would lead to a change in behavior (more thorough submissions and less small-talk). She’s likely right. It’s reason enough to move to a monthly schedule. (Significantly, it does not depend on mere promises of better submissions and better review; the incentive is in avoiding a month’s delay.)

The decision at the November 26th meeting was 5 – 2 in favor of meeting monthly.

City, Elkhorn, Police

Cat Has Your Tongue?

by  • 

Last week, I criticized a policy of confidentiality in municipal litigation. I offered seven reasons that a city should not seek or receive confidentiality as a condition of settlement. Confidentiality in municipal litigation is a bad idea, principally, because it deprives citizens of information about the conduct of public officials, on the public payroll, in the conduct of their public duties.

In this matter, the City of Whitewater, federal civil defendant Larry Meyer, and any number of leaders in Whitewater and Elkhorn would likely wish that expert witness reports, depositions, settlement details, and the suit itself be concealed from public view. I oppose that approach.

I also see the self-serving contradiction of city officials in an agreement that imposes confidentiality in municipal litigation. I am an advocate of free speech, and of assembly. I favor it generally, not merely when it suits me. The same is not true of so many officials in this town and their friends in Elkhorn.

The same men who loudly boast of every accomplishment when it serves them want to hide this matter now.

Our police department will tout any self-serving statement it wishes, no matter how small or trivial. Chief Coan will tell anyone who’ll listen how his officers are the finest, noblest, best-trained men and women on earth. He just doesn’t want anyone else to be able to tell you anything to the contrary.

The City of Whitewater website is littered with any number of laughable documents dedicated to Coan’s self-promotion.

Newsletters. Coan’s department produces a quarterly newsletter singing the praises of, well, Coan’s department. It’s a seasonal exercise in smug, self-satisfaction. Recent editions are available on the city website, and each is a like tiny romance novel from Chief Coan to Chief Coan.

Travelogues. Coan offers readers a four-page account of his ride along with the New Orleans police department after Hurricane Katrina. That community suffered greatly from the storm, and Coan’s humanitarian instincts led him to there as a passenger in a local police vehicle. It’s not Travels with Charley, but it is revealing reading. Coan’s account acknowledges that policing in New Orleans has limited resemblance to policing Whitewater. One might have guessed as much, but still Coan made the trip. The New Orleans account is part 4 (yes, part 4) in Coan’s Parallels in Policing series. He’s also been to New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Perhaps one might also remind Coan that in Euclidean geometry, parallel lines do not intersect, and the cities he’s chosen are about as far removed from ours as one could expect in America.

If Coan likes traveling in a car so much, perhaps he would like a bus even better. Greyhound offers reasonably priced, one-way tickets to Arizona, and it’s beautiful there this time of year. Why wait?

A mature man or woman would be embarrassed by these narcissistic reports and newsletters. Coan must be proud of them, or he wouldn’t write and post them.

Our city manager’s weekly report offers quotations from figures great and small, sometimes interesting, but otherwise inapt and puzzling. I would be more inclined to these small nuggets of purported wisdom if they came from an administration that advocated openness more comprehensively. Confucius, whatever his value, is of slight use in a city that would audaciously favor a confidentiality agreement in a federal lawsuit against its employees in their public actions. Instead of printing t-shirts for city workers sporting a quotation from deceased hamburger magnate Ray Kroc, perhaps something more apt: “We Have Nothing to Hide. Really.”

The promotional videos that the city places on its website would be more credible if they came from a town that did not rush to shove legitimate public information from the public view.

Our city finance director gave an interview at which he declared a settlement that may amount to tens of thousands will cost the city nothing. He justified his statement by telling a local paper that our city is insured, and that the policy has a zero deductible. I will, for the moment, accept that statement at face value. (Even though I know that there cannot be a resolution to the case without cost to the city, as Larry Meyer has cost us too much already.) Let’s assume that Saubert’s right that the carrier will cover the cost, and future premiums will be unaffected.

Yet it’s clear that Saubert admits in that same interview that he was not familiar with the terms of the settlement. Saubert’s statement about zero-cost served to lessen the disgrace that Larry Meyer’s caused this town. Not long after, Jim Coan turned the budget on which Saubert worked upside down in two weeks’ time. Saubert’s comments in the interview served Coan’s interest, by minimizing the impact of the lawsuit against Coan’s investigator, but Coan didn’t return the favor.

Our neighbors, beyond our city in Elkhorn, have their interests in this, too. I am sure that an affidavit from a former member of the prosecutor’s office pointing out the ways Larry Meyer disregarded prosecutorial direction must be embarrassing. Embarrassing, twice over: (1) it bolsters the contention that Meyer acted contrary to direction, and (2) it raises questions about the circumstances under which the affidavit’s author – then an assistant district attorney, now with the Wisconsin attorney general’s office – left his position in Elkhorn.

These different people are not the only ones who have, or who should have, the right to discuss. They want to talk when it favors them, but they want to silence others when the discussion turns to subjects they find unfavorable. more >>

City, Development, Economy, Free Markets, Press

On Nosek on Student Housing, Part 3 (McCann’s Story in the GazetteXtra)

by  • 

In this third post, I’ll address the quality of the GazetteXtra story from Carla McCann entitled, “Neighborhoods Oppose Housing for UW-W students.” It’s one of the worst stories on Whitewater I have read in months, and is the same league as the biased and misleading stories from the Whitewater Register. The Register cuts short the lives of too many trees, and McCann’s story needlessly sacrifices countless electrons.

I am not sure how long McCann has been writing about Whitewater, but I have not noticed her work before.

First, I’ll offer a quick explanation of the GazetteXtra. It’s a web-based publication from Bliss Communications, publishers of the Janesville Gazette. Some of its stories may also appear in print, but not, I think, McCann’s story on Nosek’s crusade against student housing, and the students he so evidently despises. That makes McCann’s story truly ‘extra’ as superfluous and unworthy of print. I am an independent publisher and author, and it disappoints me that Bliss uses the web to run second-tier stories that are unworthy of its print efforts. Our medium deserves better than McCann’s feeble, second-rate copy.

I’ll list some of the reasons that the story’s a poor effort.

The Headline. McCann’s story is entitled, “Neighborhoods Oppose Housing for UW-W Students.”

In many large newspapers, reporters do not write the headlines to their stories. I am not sure if that’s true for the Gazette or the online GazetteXtra. It does not matter; the headline’s biased for vagueness and generality. Which neighborhoods oppose student housing? Does the headline mean all neighborhoods, some of them, and with what intensity and consensus is this true? It’s like writing a post-election headline that said, “States Oppose Kerry,” or “States Oppose Bush.” Some did, some didn’t. Even within states, many people were divided. The headline of McCann’s story obscures – to the point of the laughable – the nature of opinion.

When did Roy Nosek become a universally acclaimed champion of all people in all neighborhoods? I must have missed that development. Last I knew, he was a dentist-politician who barely won a single council district by a mere – ready? – two votes. Two. In the GazetteXtra headline, one would think that Nosek was leader of a city-wide majority. He’s not.

(Note to all the stodgy members of the town clique: you need to get yourself a champion who can win city-wide while keeping his cool. You may be able to find someone like that, but it’s not Dr. Roy Nosek.)

Inadequate Sourcing. McCann offers only three sources: Nosek as the leading opponent of student housing, a council member who shares some of his views (if not manner), and a university official. Where are the students, landlords, homeowners who have renters, homeowners who have good relationships with students, etc? They’re nowhere in her poorly sourced copy. (They exist, to be sure, but she couldn’t trouble herself to the true reporter’s task of interviewing them.)

Opinion as Fact. Worse than inadequate sourcing is the way that McCann passes off Nosek’s statements, or other odd conclusions, as fact.

McCann writes, gullibly, that

The city has two ordinances, however, that could help eliminate the student-housing problem.
One of the ordinances prohibits more than three unrelated people from living together in a house zoned for a single family, while the other ordinance prohibits more than two vehicles from being parked regularly in the driveways or in front of those homes.

McCann accepts, implicitly, Nosek’s assessment of the ‘problem.’ There’s not even a suggestion that he might be wrong about the ‘problem.’

Even more egregious is her full support – more editorial than news story – that Nosek’s enforcement scheme will solve the supposed problem. His proposed solutions will solve nothing, as his enforcement schemes will exacerbate the tension between residents and worsen the lack of student housing. As I noted in Part 1 of this series, Nosek grasps imperfectly the close relationship between supply and demand. His restrictions on use and sale of property create shortages, as they leave existing homeowners without the same number of potential buyers, and will ultimately lead to a decline in property values and housing options that will impoverish the community.

These ordinances will also exacerbate tensions between people in the community, and foster a climate of tale-bearers and informants, whining to the police or city authorities at every turn. It’s a character-destroying way for a mature man or woman to live.

McCann presents no alternative side to this story, no proponent of an alternative plan. It’s just Nosek’s way, after an overly-credulous acceptance of all Nosek’s contentions. It takes a biased reporter to offer as undisputed views such gems as “It’s an old problem that has spread beyond the central university area into all districts within the community” and “They are parking illegally across sidewalks, hosting loud parties and failing to keep their lawns free of litter and trash.” Can’t you almost hear Nosek grumbling, “those vulgar, shiftless, no good punks?” It’s a one-sided story, of the sort that one reads about in high school newspapers, slanted press releases, and the Whitewater Register.

Poor Writing. What’s aesthetic beauty, by the way? Beauty would be more than enough. If it looks beautiful, then it’s a thing of beauty, and aesthetic beauty is unnecessary.

McCann’s story’s exaggerates Nosek’s importance, is biased, poorly sourced, and poorly written.

City, Development, Economy, Free Markets

On Nosek on Student Housing, Part 2 (Culture)

by  • 

In this post, I will consider the cultural aspects of Roy Nosek’s opposition to student housing. I am convinced that’s really where his opposition rests; he has no coherent economic theory that describes and addresses student housing demand in Whitewater. He does, however, have a clear cultural opposition, and that’s what I will consider here.

What is his cultural opposition to student housing, and students themselves? GazetteXtra reporter Carla McCann relates them, and Nosek himself has related them in the past. (I’ll have more about the quality of McCann’s journalism in my third post in this series.) Nosek dislikes the supposed noise, disruption, and damage to the beauty of the neighborhoods that he believes students create. He also claims to champion the cause of young families seeking to buy homes.

As for noise and disruption, Nosek’s definition of those nuisances is surely more expansive than others’ definitions. At the council meeting during which he played his slide show of supposed housing ordinance infractions, Nosek spared no additional car in the front yard, no stray trash-can. At that meeting, he reminded listeners that checking for violations is part of his Sunday, before church activities. If, on a Sunday morning as you prepare for church, you notice a cranky dentist skulking about with a camera, then you’ll know that your neighborhood is under his vigilant defense. (A man with more self-awareness would not have made this sort of announcement – more of an admission, really – in public.) That’s wouldn’t be Roy Nosek, D.D.S., though; he’s a true crusader against the depredations of shiftless, marauding students. To paraphrase a headline from the Register, “What Would We Ever Do Without Him?”

This community should expect more tolerance than that of a fussy, overly sensitive dentist-politician. (No one questions the wrong of a few, shameful incidents of property damage. I have written against that damage in the past. The problem is Nosek’s grossly expansive definition of a problem.)

As for his aesthetic objections, I find Nosek’s complaints unconvincing, in the same way that I would find the complaints of a glutton about others’ overeating unconvincing. Has anyone seen the professional office of Roy Nosek, D.D.S.? Anyone? It’s one of the least aesthetic buildings in Whitewater. That’s least aesthetic buildings, which translates for you and me as one of the ugliest buildings. It’s dull and drab, with overly large letters displaying his name and occupation. The letters are in a style unsuitable to a professional building, but commonly found carved in wood in children’s nurseries and kindergarten classrooms.

I was sorry to hear that the fraternity house next door to Nosek’s office caught fire. It’s fortunate that no one was more seriously injured. The owners and occupants of that fraternity house do have, however, one consolation. Even in its fire-damaged condition, the fraternity still looks better and more interesting than Nosek’s office. Much better.

I have decided not to offer a picture of Dr. Nosek’s office, as I am concerned that my camera lens might break.

What of Nosek’s contention that he seeks to help families with young children buy homes, and thereafter add their children as students to our school district’s enrollment? I advocate home ownership, too. I am convinced that the best way to give young families the chance for a home is through a vibrant, free market in real estate.

I would not target a certain group for preference as home buyers, however. I advocate home ownership not merely for families with children, but for single adults, married couples without children, and unmarried couples without children, too. I am not about to say, in advance, that some would make better neighbors than others. Each should be free to enter the market without an advantage beyond strength as buyers. (Only in that way will the market grow large enough to satisfy demand of all sorts of potential buyers.)

In fact, adult couples without children often make the best of opportunities to rehabilitate a home. They have available more time and disposable income to devote to a home, and through their efforts the entire community may be made stronger. They’re not Nosek’s apparently favored buyers, so to speak, but the law does not allow that they be excluded. Even the ordinances that he seeks to enforce recognize that they cannot lawfully be excluded from any residential district in the city (‘no more than three unrelated persons’).

Ultimately, the oddest part of Nosek’s crusade is his undisguised antipathy toward students, and his encouragement that citizens tattle on each other to municipal authorities at every opportunity. I have satirized Nosek as a small town Ahab after students, and as a Carrie Nation, complaining about alcohol and boozing and partying college kids.

Feel free to dislike what you want, but I cannot help but think that these dislikes are petty and beneath a serious man. That’s why I have also described Nosek as a modern day Mrs. Kravitz, worried too much about his neighbors’ minor misconduct.

Nosek’s not the worst character in town, but he is one of the most visibly irritable and angry. There’s not a bit of poise, subtlety, or charm evident in him. He frequently violates most of my Tips for Meetings suggestions with his cranky rants and lack of grace. Worse still, he’s not especially articulate, and the angrier he gets, the less articulate he is. His halting, stammering frustration only makes him seem angrier, crankier, and less reasonable. A poised and calm opponent could gently provoke Nosek and watch him fall apart in reaction.

It’s not his concerns, it’s his recourse that’s worst of all. He encourages his fellow citizens to report infractions wherever they see them, turning this small town into a petty, intrusive place. (I note that there’s a difference — at least in public presentation – between Nosek and Marilyn Kienbaum. Nosek wants ordinances enforced, and violators caught and fined. Kienbaum, as the GazetteXtra quotes her, recounts only her own efforts to talk to her noisy neighbors. Kienbaum might often side with him, but her actions as she recounts them are preferable to his. An elderly woman who deals with her neighbors face-to-face is more admirable than a man who asks his neighbors to tattle on each other at every occasion.)

Our municipal enforcement culture is broken, inefficient, and biased. The perception of selective enforcement is so rampant that it’s even a topic at council meetings. (So obvious is the problem that recently, no less than Miss Kienbaum – herself favored by many of the town clique – mentioned it during a discussion of enforcing signage restrictions).

It’s that broken enforcement culture, with too many small people trying to act big, on which Nosek bases his plan for community preservation. The consequence of his plans is community stagnation, ossification, and a town of finger-pointers. He wants to freeze life as he wants it, the wants of others notwithstanding.

What’s Roy Nosek’s idea of a beautiful Whitewater? It’s the entire city under a giant snow globe, forever frozen. Perhaps someone might remind him that ordinary people cannot live and thrive that way, and neither can our city.

City, Economy, Free Markets

On Nosek on Student Housing, Part 1 (Economics)

by  • 

Last week, a reader emailed me about a post over at the GazetteXtra.com, entitled, “Neighborhood Oppose Housing for UW-W Students.” The story highlights the views of Whitewater dentist-councilman Roy Nosek, on student housing, the housing market, aesthetics, and neighborhood quiet. I’ll address the GazetteXtra.com post with three of my own: Part 1 addresses the economic aspects of Nosek’s views, Part 2 will address the cultural aspects of his views, and Part 3 will address the quality of the GazetteXtra.com post from Carla McCann.

In this post, I’ll focus on the economic aspects of Nosek’s views on student housing. It’s not an easy subject, as Nosek betrays not the slightest real understanding of markets, supply and demand, or growth.

Nosek sees a problem with students living in his district, and other districts, their presence being to him (as he has said publicly) a death-knell for a district. For Nosek, student housing represents, in summary, three problems: (1) disruption to peace and quiet, (2) impairment of the beauty of a neighborhood, and (3) demand for student housing drives up home prices.

To solve these problems, Nosek proposes greater code enforcement of (1) ordinances against unrelated persons living together, and (2) ordinances against too many cars in a front driveway of a home.

What’s wrong with his economic approach and understanding?

Disqualifying Demand. Nosek dislikes student housing, so he asks the community to enforce ordinances that would limit student off-campus apartments in homes. He knows that there is a demand for student housing; he just doesn’t like it. His approach effectively ignores this demand by making it unlawful to fulfill it with the existing supply of real estate. Nosek would prevent the satisfaction of that demand — that is, student need for housing plus ability to rent — from being satisfied. And yet, these students are there, they have the ability to rent, and homeowners will rent to them or sell to landlords who will. It doesn’t matter; he does not recognize student housing needs as legitimate market demands. They’re not his kind of buyer (or renter), so to speak.

Nosek’s like a man who thinks that he’s eliminated unemployment because he’s made it illegal for the unemployed to look for work.

These students are not going away, and Nosek offers no alternative to where they should go. I joked once that Nosek wanted these students out of the city, or inside the campus behind a high wall. I was unfair when I said that about his dislike of student housing: I was too generous to him. Those two outcomes would be infeasible and wrong, but they would constitute a plan. Nosek offers no plan of his own half as credible as those two ridiculous ideas.

Assumption of Alternative Demand.More than once, Nosek has said that his goal is home ownership for young couples with families. That’s a goal for young couples with families, too. He complains that home prices are higher because of demand for student housing, and so young families cannot afford buy homes. His solution: disqualify, so to speak, student or landlord buyers, leaving young families better representing among remaining potential buyers.

How many of the homes then up for sale would go to young couples with children? Nosek cannot tell you, because no one knows. Currently, there are three scenarios for young home-buying couples: (1) none are bidding now, (2) some bid and sometimes win, (3) all those bidding lose. (Since Nosek complains about too many student dwellings, we know that young home-buying couples cannot be bidding and always winning.)

If landlords and students would not bid on homes (assuming it would be pointless to do so if enforcement were 100% effective, as Nosek wishes), then does that mean that all the homes for sale would go to young families with children, etc? No, of course not.

If I tell you that you cannot sell a home to a brunette, it doesn’t mean that you’ll sell your home to a blonde. Without brunettes who want to buy a home in the bidding, you may not have any good buyers at all.

Restricting Buyers Only Impoverishes Sellers. This brings us to Nosek’s inability to understand fully the implications of restricting the pool of buyers. He understands it in part, however. When he tells us that homes are too expensive now, and that he wants to make homes affordable for his preferred buyers by disqualifying other buyers, he implicitly — and correctly — assumes that a reduction in the number of available buyers will likely stagnate or depress home prices.

If this were not his assumption, then there would be no point in his complaining that home prices were presently too high for young families. When he reduces the number of available buyers, then he will almost certainly reduce the price that existing homeowners would otherwise be able to command as sellers.

Existing homeowners will be able to command less for their property for sale, or refinancing for remodeling, etc.

Misunderstanding Demand and Supply. I cannot tell if Nosek understands that demand and supply are wholly interdependent. When he speaks, he seems to be someone who thinks about altering the number of buyers (demand), but only with a partial understanding of how that would affect sellers (supply). Tinkering with one affects the other in ways that Nosek does not acknowledge.

Reduction in demand would depress supply, as fewer homes would be offered on the market, and fewer would be renovated or preserved where they would command less in the marketplace. With fewer homes sold, there would be fewer opportunities to create demand and for newer and larger homes (those trading up, or moving into different properties, like condominiums).

In fact, when I write ‘disqualifying buyers,’ I could as easily say ‘restricting sellers.’ A supply of one thing is merely satisfaction of another’s demand. They are neither separate from each other nor easily modified without — often — unintended consequences.

Stagnation as a Way of Life. The consequence of disqualifying purchasers through municipal ordinance is fewer buyers, stagnant or depressed prices for existing homes, and reduced investment in student housing or new single family homes. Lifting restrictions on sale would change the community, in positive, voluntary ways: there would be more student and single family housing, and an end the present shortage. It is a shortage that zoning regulations have only made worse, and that unfettered transactions would only make better.