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.
