Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

"A huge national company conducts a dirty tricks campaign for its own goals, and a city and a developer become collateral damage," complains.... WAL-MART?!?!?!

You have to read it to believe it.

The Wall Street Journal -- a paper that feels comfortable cutting checks to Karl Rove for his forgot-we-messed-up-the-economy ramblings, and champions the concept of "corporate personhood" when it comes to campaign finance -- published today an "expose" revealing that -- GASP! -- smaller grocers might be hiring professional help to keep Wal-Mart's job-killing, wage-lowering supercenters out of their market.

Shocking!

The story comes complete with photo of tie-wearing bad guy (consultant who fights developments) and shirt-collar "good guy" (the poor, victimized developer).

Wal-Mart has stepped up recently in terms of sustainable practices and should be recognized for that (better late than never). However, even the most hardened Wal-Mart apologist has to wince at the crocodile tears shed by the WSJ for the poor megacorporation, which virtually wrote the book on dirty tricks and shameless astroturf campaigns.

Shameless as well is this fantasy-based assertion from an Illinois city official:

City Administrator John Labaido says the village and school district have lost an estimated $6 million a year in sales and property-tax revenue.

His city must be that rare place where Wal-Mart does not demand -- and get -- many more millions than that in subsidies and infrastructure spending in their vicinity. 

Good news for fans of wine, beer, and fresh air

Local business THREE CELLARS had their plans for an outdoor Wine and Beer garden APPROVED last night by the Plan Commission. 

Perhaps a step toward making the old strip mall on 76th and Rawson a more pleasant place to visit.

Frank Gruber: What To Do With the Suburbs?

From the Huffington Post:

The issues facing 21st century planners will be how to deal with population growth while avoiding more sprawl at the edges, and how to prevent more decades marked by (i) disinvestment in cities and older suburbs and (ii) isolation of the disadvantaged (who may well include a huge mass of elderly Baby Boomers). The consensus among planners is that to solve these problems there need to be strategies for allowing and encouraging existing suburbs to evolve into denser versions of themselves, with more of the good qualities of cities and towns.

One problem with this is that the zoning in suburbs is rigid and politically difficult to change. The culture celebrating the single-family house is so strong that people don't like to convert their single-family neighborhoods into something else, even as demographics change. For instance, in November 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a guidebook called "Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes", with suggestions based on a panel the E.P.A. had convened in 2008. But nearly all of the suggested fixes would only affect the zoning on un-built land or in commercial zones -- the book has no concrete suggestions about what to do with existing single-family home districts.

This political reality puts the densification focus on existing commercial zones, such as malls or office parks or, where they exist, in the vestigial centers of small towns that existed prior to being engulfed by sprawl.

Two current strategies to do this are "de-malling", i.e., turning existing (often enclosed) malls into "town centers" by opening them up and adding housing and/or offices, and creating the equivalent of high-density urban downtown job centers in the suburbs, ideally connected to the regional center (the historic downtown) by rapid transit.

 

Read the rest at: Frank Gruber: What To Do With the Suburbs?

Franklintoday.com: "Another Economic Development Commission subcommittee? I think not."

Can't disagree with him:

...the Economic Development Commission (EDC) doesn't deserve a subcommittee, and while I might get some flack for stating such an opinion I'm prepared for that. I've stated many times my disapproval of the EDC's (non)actions for the past few years. The way I see it, when one of their own commissioners has been trying to motivate the commission to do something, to take strong action on something, the rest of them would likely fail to impress even a 6th grader at Ben Franklin Elementary. Heck the 6th graders over there, working on their yearly class projects for their ideas for the betterment of the community, would probably be more motivated or open minded than some on the EDC. No offense intended. Those words are meant as constructive criticism, and to be honest some of the commissioners need a good kick in the rear to get them into gear.

via www.myfranklintoday.com

Fighting a culture of inaction: Voting against... CONSIDERATION of a development?

If you wonder why certain things don't move forward in Franklin, perhaps the following will give you a taste of the sort of attitude that creates municipal inertia.

An interesting sequence of events at last night's Economic Development Commission meeting. With just enough members present to create a quorum, we addressed the following agenda item:

Presentation by Hitters Baseball Academy concerning plans for a new baseball facility located on South 27th Street near County Line Road

The pitch was straightforward enough: Hitters Baseball Academy, currently operating in Racine, sees an opportunity to create a year-round, indoor/outdoor baseball facility on what is now a soybean field on the edge of town. An 80,000 square foot building would be built on the land along with four full-sized turf baseball fields (turf ballfields remain green year-round). The owners of the land are ready to fully finance the project; they could break ground tomorrow. They are asking for no financial support or incentives from the city.

When presented to the Common Council, there was evidently a hang-up with "27th Street Corridor design standards" -- not very relevant, as the complex would be set far back from 27th Street (one might conjecture that restaurants and even hotels might locate on 27th street to support the baseball facility, and they would have to conform to the design standard).

Hitter's has a business plan that includes past performance. They've grown steadily in their Racine location, and have consistently brought in traveling teams and visitor traffic that rent rooms and use restaurants. Franklin would be home to an attraction that would fuel surrounding commercial development.

No-brainer: Whether or not you think Hitter's is right for the area, let's take a close look at this possibility, right?

Wrong.

One particular EDC Commissioner said the following:

"Just to remind the commissioners, about a year and a half ago we set forth direction for the southeastern quadrant of the city to be high-value business development, and this is one of the parcels that is recommended as part of the Comprehensive Master Plan that is going on. The dollars-per-acre that we would yield in high-value business development would be different from this; totally different concept."

Then:

"If we're looking to build tax base in the city of Franklin, this will not build the type of tax base that this portion of the city was talking about doing a year and half ago."

Valid points.

However, further questioning of the Hitters rep revealed a very, very significant factor: The landowners would lease the land and buildings to Hitters Baseball Academy. If another Northwestern Mutual or Wheaton Medical Center were to express interest in the land -- of course, creating a greater payoff for the owners of the land and higher dollars-per-acre value for the city  --the baseball faculty would vacate. They could roll up the fields in a weekend, evidently.

Furthermore (the substance of my comments at the meeting): Any economic development assumptions made a year and a half ago (or, indeed, six months ago!) are, frankly, worthless today. I've said it before: The road that got you here won't get you there. We either remain flexible and creative, constantly re-assessing conditions and outdated notions, or stand like a jilted groom at the altar, waiting in vain for the sort of early-90s style development that is now past history.

EDC Chairman Skowronski said it best: "A bird in the hand...".

The EDC is an advisory body; we can only recommend action to the Common Council. So the motion was made that the EDC recommend to the Common Council that they investigate the potential of the project. 

Read that again: The EDC voted on nothing more than whether to recommend further study of the project in light of changing economic conditions and the unique parameters of the project.

The motion does not say, "Yep  - BUILD IT!" It says, "Let's look into this - we're not necessarily for or against it, but it may have potential."

Let the record show that every commissioner voted "aye," except for the commissioner I quoted at length above, who voted "no".

He left before I could ask him, with all due respect, exactly what he was voting against.

New Report: “Bright Flight” means younger, more affluent cities. And suburbs sit on their collective hands.

ABOVE: Cities, like Washington, D.C., are attracting a younger, more affluent, white population. Photo by Poldavo (Alex).

From “Bright Flight” Means Younger, More Affluent Cities | TheCityFix.com:

A new study from the Brookings Institution, “The State of Metropolitan America,” shows that, for the first time, America’s suburbs are more likely to be home to minorities, the poor and a rapidly growing older population, while younger, educated whites move to cities for better jobs and shorter commutes. The report analyzes census data from 2000-2008 in the United States’ 100 largest metropolitan areas, revealing a reversal of historical demographic trends. (See an interactive map here.)

So, the question is: What will suburbs like mine do to meet this challenge?

I can tell you what Franklin, Wisconsin is currently doing: Nothing.

No initiatives, projects, forums, or incentive programs. In fact, we just pledged a half million dollars to a neighboring community for a superfluous highway interchange, a move that tells the world that Franklin is still about a decade behind the curve.

And, unfortunately, the collegial environment depicted in the photo above is virtually nonexistent in my suburb, and it's something savvy first-time home-buyers are much more aware of now than they were, say, ten years ago (I, for one, was not a savvy home-buyer when it came to judging the community surrounding my house.)

Last year I proposed, via my position on the Economic Development Commission, an city-sponsored effort to work with a developer to encourage creation of a coffee shop/co-working space next to the Franklin library. A member of the Commission argued for "green space" instead - next to a park. Another wanted to add a "friendly amendment" to the Commission's recommendation stating that no money whatsoever be spent on the effort.

So much for that.

Many trade city living for the traditionally strong school districts found in suburbs; "Sure, I'm isolated and can't get anywhere without a car, but my kids are in a good school." However, strangled as they are by ill-fated TIF deals and taxpayer revolts ("My property tax is too high!"), suburban school districts are facing imminent decline. Franklin's school district is cutting an alarming number of positions, and the high school is an old relic.

Suburban public amenities? "Community columnists" decry funding community libraries!

Why bother anymore?

We may be looking at a whole new attitude toward the idea of home ownership. From The Atlantic website:

Houses make sense when you're rooted, financially and geographically. The future of the America is itinerant, flexible, and wary of burying money in an immobile "economic trap." Throw in the 100 million Americans we're expected to add in the next four decades, and you've got a congestion problem that suggests we should replace front lawns and sedans with apartments and trains. 

The blog's author, Derek Thompson, is referring to opinions set forth in Richard Florida's new book, THE GREAT RESET (which is the very first e-book I purchased for my iPad).

Thompson quotes the following from Florida's book:

We've reached the limits of what George W. Bush used to call the "ownership society." Owning your own home made sense when people could hope to hold a job for most or all of their lives. But in an economy that revolves around mobility and flexibility, a house that can't be sold becomes an economic trap, preventing people from moving freely to economic opportunity. Not only has that piece of the American Dream grown dark, but it's also clear that financial excess in the housing sector was one of the central causes of the economic crisis. The rate of home ownership has been on the decline for some time now. Many of those who still choose to buy homes will choose smaller ones, while many more will opt for rental housing.

Our new way of life is likely to depend a whole lot less on the car. In October 2009, The New York Times reported "...After more than a century in which an automobile represented the American dream, car enthusiasm may no longer be a part of Americans' DNA." Car culture no longer exerts the powerful pull it once did. More and more families are deciding to share cars, and young people are putting off buying them and using public transit, bikes, their feet or Zipcars (membership-based, easy-access short-term car rentals) instead. It's not just that oil and gas have become expensive, it's that traffic and gridlock have become a deadweight time cost on us and our economy.

Compared with the end of 2008, the average household is now spending an extra $135 a month for fuel. But, to repeat: My suburb just pledged $500,000 to build a highway interchange that we don't need in a neighboring community. And it's not just money that will be going to the edge of town and over the border, it will be development as well. Why build a neighborhood-based coffee shop when you can toss up an offramp-serving drive-thru java shed right next to the freeway?

At the same time, Franklin is pouring money into a streetscape design for a commercial strip that all but ignores transit options like dedicated bus lanes and Zipcar facilities. Instead, our big-ticket item on 27th Street is "enhanced lighting"  - the seventh most popular item mentioned on preference surveys, as Franklin Alderman (and 27th Street Steering Committee Chairman) Steve Olson is fond of reminding us.

If success and sustainability are a destination, perhaps it's time suburbs - mine in particular - realize that the road that brought them here won't get them there.

Edging toward edge city status: The offramp economy begins in Franklin as Drexel Interchange is OK'ed

   

ABOVE: Don't harsh his mellow, man, with tales of burger huts and drive-thrus

The above-pictured State Rep. Mark "Keggermeister" Honadel (R-South Milwaukee) is quoted in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "I am just stoked up to no end because it's going to be good for the region. The potential is awesome."

If the Drexel Interchange treats the intersection of Drexel and 27th the way it did the corner of Rawson and Drexel (just off the Rawson Interchange), we have an adult bookstore, a gas station, a vacant lot, and a bar to look forward to.

Dude!

I've pasted below the portion of Alderman Kristen Wilhelm's May constituent update email that pertains to the half-million dollars we now owe Oak Creek for their interchange:

Dear Residents,

DREXEL INTERCHANGE

Here is the update from the Saturday Special Council meeting, which was called by Alderman Olson and Solomon in response to the DOT May 1st Drexel Interchange cost share deadline. Below is the motion with an interpretation and an explanation from my point of view.  I think you’ll find this interesting if you can get through it all.

Alderman Solomon moved and Alderman Olson seconded to approve, in response to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation stated May 1, 2010 deadline, and to authorize the Mayor, City Clerk and Director of Finance and Treasurer to execute and deliver a State/Municipal Agreement for a Highway Improvement Project: 27th Street (STH 241) with the Department of Transportation, containing the Department’s standard terms and conditions and providing estimated costs and that a separate Municipal agreement shall address further Municipal cost share for the 27th Street Project, and further providing for lighting improvements within the City of Franklin, with the understanding and provision that: i) 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, and the City of Oak Creek agrees that the lighting costs payment is in full satisfaction of any City of Franklin obligation under Article IV. of that certain June, 2009 Memorandum of Understanding with Oak Creek; ii) the $500,000 to be paid thereunder qualifies as project costs to be paid by tax increment for the applicable Tax Incremental District(s); iii) the Wisconsin Department of Transportation agrees 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 that the Department of Transportation shall obtain the current intended timely construction of the Drexel Avenue Interchange without municipal cost share funding from the City of Franklin.

The vote was 3-3, Motion passed 4 - 3 (Mayor Taylor breaking the tie).

Basically the motion means Franklin will use TIF funds to pay $500,000 (.5 M) for lighting on 27th Street, knowing this cost would have been paid by the DOT, but it allows the DOT to shift the amount of their 27th Street cost obligations toward constructing the I-94 Drexel Interchange in Oak Creek. This swap was arranged because Franklin TIF dollars cannot be used in another community. An important point to remember here is that the DOT would have paid for the 27th Street lighting. The $500,000 of Franklin money is in essence a contribution to the I-94 Drexel Interchange.

This is a Federal US Highway and the entire Interchange is in Oak Creek. At this point, the DOT is committed to improving Drexel Avenue to 4 lanes heading EAST, deeper into Oak Creek, but NOT WEST toward 27th Street and Franklin. There is a plan for Oak Creek to do this westward improvement, but no commitment or funding exists. Our city should not pay to get a lesser level of service.  Our $500,000 contribution, to an improvement on a federal interstate highway in another city, should at least provide benefits to us in terms of a commitment to Drexel Avenue improvements in the direction of our border business district (27th Street).

This action was far from perfect for Franklin taxpayers; therefore I was NOT able to support the motion. I won’t be too critical of my colleague’s vote; after all I know the “idea” was to support economic development and I do have to work with them in the future. However as I see it, the economic train is headed toward Oak Creek on the back of your wallets because the DOT will construct the interchange and eastward Drexel Avenue improvements, but there is no timeline or official commitment from Oak Creek on improving the westward section of Drexel to 27th Street and Franklin. 

I brought these points up in council and asked HOW LONG would Franklin have to wait with a less-than-functional Drexel Avenue toward 27th Street and there was no concrete answer. I was told to “have faith” in vague and un-funded plans. Even with “faith” the question still remains as to WHEN?

While many see the Interchange as bringing economic development to the 27th St corridor, without a wider westward Drexel it may just do the opposite for Franklin. Presently, Franklin is well served by College, Rawson and Ryan Interchanges and the 27th St. exit. Businesses need traffic to survive. Funneling traffic away from these exits will drain customers from Franklin taxpaying businesses. Here is the economic impact statement from the DOT’s report:

DOT REPORT-Changes in Travel Patterns
I-94 is already a well-established travel route. If capacity is added to the study-area freeway system, more drivers may use the freeway system as opposed to local roads. A new interchange with I-94 at Drexel Avenue and a full interchange with I-94 at 27th Street would change travel patterns. More drivers would use Drexel Avenue, and less would use Ryan and Rawson Avenues (see Section 4.3, Transportation Impacts and Section 4.2.1, Indirect Effects).

According to Alderman and Finance Chair Tim Solomon, Franklin has already invested $15M in the 27th St Corridor without funding from Oak Creek even though they see some benefit. All of the I-94 Drexel Interchange is in Oak Creek. Had we let the market demand drive the construction of the Interchange, the DOT would not have required any municipal cost share. This is based on DOT policy that roadway reconstruction is paid 100 percent if the local traffic is not more than 40 percent of the traffic.

In the end I was able to get a second motion that in essence directed negotiations with Oak Creek for an answer or official commitment regarding Drexel Avenue improvements. It would have made more sense for an agreement to have been put in place (as far back as 2006) PRIOR to the commitment of .5M of your money. This is three times the cost of tornado sirens, which the city has dithered about for over a decade. The same amount of money could have provided impressive benefits in increased police, fire and other city services; more direct benefits to you the taxpayer than dubious projects claiming to bring 40,000 jobs, which is more than the population of Franklin.  Let’s all hope Oak Creek is capable of coming through very shortly with funding for the reconstruction of westward Drexel Avenue.

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.