The Forum

The Forum

The crowd was small, probably less than 20, but this Wednesday's debate was the most interesting and confrontational forum I have seen in a while. Since I wrote the rules of the debate, I added one which allowed the candidates to directly question one another. This changed the event from just being a "forum," and gave it more of a "debate" element. This led to a much more direct exchange of views, and prevented any candidate from being able to offer dubious statements without being questioned.

Unfortunately, my recorder ran out of batteries about three minutes into the evening, so I cannot provide direct quotes. I will recount what I recall of the evening (since once again, no press attended).

Eckman wins handily

Although all three candidates stated clear positions on the issues, Ellen Eckman clearly won this debate. While she and I have had our many differences over the last few years, I also am committed to being forthright with my observations on this blog. As such, I must tell you that Eckman won this debate handily.

She won mostly for presenting the most pro-business agenda, which was the main issue of the evening. This issue took center stage given the way the board has treated the Legion Post, and also because of the several landlords and business-people in the audience. Eckman also wins for not getting dragged into the arguing over obscure policy points, which was one of the main problems the other two candidates faced.

Business and the smoking ban

While Michael Phinney insisted that he has been a champion of business in Shorewood, Eckman pointed to her vote against the smoking ban as evidence of her pro-business stance. This point was well taken by the audience, who are understandably concerned about a smoking ban in a business where 80% - 90% of the customers, and all of the employees smoke.

Eckman also claimed credit (somewhat dubiously) for some of the new businesses in Shorewood, at least one of which is actually located in a building owned by Dave Tatarowicz. Whether this particular piece of the argument won her any points is certainly questionable.

Phinney claimed that the smoking ban is good policy because it will prompt the State Government to finally act on the issue. The long implementation date will allow the state sufficient time to take action, he said. Eckman won this point as well, insisting that her primary responsibility is to the businesses of Shorewood, rather than to promoting a particular agenda at the state level. Tatarowicz also decried the ban, primarily due to his position as a self proclaimed Libertarian on this issue.

Business Improvement District

Tatarowicz also continued to question the usefulness of the Business Improvement District, an issue he brought up at the SRC debate, and in a recent blog post. He slammed the BID's loan program, which offers low interest loans to area businesses for a variety of purposes. Michael Phinney sharply criticized Tatorowicz on this point, which prompted accusation between the two of them of misrepresenting the actual facts of the program itself. This disagreement was followed by a lengthy debate on policy minutiae, which rapidly lost the attention of the audience. Eckman largely stayed out of this confrontation, winning further points with the audience by sticking to comprehensible and relevant issues when it was her turn to speak.

Once the smoking ban goes into effect, certain types of businesses will still be exempt.

READ THE FULL ORDINANCE

-------------------------------------
G. Exceptions. The following areas shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this section:

1. Retail tobacco stores.
2. Any stage of any theatre when used in connection with any theatrical performance and so noticed in the program.
3. Hotel or motel rooms that are rented to guests and are designated as smoking rooms; provided that not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the rooms rented to guests are designated as smoking rooms.
------------------------------------

The bizarre part of these exemptions is that there are no tobacco stores, hotels, or motels in Shorewood. So while we are banning in smoking in all of our actual businesses, you could still theoretically smoke in hypothetical future businesses and places of employment.

Come meet the candidates and get your questions answered!

1. Wednesday March 21
Time: 7:30 - 9:00 PM
Location: North Shore Legion Post
4121 N Wilson Dr. (map)

School Board Candidate Emma Poroli sent me this campaign piece.

We finally got a preview on what to expect for the development of the open parcel of land on the northern end of Oakland Ave. The proposal sounds familiar from what we did with the last open parcel of land on Oakland.

Below is an excerpt from this week's Journal Sentinel article.

--------------------------------------

Condo, retail project emerges

Building proposed for village-owned parcel in Shorewood
By TOM DAYKIN
JSOnline, 3/14/07
....
Blair Williams has proposed a four-story building, with 20 to 25 condos and 5,000 square feet of street-level retail space. It would be built on a village-owned parcel, on the west side of the 4500 block of N. Oakland Ave., which Williams' firm, Wired Development, is negotiating to buy.

Most of the building's condos will be about 1,200 to 1,400 square feet, Williams said. The selling price for those units will be about $300,000, he said. The development will include underground parking. (READ FULL STORY)
------------------------------------------

All three candidates for trustee in Shorewood are fighting an uphill battle. The object of this battle is to gain the notice and attention of residents who allot almost no time and energy in their busy lives to pay attention to municipal politics. This battle plays itself out on front lawns in the form of lawn signs, online in the form of blogs, and in mailboxes in the form of leaflets.

For the last several years, this battle has not been strongly waged on one of the battlefields that should be important: the local newspaper.

The miniscule and surface level coverage that Shorewood Village Trustee elections get in the local paper is nothing short of scandalous. Very few articles even appear in the paper, and those that do mostly summarize candidates written answers to a few softball questions, rather than providing new information or insight (see today's example). There is no investigation into the background of the candidates, no examination of the voting records of incumbents, no in-depth pieces on new candidates who may be unfamiliar to voters. No reporter from the Shorewood Herald, North Shore Herald, or North Shore NOW has attended a forum or debate since 2005.

Without newspapers providing objective, in-depth coverage of the election, voters are left to make up their minds based on their neighbors' endorsements, a well placed lawn sign, or a glossy brochure left in the door the weekend before the election. Our candidates deserve better than this, as do the voting citizens of our Village.

This post follows up on Joe Mangiamelli's endorsement of Chris Liegel, candidate for Milwaukee County Circuit Court.

A month or so ago, I attended a Shorewood fundraiser for Mr. Liegel, hosted by friends of our family. During the event, Liegel discussed his plans to address the crime problem in Milwaukee. Following the meeting, I asked him for more detail on where he saw his role in addressing the crime issue. Below is the statement he sent me in response to my question.

-----------------------------------

Steve,

It was a pleasure to meet you this past Thursday.

In response to your question, judges play a crucial role in reducing violent crime. The primary way that judges address crime is in the sentencing of criminals. Violent criminals need to be locked up. Unfortunately, too many obviously dangerous persons are not locked up and are placed back in the community. In the City of Milwaukee nearly 30% of homicide suspects were on active supervision (probation/ parole/ extended supervision) at the time they killed (the actual statistic for Jan 2005 thru Aug 2006 is 29%). If the eventual killer was in custody and not on the street a life could have been saved.

Chris Liegel
Candidate for Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Branch 26
-------------------------------

When the non-Shorewood bloggers were originally added to the ShorewoodNOW site, I decided not to trust my gut reaction, which told me they were out of place and should be removed. At the time, I wrote the following.

“As for me, I will suspend judgment on whether the new additions to the site are a good idea. I am slightly bothered by the fact that we could not get enough bloggers that are actually from Shorewood. I am also somewhat mystified by what Mr. Thieme is actually saying in his post, though maybe that will become clear over time. All of that aside, if he or the environmental group can meaningfully contribute to our local dialogue, then I see nothing inherently wrong with having them participate in our endeavor.”
- The Forum, 1/11/07

Now that they have been on the site for several months, I have come to believe it is time for each of them to move back their own hometown NOW site. From my point of view, they have not been meaningfully contributing to the dialogue here in Shorewood. Instead they either focus on other places (Mequon for NatureNOW), bigger topics (Bush, Doyle, Walker et al. for Jim McGuigan), or re-post previously published materials with minimal relevance to Shorewood (Richard Thieme).

Additionally, we now have 6 active Shorewood bloggers posting on any number of different topics (welcome Tim Fojtik, by the way). These Shorewood bloggers are certainly enough to maintain our own lively discussion without the three blogs from outside of Shorewood.

Finally, I would point out that the three North Shore blogs have been among the least frequently updated of any of the blogs appearing on ShorewoodNOW.

If this site is meant to deliver locally relevant content, it’s time for the other three to be moved back to their home NOW pages.



Comments

1. Yeah give them Carpetbaggers the boot :-)
- Dave Tatarowicz, Village Trustee Candidate, "Shorelines"

2. Doesn't it seem logical that the bloggers on ShorewoodNOW.com should be from...umm...Shorewood?!? ...or is it just me? ;-)
- Jim Genthe, Shorewood Resident

The Shorewood Men's Club announced they will be sponsoring a debate for candidates running for Village Trustee and School Board. The event will be held on the lower level of the Village Center on Thursday, March 22 at 7:00 PM. The first 30 minutes will be focused on the Trustee candidates, and the second half will be focused on the School Board candidates.

Also, don't forget, on Wednesday March 21, the North Shore Legion Post is holding a forum for the Trustee candidates.

If you would like to meet the candidates, please plan to attend one of these events. Both events are free and open to the public.

1. Wednesday March 21
Time: 7:30 - 9:00 PM
Location: North Shore Legion Post
Sponsor: North Shore Legion Post
4121 N Wilson Dr. (map)

2. Thursday March 22
Time: 7:00 - 8:00 PM
Location: Lower Level, Village Center
Sponsor: Shorewood Men's Club
3920 N Murray Ave. (map)

We actually do spend money on forestry, though I could not find any mention in the budget of a position for a Village Forester. This from the 2007 Shorewood Village Budget.

"The Forestry Division includes all necessary costs for an efficient, cost effective program to maintain the Village's urban forest. Staffing includes three full time Public Works employees. The primary responsibilities of this division are: pruning, planting and inspection of trees; removal and stumping of trees; tree assessment and green space maintenance. These employees also clear all Village property and walks of snow and ice in the winter months and are the primary employees used for leaf collection in the fall."

Their budget of $110,000 goes to labor, supplies, tree removal, and reforestation.

 



Comments:

1. Steve, Strangely enough, we actually DO have a village forester/horticulturalist named Judy! She does the great work with all the plantings in the sidewalk containers, medians, Atwater Park, etc, but "don't call her Shirley!" (®AIRPLANE!)
- Jim Genthe, Village Resident

If all goes as planned for AT&T, they will soon be able to begin the unfettered uglification of our neighborhoods, all in the name of cable competition. If AT&T is successful in passing their proposed legislation, they can begin placing 15-16 outhouses sized boxes on the public rights of way (see the image top left).

Although I would be glad to have some level of competition in the cable market, I am not at all in favor of the way AT&T has pursued this initiative, bullying their way past municipalities.

The below article is from this week's Village Manager's memo.

----------------------------
Shorewood Village Manager's Memo
March 9, 2007

The AT&T-sponsored legislation which takes away local control of right-ofways and allows large cable boxes in front of residences (like the one on Stowell Avenue) is on a roll. Our Regional Cable Association worked very hard to influence the impact of this legislation on municipalities and residents but does not have the resources of a political action committee. AT&T has ceased all discussion with municipalities anticipating passage of their sponsored legislation. Watch next week's memo for an update on this topic.
---------------------------

UPDATE: The article has been corrected. Apparently, it was referring to Fox Point, and not Shorewood. The online version has not been changed to refer to the Fox Point Tree Commission, although the print article in today's North Shore NOW still refers to the Shorewood Tree Commission.

In reading the North Shore NOW article “Landscaping Requirements for Businesses Examined,” I could draw only one conclusion. I must have fallen and hit my head on something hard, causing me to experience hallucinations and memory loss.

First off, there is this section:

“Business property owners could possibly face stricter requirements regarding landscaping plans when constructing or reconstructing buildings after Shorewood's Tree Commission on March 5 began to consider amending the village code.”

When did we establish a Tree Commission? I Googled Shorewood Tree Commission and found no previous references to this entity.

Then there is this:

“"What struck me when I went through this was that the landscape plan is not meant to be aesthetic from all vantage points, which is disturbing," committee chairman and Village Trustee Louise Petering said.”

We have 6 Village Trustees in Shorewood, including Michael Phinney, Ellen Eckman, Mike Maher, Dawn Anderson, Jeff Hanewall, and Margaret Hickey. When was Louise Petering elected?

Finally, there is this:

"What that really means is grass," Village Forester Judy Shirley said.

Does Shorewood actually have a Village Forester?

Am I losing my mind here?



Comments

1. Steve - Unless it was edited after your read and post yesterday (or maybe the print version is wrong), the article is about Fox Point! Keep up the good work!
- Jim Plaisted, Executive Director, Business Improvement District

I continue to believe we acted rashly by passing the smoking ban last Monday without the support of surrounding municipalities. However, although I was not in favor of Shorewood going it alone, the ban is now a done deal.

Let's help our local businesses avoid the "island effect" by working to get the State of WI to pass a comprehensive smoking ban before the Shorewood ban goes into effect on July 1, 2009. A statewide ban would ensure that Shorewood businesses remain on an equal footing with the competition in the surrounding area.

Please take a moment and email our State Senator Darling and State Rep Wasserman and ask them to support a statewide smoking ban.

State Senator Alberta Darling: sen.darling@legis.state.wi.us
State Rep Sheldon Wasserman: rep.wasserman@legis.wi.gov

I will be posting a petition in the next few days, urging action at the state level. If anybody has suggestions on how this petition should be worded, please send it to me by clicking the comment button below.

I stumbled across this blurb on the Britt Inn which appeared on JSOnline last Thursday. I bring you these articles about Shorewood from a variety of publications (JSOnline, MKE, The Shepherd, The Onion?) whenever I find them, because I know how they can easily get lost in the clutter.

-------------------------------

No RSVP Needed: The Brit Inn

JSOnline, 3/1/07

The Britt Inn
4473 N. Oakland Ave., Shorewood
Phone: (414) 755-2357

What it's like here: The Brit Inn opened in June, aiming to be a true British pub that serves as a meeting place for locals and others to catch up on family news and community happenings. The atmosphere is warm and welcoming thanks to the cozy, oak-on-oak interior in the dining room and an elevated seating area just off the bar. From the jukebox, you'll most likely hear hits from English bands, such as The Verve, Oasis and, of course, those Beatles. Fridays get busy around 3, and again around 9; the Saturday night crowd begins to pack the place after dinnertime. Depending on the season, you'll find either football or fútbol on TV. (READ FULL ARTICLE...)


Photo: JSOnline, Peter Zuzga
--------------------------------

The Journal Sentinel is doing an absolutely fascinating series of interviews with CEOs and business leaders in the area, discussing problems the Milwaukee region faces, and some potential solutions. I would highly recommend taking a moment and reading the first article in the series.

-------------------------------------

What can business do?

Support exciting new initiatives while maintaining the building blocks of quality
JSOnline, March 3, 2007

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board hosted the first in a year-long series of community round tables addressing the quality of life in the Milwaukee metropolitan area Monday

We invited chief executive officers from some of the region's leading corporations to help us identify the issues - and solutions - confronting metro Milwaukee.

The executives talked about the need for a skilled and educated work force, the need for the business community to become actively engaged in bettering the communities where they do business or are headquartered, the business culture hereabouts and the need for progress across many fronts. (READ FULL STORY...)
----------------------------------------

The article below appeared in this week's edition of MKE Magazine. The article mentions the Shorewood smoking ban, and gives a good general update on the smoking ban wars throughout the State of WI.

------------------------------------

Behind the smokescreen

What a smoke-free Milwauke could look like
By Tim Cigelske
MKE Magazine, March 1, 2007

Smoke-filled bars are a Milwaukee way of life.

We're used to our clothes reeking after a night out. We barely notice our stinging eyes while chatting with a friend over a beer. We might light up with a drink, even if we don't normally smoke.

But it seems inevitable that sooner or later, Milwaukee bars are destined to go smoke-free, like more and more places these days. Locally, Wauwatosa is getting used to an 8-month-old smoking ban, and the Shorewood Village Board on Monday passed a ban on smoking in all public places, including taverns and restaurants. (It takes effect in 2009.) Gov. Jim Doyle has announced his support for making public buildings in Wisconsin smoke-free.

Look no further than Ardor Pub & Grill in downtown Milwaukee for a possible glimpse into this future. The old-school tavern is as classic Milwaukee as it gets, with one notable exception: There's no ashtray, cigarette butt or hint of smoke anywhere in the place.

Owner Eli Rivera reclaimed the smoke-free environment from a restaurant that had long allowed smoking. The contrast was astounding.

"I thought the walls were supposed to be cream-colored," Rivera remembers about how he found the building four years ago. "Then I looked under the pictures, and it was white."

Over one-and-a-half months, Rivera worked to restore the building to its pre-smoke-tainted condition. On the previous pages, we virtually re-created the bar's old atmosphere (page 6) alongside a snapshot of its revitalized incarnation (page 7).

It just might be the model of Milwaukee's future nightlife.

The smoking ban: where it stands

Like an ambitious but wayward New Year's resolution, a proposed state smoking ban came strong out of the gate but has lost some steam.

In January, Gov. Jim Doyle took a stand in support of a ban on smoking in public buildings, as well as instituting a $1.25-per pack increase in the cigarette tax. Then in late February, Doyle said he would accept "95 percent" of what he was asking for, including some exemptions.

But when it goes to a vote is anyone's guess.

"We think we should move quicker, but we don't control that process," said Maureen Busalacchi, executive director of Smoke Free Wisconsin. "Every day we don't do it, we're still subjecting people to secondhand smoke."

Milwaukee considered its own smoking ban in 2005 that would have been one of the nation's toughest by outlawing lighting up in nearly all workplaces, restaurants, bars and other public buildings. The measure encountered opposition and died in committee.

Ald. Robert Donovan, an outspoken opponent of that measure, is holding a rally against a proposed statewide ban at noon Saturday, March 3, at Serb Hall, 5101 W. Oklahoma Ave.

Donovan said he represents small diners and taverns that he believes would lose business under a smoking ban.

"I just feel that the government has stepped a little too far on this one," said Donovan, who is a smoker. "I view it more as a business decision. I feel there are far more important issues the government needs to address."

Nearly two-thirds of Wisconsin voters support a statewide smoking ban, according to a poll released by Smoke Free Wisconsin. Among smokers, 64 percent oppose the ban, while about a third support it.

"It's going to be a battle," Busalacchi said of potential legislation. "Just because it always is."
-----------------------------------

Below is a letter sent to me by Trustee Dawn Anderson concerning the Smoking Ban. It partially relates to my recent post "Steamrolled by Lobbyists".

--------------------------------
Hi Steve - first of all I'd like to thank you for your attendance at so many meetings on this issue and for what I think has been a very rational assessment of it. I have said it before (and been contradicted) but my assessment has also been that the majority of people speaking publicly in favor of this ban have not been residents, but representatives of outside advocacy groups - with the exception of some of our resident doctors and a few others who are rightly concerned about it as a health issue. One of my fellow board members brought this incongruity to my attention shortly after I came on board and asked for some history of the previous discussions and public listening sessions. They were represented in one way or another at every committee meeting and board meeting at which this was discussed. They sent emails fairly regularly. By contrast, the Shorewood NOW article by Brendan points out that restaurant and tavern owners "lobbied heavily" against the ordinance, which is patently not true in my case. Yes, 2 owners were present the night of the vote, they spoke at the public hearing, and I believe one owner came to one committee meeting when we were discussing the ordinance. I personally did not receive one letter,email, or phone call from any of them.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'd like to say that for 10 years I have been a volunteer for, and now work for, a health advocacy organization. I've been to DC and Madison a number of times advocating for my cause. I appreciate the passion that advocates demonstrate and recognize the importance of their role in policy making - but I have to say I was very surprised at some of communications I received as a trustee. Smoking and exposure to second hand smoke has become a highly charged issue and some - not all - of these "advocates" were definitely rude or condescending while we were trying to make this important decision about our village (I would like to specifically exclude Sue Marten who was extremely calm and helpful in her participation) As you described it, "finger wagging" and eye rolling is not usually an effective way to win friends and influence people.

We were presented with a survey conducted by Aurora Health Care "proving" that the majority of Shorewood residents would approve a smoking ban. Well - of course! Who's going to say no except for the few business owners who are going to feel the pain of this ban the most - unless of course the state beats us to the enactment date and levels the playing field for them. It's like saying "do you support world peace?" But my casual conversations with friends and neighbors in the village showed me that most of them had no clue that the majority of restaurants and businesses in the village were already voluntarily non smoking establishments. Is this really a huge public health issue --- IN SHOREWOOD? That was my key objection to the ordinance; weighing the pretty small impact on the overall public health of Shorewood residents (the vast majority of whom are already non smokers who generally don't hang out in bars), with the very real impact it will have on a few, but important, businesses in our community who are quite obviously serving a constituency of adults participating in a legal activity. In committee before the vote I asked the lobbyists if there was any comparison they could give us of another municipality of our size - and in our "island" situation - in Wisconsin , enacting a ban. The answer of course was no - and yet we were inundated with reports of "no economic impact" from huge metropolitan areas like Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, New York etc etc in order to prove that our businesses wouldn't suffer. My colleague Jeff said it best - are we willing to roll the dice on these business owners' livelihoods? I wasn't. I share your concern about the impact this will have on our business district and agree, things really could get interesting if the state doesn't put a 100% ban in place by July 1 2009.

Dawn Anderson
Shorewood Village Trustee
March 2, 2007
--------------------------------------

I sent this note to Trustees Phinney and Eckman, asking them to consider starting a blog on ShorewoodNOW. I believe it would give us all a good opportunity to hear more directly from each of them.

-------------------------------
Trustees Phinney and Eckman -

Would you consider starting a campaign blog on the ShorewoodNOW site? It could provide an excellent
opportunity to interact with a wider audience of potential voters.

Best Wishes,
Steve Koczela
-------------------------------

The city of Naperville, IL has come up with a creative way of alerting residents to the upcoming bix grey box invasion.

------------------------------------
Naperville tries to box AT&T into a corner
By Jake Griffin
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, March 01, 2007

Taking a cue from Itasca, Naperville leaders are placing giant boxes around the city to show residents what the landscape could look like if the state legislature takes away a municipality's right to regulate cable franchise agreements.

Telecommunications giant AT&T is pushing for the change and now municipalities are pushing back.

Naperville announced Wednesday it will be distributing large yellow boxes around the city to demonstrate the size of AT&T's proposed junction boxes for its new video service. Itasca officials did the same a few days ago, only they were pink in color. The boxes are about 5 feet tall and 4 feet wide.

Each box in Naperville is also emblazoned with: "This big ugly box brought to you by AT&T Project Lightspeed in the name of competition."

City officials said the proposed state law would allow AT&T to circumvent requirements that have been put in place to ensure complete coverage of the city and fair competition among providers.

"This is a case where there is one entity that doesn't seem to think the process works," said Terry Miller, Naperville's senior assistant attorney. "We don't think there's a need for change since it works for everyone else."

He said the city spent six months negotiating with AT&T officials over Project Lightspeed last year when the company abruptly pulled out of negotiations. AT&T has sued several other municipalities for not allowing it to install the boxes, including Itasca.

Rob Biederman, an AT&T spokesman, said the company has been welcomed in other communities, including a recent agreement in Mundelein. He said the company was nonplussed by the box displays in Naperville and Itasca.

"Though we're currently not in discussions with Naperville, we wish these efforts and resources would have been spent bringing cable competition to Naperville and we look forward to reaching that goal," he said.

Last week, AT&T was accused of dirty tricks by Itasca officials for pulling the plug on phone services at village facilities shortly after the pink boxes went up. Company officials blamed the outage that only affected village buildings on a "connector glitch" that also affected systems in Bensenville.

Naperville officials don't know how many boxes will be placed around the city or for how long. Miller said the intent is to educate the residents about the legislation.

"One day they could wake up and this could be right in front of your house," he said.
----------------------------------