Entertainment? Politics? Or Both.

A few weeks ago, I jumped in the car and drove to Chicago to meet my lifelong friends for a weekend of sightseeing and reconnecting. Chicago and the chance to get together were good draws, but the main attraction was Monday night's Roger Waters show. For those that don't know, Roger Waters was the creative force behind Pink Floyd for most of the 1970's, when their popularity was at its peak. But Roger Waters has always symbolized much more - his lyrics had both meaning and message - catapulting him to the upper echelons of great singer songwriters.

The Chicago show was special. It wasn't just a concert; it was a performance. In it, Roger Waters perfomed "The Wall," from beginning to end. No opening act. No encore. Just "The Wall," one of the most significant influences on our young lives when it was released in 1980. But "The Wall" is not just your average, every day album. It was one of the original and great concept albums, a rock opera stringing and layering multiple messages and themes - political, social, intellectual - from the first note to the last.

I was mesmerized. Energized. Reborn in my commitment for social progress, my desire to make a difference, to effect change. Recommitted to nonviolence, peace, justice, and unburying my anger at the horrors of war. In other words, I walked out remembering why I fell in love with Pink Floyd in the first place. Why their music was one of the most significant influences on the person that I would become.

I floated out of the concert, hoping that the power of Waters' message was able to change one mind, to energize one more person to get involved in making a difference, to mobilize a small group of couch potatoes into soup kitchen volunteers or war supporters to rethink the insanity, and inhumanity, of unending violence.

It didn't take long for my beautiful moment to clash with reality. I asked my friend Rob what he thought, and he said it was "good." The understatement of the millenium, IMHO. The retort was instantaneous: "Good? That's all?" His response was firm and confident: "I go to a concert to be entertained. What's with the political message? I really don't like when politics and entertainment get mixed. Its not appropriate."

Crash.

Days later, I was still bothered. So I emailed my boys and gave them something to think about. I started by reiterating Rob's distaste for mixing entertainment and politics. And then my thought on the matter: "Mixing entertainment and politics is the only kind of entertainment I have any respect for." And then a nugget from a Rolling Stone interview with Roger Waters. Waters:

"There are huge, huge profits to be made from war and that, by and large, is why they happen so often. This show is unashamedly about all those big questions - and the success of the work I did with [Floyd] gives me the power to have a platform. Some people think that people shouldn't use the platforms that they have because of their celebrity of success. I don't subscribe to that view at all. I always loved Hanoi Jane. I love it when Sean Penn comes out and says something or takes part and John Lennon or any of the other people who stood up to be counted… I have the same responsibility to put on this production as Picasso did to paint 'Guernica.'"

(Most folks know that Picasso painted Guernica in response to Germans and Italians bombing Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. The painting shows the tragedies of war and the suffering it inflicts, primarily on innocent civilians.)

Alan wrote back: "How can you go to a production of The Wall and not expect the entertainment to be mixed with a political message? But, Brian, do you really not respect entertainment that's just meant to entertain?"

And my response:

"To answer your question. I do not mind entertainment at all. In fact, I like it. But I am a bit strange on these things, as you’ve undoubtedly noticed over the last 25 years. I hurt inside, daily, at the injustice and suffering, especially needless suffering, that occurs in our world. It fills me up, it motivates me, it drives me, sometimes it comes close to consuming me. I still manage to smile a lot and have a good time though, right? I’m impressed with myself, anyway.

As you’ve noticed, this can still cause me to be a bit of a downer sometimes. Or a bit intense. Guilty as charged. While most in society might respect a businessman that makes a lot of money and a football player that sets records and a movie star that wins academy awards, sadly, I don’t give a shit about any of that. If you have a voice or make lots of money, and want my respect, you better damn well make a difference. So while I might love lots of music and lots of movies and lots of sports, I don’t have any actual RESPECT for ANY of them unless they stand up and use that fame to make the world a better place. To promote non-violence, alleviate suffering, and speak to justice, equality, and compassion for others.

So I can go to a rock concert and have a blast. But if the artist delivers a message – whether it be through the music, through the video, or through a speech between songs – that might cause ONE PERSON in that crowd to go home and do something meaningful, well then I’m going to walk out proud to have been a part of it."

Think Bruce Springsteen playing for John Kerry, despite the loss of millions of fans. Think Dixie Chicks speaking out against George W Bush, despite a clear understanding of how much it would hurt them.

Or think Ben Harper. I saw him open for Barak Obama a few weeks ago and watched as he sang “With My Own Two Hands” as a rallying cry to support the President in trying to “make the world a better place.” With our own two hands. Amen brother; now that’s what I’m talking about.

Power and Humanity: Common Council Version

Something fairly irregular happened a few weeks ago at the Madison City Council meeting and while it brought up many issues and thoughts, the most poignant were those related to our humanity. To who we are, who we think we are, and who we want to be.

For those of you that missed it, Alder Thuy Pham-Remmele had separated a number of items from the "consent agenda" which allow her to speak about those items when the items could have otherwise been approved in a single motion. It is general practice to separate as few items as possible so as to shorten what are already very long meetings. At the same time, every alder has the right to separate whatever they want, for whatever reason. Alder Pham-Remmele has made a bit of a habit of separating items to ask questions of staff that could have been asked prior to the council meeting. Those items would normally not be separated.

This is time consuming not only for the alders, but for everyone at the meetings from citizens to staff. In fact, once an item related to their agency is separated from the consent agenda, staff have to sit around waiting for the agenda item to come up just in case questions are asked. If the very important “gentlepersons agreement” about separating agenda items is abused, efficiencies are sacrificed, the billable hours of City staff that are paid for at taxpayer expense pile on, and alders who have researched their questions in advance of meetings are left with frustration.

At the meeting in question, with five items remaining on the agenda, all separated by Alder Pham-Remmele and all, most would argue, unnecessarily, a few alders got fed-up and decided to walk out of the Council meeting in protest. The meeting was instantly adjourned as quorum was lost the moment they walked out. This whole experience has been disturbing me for weeks.

On one hand, we all celebrate the unique spirit of an alder who beats to her own drum. I agree with Alder Pham-Remmele on almost nothing - politically or in most other ways. But she definitely beats to her own drum, and I have a grudging respect for that.

However, having listened to hours of “wasted” questions for what seems to be self-serving political motivations, I can completely understand the urge to fight back, to protest, to make a statement that what is happening is annoying and we do not like it. In other words, I understand the desire to protest and send her a strong message to adhere to our unwritten agreement to separate agenda items only when necessary and to adhere to protocol by doing homework ahead of time and trying to avoid political grandstanding that holds everyone hostage to her court.

On the other hand, we probably need to look in the mirror before we cast too many judgments. I don't use the same strategies as Alder Pham-Remmele, and I am not much into posturing for political gain, but I have my values and my principles and I articulate them when I feel like it. I would like to believe that I am passionate, concise, and convincing. I'd like to believe that every ear in the room is riveted, hanging on every word, that every person is shaking his or her head in amazement at the vast depth of my reasoning, and sitting in deep contemplation about how my rhetorical skills have forced them to reconsider their own opinions. Reality likely falls somewhere far short of that image. At what point does my soliloquy move from convincing to meaningless, from concise to verbose, or from interesting to annoying? I wish I knew that sweet spot, because I'm sure I'd hit it more often.

There are other alders on the Council who like to talk. Occasionally their speech is like that of an orator; something passionate and meaningful and gripping - resulting in a beautiful discourse that hones in on a target like a raptor on prey. But equally as often, it is a rant. A tirade. A preachy, moralizing, sermonizing lecture that changes no minds and accomplishes nothing more than giving the speaker an opportunity to hear his or her own voice. Ask anyone who follows the Council, and they'll tell you. Ask anyone on the Council. My predecessor was fond of saying, "Everything has been said. It just hasn't been said by everybody."

Which brings us back to the point. Where is the line? Who gets to determine it? If we all annoy each other so regularly, are we just taking our frustrations with everything out on the one alder who happens to be the recipient of our invective? And if so, isn't that just a bit unfair?

As I said earlier, Alder Pham-Remmele’s methods are frequently frustrating. But please believe this: she is far from the only Council member who frustrates her colleagues. She deserves just as much right to speak as the rest of us, even if its about things we all agree are unnecessary or even ridiculous. We have options. Just as she has the right to separate items, others have the right to protest. They can "call the question" and force a vote. They can vote to put items back on the consent agenda. They can speak up about the frustration. They can pull Thuy aside or send her an email. They can move to District 20 and run against her in the next election. Or, clearly, they can stand up and walk out of a meeting. Just as each of us has a right to talk as long as we want or separate items no one else wants separated, we also have the right to just walk away from a meeting.

So, in the end, I don't think its about what we can do. Maybe its more about what we should do. Honoring each other’s humanity, respecting each other even if we feel its not deserved, recognizing our own weaknesses, and thinking about how we treat each other and how we would like to be treated, are great places to start.

When people talk about politicians, they talk about power. But taking power back, especially when its been taken from you, is a human trait, not a political one. And when someone is thrown in a corner, shamed, bound, and gagged, his first instinct is to take his power back whenever and however he can. Thuy lost a lot of power when she stopped working with her colleagues and when the Mayor pulled her from her committees. She’s taking her power back, however she can. But that’s exactly what alders are doing when they protest her behavior. Taking their power back. In the end, this is all basic human nature.

But the council is a family, dysfunctional as we are. And like most families, we have our issues. The question is: do we want to air them for the world, or try to address them internally? Because one thing is certain: the family that gathers together and tries to resolve their differences at the family meeting, all things being equal, has a better shot as resolution than the one that requires the televised intervention of Jerry Springer or Dr Phil. Maybe we owe our constituents, and ourselves, a little more of the former.

A Trip to the Dentist

Who would have thought that a single hotel project would come to represent much of what is wrong in our city? If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll know exactly what that statement means: meddling alders, outdated ordinances, historic preservationists, and neighborhood activists raising one barrier to progress and economic development after another. Right?

Well, no. The sad reality has absolutely nothing to do with whose right or whose wrong. Why? Because no one is wrong. The sad reality is that you’d never know that with everyone acting like children fighting over space in the sandbox.

There is no question that too many people, including some pretty powerful interests, drew lines in the sand on day one. I guess that’s to be expected, but am I really that naïve in asking why? Why would anyone come out dead-set against an exciting, job- and tax-base creating investment in our city? And equally mystifying, why would anyone come out fully supportive of a very expensive project with questionable public benefit, neighborhood concerns, undeniable impacts on our lakeshore, and real questions about size and massing related to the historic district in which the project resides? Because once sides are chosen, once the lines are drawn, then we just end up waging a war where there once lived democratic process.

And sadly, that’s where we now find ourselves.

I am weary of the constant barrage of blogs, statements, editorials and emails decrying those who would, “stand in the way of progress.” I am equally weary of those who resist change because of change’s inability to achieve perfection. But I’m most weary of those who blame the process, those who insist something is terribly broken, and those who would silence the voices of opposition in the name of political expediency.

Democracy is more frustrating than a visit to the dentist after a six month sugar binge. It is painful and maddening and everyone can easily agree that it’d all be easier if we just didn’t have to go through it.

Maybe next time we have a major project, with solid, defensible reasons to see both sides, maybe we will actually be able to do exactly that: see both sides. And maybe we can have a civil discourse that allows us to move forward and accept change, as we must, with an assurance that every voice is heard and respected.

And maybe we’ll be willing to recognize that opposing voices may feel like a trip to the dentist, but in the end, our teeth are worth it. Democracy is too.

Edgewater: Democracy vs Development

I have gotten more emails and phone calls on the Edgewater hotel project than any other issue since I’ve been elected. I want to begin by thanking the hundreds of constituents and Madison residents who contacted me about the Edgewater project. It is that kind of engagement, by our non-elected citizens, that make this community such a wonderful place. I also want to thank the Landmarks Commission for their hard work, and apologize for the inappropriate things that have been said about them lately.

Contrary to what the Wisconsin State Journal editorial staff may believe, I didn’t run for alder to be a "typical politician" or to kill economic development in Madison. In fact, quite the opposite. I ran to make a difference. I am certain that most Madisonians can appreciate that big projects are big decisions. And despite the promise of fortune and economic prosperity at the end of the rainbow, the hard realities of major projects are often much more complex (think Overture, Union Corners, or the hotel project at the corner of Monroe and Regent). My vote on the Edgewater wasn’t about “dodging responsibility,” as claimed in the WSJ editorial. It was about being responsible.

Before anyone turns the four other “no” votes and me into the "Edgewater Five" and brands us responsible for the economic downfall of our city, I ask you to consider a few points:

• We voted on a referral amendment that would have let the project proceed to the next committee bodies and return, but that was voted down by the Council. If that had been supported, this project could still be moving forward.
• This project is about balance between preservation and growth, the interests of the developer and those of the public, and infill development and respect for downtown neighborhoods. In making my decision, I had to ask myself if the Landmarks Commission was correct in their interpretation of the law. I thought they were. But our law only allows us to overturn Landmarks if their decision renders the property unusable (clearly it did not, the Edgewater Hotel continues to operate) or causes serious hardship for the owner, as long as that hardship is not self created. First, this developer could have submitted a proposal that would have made it through Landmarks. Second, the developer could and CAN STILL revise the project so as to better fit into the historic district. Third, another developer could come along with a plan that works. There is honestly zero evidence to support that the action of the Landmarks Commission creates serious hardship for the developer that was not self created. Without that, a vote to overturn violates our own laws. Also, a Landmarks decision has never been overturned by the Council. Ever. Before we jump into the “we need to fix our landmarks law NOW” waters, are we even sure this process is broken?
• In many ways, this project has been a concern since the beginning. It has thwarted many typical city processes in the name of expediency. The Mayor, council leadership, and the media signed on early. I do not believe that the ends justify the means. This is a significant project - isn't getting it right worth the time and analysis?
• Do we really want to function in a world that says, "take it or leave it?" Where a single question or iota of skepticism is greeted with disdain and vitriolic commentary about the broken process? This is not the way to craft good public policy. We are investing $16 million in taxpayer dollars to support a massive private development on one of our absolute primest pieces of real estate. Don't we want to make sure we get it right?
• I worked with a few other alders, during budget debates, to get some jobs guarantees into the TIF set-aside. The goal was to get some quality estimates about the number of jobs to be created, the average wages, and the number of jobs with benefits. We don't really just want jobs in this city. We want good paying, family supporting jobs with quality benefits. However, the inclusion of this language was not to be. We were told that requiring this information would kill the project. Then we were told that not setting aside $16 million in TIF, in advance, would kill the project. Now we’ve been told that not overturning Landmarks will kill the project. How deep into the rabbit hole do we have to climb before we can no longer see the light? I ask you: Do you really want to live in a city where your elected representatives are given a pill and told to swallow it without question or else they'll be held responsible for "killing the project?"

The State Journal and the developer's own press release said that Common Council killed this project. I am blamed by name. I killed this project by not voting to overturn one of our committees? Really? This is not hard. Landmarks voted the project down. The developer should listen to what they said and re-apply, just like every other developer. Get it right and keep moving forward. Just like every other development project.

I have received emails – some thanking me for my vote and some promising never to vote for me again. I take my job as alder very seriously and I have a great deal of respect for our citizen committees, our laws, and our historic districts. But I also care very much about jobs, economic development, and the prospects that the Edgewater project continues to present. This is a very important - and expensive - project for our city and it will have a tremendous impact on our waterfront and a treasured historic district.

Let's do this project. But let's do it right.