Mayor reaffirms commitment to capitalism, not casting opposition as moral monsters.

Highlights from the Plan Commission and the Common Council

I.

The first word of the day is bollards.

If you’re a mariner and you hear the word bollard, the image in your head is probably something like this:

Bollards: You use them to moor your boat.

For everyone else, it’s something like this:

We’ll be discussing the latter.

On January 9th, the Plan Commission considered a request from Paris Hart for a conditional use permit to open a daycare on the corner of Burleigh Street and Mayfair Road.

The applicant is proposing to operate a child care facility at 3136 N. Mayfair Road in the General Commercial (C2) zoning district. Surrounding land uses include single family residential to the north and east, commercial uses to the west, and a golf course to the south. The center will provide care for up to 34 children ages 6 weeks to 12 years, and will be staffed with up to 5 employees. The proposed operating hours are 6:00 am to 11:00 pm, Monday through Sunday. Drop off and pick up of children will occur within the parking area at the east and north end of the building.

An outdoor play area, enclosed with a four foot tall chain link fence, is proposed at the east end of the site (see attached site plan). The play area will take up a portion of the parking area. However, a sufficient amount of parking remains available onsite for all tenants.

Source

Ald. Melissa Dolan—not a member of the Plan Commission—said during public comment that both she and Ald. Jason Wilke had concerns about cars stopping at the front entrance along Mayfair Road to load and unload children. “That’s extremely dangerous,” she claimed, “and that specific item needs to be addressed before moving forward.”

One member of the Plan Commission worried about the safety of putting a playground in that part of the parking lot considering the amount of traffic passing through. Ms. Hart said she would use parking cones as children were being escorted across the parking lot to the playground and that the playground would be fenced in. A member of the plan commission responded that there needs to be “something more robust than a chain link fence” and that perhaps steel or concrete bollards “at least give the kids inside the play area a chance if the car goes off track.”

Ultimately, the commission voted unanimously to approve the plans under the condition that a a bollard or bollards were placed along the perimeter of the proposed playground area, a cross-walk was painted on the ground between the rear exit of the daycare and the playground, and the front entrance was made exit only to make it clear that parents should not stop along Mayfair Road to drop off their children.

In other bollard-related news, Jacob Jansen also requested a conditional use permit for his own daycare-center-with-playground-in-the-parking-lot business at 530 N. 108th Place.

In contrast to Ms. Hart, Mr. Jansen said he tried to put concrete or steel bollards in front of the playground but the city engineering department said not to because they might damage any cars that ran into them. This generated some confused laughter. One member of the Plan Commission said that, “the whole point is that they damage the cars.”

Ald. Dolan expressed concerns about the daycare’s proximity to the railroad track and the presence of trees along one edge of the proposed playground: “I just want to make sure there's not an opportunity for anything nefarious, for someone to nab a child through that tree line.”

Suspect tree line. Source.

Mr. Jansen assured her that there would be little opportunity for nefarious nabbing, and the permit was unanimously approved by the Plan Commission.

Mr. Jansen’s request was also unanimously approved by the Common Council two weeks later on January 17th. Ms. Hart was not so lucky.

At the Common Council meeting, Ald. Dolan reiterated her concerns about the heavy traffic on Mayfair Road and the safety of the playground. She added that there are many daycares in the area already and that neighbors she spoke to were concerned about the proposed 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. operating hours because a child could “be there for 18 hours.” She also felt that the location was not ideal for napping children.

The building itself is a strip mall and behind it is what I originally thought was an alley. And it is not an alley. I am here to share with you that it is actually a—it is indicative of—a road. It is passable by two full-sized vehicles in either direction.

The design of the building was originally a strip mall and it’s not truly conducive to effective childcare, I feel personally. It’s not so much a peaceful location for naps and such. We have intermittent horns from cars but moreover firetrucks and police.

Ald. Robin Brannin informed the Common Council that she sat on the board of a pre-school as it searched high and low for six months to find the best location for their daycare. She said that “this property in particular is completely inappropriate for a child care center” and “completely unsafe, and for that reason I will not support it.”

Ald. Meagan O’Reilly said affordable childcare is hard to find, people have different needs, and “the business owner is taking a risk on this, and they believe there is a market for their services, and they believe that there is a need for somebody who's working as a medical assistant to be able to pick their child up after second shift.” She supported it.

Mayor Dennis McBride reminded members of the common council that “we have a very narrow lane here”:

It is not part of our discussion to decide who the winners and losers are in the competition in the daycare market.

When I was an alderman, you might recall I represented the 4th District over near 68th and Wells. People said, “You can’t have Colectivo in there because Le Tarte’s across the street.” And I said, “This is a capitalist economy. You might like it. You might not like it. But we don't pick winners and losers. You compete.”

I pointed out that in the village we have Yo Mama and Baskin Robbins cheek-to-jowl. And on 68th Street I had a woman say, “I’m running a massage-therapy clinic and somebody wants to run a massage-therapy clinic right next door to me, how dare you.” And I said the same thing. This is a competitive economy.

It might be that this new daycare establishment will out-compete the other ones. It’s not our decision to make. That’s not our call. What is our call is to determine whether this is an appropriate site and whether the appropriate safety measures have been put in place.

Ald. Dolan tried to speak again, but Mayor McBride said she’d had too many turns already.

The Common Council voted 15-1 to refer the matter to the Community Affairs committee on January 31st for further consideration.

II.

The second word of the day is lane. As in, “stay in your lane.”

I spoke last week about a proposed resolution to eliminate medical debt for residents by contributing approximately $5,000 to a non-profit organization called RIP Medical Debt that buys outstanding medical debt from hospitals for pennies on the dollar and then metaphorically sets it on fire. This is part of a larger effort by Milwaukee County to use over one million dollars of ARPA funds for the same purpose. Last week, the Financial Affairs committee recommended approval of the proposal by a vote of 5-1.

It also came before the Common Council for consideration on January 17th.

Ald. James Moldenhauer, the lone dissenter during the meeting of the Financial Affairs committee, reiterated his opposition to the resolution. He said that

• Social services are the responsibility of the county, state, or federal government, and debt relief is not in the city’s lane,

• It’s not in the strategic plan,

• Fifteen-percent of the $5,000 they’re asking for will go towards RIP Medical Debt’s overhead expenses, and

• He would prefer a resolution encouraging the county or state to put money toward this and send the city’s $5,000 to city-based health organizations.

Ald. David Lewis cosponsored the bill but then—almost like a POW put on television for propaganda purposes—somewhat mechanically read from a prepared statement that said everything happened so fast, he’d come to see the error of his ways, and he took it all back. While he maintained that he “really believe[s] in this program,” he has since spoken to constituents, friends, and “many people who know the government and how things work” and he no longer thinks we are “staying in our lane.”

I spoke with the sponsor and expressed my concerns, and that I would probably not support this resolution. The sponsor’s comments were, “Perhaps in the future you should learn more about the resolution before you decide to co-sponsor it.” I will take that constructive criticism and make sure that I do my due diligence prior to making any such commitments in the future.

Ald. Amanda Fuerst said she thinks it’s a “wonderful program” but will be voting against it, because the city’s money should go to things that only the city can do like fund the police or pick up the garbage.

Ald. O’Reilly did think it was in the city’s lane, because foreclosures and property values and taxes are in their lane. We should care about the ability of residents to pay their taxes and their mortgages, especially with a potential recession on the horizon. If the city can make it easier for them to do this by cancelling medical debt then it might be worthwhile.

Ald. Margaret Arney liked it because it sounded innovative and “challenges our notion of what a lane is.” She saw it as a “a nudge in the right direction for Milwaukee county.”

Ald. Mike Phillips said he thinks our lane is the “common welfare of Wauwatosa residents” and that the city has a real opportunity to show some support and leadership.

Ald. Sean Lowe said the city gives money to non-profits all the time through community development block grants (CDBG) and he wished more non-profits asked for money. “I hear that this may not be in our lane. But, to me, helping Wauwatosans, period, is always in our lane.”

At this point, Mayor McBride wanted to make it clear that CDBG grant money comes from the federal government and not local property taxes. “I’m not trying to prejudice the vote,” he said, “I just want to make sure we understand where money’s coming from.”

In his second opportunity to speak, Ald. Lowe wished everyone a happy belated Martin Luther King Day before saying:

I just wonder—and I already know the answer to this—but I just wonder, how many of the poorest residents in this city are listening to this meeting right now? In comparison to the richest residents to ensure that we don't spend this $5,000 dollars helping people that really can’t help themselves right now?

He then answered his own question and suggested it was because they were too busy worrying about food, clothes for their kids, and housing. “So, I would just love to know the constituents that emailed several of you, what their income level is. I make $150,000 a year but don't you spend that $5,000 on those poor people!”

Ald. Joel Tilleson said that he thought everyone’s statements were very powerful but that it was clear parts of the community had real qualms about this. He felt the common council should consider other uses for the $5,000 dollars, thought it might create a bad precedent, and didn’t appreciate that the non-profit included a bunch of factual claims in the proposal that haven’t been verified.

Ald. Meindl, the primary sponsor of the bill, thought this whole “lane conversation” was misplaced. “We’re talking 2,000 people. Families. Friends. Neighbors. Cousins. Colleagues at work. They could live right down the street from you. And we’re just going to say, no? Okay.”

He tried to counter some of the arguments brought by others but finally, exasperated by all the Debbie downers on the council, said, “Just say you don't want to do it. Have the courage of your convictions. The camera is right there. Tell this chamber, tell the 2,000 Wauwatosans suffering from medical debt just to pound sand. If you can't then maybe that's telling you something. This is immensely disappointing.”

The vote was 8-8. Mayor McBride, before casting his tie-breaking vote, dispensed some more Solomonic wisdom:

One of the pernicious things about political discussions in Wauwatosa over the last several years has been if you don't agree with me, you’re immoral. If you don't agree with me, you're a bad person. If you don't agree with me, it must be something flawed about you. What I’m hearing tonight are good faith discussions on either side. And I'm seeing eight people on one side and eight on another side making very good points. This is not a question of morality. It’s a question for some people about is this the right thing to do?

What I heard—I think I heard—is sixteen people who would vote in favor of a resolution if we didn’t have a question of money attached to it. I believe we’d get sixteen votes for a resolution. […] What I’m hearing from those people is, as it was stated, “This isn’t our lane.” I’m not sure that it was well stated, but here’s what I think that means. The State of Wisconsin through its constitution and statutes tells us what municipalities can and can't do. We pick up the garbage, we plow the snow, we pave the roads. We have to have a health department. […] The county is told you have to provide social services and courts.

[…]

I don't think this is what the state told us to do with our tax levy. With our tax levy—not with the CDBG funds which we get from the federal government—with the tax levy. […] The question is whether this is appropriate for the City of Wauwatosa Common Council to do with levy raised from the citizens of Wauwatosa. […] And that’s why I’m going to vote ‘no’ on this.

After the motion failed, Ald. John Dubinski said he didn’t really appreciate Ald. Meindl’s suggestion that ‘no’-voters were telling indebted residents to “go pound sand.” Ald. Tilleson called it “ugly behavior” and “out of line.”

Ald. Arney made a motion to remove the commitment of $5,000 and just send a revised resolution expressing support for Milwaukee County’s effort. It passed unanimously.