Staff have 4 properties, but the alders who defeated the last men’s shelter property are still arguing about what criteria staff should look at – but were defeated.
From the Common Council Executive Committee meeting . . .
SHELTER SEARCH UPDATES
Jim O’Keefe from Community Development and Dan Rolfs from Real Estate shared the following:
The city staff have evaluated 9 properties. They have gotten that down to 4 properties that more or less meet the criteria in the resolution, which were the criteria the staff were using (except for the 3.5 miles from the Beacon criteria). Of the 4 properties they said:
- 2 are centrally located
- 2 are more distant
- 3 are within 3.5 mile radius of the Beacon
- 1 would involve substantial renovation
- 3 would be new construction
- 3 would require new appraisals (which is a lengthy process)
- 1 is scheduled for the end of July
- 2 out be the end of August
They also said the following about the 4 properties
- Is downtown
- Is close to downtown
- Is within a mile or mile and a half of downtown
- Is just outside fo the 3.5 miles
WHY DOES THIS DEVELOPMENT TAKE SO LONG?
- We need a willing seller and a willing buyer. And it has to be at a price that the city can support.
- The process for the City to develop is lengthy
- First they have to settle on which property to purchase and a resolution needs to be introduced (September or October 2021)
- It will take 6 months for acquisition after a property is chosen. (April 2022)
- Once they own it they would have to go through state processes to design the building, go through bidding, budget for the construction, and then construct the building (April 2024? August 2024?)
WHAT CRITERIA WERE PROPOSED
Here’s the resolution
- The site should be within a few blocks of seven-days-a-week bus service, with a preference for close proximity to BRT routes;
- The site should be zoned for commercial or mixed use, and not adjacent to single-family homes;
- The site should be greater than .5 mile from any schools or daycares;
- The site should not be located in a Census tract identified as a location of concentrated poverty;
- The site should include either an existing building or a lot large enough for new construction;
- The site should include space for future expansion;
- The site location should be within a walking distance of within 3.5 miles from the Beacon on East Washington; and
- The site should be an active real estate listing that is vacant or soon-to-be-vacant.
Much thanks to Alder Grant Foster for pointing out the privilege that single family home owners are given in our current systems and for pointing our the larger message it sends when homeless people can’t be by schools and daycares.
JUST HOW RIDICULOUS WERE THE CRITERIA PROPOSED?
A member of the public (Harald Kliems) made the following maps available in legistar:
1. “The site location should be within a walking distance of within 3.5 miles from the Beacon on East Washington;”
In yellow, you can see the 3.5 mile walkshed. For reference, I also included the Aldermanic district boundaries for the resolution’s co-sponsors.
2. “The site should be greater than .5 mile from any schools or daycares;”
After adding half-mile buffers around all public schools (red; data from DPI) and childcare facilities (green; data from DHS; very small facilities excluded), practically all areas of the yellow walkshed are already excluded, and non-excluded areas include UW land, areas in the Village of Maple Bluff, or Lake Wingra:
3. ” The site should be zoned for commercial or mixed use, and not adjacent to single- family homes;”
Adding zoning districts that are not commercial or mixed use in blue to the map, the yellow areas shrink further (and this does not yet include the “not adjacent to SFH” part):
So, the resolution is near impossible to follow. The staff all but said that they are following some of the criteria but are not looking at them as a set of criteria where they had to meet all factors. They are just guidelines/suggestions/prioritites.
PLACED ON FILE
Alders Patrick Heck, Juliana Bennett, Lindsay Lemmer and Arvina Martin voted to place the resolution on file – toss it out, defeat it, stop it – whatever you want to say. Alders Sheri Carter (President of the Board of Porchlight but doesn’t have a conflict?), Barbara McKinney, Nasra Wehelie and Syed Abbas all spoke to keep it but amend it. However, Alder Carter is an alternate and couldn’t vote. So, the recommendation was to place this resolution on file, 4 – 3. In other words, just have staff make their best recommendation on the properties. I’m sure they will still fight about it when it comes to council – but it just seems like a moot point.
I’ll just put this right here.
Thanks for raising this in the first place. This would not have been on my radar otherwise. I’m glad the maps helped alders understand what that list of criteria would have meant in practice.
I knew it was ridiculous when the criteria was first reported, and posted about it mid-May already, with a quick map that I made up… https://www.facebook.com/dorothy.krause/posts/10159477845728894