Department of Botany
University of Wisconsin-Madison
June 5, 2014
To: CARPC Staff and Commissioners, and Kamran Mesbah, PE, Director of Environmental Resources Planning, Capital Area Regional Planning Commission, City County Building, Room 362, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Madison WI 53703 allcommissioners@CapitalAreaRPC.org, KamranM@capitalarearpc.org
From: Joy B. Zedler, Ph.D., Professor of Botany and Aldo Leopold Chair of Restoration Ecology
Re: Northeast Neighborhood (NEN)
I am a wetland scientist; I reside in the Town of Dunn at the headwaters of Murphy Creek. I have personal experience with runoff from Fitchburg, because a farm across the road from me despoils my native sedge meadow with sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. The runoff is converting native vegetation to Wisconsin’s worst wetland weed (reed canary grass, Phalaris arundinacea). A graduate student of mine recently showed that the portion of my sedge meadow that is dominated by reed canary grass has only half as many plant species as the area in front of the invasion, and many of the associates of reed canary grass are weeds. Another student documented increased nitrogen content of plant leaves as we sampled plants away from and close to the culvert that imports Fitchburg runoff from the corn/soybean field. The source of the problem is nutrient- rich runoff and the outcome is continued degradation and loss of substantial value (“natural capital”) due to runoff from a Fitchburg farm.
Here are my science-based concerns about urban development west of Larsen Road:
Agricultural runoff is damaging; urban runoff can be much worse. As rural agricultural lands convert to urban land use, the downstream wetlands lose native species and become dominated by invasive weeds, particularly
reed canary grass and hybrid cattails (Boers, Veltman and Zedler 2007, Frieswyk & Zedler 2007: “Our results show that increased urbanization in the watersheds of the Green Bay coastal wetlands (Fig. 3) coincided with the loss of wet meadow habitat (Fig. 7).”
The components of urban runoff that cause the conversion of wetland vegetation to invasive weeds are excess water, excess nutrients in the runoff, and excess nutrient-rich sediment, based on patterns in the field and controlled experiments in mesocosms (Kercher and Zedler 2004, Kercher, Carpenter and Zedler 2044, Kercher, Herr-Turoff and Zedler 2007: “We discovered a three-step invasion and degradation process: (1) initially, resident native species declined with prolonged flooding and sediment additions, and (2) prolonged flooding, sedimentation, and nutrients accelerated Phalaris aboveground growth; biomass rose to 430 times that of the control within just two growing seasons. The dramatic expansion of Phalaris in the second year resulted in the formation of monospecific stands in over one-third of the treatments, as (3) native species continued their decline in year 2. Disturbances acted alone and in combination to make the resident wetland community more invasible and Phalaris more aggressive, leading to monospecific stands.”).

Wetlands that hold water (i.e., prolonged hydroperiods) can support highly productive cattails at the expense of providing other ecosystem services, such as nutrient removal, soil stabilization, flood peak reduction, stormwater retention, and plant diversity support. In constructed wetlands, where we measured these six ecosystem services, we found the lowest levels in the wetland that became a wet pond (Doherty, Miller, Loheide, Prellwitz, Thompson, and Zedler In press): “Hence....ponding supported such high levels of NPP that other services appeared to be limited (suggesting tradeoffs).”
Settling ponds can remove some total suspended solids and some phosphorus, but dissolved phosphorus flows through the system, as does nitrogen (in both particulate and dissolved forms). Furthermore, nitrogen, which is poorly removed by wet ponds, is a major stimulus to species invasions in downstream wetlands (Herr-Turoff and Zedler 2005: “Increased N alone facilitates its suppression of native wetland vegetation (Green and Galatowitsch, 2002). Thus, Phalaris is presumed to have high N uptake and to increase retention of N within a wetland.”)
I often drive to/from work on Larsen Road and view the degraded wetland to the west. When it rains, I watch it collect enough water to become a pond, and when it rains heavily, it becomes a lake that spills over into the ditch along Larsen Road. The runoff is likely polluted with sediment, nutrients and pesticides. I have observed Swan Creek and Murphy Creek via canoe along the Lake Waubesa Wetlands (areas set aside by The Nature Conservancy and WDNR as a State Natural Area and recognized by Wisconsin Wetlands Association as a “Wetland Gem”). Wisconsin’s worst invasive weeds (reed canary grass and hybrid cattails) are poised to expand, as even more runoff and more nutrients flow downstream. And in Lake Waubesa, dense bluegreen algal blooms already occur in summer. More nutrient-rich runoff will further degrade the ecosystem services of both the lake and its adjacent wetlands.
These changes are inevitable if the NEN is allowed to develop without adequate buffers (at least 300’) around the maximum water level of the degraded wetland. A vegetated buffer could help absorb water, nutrients, and other pollutants. All one needs to do to see the effects of urbanization on our local wetlands is to compare vegetation along Swan Creek downstream from the Swan Creek development, or, at a much larger scale, the Nine Springs E-Way, which is dominated by the two worst wetland weeds in the state—reed canary grass and hybrid cattails. Waubesa wetlands need to be conserved and protected before it is too late. Upstream landowners who fail to protect downstream wetlands should be held responsible.
Why is it essential that our wetlands be protected from excess runoff of low quality water? In a updated analysis of the value of the world’s biomes, Costanza and colleagues (2014) provide new data that show the following (in 2007 US dollars): Four broad groups of wetlands provide $125,521 per hectare per year in ecosystem services, all of which lead to human well-being. That amount is 25 times the average for all other biomes. And comparing just the estimated value for ecosystem services derived from inland wetlands ($25,681/ha/yr) with that for cropland ($5,441/ha/yr) the ratio is 4.6. These services benefit all in perpetuity, so long as wetlands are conserved and protected from degradation.
Clearly, our inland wetlands are extremely valuable and deserve protection. Since Costanza published his first estimates of ecosystem service values in 1997, wetlands have become relatively more important providers of global ecosystem services, because other lands have undergone conversions to alternative uses, such as urbanization. Those changes in land use have reduced overall values of global ecosystem services some $4.3 - $20.2 trillion/yr from 1997 to 2011 (ibid.).

Some questions CARPC staff should look into:
• Why should wetlands in the Town of Dunn be degraded by inadequate protection measures in
Fitchburg?
• Why shouldn’t farmers be required to leave a buffer where their runoff flows downstream?
• Why shouldn’t urban developers be required to provide adequate buffers and treatment wetlands (not
just pits to collect phosphorus)?
• How will the impacts of any new development be assessed through actual monitoring of water,
nutrient, and sediment discharges?
• Why not establish a fine for improper protection of downstream wetlands? Fitchburg could require
developers to establish a bond so that downstream residents could obtain funds to provide weed abatement and other mitigating measures, such as nitrogen traps at the point of entry.
• Will contractors use the latest science-based information to design their runoff-control structures, instead of “best” management practices that are proving to be ineffective? I refer to topsoil addition to vegetated wetlands, reliance on “thick” vegetation to stabilize soil, and use of productive vegetation to indicate the presence of other ecosystem services. In our recent writings (Doherty et al. In press and Leaflets 27-28), we show how assumptions and predictions of models based on abiotic factors do not always hold up to actual measures of vegetated wetlands.
The Town of Dunn aims to protect wetlands that provide ecosystem services that benefit human well-being. If we apply the average value for inland wetlands from Costanza et al. (2014) to ~1,000 acres (404.7 ha) of set- aside lands, we provide an estimated $10,393,100 in ecosystem services per year. Even if that estimate is an order of magnitude too high, we still provide a million dollars in services annually, to the benefit of all in perpetuity (given wetland protection). Why should those values be diminished by inadequate buffering of upstream development to benefit a few people in the short term?
References cited:
Boers, A., R. Veltman, and J. B. Zedler. 2007. Typha x glauca dominance and extended hydroperiod constrain restoration of wetland diversity. Ecological Engineering 29:232-244.
Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S. J. Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, and R. K. Turner. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26:152–158.
Doherty, J. M., J. F. Miller, S. Prellwitz, A. M. Thompson, S. Loheide, and J. B. Zedler. In press. Bundles and tradeoffs among six wetland services were associated with hydrologic regime. Ecosystems.
Frieswyk, C. B., and J. B. Zedler. 2007. Vegetation change in Great Lakes coastal wetlands: Deviation from the historical cycle. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:366-380.
Green E K and Galatowitsch S M 2002 Effects of Phalaris arundinacea and nitrate-N addition on the establishment of wetland plant communities. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 134–144.
Herr-Turoff, A., and J. B. Zedler. 2005. Does wet prairie vegetation retain more nitrogen with or without Phalaris invasion. Plant and Soil 277:19-34.
Kercher, S. M., A. Herr-Turoff, and J B. Zedler. 2007. Understanding invasion as a process: The case of Phalaris arundinacea in wet prairies. Biological Invasions 9:657-665.
Kercher, S. M., and J. B. Zedler. 2004. Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138:455-464.
Kercher, S. M., Q. Carpenter, and J. B. Zedler. 2004. Interrelationships of hydrologic disturbances, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), and native plants in Wisconsin wet meadows. Natural Areas Journal 24:316-325.
Leaflet #10. Why are wetlands so valuable? Online at uwarboretum.org/research - publications menu.
Leaflet #27. How ponded runoff and invasive cattails reduced wetland ecosystem services in three experimental wetlands. Online at uwarboretum.org/research - publications menu.
Leaflet #28. How ponded cattail marshes can expert phosphorus: A conceptual model. Online at uwarboretum.org/research - publications menu.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Wetland Scientist Dr. Joy Zedler Re: Proposed NEN Development
Sunday, March 17, 2013
What happened at the Fitchburg Common Council meeting on Feb. 26, and what it means
The Common Council approved the resolution to create an application for an Urban Service Area Amendment for the Northeast Neighborhood, but our fight isn't over yet! Click here to read more.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Phyllis Hasbrouck: Fitchburg doesn't need more undeveloped land
[The original letter to the editor. An edited version appeared in the Wisconsin State Journal on 2/25/2013.]
Dear Editor,
Fitchburg Mayor Shawn Pfaff's desire to bring the Northeast Neighborhood into Fitchburg's Urban Service Area (USA) doesn't make sense from a taxpayer's point of view. His Plan Commission voted on Feb. 19 to instruct staff to create an application to the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC).
But Fitchburg already has around 1175 acres of vacant land in its USA waiting to be developed, and its taxpayers are already on the hook to maintain and repair all of that infrastructure as soon as it is installed. The city leaders are already gambling that this huge area will fill up and provide the increased taxes needed to maintain and service it. Is this a good time to add another neighborhood's worth of infrastructure to sweep, plow, inspect and repair?
With 15 years' worth of land just waiting for builders and buyers, why extend urban services even farther from the city center? It doesn't take 15 years to jump through the CARPC hoops: more like 6 to 18 months. There is plenty of time to apply when Uptown and the North McGaw area fill up.
Ask the taxpayers of Oregon, Sun Prairie and Stoughton how they like paying to plow streets with just a few houses on them. Developers are risk-takers: when they are skilled or lucky, they get a big payoff. But the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to bet their hard-earned dollars on such a risky scheme.
On Feb. 26 the Fitchburg Common Council will meet at 7:30 p.m. and decide whether to plow ahead or wait. The taxpayers are invited to contact Mayor Pfaff at shawn.pfaff@city.fitchburg.wi.us and let him know what they want.
Yours,
Phyllis Hasbrouck
Chair, West Waubesa Preservation Coalition
Saturday, February 23, 2013
The Missing Aquitard: A short explanation of why you shouldn't drill deep wells near the Yahara chain of lakes by UW Madison Professor Cal DeWitt
Here is an illustration from Wisconsin Geological Survey's Ken Bradbury that shows that he knows the situation with the Eau Claire formation:
You can access this from:
http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/partnerships/programs/docs/bradbury_slideshow.pdf
A few things to observe here:
1. A the base of the diagram is "Recambrian crystalline rock" -- note that it steadily rises from the west to the east; this rise in Precambrian bedrock is part of the Wisconsin Arch. The "Mount Simon aquifer" was formed largely by sand deposition by an ancient sea over this arch.
The recent work of Wasinee Aswasereelert adds vital information to all of this, and has been published not only as her Master's dissertation in Geology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but also published as a refereed paper at: http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/geoscipdf/1_GS19.pdf
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Jay Allen: Say no to leapfrog development in Fitchburg
(Jay Allen, former mayor of Fitchburg and current mayoral candidate)
Many people believe that new development is always good for a community. Some types are good. They add to the tax base, create efficiencies in services, and, in some cases, can actually improve the pre-development environmental conditions.
Other developments may create new tax base, but also create huge drains on municipal services, cause significant environmental damage, and cost taxpayers far more than they provide in tax revenue.
The City of Fitchburg is currently considering a development in the second category. Known as the Northeast Neighborhood, the area is bounded by Highway 14 on the west, Larsen Road on the east, East Clayton Road on the north, and Goodland Park Road and Haight Farm Road on the south. This area is not contiguous to any other development.
Fitchburg has roughly 1200 undeveloped acres within the Central Urban Service Area (CUSA). Those areas have available water and sewer. Almost all are within the a 4-minute response time for the fire department. They are contiguous to current development, so it is efficient to provide other municipal services, like police, trash collection, street maintenance, snow plowing, etc.
The Northeast Neighborhood is not within the CUSA. Fitchburg is considering submitting an application to the Capitol Area Regional Plan Commission (CARPC) to add it. This application should not be submitted, and, if submitted, it should be rejected. Some reasons are as follows:
1) The area is almost ¾ of a mile from the current edge of development. Municipal services will have to travel 1.5 miles round trip across vacant land, at significant cost.
2) The area currently has no water or sewer service. Fitchburg’s Water Utility will have to borrow in excess of $2 million to build those utilities. The area within the CUSA can currently be served with little additional investment. Existing areas should be built before burdening the ratepayers with the cost of new infrastructure.
3) The Northeast Neighborhood is 7 to 12 minutes away from Fire Station #1. This is unacceptable, and people will be endangered. The current mayor has suggested that the City of Madison could potentially cover that area. It seems unlikely that Madison taxpayers would subsidize this service. Current staffing at Madison Fire Station #6 is barely adequate, and an additional crew and an additional engine would be very costly.
4) Fitchburg’s last Urban Service Area amendment was approved in 2010. CARPC was promised that it would be at least 5 years before another request, and that was predicated on significant development occurring. Fewer than 6 buildings are under construction in the 1200 acres available. Reason would expect hundreds of buildings before requesting another amendment.
5) Development of the Northeast Neighborhood poses a significant risk to Lake Waubesa, which already has a eutrification problem. No studies have been done to examine what the effect will be on Lake Waubesa.
6) There is no reason to do this with so much land currently available and a sluggish market.
The major landowner involved is a political supporter of the current mayor. Politics should not play a factor in what should be objective planning decisions. Sacrificing environmental protection and taxpayer money should not happen to reward a political supporter. No reasonable person would support this amendment. I hope that in this case, reason will prevail.
Jay Allen
Former Mayor
City of Fitchburg
Rich Eggleston: Fitchburg development plans overly ambitious
(From a Letter to the Cap Times)
Dear Editor: The guy in the red vest got it wrong. It’s Fitchburg that is truly 35 square miles surrounded by reality.
Our little city is entertaining
grandiose plans to develop not one, not two, but four new
“neighborhoods” that will house thousands of new residents with whom we,
the existing residents, will be expected to share our schools, our
roads, and our limited crime and fire-fighting resources.
These starry-eyed development blueprints include:
•
The North McGaw neighborhood, a 398-acre tract. The entire McGaw
neighborhood, 720 acres, is supposed to provide 1,900 new homes and 2.4
million square feet of commercial space — enough for 13 “big box”
stores.
• “Uptown,” 450 acres in northeast Fitchburg, on which construction has already begun on 150 apartments in two buildings.
• The Northeast Neighborhood, which could add 800 to 1,400 new homes
•
The North Stoner Prairie neighborhood, 322 acres including some of the
best farmland in the world, which is envisioned as mostly industrial,
but with a residential component as well, east of Seminole Highway.
This
is all very nice. None of these developments is likely to include the
kind of ticky-tacky that development entailed in earlier days. But
Fitchburg may be biting off more than it can chew.
The
comprehensive plan that developers and city officials are using to
justify this growth was developed without in-depth consultation with our
neighbors on how to manage expected growth. Infrastructure costs money.
Despite the best-laid plans, growth inevitably damages the environment.
Fitchburg should not seek to bite off more than its rightful share of
Dane County’s expected population and economic growth. Doing so puts
existing home values, existing neighborhoods and the environment we all
cherish at risk. City officials must consider existing residents before
being seduced by the sirens of development.
Rich Eggleston
Fitchburg
Read more
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Testimony before the Fitchburg Plan Commission, 2/19/13 - Phyllis Hasbrouck
Good evening. My name is Phyllis Hasbrouck and I'm the chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition. There are so many reasons to oppose this development, and there are so many reasons why a person who supports it would still oppose it at this time. From a taxpayer's point of view, the most important reason is that it would be bad planning, and it would unnecessarily raise the real estate taxes that homeowners pay, and that renters pay indirectly through higher rents.
You may ask, "What's the problem with just getting all of our ducks in a row, going through the CARPC process so that when the market is ready, we will be too?" Well, you've already done that, by bringing in Uptown and North McGaw. When the market wants to build, you've got areas all ready for single family, multifamily, mixed use, civic, retail, even some industrial. By your own estimates, you have enough for almost 15 years of expansion.
It doesn't take 15 years to jump through the CARPC hoops. It's more like six to 18 months. So why not wait until you think you are 2 years away from filling up Uptown and North McGaw, and then start getting your ducks in a row?
What is the downside to getting ready too soon? As soon as a developer puts in infrastructure, the city has to spend tax dollars to do all the cleaning, plowing, inspecting and repairing. By opening up 1175 acres, you've already signed up the taxpayers for a big burden, and it's not clear when the tax base will catch up to the cost of the new services. So is this a good time to bring in two more neighborhoods' worth of infrastructure? I say "two more" because Mayor Pfaff also wants to bring in the North Stoner Prairie Neighborhood.
Now, I know that Fitchburg has a much better planning record the Village of Oregon and Sun Prairie, both of which expanded too much, too fast, and were left with largely empty "ghost neighborhoods." But when you get new staff and new elected leaders, practices can change. Senior Planner Tom Hovel has done an excellent job of carefully phasing in new developments, but in three years he could be retired, and there's no guarantee that his successor would be as wise. There are many pressures on staff and commissioners and alders to accommodate powerful and wealthy people who want to build. It is harder to resist those pressures when the land in question is already in the Urban Service Area.
This environmentally-sensitive piece of excellent farmland should only be considered for development when there is nowhere else to build. That is clearly not the case now.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
In Support of 300 ft Wetland Buffer
Photo of the southwest portion of Lake Waubesa and wetlands to the west by Nadia Olker.
Fitchburg has written into the Comprehensive Plan the use of 300 ft. buffers for wetlands outside of the current urban service area. This is a major step forward by the Fitchburg Planning Department, because the County only mandates 75 ft.
Below is an appeal by Peter Ellestad to protect our wetlands.
Please submit your comments to the Planning Deportment on this or other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan by the Dec. 28th deadline, or better yet, give them a bit more lead time and turn them in by Dec. 23rd. Click here for the city's comment form.
-- Terry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Members of the Fitchburg Planning Dept and the Common Council:
I am sending you this message to go on record as supporting the maintenance of a 300 foot buffer for wetlands outside the urban services area. I believe that the reduction of that barrier to 75 feet would provide almost no protection at all, and would put the precious west Waubesa wetlands, and the lake itself, at unacceptable risk. If in spite of compelling arguments against it, a large subdivision is created in the northeast neighborhood, the city should mandate requirements that allow as little damage as possible to environmentally sensitive areas.
In my opinion, a 75 ft buffer would lead to the creation of a sterile greenspace speckled with inert ponds and patches of invasive grasses, one that would be more like the numbing sprawl of suburban Chicago, with its depressing and inadequate imitation of a natural landscape, than the flourishing natural communities that exist in the watershed now. Please don't allow that to happen.
Sincerely,
Peter Ellestad
Fitchburg
Monday, July 14, 2008
Suburbs feeling the pinch as fuel prices soar
Open letter to District 2 alders
Submitted by Rosanne Lindsay
This is about the third article (click here) I've seen in as many days, on the need to rethink the status quo planning of suburbs. It offers some ideas to consider. Do we really need to plan and build extra homes when so many are standing empty and those who commute are struggling to fill their gas tank? I'm writing to you to consider how our times are changing and to reflect on these changes when considering the Fitchburg Comprehensive Plan and the approval of development in the NE Neighborhood Urban Service Area. Is there really a true need to add another 1000-plus homes to our Northeast corner when the dollar is heading south, gas prices are heading north, foreclosures and unsold homes are on the rise, and apartment rentals are gaining while home ownership is failing?
When many builders are going bankrupt, and others are trying to unload their unsold lots (see article), then something needs to give. Planners and local governments must find new paradigms. Does Fitchburg really want to add and pay for services to reach the far NE corner when the "core" is really just identifying itself as the area around City Hall and there is plenty of room to promote infill development first? If a new library does go in at the City Hall site, how will new residents on the NE side access it at an affordable price? Will we add transit services? At the moment, we don't even have enough money to expand our current transit service beyond the few runs down PD and Fish Hatchery. Has the Plan Commission considered these pressures on our budget and the pressures on the average homeowner?
Thanks for your consideration.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
NE Neighborhood Land Use Committee
Notes from the Committee Meeting on 5-20-08
By Phyllis Hasbrouck
Present at the table: Alder Steve Arnold (Chair), Alder Andy Potts, Alder Jay Allen, Alder Bill Horns, Samuel Cooke (RCC Chair), Tom Hovel (Senior Planner), Randy Christianson (with Sveum Enterprises). Present around the edge of the room: about 18 consultants, neighbors, and observers.
I won't report everything, just some highlights and lowlights.
Frog and Toad Need More Space!
At the last meeting, developer Phil Sveum said that a 75 ft. buffer would be enough for the restored wetland, not the 300 ft. buffer that the city had proposed. He was answered today by Professor Joy Zedler (UW Madison) who spoke about the need for very wide buffer zones around streams and wetlands to protect amphibians and reptiles. She cited the work of Dr. Ray Semlitsch, who found (using transmitters) that amphibians travel 125.3 meters (370 ft.), from wetlands to terrestrial habitat.
Dr. Semlitsch suggested an aquatic buffer zone of up to 30 - 60 meters, then the core habitat at a width of 142 - 289 meters, and then a terrestrial buffer of 50 meters, for a total of somewhere between 222 meters and 399 meters (728 feet and 1309 feet).
Dr. Zedler also spoke of how buffers help protect wetlands from the negative effects of stormwater runoff, which are: excess water, excess nutrients, and excess sediment. At the Arboretum, Dr. Zedler's team has shown how tubs planted with 14 native species are filled with nothing but Reed Canary Grass (a highly invasive, non-native species) in just one season when exposed to these effects.
She displayed a map that showed how huge portions of the E-way and other Dane County wetlands were completely overrun with Reed Canary Grass and cattails, another invasive species.
Which Will Prevail: Parks or Subdivisions?
Then there was the whole curious matter of the clash between the Sveum plan and the Parks and Open Space Plan. Randy Christianson said that Sveum Enterprises had adjusted their plan to accommodate environmental corridors, and Anne Marie Kirsch (of Montgomery Associates, hired by Sveum Enterprises to do their water studies) showed a composite slide which I found confusing because, although I believe it was intended to reconcile the parks plan with the street plan, it didn't seem to show all of the proposed Parks Dept. areas on it. Jim Schreiber, a consultant for Sveum Enterprises, also showed a slide of the changes they had made to accommodate wildlife: I found them underwhelming.
Ed Bartell, City Forester, from the Fitchburg Parks & Forestry Department, showed a revised map of what they would like to have as parks and open space in the NE Neighborhood (NEN), and frankly, it doesn't leave a lot of room for houses! Bartell wants to have an assessment done on the tree line (~100 ft. wide) that goes north from Goodland Park Rd to the forest at the top of the hill. He said it may be a corridor for wildlife and may contain remnants of oak savanna.
They also want to preserve a diagonal band of recharge area in the northwestern part of Sveum's land, and to investigate if there is an Indian trail west of the tree line, as historical documents indicate.
Parks revised their map because at the last NEN Land Use Committee meeting on April 29, Jeff Kraemer of Natural Resources Consulting (hired by either Sveum Enterprises or Montgomery Associates) said that the soil tests that he had conducted showed that much of what the USDA maps listed as hydric soils (wetland soils) were not hydric at all. So Parks gave up trying to save them.
But a funny thing came to light at this meeting: Resource Conservation Committee Chair, Samuel Cooke, had shown the data to a soil scientist, and the scientist maintained that Kraemer was not accurately portraying the data. For example, Kraemer cited pit #14, located in "Lake Larsen" (the degraded wetland that held about 15 acres of open water this spring) as a site which had hydric soil. About a quarter mile west was pit #17, which he said was not hydric.
Cooke asked how Kraemer could be sure where the boundary was between hydric and non-hydric soils, using only two reference points. Kraemer replied that he had not mapped the hydric soils, but then expressed his opinion that they only existed in one area and not another, something that was not proven by his data.
I've noticed that it is very hard to pin consultants down. They are very smooth talkers and rarely (if ever) say, "I don't know," or "I see your point," or "I guess you're right about that." Instead, I hear things like "We are addressing those issues," or "It's very early to have that level of detail, we'll address that later," or "We are seeking to achieve a balance." So, Samuel Cooke deserves a lot of credit for following up and restating that the data did not reflect what Kraemer was saying.
Can Amphibians Read?
Jeff Kraemer also explained that the largest wetland buffer demanded by law in Wisconsin is 300 ft., for the Butler Gartersnake. But he said that it doesn't really have to be 300 ft. all around: it can be less in some places, as long as the total acreage in the buffer is equal to what it would have been had it been evenly laid out.
So, by extension, he felt it was all right if the western buffer of the "Lake Larsen" restored wetland were only 75 ft., because there would be ample open space to the north and the south. I wonder if they put up little signs in frog and toad language, reading "Go North or South and you'll find all the habitat you want. Don't try to cross this bike path 'cause you'll get crushed." And I wonder how well those signs work.
Eau Claire Shale and Infiltration
The question came up of whether or not the Eau Claire Shale Formation (an aquitard layer separating the upper and lower aquifers) exists under the Northeast Neighborhood. This was the subject of Dr. Cal DeWitt's presentation to the Common Council on Jan. 15, 2008. No one expressed any criticisms of Dr. DeWitt's logic or data, yet Rob Montgomery expressed his own belief that the shale does in fact exist here, and no one countered him.
Anne Marie Kirsch's explanation of the infiltration system, for the proposed Sveum development, didn't convince me of its short or long term effectiveness. She explained that the outlot raingardens (not necessarily on each block, as I thought I had heard before, but totaling five acres) would be maintained by the Neighborhood Association, and might have to be rehabbed in 10 years. If the raingardens stop working, and the Neighborhood Association stops functioning, will anyone care enough to rehab them? And how will that affect the wetlands, the groundwater, and Lake Waubesa?
She also said that the whole infiltration system wouldn't fully work until the upstream is stabilized, i.e. "some of the houses are built." (Why not all of the houses?) She explained that sediment running off a construction site could clog the system. This shocked me, because I know that the county has a stormwater ordinance that controls sediment runoff from construction sites very strictly. It's not supposed to happen.
Anyway, Kirsch conceded that the downhill retention ponds "may be a bit taxed at first." If the system doesn't work until the whole project is done, how much damage will have been done by the time the work is finished? Will there have been enough sediment, water and nutrients for Reed Canary Grass to completely take over the newly restored wetland.
If you care about how development decisions are made, you need to get involved. Please contact all of the Alders on the NEN Committee (Arnold, Allen, Potts and Horns) and tell them that you want decisions made for the good of the environment and the taxpayers. Developers perform a necessary function, but their monetary interests should not come before those of the city, the taxpayers, or the environment. If citizens don't call the alders, the only voices they hear are developers and their consultants!
Contact info for Alders can be found at http://www.city.fitchburg.wi.us/common_council/index.php
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Suburbia - The Next Slum?
Here's an important and timely email (with emphasis added) from Rich Eggleston to the members of the Plan Commission, Common Council, Citizens Advisory Committee on the Comprehensive Plan, and Mayor Tom Clauder.
Monday, 25 Feb 2008
One of the hallmarks of a comprehensive plan that works is flexibility. What we know about the proposed Northeast Neighborhood now, for example, is more than we knew about it two weeks ago, much less two years ago or 20 years ago.
That's why I was miffed by a member of the Plan Commission who suggested recently that I should have brought up concerns about the proposed Northeast Neighborhood in 1985, or, presumably, forever hold my peace.
The need for flexibility in planning is highlighted further by developments in the national economy over which Fitchburg has no control, and immutable demographic reality. You folks are getting older.
A business column in Saturday's New York Times cited research by Arthur C. Nelson, director of Virginia Tech's Metropolitcan Institute, who has predicted that, by 2025, there will be a surplus of 22 million "large-lot homes" (those built on at least one-sixth of an acre) in America.
The column quotes Leinberger as ascribing that surplus to “'the pendulum swinging back toward urban living,' thanks to a set of economic, social, and demographic trends." The result, he says, could be that low-density suburbs “may become what inner cities became in the 1960’s and 1970’s — slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.” (article here)
The column built on an article in the latest Atlantic Monthly (here) that said, in part:
"In most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of the housing stock is located in walkable urban places...
"Yet recent consumer research by Jonathan Levine of the University of Michigan and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine and his colleagues asked more than 1,600 mostly suburban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas to hypothetically trade off typical suburban amenities (such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones (like living within walking distance of retail districts).
"All in all, they found that only about a third of the people surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles, featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third, roughly, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live in mixed-use, walkable urban areas—but most had no way to do so at an affordable price. Over time, as urban and faux-urban building continues, that will change.
"Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to further weaken preferences for car-based suburban living.
"When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter. Young people are starting families later than earlier generations did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children."
Topics for comprehensive plans to consider.
Rich Eggleston
Fitchburg
Thursday, January 10, 2008
How Will Measures Be Enforced?
Expanded version of Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Phyllis Hasbrouck
Chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coaliton
“Just Trust Us”
The main message that I heard from developer Phil Sveum and his team on Dec. 18 was “Just trust us.” They painted a picture of a “green development” in the Northeast Neighborhood, but with no real substance. They are “looking at” encouraging homebuyers to use efficient plumbing fixtures, limit lawn watering, create and maintain raingardens, and use rain barrels. They assure us that when they complete their CDP (comprehensive development plan) it will have measures adequate to protect Lake Waubesa, Swan Creek, the springs and the groundwater.
Should the Plan Commission just take their word for it? How many times have cities been left holding the bag when a stormwater plan went bad? Developers sure are good at sweet talking, but once they finish the project, they are done, and all problems are left to the city.
Can Neighborhood Associations be Depended on?
All of the neighborhood-wide water-saving and stormwater control features of the Sveum plan depend on a Neighborhood Association to carry them out, and that’s a real weakness. It’s hard to find people willing to put in the volunteer hours for the good of the whole neighborhood. Harlan Hills (which was built by Sveum to be an “environmental development”) has a neighborhood association, but it hasn’t stopped people from using the pesticides that Sveum said would be banned. People have mowed down prairie and incorporated pieces into their yards, and concerned residents were told that suing their neighbors is the only way they can get the covenants enforced.
It’s very easy to say, “the outlot raingardens, the repair and plowing of the alleys, and the greenways will all be managed by a dues-collecting neighborhood association,” but the reality may be quite different. A recent Capital Times article talked about the many area residents who buy homes without realizing that their street is private, and that they’ll have to pay for its upkeep. What if new residents of the NEN can’t or won’t keep up the raingardens, alleys and greenways? Will Phil Sveum step in and pay? Will the city? Or will the environment have to pay? I understand that Fitchburg has never allowed private streets. I hope that they stick to their principles when it comes to private allies, greenways, and infiltration features.
What makes anyone believe that the people who move into such a development will be interested in conserving tap water or maintaining raingardens? Congratulations to Commissioner McNally, who brought a sense of reality back to the discussion when he asked whether we could really count on all of these ambitious plans happening!
A Memorandum is not a Promise
The Ruekert-Mielke stormwater report was a list of goals, with no concrete suggestions to describe how the goals would be met. The Montgomery Associates Memorandum on water is a slight improvement. It describes the general sort of techniques that they plan to use, e.g. “providing multiple points of treatment and infiltration of runoff as close to the impervious surfaces as possible.” But we are told to wait until they have a comprehensive development plan to see exactly what kind, how many, and where such measures will be. Can it be that this is the accepted way of approving developments – to just take the say-so of people who have every reason to skimp once they have the approval?
Rob Montgomery, Sveum’s water expert, said “Those [municipal] wells draw water from the lower aquifer relatively isolated from the upper aquifer, and also draw from a wider region of Fitchburg and areas to the west.” People who attend or watch the next Plan Commission meeting at 7 p.m. in City Hall on Jan. 15 will learn that this is not so, when they hear Dr. Cal DeWitt speak on buried bedrock valleys.
The memorandum says that “Water draining off the Par Fore site will be managed to exceed state and local ordinance criteria for water quality, peak discharge rates, and runoff volumes.” Once again, we are told to just trust them. Everything will be done according to the law. But does that mean that it won’t harm the environment? The environment has been gravely harmed by development, and presumably most of that development was done within the law. We need some leadership by people willing to defend the resources that will sustain our grandchildren!
Groundwater, Lakes and Phosphorus
Rob Montgomery’s conclusion was that “placing consideration of the Northeast Neighborhood ‘on hold’ because of regional groundwater management concerns is not warranted. We suggest that an appropriate approach for the Planning Commission is to approve the neighborhood plan including an objective of maintaining groundwater recharge, and recommending appropriate municipal water supply conservation practices.” Translation: “Just write down that it would be good for people to save water and let rainwater infiltrate, and let us go about our business.”
It was encouraging to hear Commissioner Kinney ask Rob Montgomery how he could ensure that the water going in to Swan Creek would be both cleaner and of the same volume post-development. I hope that all the commissioners will be asking skeptical and probing questions, as they are responsible for the welfare of the entire community.
Some commissioners may think that the question of phosphorus has been laid to rest with City Engineer Paul Woodard’s calculations that post-development the NEN will contribute less phosphorus to surface waters than it presently does. While this may be true, (a schedule of corn, corn, and soy results in a lot of phosphorus runoff) it is not the relevant question to ask. Because Lake Waubesa is already partly eutrophic, a large reduction in phosphorus loading is needed, not a small one. Small scale, organic farming could be the best option of all for protecting and restoring Lake Waubesa, and it should be studied.
Workforce Housing and the Future of Fitchburg
Kudos to Alder Allen and Mayor Clauder for bringing up the issue of workforce housing. This is a huge need, but it won’t be met unless the city insists on it. Our proposal for the Northeast Neighborhood, which we will present to the Plan Commission in Feb., contains 30 units of workforce housing, for the farmers, teachers and entrepreneurs who will run the school of organic farming, the farmers market, and the Bike and Breakfast that we envision. The people who will be attracted to inhabit the NEN if our vision is realized will definitely be interested in and dedicated to saving water, infiltrating rainwater, stopping soil loss, rejecting pesticides, and creating a vibrant, closely knit community.
I hope that the Plan Commission and Common Council will remember that the choice before them is not between Mr. Sveum’s proposal and the worst possible development. The choice is between Mr. Sveum’s proposal, just leaving the land in agriculture, or endorsing our plan to preserve our lakes and groundwater while producing healthy food for the community.
Development Threatens Water Quality, Rural Character
Slightly revised version of Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Ed Korn, Fitchburg
Concerning the proposed development in the rural area of Fitchburg east of County MM and north of Lacy Road known as the Northeast Neighborhood. This parcel of undeveloped land abuts the Town of Dunn, a community that has worked hard to retain its rural characteristics.
As one example of the effort by the Town of Dunn to control the impact of development there was years ago an informal agreement between the Town chair and Fitchburg mayor that an undeveloped buffer would be left between Fitchburg and Dunn. The proposed Northeast Neighborhood completely ignores that agreement to the detriment of the kind of community Dunn is trying to maintain.
The shallow southern two thirds of Lake Waubesa is flushed and kept clean by three creeks which draw a significant quantity of their water from the Northeast Neighborhood. Changing the land use from agricultural to suburban will likely have a detrimental impact in those creeks and the already marginal water quality of Lake Waubesa.
Leap frog development which this is, is not appropriate land use. It's expensive to provide the municipal services of police, water, sewage, public transportation, and fire safety. Swan Creek is only fractionally built out let alone Green Tech Village. There is also a significant quantity of appropriate land closer to Fitchburg's central core that at this time is far better suited for urbanization. I think the quality of life of both the Fitchburg and Dunn residents would be better served if the Northeast Neighborhood retains its rural character.
Northeast Neighborhood Poorly Planned
Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Holly Adams, Fitchburg
I am a resident of the Northeast Neighborhood, and I was hoping that Sveum’s plan for the forests and fields that surround my home would impress me with planning, innovation and forethought. Unfortunately, the plan failed on all three counts.
The neighborhood is not well planned out. The neighborhood is not really a neighborhood, just a large cluster of homes clumped together. There is nothing to build a sense of community, no center, no focal point, no main streets, just winding roads jam-packed with single family homes, condos and duplexes.
I was hoping for more innovation in the design. I was hoping for something that would make Fitchburg unique or identifiable. Instead, I saw a bedroom suburb, the same as I see around Sun Prairie, DeForest, and Cottage Grove. Putting garages in the backs of lots and houses close together will only encourage people to walk if there are places to walk to. However, everything for these families will be a car trip away. A carton of milk, a teacher’s conference, returning a book to the library and a swim lesson will require cars to dart out of this neighborhood in four different directions.
With all the work that has been done to study I thought there would be more forethought in the plan. The last thing I expected to see was a repeat of the Swan Creek neighborhood, except with more homes jammed in. The Northeast Neighborhood was picked as an area to study for future development because of its proximity to the GreenTech development and to the rail corridor that runs parallel to it. No one knows for sure what is going into that rail corridor, but everyone seems sure we want to develop along it. Of course, if it is high speed rail, the chances that there will be a stop between Oregon and Madison are slim, but that matters not to the people who want to tear up the fields and forests to build acres upon acres of vinyl-sided homes in every shade of taupe known to man.
The city of Fitchburg and the School District of Oregon will bear the costs of this development. The city will have to pay for fire and police protection in this remote corner of Fitchburg, the cost of maintaining the roads and alleys that will crisscross the cornfields, and the cost of leapfrogging urban services over vacant land while land in the existing urban services area goes undeveloped. The school district will bear the cost of bussing kids seven miles each way to school; and the cost of building new schools and spaces for children who live on the far outer edge of the district.
But more costly still is the cost all of us will bear as we continue to chew up field and forest for pockets of development. The cost to our lakes, springs, streams and well water. While Fitchburg and Oregon can tax all of us more to help defray the costs to them for services, there is no amount of money anyone can extract that will recompense us when we have drained our wells dry, or killed our lakes.
I grew up in the Northeast neighborhood. I followed the trails through the woods that led through the meadows and out into the fields that are soon to be torn up. I climbed up the trees, and helped friends build tree forts in the oaks that bent out over the corn fields below. When we had the chance to move back to this wonderful corner of Fitchburg, we jumped at it. We watch the turkeys and the deer during the day, and wait for the flying squirrels to soar in at night. I love the parts of Fitchburg that are forward thinking, progressive and unique. I just wish my own neighborhood was going to stay in that part of Fitchburg, and not become part of the poorly-planned, mundane, environmentally-lethal suburbia that one developer envisions.
'Green Plan' is Actually SPRAWL
Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Rosanne Lindsay, Fitchburg
Call it what you will, but the proposed Sveum development, on the outer edges of Northeast Fitchburg, is SPRAWL by any name, and raises more questions than it offers answers.
This plan may boast many things, including parks, rain gardens, native plantings, and filling a need to “provide houses in an area that reduces commuting distance” (for whom I might ask)? What it does not do is tell Fitchburg residents who care about increased taxes, what they will pay to provide services (water, sewer, fire, etc) to the NE area. Nor does it convey to those who care about protecting our natural resources, how these measures will be enforced.
The need for “greening” this plan was prompted by concerned citizens who believe that runoff pollution from this development will irreversibly degrade the native fauna and flora, creeks, springs, the Northern Pike Fishery, Lake Waubesa, and one of the highest quality and diverse wetlands in southern Wisconsin, only one mile from the site.
While Mr. Sveum’s effort to respond to citizen concerns was noted by some on the Plan Commission, discussion of specific measures by Sveum to address risks to the basic water chemistry and aquatic habitat conditions on pre-existing water bodies (Swan Creek, Lake Waubesa, Deep Spring), was lacking. These risks have been noted to be high and growing, according to Environmental Toxicologist, Dave Zaber (See 11/16/06 Star article).
Mr. Sveum’s consultant predicted that Swan Creek will not be adversely affected by development and that surface runoff will be cleaner than current conditions. However, he did not talk about accountability. In fact, Sveum et al. admitted that compliance with infiltration on individual lots cannot be enforced so how are we assured that groundwater recharge will be maintained or that runoff and the water bodies will remain clean?
There are accountability mechanisms which should be insisted upon: Sveum’s proposed Northeast Neighborhood, like his Harlan Hills, and Swan Creek developments contrast with the very rigorous accountability mechanisms that Bill Linton imposed in the Fitchburg Center. There, independent associations oversee the management and monitoring of compliance with covenants, much like the Natural Heritage Land trust does for PDR easements in the area.
In Harlan Hills, no additional funds will be provided to restore promised prairie land which is overwhelmed by clover. Mr. Sveum seeded and maintained the prairie for 2 years. Unfortunately, prairie restoration needs 3-5 years of maintenance to ensure proper generation of prairie plants, according to local experts. Promises of “no lawn pesticide application” (to protect the Arboretum) became “certain pesticides acceptable.” And even banned pesticides are sometimes applied because there is little, if any, ability to enforce.
As a result of the heavy rains last August, the Village of Oregon is faced with purchasing several flood-damaged homes, at least partly at taxpayer expense. The homes are downhill from Oregon's new Bergamont and Alpine Valley developments. Some have accused the developers of "design error" from poor stormwater management plans. Others say the developers are not to blame because they complied with the stormwater ordinance and other village requirements. Either way, there is little doubt that the developments exacerbated Oregon's pre-existing flood problems, as some residents had predicted.
These local histories prove that good intentions and inadequate city policies are simply not enough. Maintaining our precious environmental resources--the forests, prairies, wetlands, fisheries, and lakes that make living here so desirable--requires nothing less than full commitment to do whatever it takes to accomplish the goal, be it prairie restoration or preserving Swan Creek and the Lake Waubesa watershed.
Developers can talk all they want about "sustainability" and "green" development but they often fail to follow through. So it must be the city’s job to probe for specifics and examine concerns raised previously about the developer's Northeast Neighborhood Plan, including the suitability of the model being used for hydrological impacts, the absence of cumulative effects analysis, the preservation of rare hydric soils and infiltration, and the threats to our aquifer (groundwater) from a burgeoning population, as described by UW Ecologist Cal DeWitt.
Mr. Sveum also gave the rosy economic prediction that his thousand-home development will not cost the city money. But will Mr. Sveum give the city an enforceable guarantee as the country heads toward a recession? Or will Fitchburg taxpayers be the ones who bear the cost when his prediction proves incorrect? Virtually all Cost of Urban Service studies show that residential development leads to a net drain on local government budgets. What justifies Mr. Sveum’s belief that his Northeast Neighborhood development will be any different? What about reality of the nation’s economy; the shortage of credit to homebuyers resulting from the mortgage meltdown, the perceived need for more housing when many homes stand empty waiting for a buyer, or the fall of the dollar? City officials should require a full Cost of Urban Services Study for all new development proposals as a matter of fiscal responsibility.
The public policy question is one of deciding whether or not “market forces” should allow this sort of development at this location when it makes such a dramatic influence on the area’s natural and recreational resources, as well as contributes to commuter traffic and sprawl. The fact that there is the rail line and the Green Tech Village plan, both of which do far more for the City, is an important alternative that must be given more thought.
Proposed developments, in conjunction with past and present developments, are adversely affecting groundwater and surface water resources throughout Dane county and this problem is particularly acute in this part of Dane County. Let's hope that at future meetings of both the Plan Commission and the Common Council, the city will ask many probing, skeptical questions that will truly serve the interests of the many Fitchburg residents waiting for answers.
And while Mr. Sveum may, indeed, share many of our concerns, he may be the only one to see “green” if the Northeast Neighborhood turns into more Fitchburg SPRAWL.
Proposed Development is 'Green Washing'
Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Amy Schulz, Fitchburg
"Green" plans for N.E. Neighborhood really mean "green $" for developer
I just finished reading the article regarding the "new and improved" proposal for the N.E. Neighborhood. I'm glad that Sveum has tried to be responsive to the concerns of the citizens of Fitchburg but I'm afraid that his proposed solutions to our concerns are "green washing", in other words, they sound like they are good for the environment, but there are truly a lot of holes in the proposals.
For example, Sveum and Montgomery have plans to control runoff and methods to encourage infiltration, but if these are voluntary, it's likely that they won't be implemented. Sometimes developments promise to be kept free of pesticides (an example of voluntary proposals) but without any governmental teeth to enforce these types of promises, pesticides have been utilized.
Montgomery assured members of the commision that Swan Creek wouldn't be adversely affected by development but what about the issue of Lake Waubesa's water table being affected? Professor Cal DeWitt has done extensive research on the impact of development on Lake Waubesa and this wasn't even addressed.
I find the push for another development in rural Fitchburg to be short-sighted given the economic challenges of the recession that is in progress. There are plenty of homes on the market these days with depressed prices reflecting this recession. The new development in Oregon has plenty of vacant homes and the Swan Creek Neighborhood still has plenty of room as well. The small businesses close to downtown Fitchburg seem to be struggling, are more businesses what we truly need?
I hope that the planning commission will consider these points and NOT approve this development in light of these concerns.
Proposed Development a 'Homebuilding Debacle'
Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
By Gary Leverington / Resident of Fitchburg
(Emphasis added)
I'm writing again to express concern about the proposed NE neighborhood plan. It is my hope that sensible leadership will prevail at the City Council to once and for all put a stake in the plans to turn the NE neighborhood area into a massive homebuilding debacle.
I ask all members of our community to consider where we are in the real estate cycle and vigorously oppose the NE neighborhood being turned into additional houses (and lots for sale) that we do not need and most citizens do not want.
More importantly, there are a plethora of valid environmental reasons to put a stop to turning the NE neighborhood area into paved roads and houses that just add to the oversupply of homes and lots for sale in Fitchburg. Creating a huge new supply of houses here will also place additional downward pressure on existing home values in Fitchburg.
To take land that could be used for organic farming, teaching and organic retail - with the ability to provide good quality food for those that live here now, and those that will come after us - and turn it into another grouping of paved roads, over fertilized lawns (with pesticides), and more houses is beyond irresponsible.
As for developers of new houses - once they've already acquired the land, asking them if we need more new houses is like asking the owner of a shoe store if it's a good time to buy shoes.
Let's request that our community leaders maintain control over what's in the best interest of the community. Adopting a people over profits theme.
As an alternative, perhaps the developer can come up with a plan for an organic farming village that can be a shining legacy for future generations - not just here, but for the entire area! Just imagine how popular this would be for the growing number of people seeking healthy, locally grown, organic food products! What a wonderful and beneficial legacy to leave to our children!
Consider the following: Mortgage performance has suffered: An alarming 5.6% of the nation's homeowners have fallen behind on their mortgage payments — up from roughly 4.7% a year earlier and the most since 1986. The percentage of homes in any stage of foreclosure has jumped to 1.7%, the highest since the Mortgage Bankers Association began tracking it in 1972.
According to some estimates, as many as 2.2 million homeowners could lose their houses over the next 24 months!
We've already seen the price of an American home lose 6.1% from a year ago, according to the well-respected research group S&P/Case-Shiller. The Census Bureau shows the price of new homes down even more — 13% in October, the sharpest drop in 37 years. Lending standards have also tightened so fewer would-be buyers can qualify for loans - this also adds to downward pressure on home prices. More supply with fewer buyers is supply and demand 101!
I fully expect more declines in 2008. Home values will likely fall by the mid-single digits nationwide, and more in select markets. For those that think Fitchburg is immune from a downturn - just ask the people in Florida that bought condos at the top of the market and now owe way more than their homes are worth. They too felt they were immune from a downturn. Let's not allow Fitchburg to become overbuilt and place our home values at risk!
For our community leaders, I know it's difficult to resist the temptation to accommodate developers, but in the example of the NE neighborhood plan in particular, denying approval is quite obviously the right thing to do for our wonderful community.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Bloomquist Takes Stand on Water
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].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 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.”
“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.
Monday, October 1, 2007
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!
