Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

Walking and Bike Trails: Mere recreational frills, or connective infrastructure to strengthen a community?

At Thursday night's Trails Committee meeting, I got into an exchange with a member of the Franklin Parks Commission regarding trails. Though this individual -- an alderman -- is also on the Trails Committee, he expressed his belief that the Trails Committee is in "direct conflict," "confrontation," and "competition" with the Parks Commission for Impact Fee dollars. 

"We're not partnering with anybody," he said.

I was a little disturbed, to say the least. It appears that the city of Franklin needs to decide if trails and bike paths are mere recreational facilities (which has been the trend thus far, and seems to be the viewpoint of the Parks Commission, whose trail network thus far connects nothing useful), or if they are to be treated as useful, connective infrastructure, which I believe is the goal of the Trails Committee.

This same alderman was a vocal champion of a Common Council Motion dedicating future Community Development Block Grant funds to extending the new 51st Street farther north, making it possible to access a road that gets you to Pleasant View Elementary School. This leads me to believe that once old "territorial imperatives" are overcome, we can work constructively to make the city traversable by foot and bike as well as cars. 

Agenda item 1 for the next meeting: Discuss cooperative efforts and collaboration with the Parks Commission.

Also in attendance at Thursday's meeting was Alderman Steve Olson, there to contend that the Trails Commission initial mission is limited to 51st Street and the area around Pleasant View Elementary. Our agenda inexplicably included a discussion of sidewalks on Puetz Road, which disturbed him. 

Alderman Olson made a point that needed making: The Trails Committee has accomplished the limited goals originally spelled out for it, and we need to go back to the Common Council to expand our scope city-wide. We'll be making our case at a future Council meeting.

In the meantime, a link to a story about bike paths as community-strengthening infrastructure:

My friend Mia Birk bicycled to my house to deliver her new book: Joyride: Pedaling Toward a Healthier Planet.

Joyride is about her 20-year journey helping to lead Portland, Oregon's transformation into the country's most bike-friendly city and then spreading the gospel (and the tools) so that all communities can integrate bicycling into everyday living.

Why? So that the places we live, work and play can be healthy, affordable, safe and splendid. Safe and splendid. Those are Mia's words.

Safe and splendid. That's a wonderful vision because at a minimum, our communities deserve to be safe for people traveling in different ways. But why stop there? Let's make them splendid, healthy, affordable places where people of all ages have freedom to move in a landscape that is not polluted and congested but alive with activity, commerce and beauty.

....

Portland built its entire 300-mile network of bike ways for the cost of a single mile of urban freeway.

Bicycles are the great connectors. If a community is rich in people who feel comfortable bicycling, you know it's a community rich in connections. Bicycling has the power to reshape ourselves and our communities from flabby to fabulous.

One of my favorite passages quotes the head of the Chamber of Commerce of a Houston suburb built around the oil refinery industry. That hefty man gets up in a public meeting about a new bicycle and pedestrian plan and declares "I've got my SUV idling outside. I just came for the free donuts."

Then he says: "Seriously, y'all. I'm a business person, and this is what I'm hearing: Businesses say they can't attract workers to come live here if we don't provide parks, exercise and safe places for their kids to ride. Bottom line: Businesses need fit and healthy employees, not couch potatoes."

 

Read the rest at: Diane Dulken: Joyride: Bicycling Our Way to Safe and Splendid Communities

"Top 50 Urban Policy Wonk Bloggers"

SPRAWLED OUT is proud to be included in a list of the "top 50 urban policy wonk bloggers" as compiled by the Public Servant Blog. I posted their entire list after the break for easy bookmarking:

Public administration is an interesting field, filled with a number of opportunities and challenges. Among those challenges is making urban policy. The way we live in our cities, how they are planned, and how the people are taken care of are all things that go along with a job in public administration. If you are interested in urban policy, and learning more about what goes into it, here are 50 bloggers that can provide insight, and help you create urban planning success:

Read the rest at: Top 50 Urban Policy Wonk Bloggers; List after the break.

Economic Development Commission meeting CANCELLED AGAIN

This is just hard to believe.

Unprecedented tough economic times; vacant commercial properties all over the city; businesses struggling to make a go of it; tax burden shifting to homeowners; school budgets strangled -- and we could not roust a quorum for an Economic Development Commission meeting last night. And that's after cancelling LAST MONTH'S meeting as well!

I'll come right out and say it: Time to disband the EDC.

My Economic Development Commission agenda items for July 26th meeting

I like to post my Economic Development Commission agenda item submissions here because often it's the only place I'll see them -- they often mysteriously drop off the actual meeting's agenda.

1. Locally owned business support/boosterism: I'm reintroducing this after having it batted away the first time I tried. We simply HAVE to demonstrate some manner of support for Franklin's locally owned businesses in the form of a card-punch program, "Featured Business" on the city website, etc. It's getting embarrassing that there is no city sanctioned support for the kinds of businesses that build strong communities and encourage further commercial investment.

2. Drexel Interchange Economic Mitigation: Discussion of potential negative consequences of the Drexel Interchange and actions the EDC can undertake in advance to mitigate those consequences.

Skipping Superman to ensure a connected community

ABOVE: 51st Street, pre-sidewalk

I arrived at last night's Common Council meeting fresh from a day at Great America with the family -- though "fresh" is not a word I could have used to describe my ragged physical state. My daughter was a bit disappointed that we had to shorten our day at the park so I could make it to a meeting, but, as I told her, Woody Allen once said that eighty percent of success is showing up, even if you show up smelling like a theme park. ("OK, Dad. But, who's Woody Allen?")

The council chamber was filled to overflow with Franklin residents who live near Puetz Road, which had been mentioned as a candidate for widening using STP (Surface Transportation Program) funds. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and Puetz will be left as is for the time being.

The long line of speakers during Citizen Comment Period gave me a chance to have a conversation with the landlord mentioned in yesterday's post right after he made his remarks regarding sidewalks on 51st Street. 

To recap: This individual, who has a rental property at the corner of 51st and Drexel, took a petition up 51st Street for signatures against sidewalks. His argument was centered on winter maintenance: Why should he and other homeowners have to shovel sidewalks? They don't want sidewalks, he claimed.

In talking to this gentleman, I learned, first of all, that he does not have a waxed handlebar mustache like a silent movie villain. In fact, he seemed entirely reasonable and listened patiently as I made my case. He was willing to compromise, though at that point his notion of compromise was a widened bike lane or expanded road shoulder. I explained to him why that was unacceptable, but also how north-south and east-west arterial routes should be treated as infrastructure by the city -- a public conveyance, just like streets -- opening up the possibility of having the city clear the walkway.

All in all, I think we came to some semblance of mutual understanding. Afterward, I made my comments to the Council and hoped for the best.

Far from being a struggle to get the first segment of 51st Street sidewalk installed, however, the Common Council was unanimous in their support for the effort to make the road traversable by bike and foot. The first segment is paid for by Community Development Block Grant funds; the Council took a closer look at other projects earmarked for CDB funds. 

Alderman Kristen Wilhelm suggested using CDG funds to create another extension of the 51st Street sidewalk -- not the entire length of the street, which would be too costly, but further north nonetheless. The Department of Administration's Mark Luberda noted that it would be difficult to get that funded since the sidewalk would not terminate anywhere specific, and the grant requires a destination or official commitment to completion.

Alderman Wilhelm (a member of the Trails Committee) noted that we could possibly extend the sidewalk further to Minnesota Ave., which then allows access to Pleasant View Elementary (located to the east). Turns out the length of that segment would be nearly the same as the initial segment planned for this summer. Voila! 

Alderman Tim Solomon (another member of the Trails Committee) voiced his contention that the 51st Street sidewalk is absolutely vital, and further moved for an amendment to scratch certain CDG projects (city hall sound system and fire alarm upgrades). Instead, he said, let's make additional extension of the 51st Street project the top priority with CDG funds, both this year's and next if necessary.

The motion and amendment passed unanimously -- and the 51st Street sidewalk segment project is not only securely in place but actually extended farther north to allow it to access Pleasant View Elementary. (Click the small photo at right to enlarge map.)

Terrific news - the finish line at Rawson Ave. is in sight. And, equally important, the Council demonstrated a unified commitment to taking the actions needed to make Franklin a truly connected community. It won't happen all at once, but these first steps will go a long, long way toward making Franklin hospitable to walking, biking, and the enhanced sense of sociability that comes from being "out and about."  

And, best of all, my daughter said the result was worth her having to skip the Superman Ride at Great America.

 

One more step to sane streets: 76th Street reconstruction includes a sidewalk

ABOVE: The untenable parking situation that occurs at the Franklin Little League Complex every game day as a result of lack of safe pedestrian and bike alternatives.

Last week the Franklin Common Council voted to ensure that a sidewalk will be part of the configuration of 76th Street when it is rebuilt from W. Terrace Drive to W. Puetz Road. (The four configuration choices are listed after the jump.)

The sole "no" vote was by Alderman Steve Olson, who, while interested in seeing a sidewalk added to the stretch of road (which includes the city's Little League complex and would provide a walking/biking route to the Rawson-76th Street commercial area), evidently saw nothing in any of four alternatives presented by the county that he would support. He was also, apparently, more interested in creating in his constituents the notion that he voted against spending city money (see below).

Lest he try to make hay of the notion that he "voted against city spending," you will recall that Olson is one of the major proponents for Franklin's $500,000 expenditure on the Drexel Interchange in Oak Creek. I await his economic mitigation plan for the damage that particular move will cause; it's an episode that will be looked at in hindsight as one of the steps to the path of Franklin's Edge City status if steps aren't taken.

Also, Olson did not mention in his letter to constituents addressing the vote on 76th Street the fact that Jack Takerian, interim director of the Milwaukee County Department of Transportation and Public Works, explained to the council that new federal policy and related grant funding all but ensure that part or all of Franklin's $860,000 portion (Olson rounded up to $900,000 for the "benefit" of his constituents) will be eliminated. The street is within 2 miles of the middle school, for instance, so it is eligible for Safe Routes to School funding. Much, much smaller communities than Franklin -- who have committed to the grant application process -- have spent a few thousand dollars only to see a half million come back in funding for sidewalks and walking amenities.

During the discussion, Alderman Steve Taylor made a good point: There are numerous subdivisions along 76th that are effectively cut off from one another by the dangerous street. A sidewalk would be an enormous amenity, and also allow access to the businesses on Rawson.

Mayor Tom Taylor had this to say before the vote:

While I originally vetoed this proposal and only wanted to go with alternative A; if alternative B was selected tonight, I would not move to veto it.

...

I think that Mr. Michlig, Mr. Fowler [Franklin Trail Committee Chair], Alderman Sohns [former Trail Committee Member], Alderman Kristen Wilhelm, and many others in the community have totally convinced me that we need to be pedestrian friendly; we need to have a connected city.

Still think things can't change if you agitate a bit?

Add this to the 51st Street reconstruction in front of the high school, which includes pedestrian facilities at last (Olson voted against that, too), and it becomes just a bit easier to foresee a community build to serve people as well as vehicles.

Responding to Incentives - Strong Towns Blog - Strong Towns

Interesting perspective on incentives, something under discussion ad nauseam locally (to no effect):

A monkey sits on a chair in front of a panel with two buttons. If the monkey presses button number one, they get one treat. Pressing button number two yields two treats. After participating in this experiment for some time and seeing consistent results, which button is the monkey likely to press?

I appear before dozens of city councils and town boards each year, often to talk about economic development, growth and land use planning. There is a belief system that is near universal that is revealed in these conversations. It goes something like this:

• Our budget is tight, cutting services is difficult and so we need more revenue.
• The best way to get more revenue is by adding commercial development.
• We need more commercial development.
• Mr. Planner, zone more property for commercial development.

Today we're not going to challenge that dead idea - although there are some fundamental flaws in the logic - but instead focus on the incentives that bring about this delusion.

Read the rest at: Responding to Incentives - Strong Towns Blog - Strong Towns

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.

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.