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.