There have been many developments over the past couple weeks, quite a few of which affect students in my district directly. Please have patience with what will inevitably end up a rather long post.
As many of you have probably heard, Jeff Erlanger, a long time city activist, passed away two weeks ago at UW Hospital. Though most in Madison knew him primarily for his phenomenal work advancing the rights of those with disabilities, Jeff also spent a lot of time working on student issues. As a strong advocate for improving the Langdon Street neighborhood, Jeff sought me out immediately after the election to discuss issues that were important to him. At the meeting he described his hopes of bringing students back to the “city table” so that all of Madison could become stronger with their voices. When I learned of Jeff’s death, I realized that all students had lost an incredible friend. He will be terribly missed.
Aside from the somber news, there have also been developments at the Common Council. The June 5 meeting was my longest yet, stretching to nearly 11 p.m. Among the many issues discussed were Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCDs) and the first round of discussions about Alder Brandon’s “Clean Elections” ordinance. I found the deliberations about NCDs particularly interesting. For those unfamiliar with the concept, NCDs generate a zoning overlay in which new development or construction would be required to “fit in” with surrounding buildings. As an example, a distinguishing characteristic of the Vilas Neighborhood is the prevalence of porches. Establishing a NCD would preserve this tradition by requiring new construction and developments to include porches. After lots of questions for city staff, it became apparent that these districts would require a lengthy vetting process with multiple safeguards and would only be handed out in areas of broad community support. Also, staff confirmed that density would not be threatened. After hours of debate, the ordinance passed with 13 affirmative votes, mine included.
Last Tuesday’s Council meeting proved a bit more relevant to students. The big issues of the day were the Law Park alcohol ban, some Human Resources issues, and the legalization (at least to a degree) of small electric vehicles.
I went into the Law Park issue strongly against making the park dry. The impetus for the ban is a transient group of people being very disruptive, publicly intoxicated, and, at times, verbally and physically destructive in and around the park. The problem I had with the ordinance was the fact that we, as a city, have been shuffling a very specific group of people from park to park with little attention paid to solving the underlying problem. I was frustrated by the ordinance because I felt we were simply perpetuating the cycle. I was of the opinion that the city had to find a time to put its foot down and stop issuing familiar band-aids to parks as they became trouble spots.
While we were on the floor, I brought up these points and they were echoed by others. I had urged Alder Veveer, the sponsor of the ordinance, to possibly add a sunset clause, so that there might be pressure to fix the problem on a more long-term scale. I felt comfortable with that decision, particularly in light of Alder Bruer’s perspective. He described this as a “crisis situation” in the 4th district. While I was hesitant to approve the ordinance, Bruer made it clear that the situation that was in place at Law Park at the time may have already been beyond any position of repair (at least with what the MPD is forced to deal with in other areas of policing at the same time). The drain of dealing with the situation in its matured form would have cost the MPD many hours of scrutiny and would have drained their ability to keep other neighborhoods safe. Seeing as students are already complaining about the need for a stronger presence in the realm of street crime deterrence and sexual assault prevention, giving the MPD a break may help to free up essential resources to ease the growing demand for service.
The Council unanimously voted in favor of the new form (complete with a 1.5 year sunset) with the understanding that Alders Clausius and Schumacher would be taking leadership in the Parks Subcommittee designed to deal with this issue specifically. I voted yes in the hope that this gambit we made towards stopping this migrating pattern of disruption will be the last one. Come next December, if it turns out we are planning on banning alcohol in another park I will probably not be sympathetic toward such an action.
One thing should be brought to people’s attention: Although general alcohol consumption in Law Park has been banned, it should be clear that, with a permit from the Parks Department, groups can still enjoy a drink down by the lake.
While we are on the topic of alcohol, I wanted to let readers in on the progress of the Alcohol Density Plan. It was scheduled to appear before the Alcohol License Review Committee (ALRC) Wednesday night but the meeting ended up lasting nearly six hours. I had intentions to attend the Madison Blogger Roundup that evening, but because of the lengthy meeting, I was unable to make it. A thousand apologies!
The Density Plan was referred to the July ALRC meeting, but one comment that was made during the night really struck a chord within me. The reason the meeting had gone on so long was due to a controversy over the new establishment trying to replace the Kamia Lounge, “Lucille’s.” Droves of downtown residents came down to testify against it, including State Senator Fred Risser. All involved were either living in close proximity to where the new lounge would be, or knew of Kamia’s past reputation. At the end of all of the testimony (and final referral * eye roll *) Chair Rearick stopped the proceedings and talked directly to the audience. She observed that many of the speakers and testifiers made an allusion to downtown being equivalent to any typical neighborhood. The truly refreshing reminder she made was that downtown is not a residential neighborhood. It is a mixed use, multifunctional area of our city. It is the beating heart of our entertainment and cultural centers while also home to one of the biggest universities in the country. All of these things come together to make Downtown Madison what it is. To draw a parallel between downtown and a sleepy suburb, in my opinion, is an action that requires quite a bit of renewed scrutiny and understanding of urban life.
With that out of the way, we can talk about these go-cart “things.” The Council referred making “electric street vehicles” legal to a later meeting due to a slip-up in Legistar, the city’s legislative database. The university has just recently procured a fleet of these devices and is hoping to use them on campus. A funny point on these from the Public Safety Review Board: one of the members of the committee asked about the probability of these vehicles becoming as popular as mopeds. I smiled at the MPD representative and asked how much they cost. Unless people are feeling like finding parking, getting a special license, and forking over $10,000 for one of these mini-cars, I think Langdon Street drag races are safely out of the question. Personally, I thought jousting tournaments would be fun, but the MPD rep didn’t agree.
That’s it for now. As always, I encourage you to stop by my office hours at 11:45am on Mondays at Lakefront on Langdon or email me at district8@cityofmadison.com.
