Bloomquist Takes Stand on Water

Submitted by Phyllis Hasbrouck:

Hooray for Richard Bloomquist! Here is an alder who isn’t afraid to take a stand for what he knows is right, even when he clearly sees that he’s going to lose the vote. If more alders start to express their true feelings and vote their consciences, all sorts of “politically unfeasible” things may start happening!

At the Oct. 9 Fitchburg Common Council meeting, the alders had to decide whether to accept the Plan Commission’s map for a long term Urban Growth Boundary, which includes 3378 additional acres for development, including all of the Northeast Neighborhood.

Not only did Alder Bloomquist speak out against a plan that may endanger our water table, he also had the political courage to point out that though he and the mayor both opposed it, they had very different reasons for doing so.

(We are currently working on getting a short video on You Tube, and will post the link when we succeed.)

He also deserves our thanks for defending the democratic process. He reacted with incredulity to the news that some Plan Commissioners want to severely limit the public’s participation in the planning process.

“Why’d they shut the springs off?”

As the Council took up the question of whether to adopt the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) map that the Plan Commission (PC) had crafted, Alder Bloomquist surprised many by announcing that he would vote no.

“In the last 60 or 45 days, I’ve had some concerns with what we’re about to do to the city…I have some concerns with water. I have concerns with water recharge of the aquifers underneath us. I have concerns with what we may or may not do with ag ground, that is now inside some of this shaded border. We’ve been told that if we don’t move the borders at all, we have quite a bit of ground at the current rate of development, to last us for several years into the future.

“We’re about to, under the budget, possibly, take up Transfer of Development Rights and Purchase of Development Rights, probably more seriously than anyone thought we might a year ago. And I’m just a little gun shy about putting the kind of land out there, and drawing some maps and have some speculators decide this is what we’re gonna possibly do. One of the resolutions that we have this evening is the McGaw North Neighborhood, with the 5 developers that signed that.

“I just don’t feel comfortable until I hear more about Transfer of Development Rights and Purchase of Development Rights, and keeping certain farm grounds from ever being developed. But mostly I don’t want my name on anything that a generation from now people will say, ‘Why’d they shut the springs off, why’d they do this with the water?’ I just don’t have a comfort level tonight to say I want to see the current Urban Service Area get any bigger, nor the possibility of it getting any bigger. So that is my reason for voting no this evening.”

Alder Steve Arnold replied, “The concerns that you cited, are for me the reasons to support an urban growth boundary.” And he asked Bloomquist to elaborate.

Alder Bloomquist responded,

“…Someone asked me earlier today, if I would be in favor of freezing the current urban service area and not growing and developing any more. And I have a comfort level that would say at the moment, yeah, I’d support that. I’d make the current urban service area, the permanent boundary of the city. But that’s probably not realistic 30 or 40 years down the road, as we grow out. But I’d just really like to know where we’re going with Transfer of Development rights, and Purchase of Development Rights, cause I think there’s been some, almost faith that that’s going to happen, and take the pressure off some the development that’s inside those lines [of the Urban Growth Boundary].

… I have this feeling that if we don’t do this right, we’re gonna screw up the water table, and I think that’s too big of a risk to take. And I’d really like to know more about the water, and the development rights. And if we’re gonna take farm ground that encroaches into some of these areas, and say, even though it’s in the possible Future Urban Development Area, that we’re not gonna do it.

And the more I think about it, is 75 acres the right number? That’s still a lot of ground per year to take out for homes…But it’s just those 2 big things. I don’t want to see the water table screwed up, and I want to know what were gonna do with some of the farm ground.”

A little later, when Alder Arnold asked him if it eased his mind at all to hear that the Plan Commission intends to have a framework for a TDR [Transfer of Development Rights] program by January, Alder Bloomquist laughed and responded, “You should probably quit selling and vote, cause it’s gonna be 7 to 1 anyway.”

When it was the mayor’s turn to speak he said,

“I think this is a real important vote tonight… A lot of the things Richard said, I won’t repeat, cause not only do I think he talked from his heart, he talked from the way I want to talk, of real concern. If you look at the map, on the west side, it’s not balanced…”

Alder Bloomquist later responded,

“Excuse me, Mr. Mayor… I think you and I disagree… on what we consider the shortcomings of the plan. I really don’t care if it’s skewed to one side or the other. …I’m really not anti-development this evening, but I’m not really pro-development to concrete anymore. I’m not really pro-subsistence farming either… I think the taxpayers of Fitchburg will pay for TDR or PDR and keep soils that should be in ag, in ag. I think if it’s explained the right way, that’ll happen. … [Alder] Steve [Arnold] sort of chided on me on have a little bit of faith of keeping farm grounds out. After 57 years, faith is a little thin… so I’ll take some of it at their word, but I’m still going to vote no tonight, but probably not for the reasons the mayor thinks.”

He was right, he lost that vote 7 to 1, but he gained the respect and gratitude of many citizens. We were also glad to hear his incredulous question to Alder Jay Allen: “I’ve been reading the minutes of some of the Plan Commission things. You aren’t really talking about shutting off public participation in the plan process, and not allowing people to speak, are you?”

Alder Allen started to respond with “What…” and Alder Bloomquist interrupted with “No, that was a yes-or-no question.” (For more info on the topic of public participation, see the blog entry Keep "Public" in Public Hearings, and watch the You Tube video of the 10-9-07 Common Council meeting when we post the link in a few days.)

I hope that other alders will take courage from Alder Bloomquist’s willingness to absorb new information, come to uncomfortable conclusions, and then speak out.

Keep "Public" in Public Hearings

Phyllis Hasbrouck and Terry Carpenter discuss comments (some disturbing) made at the end of the Plan Commission meeting on 9/18/07 regarding the public input process.

Phyllis: Mark McNally started in again on what’s becoming a recurrent theme: that the public talks too much, and repeats themselves! He thinks they should be silenced after 150 seconds, no exceptions! Get an egg timer, and just cut them off!

Terry: He mentioned bringing in a gong not an egg timer. How appropriate for the all powerful commission.

Phyllis: Ed Kinney went him one better, and said, “It should be one minute! If they can’t say what they need to in one minute…” My notes fade out there: was it because he faded out, or he couldn’t express himself in one minute?

Terry: If Ed is serious, it would appear that he has no appreciation for the level of involvement and amount of research that some of the public bring to these meetings. I daresay that few topics can be covered in one minute or less.

Phyllis: Jim Anderson was absent, but at the Sept. 4 meeting, he complained about how much the public repeats themselves. If they start repeating, he said, they should be cut off! Next time, he said, let’s only let them talk about changes to the plan. If they say anything else, cut them off!

Terry: As the Plan Commissioners know all too well, repetition is sometimes needed to make a point when it has not been previously understood. For example, the commissioners have discussed whether or not schools should be considered as one of the guiding parameters to determine the Urban Growth Boundary. The Mayor repeats that “schools are huge.” Others follow along those lines. The Commission is divided on the subject. Thus, we end up hearing the very same discussion on many occasions. Does that mean that they didn’t need discuss the issue again on 9/18? Evidently not, because it was brought up for the umpteenth time and voted down for the umpteenth time through this decision to move the land use plan forward rather than waiting for a meeting with the superintendent of the Oregon School District as suggested by Mark McNally. (More details about this and the rest of the 9/18 Plan Commission meeting from an earlier blog are here.)

I was disappointed to hear one of the Commissioners say that he knew what some people were going to say before they opened their mouth. In some circles, this is known as “already, always listening” as in "I'm already listening for what you always say instead of for what you are saying." This leads nowhere. Perhaps this Commissioner (or others) could consider listening for something new in each comment and create the possibility of learning something. For example, why is this person upset or what facts are not being communicated to the public?

It makes no sense to limit public comments to only changes to the Neighborhood Plan. What if the earlier comments were not heard and not incorporated into the plan? Should we have just give up explaining that water is a finite resource because it was ignored the first few times it was mentioned and it doesn’t specifically address a change the plan? I don’t think so.

And how the heck would they implement these restrictions on civic participation? Who would keep track of what each person said before? Who would keep track of the list of changes that could be addressed?

Phyllis: The Mayor said that he does remind people to finish up, but Mark McNally told him “you’re too nice! You need to cut them off!”

Terry: This is one time that I partially agree with the Mayor. People should be allowed to speak. The city should be open to input from the public and I appreciate the Mayor’s interest in allowing it. But, clear standards need to be defined and implemented to make it fair for everyone. I’m as guilty as the next person of talking more than 3 minutes. But, when people are timed and interrupted (like me) and others are not (even when they talk for over 7 minutes), it is inconsistent and unfair.

Phyllis: Of course, under their new plan for limiting comments, all of these comments by commissioners and many more made at the same meeting, would have been inadmissible, because they were either repeating themselves, speaking off topic, or taking more than 1, 2 or even 3 minutes. Oh, I forgot, those rules are just for the public!

Terry and Phyllis: Dear Commissioners, we know that it can be tedious listening to the public. We know, because it can be tedious for us to listen to you at times. We are all human, and may repeat ourselves or even ramble on. But listening to people we’d rather silence is one of the prices of democracy. Because once you start getting into the business of setting criteria for who is allowed to speak (e.g. no repetition, only speak to changes in the plan) you have to consider, “how would I – or how will I like it when this is done to me?” It’s a slippery slope, and we never know when we might be in the party or faction that is out of power. And that’s why we all need to protect the rights of the public to fully participate. Remember, you might become a member of the public at some time in the future.

However, we also realize that the Commission is busy and your time is limited. Although some seem to suggest that (almost?) all comments from the public could and should be made through phone calls and email, this is not a good way to keep the public involved in the planning process. This might benefit those commissioners who faithfully answer the phone, return messages and read all their email. But, not only does this potentially limit information sharing with some commissioners who are less diligent but it also omits the entire public. Public meetings and especially public hearings, should benefit the public as well as the commissioners. We are there to hear each other’s concerns and that doesn’t happen when most things takes place behind closed doors or (email) windows. The public wants to learn from other residents. How can we do that if we are silenced or stifled?

The Mayor is right to tread lightly when asking people to finish up. Of course, he could be much more consistent, as we noticed that Phil Sveum spoke for over 7 min. on Sept. 4 without a word from the Mayor, while several WWPC people were reminded after 3 or 4 minutes. But in general the Mayor has managed to let everyone have their say at 3 minutes or a bit longer. Perhaps he is more attuned to just how mad people get when they are told that they cannot speak, because he needs their votes, and the Plan Commissioners don’t. Or maybe he’s just more polite.

The Mayor and others often bemoan the fact that more people don’t attend meetings and show they care. Wouldn’t it be smart to reward those who do care by listening to them for a whole 3 to 5 minutes or whatever time allotment is set, even if you find it tedious? People come to meetings because they care deeply about the topic at hand. Very often, their lives will be seriously impacted by what you are deciding. Whether you agree with them or not, in a democracy, your duty is to listen to them respectfully. Sounding a gong after 1 minute won’t do it.

Concerned Citizens:

We’ve reviewed a document presented by the planning department staff to the Commissioners listing options to discuss with regard to the public participation process for agenda items, non-agenda items and public hearings. Although many of the ideas are helpful, others are potentially restrictive. One troubling section includes “Fitchburg has been very generous in allowing persons to speak on any agenda item (and even non-agenda items), although that practice could end if the Commission so chose. The meeting has to be open to the public… but the only right to speak is when a public hearing is noticed.”

We recommend that all concerned citizens weigh in with the Plan Commissioners on this important topic (public participation) before the next Plan Commission meeting on 10/2 at 7:00 pm.

Politics and Planning

Submitted by Phyllis Hasbrouck

I must recommend Fitchburg Plan Commission meetings to FitchburgVoices readers. Though Terry Carpenter and I are sometimes the only people there who aren’t either elected officials or someone putting up a new deck or trying to get a liquor license, it isn’t as boring as you probably imagine. You really learn a lot: about the people who make decisions for you; about planning topics; and about politics.

This last meeting on Sept 18 was especially interesting.

There was high drama (for the connoisseur who knows how rare it is) when the Plan Commission voted 5 to 1 against Mayor Tom Clauder, to send the draft map for a 50-year Urban Growth Boundary on the Common Council. Sitting in the audience, knitting a purple scarf, I felt torn. On the one hand, I appreciated the Mayor referencing the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition’s statement of “We don't have to rush this.” The truth of that statement still stands: there is no rush in approving more development when there is a housing glut in Fitchburg, and water questions remain unanswered.

On the other hand, the comments of the other commissioners resonated much more strongly with me. In response to the Mayor’s plea to “Let the market do the growth,” John Freiburger answered very strongly, “If you want to see the market, go to Houston!” He painted a picture of unplanned growth gone wild, and said that real estate courses now point to Houston as an example of why zoning and planning are necessary.

Jay Allen agreed, saying that the problem with saying “Let the market decide” is that “you end up destroying wetlands,... creating problems with lakes and streams, you end up with fly ash dumps" and "all sorts of transportation problems.” He also indicated that he would like to make a plan to incorporate lower income housing into new neighborhoods, and to take a closer look at groundwater issues.

Ed Kinney defended the map as it stood, and said, “We put together a map that identifies the areas of Fitchburg that best meet those parameters." (Now I'm paraphrasing.) This map takes the politics out of the planning process.... We make it clear.... Of course, there are going to be changes to the map.... If you don’t want to be bothered by more proposals like Ballygrady, then vote for this plan. Otherwise, you open the door for politics.”

Al Cooper agreed that it was time to pass the plan on, as work expands to fill the time allotted.

And Mark McNally, though he was clearly uncomfortable abandoning the Mayor, seemed to be convinced by the other commissioners. When he asked for just 2 weeks delay to let the Mayor meet with the superintendent of the Oregon School District, John Freiburger said, “The Oregon School District cannot tell us how to plan. If we wait 2 weeks, in 2 weeks there will be another argument, and then another.”

In the end, they all voted yes except the Mayor, who said (I think) “With deep inner resolution, No.”

For me, it was a mixed bag. I totally agreed with the motivations expressed in favor of planning, and yet it was painful to see the Northeast Neighborhood (NEN) being included as part of the Urban Growth Boundary. I just have to take comfort in John Freiburger’s statement that “We’re showing the Northeast Neighborhood all in red, but we all know that we’re not going to develop it all.”

But there was one topic that I disagree with John on. He said that you can’t make plans for traffic until you’ve agreed on a map of where the development will take place. City Planner Tom Hovel concurred, saying, “Traffic studies don’t tell you ‘Don’t grow there.’ They tell you how to accommodate your traffic.”

I assume that he’s right in saying that (so far) traffic studies haven’t said, “Don’t grow there.” That probably has something to do with the mindset of traffic engineers, who can always envision a wider road, more on and off ramps, or a new frontage road. But maybe elected leaders should say “This traffic study indicates that we shouldn’t grow there,” if they see that the accommodation measures would violate certain values that the community holds dear.

Take, for example, the case of the Northeast Neighborhood. With only two possible routes into Madison, (the destination of choice for most of the tens of thousand of daily car trips that development will cause), the measures necessary to accommodate that traffic need to be looked at carefully before approving development.

At a meeting last summer with the Dept. of Transportation and Fitchburg officials, widening Hwy. MM to four lanes, or even six lanes, was discussed. They called it “improving” MM, but I wonder if the scores of people with houses on it would feel improved by having a highway in their front yard.

And the people who enjoy the Lussier Family Heritage Center, Lake Farm Park, the Capital Springs Centennial State Park and campground, or the Capital City Bike Trail, might like to know sooner rather than too late that Lake Farm Park Road will become clogged with traffic as people try to avoid the Hwy. 14 and Park Street jams caused by the NEN traffic.

Sure, a traffic engineer could tell you to improve traffic flow by making Lake Farm Park Road four lanes wide, but how does that mix with the quiet, rural experience that people seek when they go there? Of course, Fitchburg wouldn’t have to pay for that “improvement” or deal with the landowners who don’t want to move their houses, because it’s in the Town of Blooming Grove and the City of Madison. But, as Jay Allen has so rightly said, (in the case of the planned Grandview development on Fitchburg’s western border) it isn’t fair for one community to create a development that will pile transportation problems and costs on their neighbors.

If we talk about these clearly foreseeable traffic problems before approving a development, people have a chance to make their wishes known to Fitchburg alders and planners. And that’s what our system is all about: democracy – rule of the people. Hmmm… that reminds me of some very disturbing comments made at the end of this most interesting meeting. More on that later, so please stay tuned.

Thanks to all who read these words for taking the time to become informed. I hope to see you at the next Plan Commission or Common Council meeting!