(For some background on this post, I suggest you consult some recent articles published in various campus and Madison papers. Some are listed below)
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2008/03/25/its_not_me_its_you.php
http://dailycardinal.com/article/2407
http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/03/12/langdon_plans_capito.php
http://dailycardinal.com/article/2401
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/278040
Over the past couple months, there has been a growing feeling of discontent among the student population towards the group in the downtown area known as Capital Neighborhoods Inc (CNI). CNI, for those not privy to the neighborhood beat, is a conglomeration of several different smaller groups all around the capital square area. The recent catalyst of what could, at times, be described outright anger and rage on the part of most of campus was the “list of ideas” for the downtown that CNI’s Alcohol Issues Subcommittee released to the public in late January. These ideas or proposals included an increase on taxes on alcohol in the city and, more shockingly, the suggestion that all UW students should go through an alcohol issues screening program.
I touched on these issues in my letter addressed to the CNI executive committee (EC) which I am sure will find it’s way onto the internet in short order.
Tonight, the State/Langdon representatives of CNI addressed the EC with the intention of announcing their succession from the central city neighborhood association. Several individuals, including Jess Pavlic (the president of State/Langdon), Josh Monisi, Mikeala Loui, Han Lee (all representatives from the State/Langdon group), and myself, presented a list of grievances to the EC relating to various policy differences, conflicts, and points of contention that the two neighborhoods have. While they didn’t speak, the two-dozen or so State/Langdon residents that attended the meeting listened attentively on the edges of the somewhat crowded room the meeting was held in. A lively, fortunately civil discussion ensued.
A point that was brought up by CNI’s EC centered on the potential lack of longevity that a new student neighborhood could attain. The transient nature of the student population, it was said, would lead to a potential failure of the concept of a campus area group. To that, State/Langdon representatives and I pointed to groups like ASM and the College Democrats/Republicans (all of whom seemed to have an interested representative at this meeting), which, over time, had become institutions of the campus. We felt that the potentially larger territory that a campus neighborhood would encompass would give us a greater pool of people to recruit from and potentially more success in the fight over membership numbers that State/Langdon has had problems with for many years.
A member of the EC pointed out that support from CNI in such an expansion could be beneficial for both our group and theirs. While that is potentially true, we disagreed in that most students familiar with neighborhood politics, even before the alcohol proposals of last January were released, had a very negative view of CNI as a whole. It had become clear to the State/Langdon representatives that recruiting was being hampered, if not made nearly impossible, by our direct association with CNI. The final straw, so to speak, that the January round of policies created led to the “tainting” of what chances State/Langdon had of growing the campus group effectively while maintaining our connection to CNI.
The discussion brought up an essential truth with regards to the interaction of both campus and CNI territory. It was said that some of the issues that the isthmus faces could be best tackled as a combined front, or united effort, of both neighborhood groups. Issues like safety, for example, could be universally addressed and improved by joint interaction. While this was the case, I was quick to bring up the fact that issues, like safety, do not operate within a bubble. One of the primary motivations behind alcohol policies, CNI’s or otherwise, is to control alcohol intake in order to promote public safety and order. It is my opinion that, while we may all agree that we want a safe, fun place to live, having fundamental differences on how we go about building that neighborhood (and the policies that form it) stands in the face of being effective in combating even the most fundamental of problems.
I fully understand the need, now more than ever, for our two communities to start a discussion about where the downtown is going and how our groups are going to interact with each other. The isthmus is a tiny place and neither of our to communities are going anywhere. State/Langdon and I understood that dynamic and considered, at great length, the possibility of remaining a part of CNI. In the end, though, we firmly felt that something new and separate from CNI would be needed should we hope to find anything resembling long-term success.
Even so, at the end of our meeting tonight, State/Langdon and the CNI EC formed an ad hoc committee that comprised of members of both bodies. This group will serve as a transition entity for State/Langdon into independence and also as the new first step into the improved communications between campus and CNI. This plan was met with approval on both sides of the debate and was given a unanimous vote in favor of its undertaking. While a timeline has not been immediately set for State/Langdon’s full independence, I have great faith that the move will be conducted expeditiously and with great concern for detail. I encourage any resident of the campus area to contact me should they desire to voice an opinion on the formation of the new group (contact info below).
All things considered, I believe this will give the campus area the opportunity it needs to truly make a successful neighborhood organization. State/Langdon will continue, and improve, the discourse it has been having with CNI and, hopefully, will also forge a new group capable of lasting for decades.
I had promised a recap of the meeting tonight, and I hope I have done something resembling that. If you have any questions, or just want a first hand account of what happened, feel free, as always, to call me (6083226358), send me and email (district8@cityofmadison.com), or visit my “alder hours” (Mondays at 11:30am in Lakefront on Langdon in the Memorial Union).
On a separate note, tomorrow's (now today's, the 26th) debate between the two candidates for Dane County Board in the 5th district will be held at Tripp Commons (in the Memorial Union) at 5pm. I strongly urge you to stop by if you haven't had a chance to see either (alphabetically) Manning or O'Hagan.
