Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

Northwestern Mutual brings pressure to bear in Drexel Interchange question: Two Franklin aldermen schedule Saturday meeting

 
ABOVE: Vacant for nearly a decade - across the street from 1,700+ employees.

If you thought Northwestern Mutual's benign media statement on Wednesday was their final word on the subject, think again.

Wednesday's statement:

"Northwestern Mutual provided funds to support the Drexel Interchange project through an agreement made with the DOT when it initially built a campus in Franklin several years ago. This initiative should not be connected to any other current transit projects under consideration."

But wait...

A letter from "The Quiet Company's" Vice President of Legislative and Regulatory Relations to Franklin Mayor Tom Taylor, dated April 28th, seems designed to put the fear of God into Franklin's leadership -- and certainly has done so in the case of Alderman Tim Solomon, who reminded those at Wednesday night's meeting that Northwestern Mutual paid $2 million is taxes last year in Franklin.

Northwestern Mutual makes no secret of the fact that they own a significant parcel of land across the street from their Franklin campus -- in Oak Creek -- that would be put into lucrative play by yet another interchange. [PDF link HERE.}

To listen to him proclaim "This needs to happen!", Northwestern Mutual seems to represent to Alderman Solomon more of a threat than a benefit. His exhortations relied on raising fear of losing NML and their tax payments rather than touting a set of ongoing community benefits the city should reinforce.

If NML becomes the "tipping point" for installation of an interchange that sucks quality, sustainable development out of Franklin's interior and onto a ribbon of asphalt in Oak Creek -- picture a cluster of colorful, burger-serving ticks clinging to a recently deceased rodent -- what will that do to their image locally? The photo above tells the story: The perception is that NML is located in Franklin, but doesn't really live here; everything 1,700 employees need is inside their building, and no restaurants or other amenities have seen any benefit in locating around their self-contained campus.

Self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" Aldermen Solomon and Steve Olson have called a special meeting of the Franklin council for Saturday at 12:30pm. Saturday is the DOT's deadline for getting a 50% local-share agreement they have deemed necessary for building the interchange. They really want to spend some money, and are willing to skip cartoons to do so.

Here is the text of Northwestern Mutual's letter:

April 28, 2010

Mayor Tom Taylor
City of Franklin
9229 W. Loomis Road
Franklin, Wl 53132

Dear Mayor Taylor:

I am writing to follow-up on the Common Council meeting of Tuesday, April 20th, during which considerable discussion revolved around proposed City of Franklin payments for lighting on 27th St., as well as the possibility of a new interchange at Interstate 94 and Drexel Avenue. As you know, I attended that meeting along with my colleague Catherine Young. We were both impressed by the considerable attention and thought the Council gave to this important topic.

During that discussion, several Council members expressed a desire for a better understanding of Northwestern Mutual's position on and involvement with the Drexel Interchange. Rather than engage in a number of one-on-one conversations and risk having those conversations misconstrued, I thought it would be best to commit to writing Northwestern Mutual's perspective on this issue.

Northwestern Mutual's position on the Drexel Interchange has been clear for some time. As our CEO, Ed Zore, stated in a 2007 letter to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (copy attached), we believe the attributes of the 27th Street Corridor that attracted Northwestern Mutual to Franklin in 2002 have great potential to attract other significant businesses and the highest quality developers to the area as well. These attributes include under-utilized, readily developable parcels of land, close proximity to downtown Milwaukee, easy access to General Mitchell International Airport, and a location in the heart of the corridor from'the Illinois border to Milwaukee from which businesses can draw many employees.

For Franklin's and Oak Creek's shared vision for the corridor to come to fruition, however, the communities need to invest in the necessary infrastructure that will make such development possible. We continue to believe the Drexel Avenue interchange is a critical element of this infrastructure. Based on this conviction, we agreed to redirect a previous 2004 payment of $1.6 million to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to the Drexel Avenue interchange, contingent on the local communities fulfilling the rest of the required local cost share. There were some comments at the Common Council meeting that perhaps a Drexel Avenue exit would speed a decision of Northwestern Mutual to build another building on the Campus. I would like to be clear that there is no such correlation. While our campus could accommodate additional buildings, we have no current plans for additional expansion in Franklin, Milwaukee, or anywhere else for that matter. If and when we have expansion needs, a wide range of business-driven factors will be considered in evaluating a variety of options available to the Company.

Finally, we were somewhat puzzled by comments made by some at the meeting that the Drexel Avenue interchange was located in Oak Creek, and therefore would have limited benefit to the City of Franklin. As you know well, over the past eight years, Northwestern Mutual has invested over $200 million in our Franklin Campus. Nearly 2,000 family-supporting jobs are located there, and in 2009, the Company paid $2 million of property taxes on the campus. 1 can say unequivocally that Northwestern Mutual would not be at its current Franklin location if the Rawson Avenue exit (located in Oak Creek) did not exist. We all owe a debt ofgratitude to the forward thinking leaders and decision-makers from previous decades who decided Rawson Avenue was an appropriate place for the current interchange.

We realize the notion of paying for something in another municipality raises legitimate legal and political questions. Nonetheless, we would encourage you and your colleagues to continue the process of partnering with the City of Oak Creek and doing whatever is within your power to support such critical infrastructure improvements as the Drexel Avenue interchange.

Please feel to contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Steven M. Radke
[Vice President - Legislative and Regulatory Relations]

cc:

Alderman Steve Olson
Alderman Tim Solomon
Alderman Kristen Wilhelm
Alderman Steve Taylor
Alderman Doug Schmidt
Alderman Ken Skowronski

My remarks to the Common Council regarding funding the Drexel Interchange

My remarks before the Franklin Common Council (made up of material posted here previously) made prior to their special meeting on funding the Drexel Interchange. More on the meeting -- and a fairly startling position taken by Northwestern Mutual -- later in the day:

This interchange will happen with or without our subsidy. 

But I couldn’t just watch as a city with countless infrastructure and service deficiencies votes to commit half a million dollars of Franklin taxpayer money -- cleverly camouflaged -- to an interchange project that is unneeded by Franklin, a community well-served by two interchanges. [NOTE: Actually THREE, counting College Avenue]

And spending money on a superfluous interchange even as the Federal government launches initiative after initiative and grant after grant designed to bolster communities that pursue Smart Growth principles and alternative transportation options is poor strategy, to say the least. 

The smart community looks FORWARD, not BACKWARD; off-ramp development strategies are yesterday’s mistakes that we don’t need to repeat today.

I attempted to bring this topic up at Monday’s Economic Development Commission meeting -- the mayor reminded me recently that the EDC is ostensibly in charge of the Franklin half of the 27th Street Steering Committee -- but I was told we could not discuss $500,000 in “enhanced lighting” funds for 27th street and the possible diversion of those funds to an interchange as per the failed motion of last Tuesday’s meeting.

Also: I had heard that, at the last council meeting, former EDC member and 27th Street Steering Committee chairman Ted Grinjes claimed that the EDC had advocated for the interchange. I asked at the last EDC meeting, and was told that that is not the case.

Do WE need an interchange? When site location consultants evaluate Franklin, we get an “A” by virtue of two interchanges perfectly bracketing the city. 

Northwestern Mutual, it should be noted, owns an enormous parcel of land on the Oak Creek side of 27th Street, across from their campus. Their $1.6 million contribution has nothing to do with cutting 95 seconds off of their employees’ commutes. Also, they are quoted in the paper this morning as saying that the funds were pledged way back when they were building the campus, and are not reflective of the current economic or transit situation.

As a practical matter, the Rawson and Ryan interchanges create a natural traffic flow onto 27th Street, which is supposed to be our commercial jewel, the marketing alone of which is evidently worth our spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Frankly, a Drexel interchange breaks that advantageous flow. 

Perhaps the deal we make with Oak Creek is this: We will suffer the interchange’s diversion of traffic as well as Northwestern Mutual’s $1.6 million leaving our community -- a community that didn’t get Northwestern Mutual here for free, by the way -- in return for freeing our $500,000 “enhanced lighting” pledge so we can actively promote and incentivise economic development in and around our neighborhoods and commercial areas, creating higher property values and a deep, sustainable local economy.

On the other hand, Franklin can continue to postpone maintenance and needed upgrades. "Fiscal conservative" aldermen can continue to attempt to derail pedestrian facilities such as the one planned for in front of our high school as "too expensive," while tripping over themselves to send $500,000 to Oak Creek -- and get their hands on a Golden Shovel at the groundbreaking.

These same “fiscal conservatives” are fond of reminding us that “the market will determine” whether this or that development will occur. They are not fond of the idea of even small incentives created by the city to help shape development that is more economically and socially valuable to the community in the long term -- rather than simply a good turn of the dollar for a developer in the short term. 

Yet, here we are, willing to dump $500,000 into an interchange that the market does not seem to be begging for.

SO, after the meeting, get back in your car; if you want to enjoy a coffee and conversation it will have to be in another community, because Franklin has not been "creative" enough up to this point to inspire a single coffee shop, deli, ice cream store, or other public gathering place within walking distance of its library, city hall and central city park.

And, as soon as this superfluous Interchange goes in, any chance Franklin had at developing the sorts of neighborhood-based, human-scale amenities that spur growth of a deep, sustainable local economy will be dashed like a bug on a windshield. It'll be Starbucks, Perkins, Sbarro, Dairy Queen, Burger King, Pizza Hut, etc. -- the royal court of fast food --  all swarmed up close to interchange, suckling on the sea of cars exiting for a bite before they get right back on and back up to speed.

Because, you see, we're on the road to becoming a drive-thru town, and tonight will seal the deal.

My drive-thru city gets ready to subsidize a superfluous interchange: "Politicians get reelected by building (and funding) new shiny roads and bridges that offer plenty of photo-ops and nice padding for their resumes come election time."

 

Tonight there will be a special Common Council meeting in Franklin regarding the superfluous Drexel Interchange. 

[NOTE: See update at bottom of post]

Come and bear witness to the overwhelming power of the road building lobby. Watch as a city with countless infrastructure and service deficiencies will almost certainly vote to commit half a million dollars of Franklin taxpayer money -- cleverly camouflaged -- to an interchange project that is A) unneeded by Franklin, well-served by two interchanges, and B) bound to occur whether or not Franklin throws city funds at Oak Creek -- even as the Federal government launches initiative after initiative designed to bolster communities that pursue alternative transportation options.

There are politicians already penciling in the anticipated date of groundbreaking so they can get there for their photo opp. You would be very naive to think Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's March leash-snapping in Florida (Florida?) by Wisconsin road builders did not include pointed, back-room reminders as to the fact they effectively own him. (I picture elegant table centerpieces at a gala "build we must" banquet, each festooned with the name of a promised project. Right next to the relish on Table 16: The Drexel Interchange.) 

It's a done deal.

Any politician betting on a Walker gubernatorial victory very likely got on the phone. Greendale Republican legislator Jeff Stone, who "brokered" the potential Oak Creek-Franklin pay-to-play deal, will expect his reward, and a Golden Shovel at the gala groundbreaking.

Meanwhile, Franklin will continue to postpone maintenance and needed upgrades. "Fiscal conservative" aldermen will attempt to derail pedestrian facilities in front of our high school as "too expensive," while tripping over themselves to send $500,000 to Oak Creek -- and get their hands on a Golden Shovel. 

Franklin Mayor Tom Taylor -- who could have broken the deadlock at the last common council meeting, and, to his credit, did not fall sway to siren call of the Golden Shovel -- has said he does not want Franklin taxpayer funds going across 27th Street to Oak Creek. He wants the council to "get creative" in tonight's meeting. He is likely barking up the wrong tree.

So, come and watch - 6pm at Franklin City Hall. And, after the meeting, get back in your car; if you want to enjoy a coffee and conversation it will have to be in another community, because Franklin has not been "creative" enough up to this point to inspire a single coffee shop, deli, ice cream store, or other public gathering place within walking distance of its library, city hall and central city park. 

And, as soon as this superfluous Interchange goes in, any chance Franklin had at developing the sorts of neighborhood-based, human-scale amenities that spur growth of a deep, sustainable local economy will be dashed like a bug on a windshield. It'll be Starbucks, Perkins, Sbarro, Dairy Queen, etc., all swarmed up close to interchange, suckling on the sea of cars exiting the interchange for a bite before they get back on and barrel onward.

Because, you see, we're a drive-thru town, and tonight will seal the deal. 

••••••

More from Infrastructurist:

We’ve discussed how democracy has played a major part in our failure to have a modern rail system. And like it or not, our electoral system has had a bigger role than most people would like to admit in contributing to the dire state of our existing infrastructure. A report released this week by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, titled “Road Work Ahead: Holding Government Accountable for Fixing America’s Crumbling Roads and Bridges,” supports this idea:

The deterioration of our roads and bridges is no accident. Rather, it is the direct result of countless policy decisions that put other considerations ahead of the pressing need to preserve our investment in the highway system. Political forces often undermine a strong commitment to maintenance: Members of Congress, state legislators and local politicians thrive on ribbon-cuttings. Powerful special interests push for new and bigger highways. Meanwhile, federal and state policies – which should provide strong guidance in the wise use of taxpayer dollars – often fail to achieve the proper balance between building new infrastructure and taking care of what we already have built.

In other words, politicians get reelected by building (and funding) new shiny roads and bridges that offer plenty of photo-ops and nice padding for their resumes come election time. What’s far less sexy and soundbite-worthy is “I fixed every crumbling bridge and pothole-ridden road in this state.” For an unskilled politician, these massive new projects can lead to disaster (the Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?). But for most always-election-ready officials in D.C., new highways and bridges are easy makeshift symbols of progress and “getting things done.”

via www.infrastructurist.com

••••••

I learned via Greg Kowalski that turnout for the special meeting will likely be sparse due to other activities planned for tonight:

FRANKLIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: All meeting rooms are BOOKED tonight

FOREST PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL: Franklin Citizens for Community Development at 6:30pm. 

FRANKLIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS is having their reorganization meeting tonight

GREENDALE HIGH SCHOOL has a nationally-known speaker on teen/parent relationships tonight starting at 6pm. 

Alderman Outraged At Drexel Interchange Project -- WISN Milwaukee

He has a point:

MILWAUKEE -- A Milwaukee alderman is exchanging jabs with one of the area's biggest employers and another city's mayor.

At issue is a proposed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 94 and Drexel Avenue.

The Oak Creek City Council committed to the project Monday night in a special vote which Milwaukee Alderman Bob Bauman said could end up hurting Milwaukee.

"So here you have a Milwaukee-based company, Northwestern Mutual Life, investing in an interchange in the suburbs which will harm their home city," Alderman Robert Bauman.

Bauman said a Department of Transportation study showed a new interchange could take business away from downtown Milwaukee where Northwestern Mutual is headquartered.

The new interchange would be near Northwestern Mutual's offices in Franklin.

"I feel very badly that this alderman feels that way in regards to the suburbs," Oak Creek Mayor Dick Bolender said.

Bolender said Northwestern Mutual committed $1.6 million to the proposed Drexel Interchange's $13 million price tag.

"I feel bad Milwaukee's not getting things we are. But I also feel that interchange will not only benefit Oak Creek but also South Milwaukee because they use Drexel Avenue to come to the west. It'll also benefit Franklin," Bolender said.

Northwestern Mutual would not talk on camera but sent a statement saying, "Northwestern Mutual provided funds to support the Drexel Interchange project through an agreement made with the DOT when it initially built a campus in Franklin several years ago. This initiative should not be connected to any other current transit projects under consideration."

"So if they have an extra $1.6 million laying around that they can use to fund an interchange on I-94 at Drexel Avenue, we have projects in downtown Milwaukee which could use a similar investment of $1.6 million and we'd be very, very happy to have it," Bauman said.

The DOT has set a May 1 deadline for cities to commit to funding. Franklin has yet to commit.

Franklin's mayor said he could call a special vote this week.

via www.wisn.com

Just like Fight Club: The first rule of 27th Street/Drexel Interchange finances is you don't talk about 27th Street/Drexel Interchange finances

 
ABOVE: That actually looks pretty nifty -- big plans for Northwestern Mutual-owned land on the Oak Creek side of 27th Street (From the document "South 27th Street Sub-Area Vision Plan," prepared for Oak Creek by Eppstein Uhen Architects).

UPDATE: SURPRISE - "With a deadline days away, Oak Creek has pledged money toward the cost of a new I-94 interchange at Drexel Ave. and Franklin is pondering a contribution as well."

UPDATE 2: In Minutes from 27th Street Steering Committee meetings from January 15, 2007 to August 24, 2009, DREXEL INTERCHANGE is mentioned 21 times.

•••

Ostensibly, the Economic Development Commission is charged with overseeing the Franklin half of the Franklin-Oak Creek 27th Street Steering Committee.

In the news recently: Attempts to divert a half million dollars that had been earmarked for "enhanced lighting" for the 27th Street corridor to funding the superfluous Drexel Interchange in Oak Creek.

Alderman Steve Olson is an EDC commissioner and also chair of the 27th Street Steering Committee. At last week's Franklin Common Council meeting he made the following motion, which, fortunately, did not pass. See if you can parse it:

Alderman Olson to approve a State/Municipal Agreement for a Highway Improvement Project: 27th Street (STH 241) with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, providing for lighting improvements within the City of Franklin, with the understanding that the lighting costs of $500,000 to be paid thereunder would otherwise be the responsibility of the Department of Transportation under standard cost sharing requirements, subject to the qualification of the lighting costs as project costs and the approval by the Joint Review Board for the applicable Tax Incremental District(s) of the $500,000 to be paid thereunder as a project cost to be paid by tax increment, and subject to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation agreeing that this extraordinary one-time lump sum payment shall not be increased and shall not be due until the commencement of the 27th Street project no earlier than 2013 and the Department of Transportation obtaining the current intended timely construction of the Drexel Avenue Interchange without municipal cost share funding from the City of Franklin; all of the foregoing being subject to Oak Creek agreeing that it is in full satisfaction of any City of Franklin obligation under Article IV. of that certain June, 2009 Memorandum of Understanding with Oak Creek.  Seconded by Alderman Taylor.

Again -- fortunately -- it did not pass.

I'd asked for the following item to be placed on last night's EDC agenda:

Re-engagement with/re-assessment of the 27th Street project: I'm told by Mayor Taylor that the Economic Development Commission is essentially responsible for the 27th Street Steering Committee, yet it is my opinion/observation that the EDC membership is woefully under-informed as to the issues facing the project as well as the monies being spent. (I note, for instance, that the 4/20/10 Common Council agenda item G.5 concerns the Drexel Avenue Interchange in relationship to 27th Street, and the EDC has not offered the Common Council a recommendation on the issue.) 

That did not, alas and surprise, get on the agenda. But we did have this much more sparsely worded item:

27th Street Update - Alderman Olson

Good enough. After Alderman Olson's short update, I had the floor and began to ask questions.

First: Are we or our contractor, HNTB, still on the hook to "Boomgaard" agency Zizzo Group for marketing work? (Brace yourself: Their bid total was $265,823; HNTB takes an additional "middleman" fee of $63,840. Potential total bill for marketing: $329,663).

Answer: No.

How much have we paid them thus far? Answer: Will get the figures.

Then: Did the EDC indeed endorse the Drexel Interchange project as former EDC commissioner (and 27th Street Chairman) Ted Grinjes claimed during Citizen Comment Period at last Tuesday's Common Council Meeting.

Answer: No.

Then I asked Alderman Olson about the the specifics of Franklin's $500,000 that he had attempted to shift from 27th Street to the interchange via the motion quoted above. He described to me the intricacies of lighting pole technology, and the fact that "enhanced lighting" placed 7th on the list of amenities people would like to see on 27th Street (which brought to mind the Henry Ford quote: "If I'd asked people what they wanted me to invent, they would have said 'faster horses.'")

But -- how and why does Franklin 27th Street corridor money get shifted to an interchange in Oak Creek?

Assistant City Attorney Brian Sajdak: "If we want to talk about the cost of the lights or the look of the lights on 27th Street, that's within the purview of the Commission. The subsequent agreement between the municipalities and the state that applies those funds differently? That's not within the 27th Street Steering Committee's purview. They are there only to look at, 'This is what we think the strip should look like,' and make recommendations to the two bodies, both councils, as to what it should look like and the subsequent costs that are associated with it. The issue of funding Drexel Interchange, however it's done -- applying fund from 27th Street, applying other funds; whatever it is -- that's not the 27th Street purview, that is above and beyond the agenda item as it's noticed."

He's probably right; not getting my item as I composed it on the agenda made discussion of the Drexel Interchange a gray area. But "the subsequent costs that are associated with" 27th Street -- hey, where's our half-million-dollar "enhanced lighting"? --  are certainly within our purview, so I asked that the 27th Street Steering Committee provide for us an updated accounting of all monies spent to date for next month's meeting of Fight Club the EDC.

And, in the meantime, I'm reading a book about Robert's Rules of Order, and Alderman Olson and I have to schedule a coffee date.

In a later post: The EDC takes up the question of small "process and fee" incentives to encourage creative and economy-strengthening development.

The folly of funding the Drexel Interchange: Part 2 - Subsidizing an off-ramp economy rather than creating a community-strengthening, sustainable DEEP economy

Continuing my discussion of a proposed Interchange on Drexel Avenue (see Part 1).

First, an updated report from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

The [Oak Creek] Common Council on Thursday scheduled a special meeting for 6 p.m. Monday to discuss the city's financial commitment to a possible I-94 interchange at Drexel Ave.

The council has already adopted a resolution pledging $3.75 million in city money. At time [sic], that was equal to 25% of the $15 million that the state Department of Transportation estimated the interchange would cost.

The DOT, however, requires 50% in local money to build an interchange.

Recently, however, the DOT reduced its cost estimate to $12.9 million and Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, which has a large office complex in Franklin, has pledged $1.6 million toward the interchange cost.

The City of Franklin has not pledged any money to the proposed interchange, although it has said it would cover $500,000 in lighting on the Franklin side of S. 27th St. That would normally be the responsibility of the DOT.

A new resolution to be considered at Monday's special meeting would commit Oak Creek to the same $3.75 million it previously pledged for the interchange, plus $650,000 in lighting for Drexel Ave. and S. 27th St. and related utility costs.

The resolution was to have been considered at the council's regular meeting Tuesday, but the discussion was postponed.

The Franklin Common Council said this week it is open to further negotiations on a Drexel interchange.

So, Oak Creek -- a beneficiary of the superfluous-to-Franklin interchange by virtue of its location relative to Howell Ave. and the vacant Delphi plant; why wouldn't they be all for it? -- waits for Franklin to flinch. They are good poker players.

But if Franklin is smart, the city will stand pat and keep its half-million out of this blatant subsidy.

I'm pessimistic about the city's ability to play their cards right, though. Unfortunately, past and present Franklin members of the 27th Street Steering Committee suffer from cognitive dissonance when it comes to economic development in that area. This group, composed of self-professed "true conservatives," has gotten used to tossing around numbers like $265,823 for marketing materials related to 27th Street. Once you've committed to a writing checks like that, a half-mil is not so hard to part with when it might actually result in an actual work product (and, obviously, Boomgaard does not count as a positive outcome).

Meanwhile, putting sidewalk facilities in front of Franklin's high school (finally!) during the impending reconstruction of 51st street -- a vital, common sense piece of the rehabilitation this city sorely needs -- is bemoaned by 27th Street chair and Franklin alderman Steve Olson because, true conservative that he is, he believes the city should not spend money that, in his view, it does not have. (On the positive side, it should be noted that Alderman Olson is no Scrooge; he donated $50 to the Franklin Trails Committee's Walking Workshop, held last weekend.).

Here are some truths that need to be understood:

1. The interchange will be built, whether or not Franklin subsidizes it with its half million dollar "enhanced lighting" Trojan horse payment. The powerful road-building lobby has this in hand, and will deploy their bought-and-paid-for advocates;
2. Does an interchange near city limits create jobs? Yes - site location consultants count access to a freeway as a plus for any community they are considering;
3. When site location consultants evaluate Franklin for freeway access as a potential asset, they put a big gold star next to the city's name: The Rawson and Ryan interchanges bracket the city perfectly. (New interchange? No thanks - we're good);
4. Does a third(!) interchange near city limits create jobs? Yes, but 99% of them require a hair net and pay minimum wage;
5. Why is Northwestern Mutual kicking in? Northwestern Mutual owns a large parcel of land across 27th Street from their Franklin corporate campus. $1.6 million is a small price to pay to create the possibility of a lucrative off-ramp development (they are surely not looking to cut 95 seconds from their employees' commutes);
6. Franklin is facing infrastructure and municipal service challenges to the extent that $500,000 can and should be utilized within city limits, or on regional efforts that are more likely to strengthen the city's sustainability;
7. The Rawson and Ryan interchanges create a natural traffic flow onto 27th Street, which is supposed to be our commercial jewel, the marketing of which is evidently worth our spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Frankly, a Drexel interchange breaks that advantageous flow;
8. The newly-created ramp-blight vs. potential opportunity equation weighs distinctly against Franklin. Off-ramp fast food jobs do not offset increased road damage, heightened "drive-thru community" image problems, and diversion of traffic away from already-expensive 27th Street.

Franklin faces a clear choice: Spend a half-million dollars to subsidize off-ramp fast food franchises and shoot more and faster traffic through town, or use that money to bolster a sustainable, deep economy that will attract quality businesses and jobs.

So, if site location consultants feel that Franklin is already well situated with regard to freeway access, what other factors do they look at that Franklin ought to work on improving? We'll look at that in Part 3 (and, hopefully, at the Economic Development Commission meeting on Monday night).

Need an excuse to visit Culvers's on Monday? Benefit for family of Greendale's Ava Zimmerman

An update to my post on the tragic death of 5 year-old Ava Marie Zimmerman, struck and killed by a car in Greendale; an announcement from Culver's:

On Monday, April 26, 2010 participating Culver's will be holding a fundraiser for Ava's family. We will donate 10% of our daily sales to the family to help cover their expenses incurred from this tragic accident.

(via Franklin Today)

Congress Reauthorizes Funding for Safe Routes to School

Excellent news as Franklin prepares to kick off its own Safe Routes to School program: 

Congress Reauthorizes Funding for Safe Routes to School - America Walks.

Congress has passed the long-term transportation extension through December 2010, meaning that the federal Safe Routes to School program will be funded at the FY2009 level of $183 million throughout the remainder of FY2010 and the first quarter of FY2011. 

The "Enhanced Lighting" Trojan Horse and the folly of funding the Drexel Interchange: Part 1

 

 

TOP PHOTO: Abandoned restaurant on 27th street directly across the street from the Northwestern Mutual corporate campus, 2006. ABOVE: Same abandoned restaurant, 30 minutes ago.

An interesting debate is occurring in neighboring Oak Creek and Franklin regarding a proposed Interchange on Drexel Avenue.

Let's get this out of the way right now: This interchange will be built. Promises have been made, money has changed hands. The question is whether Franklin will be suckered into paying for an interchange we don't need.

The proposed interchange is in Oak Creek, directly adjacent to their growing Howell Avenue commercial corridor, a strip-mall-clogged, drive-thru abomination that nonetheless provides some level of sales tax and property tax revenue to the city, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

The citizens of Oak Creek -- which is an otherwise beautiful suburban community, don't get me wrong -- probably don’t point to this particular strip with civic pride (but, hey, there’s a Sonic Drive-In there!). On the other hand, a huge plot of land containing an abandoned manufacturing plant is ripe for just the kind of development that direct proximity to an interchange can bring; a new interchange would almost certainly put that parcel into play. Oak Creek has much to gain from what is to Franklin a superfluous interchange.

The length of Drexel Avenue between the proposed interchange and 27th Street, which is supposed to be marketed and developed as an Oak Creek/Franklin partnership, is laughably under-engineered. Though the road is ostensibly part of the Oak Leaf Bike Trail, it has no shoulder to speak of and is a virtual death-trap for any biker brave enough to traverse it.

The State Department of Transportation, which requires a 50% local-money commitment to new interchanges, has set a May 1st deadline for Franklin and Oak Creek to collaborate on funding their "shares."

Northwestern Mutual, whose campus in on the Franklin side of 27th Street, has offered to contributes $1.6 million to the interchange project. So their employees can get to work 90 seconds quicker from the south? No -- they own the empty land on the Oak Creek side of 27th Street, where an urban village has been envisioned.

Now it gets complicated, and I’ll paraphrase at this point. As part of the Oak Creek/Franklin 27th Street partnership, both cities committed to a half million dollars each for “enhanced lighting” on 27th Street.

“Enhanced lighting?”

Anyway, long story short: The State DOT said, in effect, we’ll pay for the “enhanced lighting” (“enhanced lighting”?), if Oak Creek and Franklin toss their funds originally earmarked for “enhanced lighting” (“enhanced lighting”?!?!) into the “build an Interchange” pot.

So, instead of paying for what could be considered an improvement for the potential 27th Street Corridor -- of benefit to Franklin AND Oak Creek -- Franklin taxpayers will be tricked into paying a half million dollars for an Oak Creek interchange of no real benefit to Franklin, a city which is bracketed nicely by the Rawson and Ryan Interchanges.

Last night, according to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The Franklin Common Council deadlocked on a proposal made by Ald. Steve Olson. Olson proposed that Franklin pay for $500,000 in lighting improvements on S. 27th St. that normally would be the obligation of the DOT if the DOT built the Drexel interchange and required no money from Franklin for the interchange.

You don't even have to read between the lines to see the folly of such a move! The Trojan Horse was stopped at the door. For now.

Funny thing is: Oak Creek also took no action regarding the Drexel Interchange.

They are turning out to be much better poker players than the Franklin side of the road.

Part 2 to come, in which we discuss bad poker, new priorities and opportunities, and the effects of cognitive dissonance on 27th Street Steering Committee members  ...

Proposed agenda items for next Economic Development Meeting

 

Here are my submitted agenda items for the Franklin Economic Development Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, April 26 (6pm; room to be announced).

I'll post the agenda when it appears; unfortunately, there is no guarantee that any of these items will appear.

1) Digital Visioning Presentation: This will reprise the presentation I gave, at the mayor's request, to the Ad Hoc Development Process Review Committee. IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE POWERPOINT CAPABILITIES FOR THIS; I can make paper handouts if PowerPoint is not possible. [Note: I'm long overdue in sharing my Digital Visioning presentation here on SPRAWLED OUT. The illustration above is a preview.]

2) Franklin Trails Committee update: Walking Workshop and next steps.

3) Web 2.0 and Economic Development: Discussion of implementations to the City of Franklin website that can be made at little or no cost; discussion of FaceBook page for Franklin Economic Development news and issues; etc.

4) Re-engagement with/re-assessment of the 27th Street project: I'm told by Mayor Taylor that the Economic Development Commission is essentially responsible for the 27th Street Steering Committee, yet it is my opinion/observation that the EDC membership is woefully under-informed as to the issues facing the project as well as the monies being spent. (I note, for instance, that the 4/20/10 Common Council agenda item G.5 concerns the Drexel Avenue Interchange in relationship to 27th Street, and the EDC has not offered the Common Council a recommendation on the issue.)

I think we have to:

• Tear this thing down to its component pieces, review the timeline, and make sure this ongoing expenditure still makes sense in the current (and anticipated) economic climate, as well as in light of Oak Creek's evolving indifference; and
• If we're going forward, reassess the streetscape planning and design to leverage new federal grant and funding opportunities that accompany certain design choices that I do NOT see in any current streetscape drafts.

If the 27th Street reassessment means distributing a bunch of binders full of review information at this meeting and then holding the discussion at a subsequent meeting (after the EDC membership has had time to review the material), so be it.