What you really want to know . .. .

About that nearly 14 hour meeting . . ..

Conditional Use
Motion passes on voice vote, seems unanimous. The motion was to support the plan commissions “findings” or deny the appeal. More info in post 4.

PUD
There were several amendments in post 4 and 5.
Passes 16 – 4 with no votes being, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes Conway, Rummel and Verveer.

Landmarks
14 ayes on landmarks to overturn their decision, Thuy and Kerr went home. Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon and Verveer voted no.
More info in post 5 on their discussion.

1965 Ordinance
Passed on a voice vote. No discussion or testimony at 6:30

TIF
TIF passes 12 – 6, 2 still absent (Kerr and Pham-Remmele)
No votes are Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Sanborn, Solomon, Verveer and Bidar-Sielaff.
More in post 5 on this issue.

The meeting ended at 7:42. I’m going to bed now, need to be at a staff meeting by 3:30.

10 COMMENTS

  1. Hope your time was worth it, way to try to take down the project for your beloved process. I hope you , Fred Mohs, Ledel, Gene and all the other jokers from the neighborhood are stewing in your juices today. Madison won today. Breaking free of the chains of the oppression all of you try to slap on anyone who wants to do something fresh and new. Kudos to the Alders who were brave enough to rise above the treats of the feeble minded "preservationists".Thank God the developer stuck with the project. You will never grow and improve the City if you are stuck in the past.

  2. Just as classy as you. Like you wouldn't be shoving it down everyones throat today if it went the other way. I'm sure when you get back to "work" you will be blogging about how it was a huge injustice and that everyone was wrong. It sucks to be on the losing side, but it's time to let your puppets down, let them do the job they were elected for. by.their.selves

  3. I agree that this is a win for Madison. However, I think the opposition also wants progress for Madison. Their efforts were genuine and their motives were legitimate. I do think that at times they lost sight of the big picture, but that happens sometimes in the heat of a passionate controversy. Thank you Brenda for covering the entire Edgewater hoopla these last months. I learned a lot because of your coverage.

  4. I disagree that this is a win for the city. We get a project that, by its size and proximity, damages some of the very little historical fabric that we have left in our most important neighborhood (speaking architecturally). We're paying $16 million dollars to let them do that to this neighborhood. We won't get that money back from this project, not from the tax increment it generates (not even if you include increased room & sales taxes). If anything, the property values of the neighboring buildings will go down because there's this behemoth tower that's out of scale with the neighborhood taking up a portion of the view. The jobs it creates won't be the kind of high paying jobs that we want. The "public" access it provides to the lake shore won't be used, since it won't appear to be public & there's nothing there for people to go see and no place for them to relax once they get there. This is only a win for the developer, the mayor's campaign coffers and those who want to spend $200 a night for a hotel room. It's not like there's any shortage of hotel rooms at that price in the vicinity, either (see Concourse, Hilton, probably others).

    Basically, we let a developer run roughshod over our city's laws because the mayor is his friend. It's really very sad.

  5. Madison has it's head in the sand.

    Spiffing a rich, well capitalized, well connected corporation to create part-time, minimum wage jobs is so Reaganesque.

    Rich visitors to tip local maids and waiters. What vision!

  6. I agree with Doug and Will. This Edgewater thing is a farce. Madison wins how? Like it won with the Overture Center?
    1. Industry reports exposed the Edgewater's tax income/jobs estimates as overblown.
    2. What's the point in Madison having TIF guidelines, zoning laws or a Landmark board if they're to be ignored when a developer insists on having his way?
    3. Why would Madison invest $16 million for a hotel in an area where hotel occupancy rates are already low?
    4. Our municipal budget is in awful shape but we're subsidizing a corporation to build a private development. Wow.

  7. I would be careful to accept the "industry report" as gospel. I assume it was produced at the behest of Fred Mohs and the other invested nay-sayers. The $16 mil will get increased property value, and yes it will give the city access to Lake Mendota, something that is severly lacking in a city that is surrounded by two huge lakes. Not to mention, it will be a beautiful landmark that in 50-75 years from now, people will call a historic landmark that should be preserved, etc.

  8. The industry report will prove prescient. The vacancy rates are a matter of reported data, and are confirmed by the city's room tax receipts.

    Access to Lake Mendota is excellent. You can start at the Memorial Union and walk unobstructed, on lake shore paths to Shorewood Hills, something like 6 miles. There is an excellent bike path from the Memorial Union to Picnic Point. You can launch boats behind UW's hospital complex (use the Walnut Road access from Old University). All of this access is free, and all of it is safe. The UW has excellent security.

    Whether the new Edgewood will become a historic landmark is up in the air. For sure, it's bent every rule in the book so far.

    For myself… I cannot get over how TIF has morphed into luxury construction projects. We are redirecting TIF proceeds from schools and municipal tax relief to more TIF. Where's the fiscal discipline in that? TIF begets TIF? Go figure.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.