Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

Franklin panel recommends land buy for city

From  FranklinNOW.com

The Franklin Plan Commission voted unanimously last night to recommend the Common Council buy a property and single family residence at 8921 W. Drexel Ave.

The parcel, located in the Forest Hills Neighborhood at the southeast corner of Drexel Avenue and Schlueter Parkway, is located between Fire Station No. 1 and the Drexel Avenue Water Tower, just opposite the Franklin Public Library and Lions Legend Park. The Franklin Public Library, City Hall and the municipal police building are also located nearby.

Planning Manager Joel Dietl told commissioners the city's master plan identifies the area surrounding the house and the 21,780-square-foot property within the civic center planning district. The three-bedroom home, assessed at $118,000, was built in 1959.

Except for the residence, the area is zoned for public institutions but Dietl explained that could change to accommodate future development of blended nature, possibly including retail, residential and institutional.

The city is currently in negotiations to purchase the property.

Link: FranklinNOW.

So, now Pat McIlheran is anti-sprawl?

This past summer I had a bit of back-and-forth with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial writer Patrick McIlheran regarding the issue of smaller lots vs. a continuation of sprawled out suburban development. Among other complaints, I wrote that he mono-focused on the "farmland preservation" issue without mentioning the myriad other economic and social issues brought to bear in this kind of discussion.

McIlheran's reply in his blog included gambit A-6 from the right wing playbook, asking "Why the tone of anger? Why the personal edge?"

My post really wasn't very "edgy,"especially compared to how other bloggers treat him, and, after I explained to him via email the whole "blog context" concept (subjective, etc.), he emailed to me that "your comments put lie to my impression of you as Franklin’s Kunstler" (referring to the frank and sometimes profane tone of James Howard Kunstler). So we agreed to disagree.

Warm feelings were somewhat mitigated, however, by the fact that McIlheran didn't bother to correct/update his "misimpression" in his blog.

Before our warm moment, McIlheran had in his blog overlooked my salient points and explained his theory regarding the "personal edge" he perceived in my comments: "I would contend it's because my original point is right, that this is more about aesthetics than facts."

This "it's about the trees" talking point - which ignores the facts I presented - is informed by dubious arguments in pro-sprawl Robert Bruegmann's  book, "Sprawl: A Compact History." McIlheran offered the most commonly cited Bruegmann excerpt in his August 8th column:

Cities spread and people then deplore it, [Bruegmann] says. London's elite in the 1800s saw as vulgar the inexpensive row housing developers peddled to the middle class. Now, such houses are the model of compact urbanity.

People try dressing the argument as a matter of "smart" or "dumb" growth, but, he says, the "emotional linchpin" is still "some deep-seated notions about how people ought to live in relation to nature."

Bruegmann - who, by the way, mischaracterizes London row houses and their relationship to the center city in the 1800s! - has declared that this all comes down to "some deep-seated notions about how people ought to live in relation to nature."

Evidently McIlheran either re-read my critique of his August 8th "conservation subdivision" editorial (wherein aesthetics and trees were not cited) or he was inspired by a better book: Imagine my surprise to see not one but two McIlheran editorials concerning the effects of large suburban lots - - both of which seem to find him on the anti-sprawl side of the fence.   

January 27:

Hartford [Wisconsin] is everybody's favorite city because it is rare: a place with plentiful new houses under $200,000. Builders love it, planners love it, home buyers particularly love it.

The real question, say builders, is why it should be so hard to do the same thing elsewhere.

While Hartford officials say affordability rules deserve some credit, builders say Hartford mainly gets out of their way.

Its planners don't require repeated, costly changes in subdivision designs. What gets approved in Hartford in two or three weeks, several builders said, will take months elsewhere.

Hartford's OK with smaller yards, which makes a difference because the cost of streets, sewers and water lines is borne by buyers. The fewer feet of street and pipe there is per lot, the cheaper the lots. Besides, it's inevitable that buying a 10,000-square foot lot for a house will cost less than having to buy two acres for it. By allowing fewer houses on a given amount of land, communities typically end up being costlier.

A familiar argument - similar to the non-aesthetic one I made back in August:

Watch the cost of stringing sewer and power out to sprawled subdivisions become ruinous for your city government (surely you've seen the formula: $1 of residential tax income cost suburban city governments about $1.33 largely due to reactionary "planning" and "no-close-neighbor" developments).

Back to McIlheran:

Officials... talk of affordability but are in love with large lots. "Those two ideas are basically incompatible," [Morris Davis, a real estate economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison] says.

This has a real effect. Metro Milwaukee's median home price is now four times its median household income, marking us as relatively unaffordable overall. Since 1996, residential land costs here are up 133%, an increment similar to San Francisco, says Davis.

Davis says he can't say for certain this is because of zoning, though he says other economists do. Builders, too, say zoning restricts the supply of buildable land, so fewer homes are built here than in comparable cities - a fourth as many as in Kansas City, Indianapolis or Detroit, says Matt Moroney, head of the Metropolitan Builders Association. "I think other areas embrace growth more," he says.

One developer summed up the philosophy as, "Not in my backyard unless it's darned expensive."

Good points, right? And then today's McIlheran column. Forget why; now he's all about finding out how we can get smaller lots accepted  (I've bolded the particularly - and unexpectedly - anti-sprawl points made), and he wisely points out a huge factor in this discussion: The feeling that "Exclusive zoning is a financial ledge that existing homeowners can't afford to climb off":

Smaller lots? Maybe if we offer the neighbors some upside

Ask a builder whether he'd rather build a few big, expensive homes or many more smaller, less expensive ones, and he'll tell you he can make money either way - though as one told me, building more houses is more efficient and profitable.

Ask a builder what's allowed, and the answer's clearer: Local governments don't want smaller and cheaper. "It's like you're speaking a foreign language," says Tim O'Brien of William Ryan Homes.

So in this home-show season, maybe we should be asking how we can make it worth a community's while to change its zoning.

Builders say, and economists confirm, that zoning increases the cost of houses. Rules requiring more land per lot add to costs directly, and they limit the supply of buildable land, making the price go up. This may underlie what you see in Milwaukee, listed in one January survey as among the least-affordable Midwestern metropolises.

The conspiracy-minded hint that such zoning aims to keep minorities out, though precluding houses under $300,000 sets the bar pretty high: Suburbanites' own children often can't afford a house in the old hometown. That's a big hole in the they're-all-racists idea.

It's likely suburbs get something from making houses expensive. Suburban officials say so: Residents prefer upscale neighbors or a rural feel, and those wishes carry weight in planning. Or, builders say, some towns have a break-even point in mind. Officials don't believe houses worth less bring in enough tax money to pay for services new families use, builders say, so they don't permit them.

Phil Evenson, who heads the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, suggests people need to value "economic diversity." Mixing in lower-income people makes places more interesting, he argues.

Or there's an appeal to self-interest. As employers favor suburban sites, their staff will need houses they can afford unless we presume they'll all live somewhere cheaper and commute. That implies unpleasant amounts of pavement and traffic. Far better to offer housing for all ages and incomes.

But these ideas run into a powerful force: Existing homeowners have money on the line in zoning, says François Ortalo-Magné, a real estate economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

For one thing, by making it hard to build, zoning makes existing homes worth more. It raises the value of a homeowner's investment by making it scarce.

It also creates an expectation by home-buyers that land in a community will continue to be scarce. They paid a premium to get into a place whose zoning will make it harder to get into, Ortalo-Magné says. Naturally, they won't favor loosening the zoning and debasing their investment. Of course, they support growth restrictions.

This isn't the same as simply favoring $600,000 homes nearby as a way of ritzifying the area or feeling you've lost something when your vista is filled with houses. It's that exclusive zoning is a financial ledge that existing homeowners can't afford to climb off, says Ortalo-Magné. It's part of the value of their homes.

Except he's got an idea. What if, he brainstorms, a community auctioned off building permits? Right now, when a community gives permission to build on vacant land, the land's value shoots up. The landowner gets the windfall, while there's no upside at all for neighbors. If instead the neighbors got some money from a permit auction, "Wouldn't they think about it differently?" he asks.

He knows of no such mechanism used in the United States. That doesn't mean the idea is utterly unknown. Thomas Firey, a policy scholar at the Cato Institute, notes the zoning nightmare faced in suburban Washington when a developer wanted to put dense new development between single-family homes and a subway stop. In the end, the developer bought out nearby homeowners for three times the market value, says Firey, and "everyone was made better off."

"Everyone better off" is key. As suburbs allow too little new housing, it doesn't just hurt would-be suburbanites. Those who can't afford high-end places bid up prices in cheaper areas. Scarcity filters throughout metro Milwaukee.

So as novel or even unfair as it may seem to pay off suburban neighbors to permit growth, the benefits could spread widely. In a metropolis where the price of a big yard is rising beyond the reach of young people, it's worth looking at.

Death knell for another mall: "The retail model that exists now is outdated."

Southridge Mall is well on its way to becoming a relic. As a classic surrounded-by-asphalt mall, it's an object lesson in the "retail wasteland" concept that is slowly - - and thankfully - - fazing out. The entire character of the area could be uplifted if the mall can be refitted as a mixed-used commercial-residential complex. With lifestyle center developments like Fountains of Franklin and the Shops at Wyndham Village emerging in nearby Franklin, enclosed malls will become VHS, so to speak.

As it is now, this huge hunk of Greendale is mainly a habitat for vehicles; the yellow zone is parking, and the blue zone is the actual Southridge Mall building. Incredible.

Greendale wants a say in Southridge's future

Village has a stake in mall's future, officials say

By DANI McCLAIN
[email protected]

Posted: Jan. 25, 2007

Greendale officials want to influence the changes in store for Southridge Mall - the village's biggest taxpayer - as it comes under new ownership.

The village is seeking proposals from two planning firms - HNTB Corp. and R.A. Smith and Associates Inc. - to develop its own vision for the mall's future, Village Manager Joseph Murray said.

Conversations have focused on whether the 110-acre complex, the largest shopping mall in the state, could support mixed-use development, whether housing could be part of that mix, and costs associated with various redevelopment plans, Village President John Hermes said. Talks have been in progress for several months.

"I want to get ahead of this more than we have in the past," Hermes said. "Southridge is an important economic issue, not only for Greendale, but for the entire region."

The redevelopment of other area shopping malls, such as Bayshore Town Center in Glendale, Wauwatosa's Mayfair Mall and Brookfield Square, has been cause for concern, Hermes said. Southridge may have to consider a major revamp to stay competitive.

"The retail model that exists now is outdated," Hermes said. "We have to think about what the next popular retail model is going to be beyond lifestyle centers and town centers."

Last week, financially troubled Mills Corp., which bought Southridge two years ago, announced it has agreed to be purchased by Toronto-based Brookfield Asset Management Inc. for $1.35 billion. The transaction, subject to Mills shareholder approval, is expected to close in the second half of 2007.

Greendale depends heavily on the mall's tax revenue. The village has no space to create new homes or businesses from scratch that could produce tax dollars.

Hermes said his strategy has been to build consensus with local government officials and the mall's owners. He has reached out to Mills and Brookfield Asset and has spoken with the mayor of neighboring Greenfield.

"We need to have this looked at as a regional process," Hermes said. "Funding is an issue that's way down the road yet. What I know is that it can't be shouldered completely by Greendale."

Hermes will present his research next month to a joint meeting of Greendale's community development authority and planning commission. The next step will be getting community input and, eventually, hiring a planning firm, Hermes said.

Link: JS Online:.

Rail stations touted as lures

Area residents can hear more about the commuter rail plan, and offer their comments, at three public information sessions:

Feb. 5 at Gateway Technical College's Racine campus

Feb. 7 at Gateway's Kenosha campus

Feb. 8 at Milwaukee's Downtown Transit Center

Sessions run from 5:30 to 8 p.m. in open-house format, with formal presentations at 6 and 7 p.m.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

By LARRY SANDLER
[email protected]

Posted: Jan. 24, 2007

A proposed southeastern Wisconsin commuter rail line has excellent prospects for attracting development around stations, a national expert said Wednesday.

National trends indicate stronger demand for housing and businesses within walking distance of train stations, particularly in big metropolitan areas like Chicago, said Shelley Poticha, president of Reconnecting America.

By connecting to Chicago's Metra commuter trains, "this line is perfect for this," if planners coordinate development with rail service, Poticha said of the proposed KRM Commuter Link.

The KRM line would connect Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and the southern suburbs with 14 round trips each weekday, providing local service for traveling to jobs, schools and shops. Passengers could transfer to Metra at Kenosha or Waukegan, Ill., and shuttle buses would link the Cudahy depot to Mitchell International Airport.

But the plan is at a critical point, as the new Regional Transit Authority struggles to reach a consensus on how to pay for it. The line would cost $200 million to build and $11 million a year to operate, although supporters think federal and state aid and fares would cover most of that, leaving the authority to raise about $5 million a year.

Authority members have shelved a proposal to levy a sales tax of up to 0.5% in Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha counties, to pay for the train line and to wean local bus systems off the property tax. A Milwaukee Common Council committee today will discuss whether to oppose any attempt to create a new tax for the KRM line without also funding the Milwaukee County Transit System.

Poticha's organization encourages connections between trains, intercity buses, airports and the communities they serve. She delivered speeches Wednesday to developers in Milwaukee and to the public in Racine.

Commuter rail lines are benefiting from two major trends, Poticha told Journal Sentinel editors and reporters.

First, the population is aging, becoming more diverse and waiting longer to have children, increasing the ranks of people who want to live near public transit, Poticha said. Reconnecting America predicts 10 million U.S. households will want to live within walking distance of a train station by 2030, with increased demand in the Chicago-Milwaukee region trailing only the New York and Boston areas, she said.

Second, public transit ridership is growing, Poticha noted. In 2005, transit ridership hit its highest point since 1997, and ridership grew an additional 3% in the first nine months of 2006.

To take advantage of those trends, local planners need to avoid mistakes made by other regions, Poticha said. For example, she said, housing near train stations should be aimed at people of all ages, income levels and family situations, instead of assuming "an unlimited supply of extremely wealthy singles who would want to live in condos."

Most of the stations planned for the KRM line would be in urban settings that naturally lend themselves to this sort of development, said Mike Ruzicka, president of the Greater Milwaukee Association of Realtors and the Southeastern Wisconsin Coalition for Transit Now.

Link: JS Online:.

TWO Sendik's Stores in Franklin?

After a long period of seeming inactivity at the site of the Fountains of Franklin commercial development - - frankly, I was beginning to think they'd given up the ghost - - comes the a press release announcing that not only do they plan to become the largest commercial development in the area outside of Southridge Mall, but Fountains of Franklin will be featuring - - gasp - - a Sendik's grocery store.

Sendik's is the middle-aged, upper-middle-class version of the Apple Store; the leisure class in Franklin and surrounding 'burbs is itching to have an upscale grocer in town. There were high fives all around when developer Mark Carstensen announced that Sendik's would co-anchor his Shops at Wyndham Village commercial project. Now another Sendik's is announced for a location barely 2-1/2 miles away*. Incredible.

[*CORRECTION: It was called to my attention that my stated distance of 2-1/2 miles is as the crow flies. A better, more accurate distance would via actual roads, and that distance is a bit under three-and-a-quarter miles.]

This is a soap opera. The Balistreri extended family owns most of the Sendik's around Greater Milwaukee, and one Balistreri has pitted himself against another in Franklin. (From the Milwaukee JS: "Tom Balistreri, a member of the family that operates the Capitol Drive Sendik's, was surprised when he heard about the Sendik's planned for the Fountains of Franklin. Tom Balistreri said his family remains committed to operating the 63,000-square-foot Wyndham Village supermarket." And on franklinnow.com: "We had no knowledge of what our cousins were doing. We're not interested in the Fountains of Franklin and we're still moving forward with our project with the Shops at Wyndham Village. This whole thing could be called a shocker at best because they had knowledge that we were going to open this store in Franklin, but we didn't know they were interested in opening a store in Franklin.")

You can call me foolish if I'm proved wrong, but there is no way Franklin can support two upper-crust grocery stores. And, if there are two high-end groceries in a 3-mile radius and they start to compete on price, are they still "high end"?

And this is not to mention the fact that the people living in the subdivision adjacent to the Fountains of Franklin site must be aghast to learn that the development is now going to be "the second largest retail development on the South Side of Milwaukee, second in size only to Southridge Mall." 

Things are getting interesting.

Franklin is in store for two Sendik's

Families to bring upscale supermarkets to separate developments in growing community south of I-94

By TOM DAYKIN
[email protected]

Posted: Jan. 23, 2007

Sendik's, the upscale grocery chain rooted in Milwaukee's affluent North Shore and western suburbs, is planning to bring two new supermarkets to the rapidly growing community of Franklin - marking a major foray south of I-94.

The operators of four Sendik's stores in the Milwaukee area said Tuesday they will open a fifth store at the Fountains of Franklin development, on the north side of W. Rawson Ave., at S. 51st St. Construction will begin this spring on the project, which will include offices and other high-end stores.

The 57,000-square-foot Sendik's will be operated by Ted Balistreri and his siblings. They also operate Sendik's supermarkets in Whitefish Bay, Mequon, Grafton and Wauwatosa.

Other members of the extended Balistreri family, who own the Sendik's at 18985 W. Capitol Drive, in Brookfield, plan to develop a store at The Shops of Wyndham Village, another new retail center planned for Franklin by developer Mark Carstensen.

Construction on that development, at the southeast corner of Highway 100 and W. Drexel Ave., is to begin this spring, Carstensen said.

Tom Balistreri, a member of the family that operates the Capitol Drive Sendik's, was surprised when he heard about the Sendik's planned for the Fountains of Franklin. Tom Balistreri said his family remains committed to operating the 63,000-square-foot Wyndham Village supermarket.

Ted Balistreri said "there's more than enough room" in Franklin for both stores, which will be about four miles apart.

"Franklin is a huge area. It continues to grow," said Ted Balistreri, who hopes to have the store open by fall.

Franklin's population, estimated last year at 33,000 by the state Department of Administration, has increased 11.9% since the 2000 census. The city has about 40 residential developments under construction, and its population is expected to reach 45,000 by 2020, said Doug Wheaton, Franklin's director of city development,

"Franklin is a hot area," said David Hintzman, president of Equitable Development LLC, which is a partner with Devo Development LLC on the Fountains of Franklin project.

"Commercial development follows residential development," Hintzman said. "That's what you're seeing in Franklin."

David Livingston, a supermarket industry consultant, is skeptical about whether there are enough prospective customers in Franklin to support two Sendik's stores, which are known for their service meat counters, extensive produce sections and in-store delis.

"It just doesn't have the population density like you have in the North Shore," said Livingston, who operates DJL Research of Pewaukee.

Nancy Anuszewski is among those who are eagerly awaiting the expansion of Sendik's to her area. Anuszewski, who lives in Greenfield, shops at Pick 'n Save and Sentry supermarkets in Franklin, but said she would prefer Sendik's for its "better meats, better produce and better seafood."

"They've (Sendik's) got places all over," Anuszewski said. "But we south siders have been ignored."

There are no Sendik's stores in the southern portion of the Milwaukee metro area. Another branch of the Balistreri-Sendik family operates Sendik's stores in Milwaukee, Bayside and another Brookfield location, while John Nehring and Anne Finch-Nehring own a Sendik's in Shorewood.

The Fountains of Franklin and Shops of Wyndham Village developments are among several major commercial projects in Franklin. Others include the expansion of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.'s corporate campus, on S. 27th St. between W. Drexel and W. Rawson avenues, and Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare's outpatient medical center that's being built at the northwest corner of S. 27th St. and W. Oakwood Road.

Link: JS Online:.

Buyers, brokers in local real estate market enter '07 with fingers crossed

By JOANNE CLEAVER
[email protected]

Posted: Jan. 20, 2007

Franklin - Four houses are for sale on the 4100 block of W. McGinnis Drive, but one of them is not like the others.

It has a buyer.

South suburban Franklin is one of the busiest real estate markets in the Milwaukee metro area.

With new developments and plenty of 10- to 15-year-old houses for sale, it's one of the few Milwaukee-area markets in which new and existing homes compete directly.

Last year, the average value of a new house built in Franklin was $276,440, a 5.1% increase over 2005, according to MTD Marketing.

The average resale price of an existing house sold by a broker was $242,224, according to Metro MLS, an increase of 4.2% over the year before.

And reflecting the metro-area trend, sales of both kinds of houses slowed considerably in 2006 and have entered this year dragging.

Small houses and condos geared for first-time buyers are selling, albeit slowly, reports Bob Selensky, a broker with Franklin's Parkway Realty, which handles both new developments and resales.

Developments aimed at downsizing, responsibility-shedding boomers aren't getting much interest.

"Entry-level buyers move faster because they're moving from no house, but the empty-nesters, by definition, have to sell," he says.

Last year was 15% to 20% slower than 2005, in his opinion, but buyers awoke with the new year and have been turning up at open houses once again, he adds.

Mary Jo Fritz put her home at 4118 W. McGinnis Drive on the market last February.

Built in 1990, it's a solid family house with a stone-faced fireplace, three bedrooms, a spacious deck and a new patio with a firepit.

Buyers said they were interested, but nobody showed up with paperwork.

Fritz found another south suburban house she loved near her aging mother, and bought it in May.

To try to spark interest in the McGinnis house, she spent about $1,000 on minor repairs, including removing a kitchen cabinet that blocked the view of the dining area and family room, the better to appeal to people who said they wanted an open layout.

Off market for holidays

Empty, cold and clean, the McGinnis Drive house hibernated.

To avoid juggling the holidays and the chores of selling a house, Fritz officially took it off the market in early Thanksgiving.

Many other Franklin sellers appeared to do the same thing, as signs evaporated from yards, she reports.

But they popped back in early January. Fritz re-listed with Coldwell Banker broker Wendi Werner.

Tinkering the price

That made it look like the house was coming on the market for the first time, as it popped up as a "new" listing in the database shared by brokers.

Werner edged down the price from the original $259,000 to $255,000.

An open house Jan. 7 drew eight couples.

"And open houses have been slow. I had two that day and at the other one, nobody came," says Werner.

She thinks the family who made an offer in the first week of January had overlooked the house before, because they have been house hunting for months.

Perhaps the freshened photos for the online listing made a difference, she says.

The deal is set to close in early February, so the agreed-on price isn't yet the final price, and not yet on the public record. In any event, Fritz is a little disappointed with the price she accepted.

"You can't be too choosy," she says. "It's still a buyer's market."

From the Jan. 21, 2007 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Link: JS Online:.

Weighing In on City Planning: Science News Online, Jan. 20, 2007

From SCIENCE NEWS

Could smart urban design keep people fit and trim?

Ben Harder

Lawrence Frank is no couch potato. Taking full advantage of his city's compact design, the Vancouver, British Columbia, resident often bikes to work and walks to stores, restaurants, and museums. That activity helps him stay fit and trim. But Frank hasn't always found his penchant for self-propulsion to be practical. He previously lived in Atlanta, where the city's sprawling layout thwarted his desire to be physically active as he went about his daily business.

"There was not much to walk to," says Frank, a professor of urban planning at the University of British Columbia. For example, he recalls that there was only one decent restaurant within walking distance of his old home. Many restaurants and other businesses in Atlanta cluster in strip malls that stand apart from residential areas.

In Vancouver, by contrast, Frank's neighborhood contains dozens of eateries, and he often strolls to and from dinner. "I'm more active here," he says.

The glaring difference between the two cities' landscapes figures in Frank's professional life as well as in his personal one. Frank is part of an emerging area of cross-disciplinary science that's examining the relationship between the shapes of our cities and the shapes of our bodies.

Link: Weighing In on City Planning: Science News Online, Jan. 20, 2007.

R.I.P. Franklin Hub

After nearly 80 years (can that be right?), The Franklin Hub newspaper is effectively folding and, beginning January 25th,  becoming part of a new paper called Oak Creek-Franklin-Greendale-Hales Corners NOW.

As much as folks at Community Newspapers want you to believe this is an outstanding development (see full publisher's letter below), I can't help but chalk this up to yet another area in which the American sense of community is withering.

Subscribers to the Hub have noticed its gradual depletion for some time now, becoming more and more slender and less and less useful as the consolidation plans went on. Does this mean there was less news to report locally? Fewer development issues? No - just far fewer people who feel connected to their city to the extent that they'd want to subscribe to the local paper; low subscriber numbers mean fewer staff reporters, and that means little or no in-depth coverage of local news. And, since the Hub is owned by Community Newspapers, a company that published 18 small local papers (I don't know what the new number is since consolidations), they have no real stake in Franklin specifically.

Take it from someone who is making an attempt to grasp development issues in Franklin: Keeping tabs on the myriad meetings, committees, proposals, procedures, etc. involved in local city planning issues is complicated and time intensive. I had a fairly long conversation last week with three men who have been involved with local development at various levels for many years, and they heartily agreed with my assertion that it would require a full-time reporter to cover Franklin's development issues while remaining on top of all the intertwining factors.

Or how about Franklin education issues? People might be interested to learn that Franklin school district parents received FRIDAY a letter explaining that all special education programs and kids will be displaced from Pleasant View Elementary and moved to Southwood Glen; there will be a meeting about the issue TONIGHT (Monday, January 15). Who were the committee members involved in the "District Growth and Planning Report" and what are their backgrounds? Do they realize they are foisting a jarring transition on kids for whom consistency is vital and a major change like this represents a sure setback to their development - - is that worth freeing up some rooms?

Also, announced in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: "Beginning Thursday, Jan. 25, Journal Sentinel readers will receive a free weekly community newspaper with their Journal Sentinel in these communities: Muskego, New Berlin, Brookfield, Elm Grove, Wauwatosa, Oak Creek, Franklin, Greendale, Hales Corners, Germantown, Menomonee Falls, Greenfield, West Allis, Bay View, Cudahy, St. Francis, South Milwaukee, Bayside, Brown Deer, Fox Point, Glendale, Mequon, River Hills, Shorewood, Thiensville and Whitefish Bay."

On the plus side, the Franklin Now web site may be quite useful. I'm looking forward to seeing what local voices might emerge on the Community Voices section (currently occupied by Republican state senator Mary Lazich alone, much as the Hub's letter column has been for years).

Dear Readers:

It is not often that we have used this space for a letter from the publisher, but I wanted to personally inform you of some exciting changes at Community Newspapers.

Beginning Jan. 25, the Franklin Hub will return to Thursday delivery and begin publishing under a new name, Oak Creek-Franklin-Greendale-Hales Corners NOW. This should be the final phase of significant changes that began last fall with the development of our www.MyCommunityNOW.com Web site.

The newspaper will include local news and sports coverage, the things you've told us to retain in the newspaper - Police Report maps, Government Watch and columnists such as Charlie Sykes, Dennis Shook and Matt Pommer, as well as some new items from the Web. We will feature, for example, the best of bloggers, who will have a chance to publish their thoughts online on the new FranklinNOW.com Web site, which will formally launch Friday, Jan. 19.

For local Milwaukee Journal Sentinel home delivery subscribers, this new NOW paper will be delivered Thursdays with the daily newspaper. Our Circulation Department is in the process of contacting subscribers with additional information. Newstand copies of the Thursday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel also will include the NOW paper. Those who don't receive a Thursday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at their home may pick up a free copy of the NOW paper at select locations.

The changes are part of our continuing effort to serve the needs of our readers, advertisers and our company's shareholders. Our goal is to preserve the best aspects of the Franklin Hub, which has served the community for 78 years, while exploring ways to reach new readers and advertisers online.

You can always find up-to-the-minute community news at our Web site. Log on to MyCommunityNOW.com to submit your stories, photos and blogs, as well as to find the latest news and information about your community.

The combination of these three products - your weekly community newspaper, the local Web site and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the state's largest daily newspaper - provide you with the best and most complete news and shopping information about your neighborhood.

We understand change can be difficult, and we appreciate your loyalty throughout the transition. We anticipate these changes will enable us to provide you with a good balance of editorial and advertising information - in print and online. You can contact me at (414) 224-2427 or our editor, Roger Bartel, at (262) 317-8553.

Christy Garcia-Thomas

Publisher

Transit backers try different strategy

Sales tax proposal for train line revamped

By LARRY SANDLER
[email protected]

Posted: Jan. 7, 2007

With a key vote approaching Tuesday on a regional transportation sales tax, public transit advocates are trying to rally support by packaging the idea as a way to cut property taxes and to shift the cost of a new commuter rail line to tourists.

Part of that approach could include reducing the proposed sales tax from 0.5% to 0.25% - 25 cents on a $100 purchase - to pay for the new train line linking Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and the southern suburbs, and to take public buses off the property tax, Racine Mayor Gary Becker said.

The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority is to consider asking the Legislature to authorize a three-county sales tax for trains and buses Tuesday. Other funding options likely will be considered as well, said Lori Richards, a spokeswoman for the authority.

Much of the authority's focus has been on the commuter rail line, called the KRM Commuter Link, which is strongly backed by business leaders as a way to spur development and connect workers to jobs. The rail line would cost $237 million to build and $14.7 million a year to operate. But supporters say state and federal aid and fares would cover 80% of capital costs and 90% of operating costs.

Last month, the authority signaled preliminary support for a two-level sales tax of up to 0.5%. One-tenth of that amount, 0.05%, would raise the $8 million-a-year local share of operating costs and debt service on bonds issued to pay for construction. Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha counties each could ask for more, up to 0.45%, to move public bus systems off the property tax.

But Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and several suburban Republican state legislators quickly declared their opposition to any new taxes. And Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said he didn't oppose the 0.05% for trains, but feared the additional 0.45% for buses would foreclose his goal of a broader local sales tax that would cover parks and public safety, as well as transit.

That posed a problem for the transit authority. By law, the seven-member body needs six votes to do anything. Walker and Barrett each have one appointee on the authority, as do their Racine and Kenosha counterparts and Gov. Jim Doyle. No plan can advance if more than one member oppose it.

Scaling back proposal

Becker is hoping to win consensus by cutting the tax in half. At 0.25%, he says, the sales tax would raise $40 million, which is still enough money to pay for the train line and take the Milwaukee County, Racine and Kenosha transit systems off the property tax.

Furthermore, Becker says, visitors are expected to pay about 22% of the sales tax, or $8.8 million - more than enough to pay for the train line. Therefore, he argues, the train line wouldn't cost local taxpayers anything, and the additional sales taxes paid by local residents would replace the property taxes they're paying now.

That analysis does not include state funding, which also comes partly from local taxpayers. Consultants say the state would have to budget more for public transportation if the train line is set up.

Support for sales tax

Milwaukee County Board Chairman Lee Holloway and Supervisor James White, chairman of the board's Transportation, Public Works and Transit Committee, agreed the sales tax could help cut property taxes by replacing levy funding for the Milwaukee County Transit System.

In a written statement, they called on George Torres, county director of transportation and public works, to join them in backing the sales tax.

But Torres, who is Walker's appointee to the transit authority, said he was under orders to oppose any new taxes.

Torres said the transit authority needs either to find revenue from non-tax sources or try to shift existing government revenue from other programs to transit.

Milwaukee Aldermen Bob Bauman and Mike D'Amato also backed the idea of a sales tax that would fund public buses as well as commuter trains. They said the train line alone would not benefit the city enough to justify a sales tax, while funding is needed to support the current transit system and possibly expand it.

Transit authority members are trying to move quickly to influence the 2007-'09 state budget that Doyle will present to the Legislature in a few weeks, and to apply for federal funding this summer.

Those deadlines reflect a desire to start service on the rail line by 2010, providing an option for commuters when work shifts into high gear on rebuilding I-94 between Milwaukee and the Illinois state line.

Link: JS Online:.

Rail link could reinforce Milwaukee-Racine-Chicago ties

Finances for Milwaukee-Chicago service remain in question

By TOM DAYKIN
[email protected]

Posted: Jan. 6, 2007

The possible creation of a commuter rail system has the most potential to reduce the figurative distance between southeastern Wisconsin and Chicago, some civic and business leaders say.

It also figures to be an expensive project, with construction costs estimated at $237 million - a combination of federal, state and local funds. But some area officials, including Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, have said they would oppose a new sales tax to provide local funding, saying Milwaukee County residents already are taxed enough.

The service would run on existing railroad tracks from downtown Milwaukee to Kenosha, where it would link with Chicago's Metra rail system.

A commuter rail link from Milwaukee to Chicago - with stops at communities between both cities - would make it easier for professionals to live in southeastern Wisconsin and work in either or both cities, said Robert Mariano, chief executive officer at Roundy's Inc., the corporate parent of Pick 'n Save and other supermarket chains.

The system, known as the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail line, or KRM Commuter Link, would provide more opportunities to travel by rail between southeastern Wisconsin and northern Illinois.

Amtrak's trains run from Milwaukee to Chicago seven times daily. But once they leave downtown Milwaukee and Mitchell International Airport, those trains offer just two other stops - at Sturtevant, in Racine County, and in Glenview, Ill. - before they reach Union Station in downtown Chicago. A one-way fare is $21.

The KRM link would offer 14 round trips on weekdays, seven on weekends and a lot more destinations, including likely stops in Milwaukee's Bay View neighborhood, Cudahy, South Milwaukee, Oak Creek, Caledonia, Racine, the Town of Somers and Kenosha. Shuttle service would connect travelers who stop in Cudahy to Mitchell airport. Fares would be similar to the Metra trains, at less than $10 one-way between Milwaukee and Kenosha.

The rail service could start by 2010, providing an alternative to driving on I-94 during freeway reconstruction between Milwaukee and the state line.

How to pay

The question of how to pay for more rail remains unanswered.

A Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission study estimated the cost of buying train cars and upgrading existing freight rail tracks at $237 million and projected operating costs at $14.7 million a year.

Congress has authorized $80 million for construction, and fares would bring in $3.8 million a year to help cover operating costs, the study says. Officials hope to get additional federal and state funds that would cover most of both the construction and operating costs.

But the 33-mile extension cannot move forward without a local funding source.

The newly created Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority is considering its options, including a local sales tax. Commission members could vote at its Tuesday meeting to ask the Legislature to authorize the new sales tax.

The three-county authority would be able to levy a 0.05% tax, or 5 cents on each $100 purchase, to cover the local share of building and operating the rail service. That would raise $8 million a year.

Many area business operators support the rail project, said Karl Ostby, president of Kenosha-based Southport Bank. A region tied together by commuter rail would allow southeastern Wisconsin companies to draw employees from a much larger talent pool, said Ostby, the transit authority's chairman.

The creation of rail stations also would stimulate development, said Richard Hansen, president of Racine-based Johnson Financial Group, which operates Johnson Bank.

"You look at every Metra stop, it turns into a great growth area," Hansen said.

Link: JS Online:.