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.

Lindsay Questions Water Supply

Rosanne Lindsay's testimony from Aug. 7th Public Hearing:

[Most content from Letter to the Editor which appeared in the Fitchburg Star on Aug. 9, 2007.]

I’d like to talk about something that links all of us on the issue of Smart growth and growth boundaries, and that is the water.

The term water shortage has become a buzzword in Fitchburg this summer with two warnings from the city, including one mandatory warning, announcing water restrictions that limit yard sprinkling. Perhaps the water restrictions are due to increased growth in the area, or drought conditions, or both.

But as the city warns current residents to limit water usage on one hand, they are also moving to allow increased growth to our outlying rural corridor through the Urban Growth Boundary proposal. The approval of the Growth Boundary would pave the way for the approval of the NE Neighborhood development which would bring in thousands of new residents and hundreds of new businesses. It might also require siting a new municipal high-capacity well, diverting more water out of the ground.

Why would the city risk expanding our resident base, as sprawl, knowing that water shortages around the state are generating heated arguments about our current water supply?

For example, the city of Waukesha, known for overdevelopment and sprawl, still struggles to gain access to clean drinkable water even as they plan for new development (they drink radium-contaminated groundwater). Recently, a Waukesha developer and the utility proposed annexing Town property to sink two new heavy pumping wells near the 4600- acre Vernon Marsh Wildlife area to gain access to clean water for 200 new homes. But opponents to this plan convinced the Common Council to vote against it, saying they should halt new development so that they could live with their existing water resource.

Is this a novel idea whose time has come? Halt development and annexation in favor of conservation? More locally, the Village of Oregon Board and Planning Commission recently stopped annexing residential property due to concerns that the village has too many vacant residential lots.

I read, more often now, that developers are seeking to build closer to rural environmental corridors, wetlands, marshes and lakes, not only because they are often the only areas left to develop, but also because they are areas with a ready source of water.

The plan to chop up the open space of the Northeast neighborhood and cover it in asphalt is no different. But it doesn't have to happen. There are plenty of opportunities within Fitchburg's city core for infill development using existing wells that would lessen the impact on the flowage to Lake Waubesa's ecosystem. Further, why take away our access to highly fertile farmland, forest, and wetlands, surrounded by protected lands and parks that represent Fitchburg's unique rural, environmental corridor?

If current drought conditions should persist as a predictable summer occurrence then shouldn't we be cautiously planning our future growth to ensure that there will be enough water to sustain current residents? If future droughts continue to affect the levels of our area lakes, how will new high-powered wells for thousands of future residents from elsewhere help us to sustain our current water needs?

In considering the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary, city planners and council members should explain how sprawl development would not sap city resources, spend more taxpayer dollars, and short our water supply in the process.

WWPC Looks for Win-Win Solutions

Testimony by Phyllis Hasbrouck, Chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition, from Aug. 7th Public Hearing:

Good evening. The West Waubesa Preservation Coalition thinks it is great to have a long-term urban growth boundary, but we disagree with including the Northeast Neighborhood in the boundary, and with ignoring the needs of the farmers in Stoner Prairie. We do not want that, or any other good farmland developed, but something is missing from this plan, and that is some solutions for farmers who want to, or must, stay in farming.

We have spoken to farmers who have large debts, for modernization costs incurred at a time when they were inside a FUDA, and thus a great credit risk. They have no pension, and no other property besides the farm. Some of them have serious health issues, and they have to pay their own health insurance, which is one case is $1965 per month for a married couple! They want to retire, but their high debt load and proximity to urban development makes their farm and business less-than-desirable for others farmers to buy. If they are not allowed to sell to developers, but can’t find a farm buyer, they are trapped.

This is no way to treat the people who feed us! Some will say that they do not have a God-given right to be millionaires, and I agree with that. But they should not retire from decades of farming as paupers either. Every level of government should be working on ways to make farming a viable way of life, with retirement a possibility.

What could Fitchburg do? For the long term, it could set up a PDR program, so that farmers are relieved from development pressure, and so that its 50-year plan is not a joke that can be overturned every 2 years when new alders are elected. If a PDR program were adopted at the same time as a 50-year boundary, it would certainly lessen political opposition, since every landowner would have some form of compensation available.

And right now, even without a PDR program, it is possible for groups like the Natural Heritage Land Trust to purchase development rights, as long as they have a willing partner in the city government.

I see no reason why the Community Economic Development Authority of Fitchburg can’t make it their priority to assist agricultural businesses to come, stay, and prosper in Fitchburg. For instance, why not look for a solution to both the ATC problem and the manure problem, by creating a TIF to fund a cooperative methane digester that would create electricity for the city? Why not let farmers apply for low cost loans under the city’s umbrella? Could the city save Fitchburg farmers money by creating a health insurance pool for them?

What about reverse mortgages or recharge rights? These are possibilities that the CEDA could look into. There are so many things that the city could do, and the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition would be happy to help with research and organizing.

I suggest that if you want to have a minimum of controversy and political fallout from these momentous decisions, you take the time to come up with win-win solutions, where no one is left feeling like they totally lost. There is no hurry. In the east, there is no housing shortage that decrees that the Northeast Neighborhood Plan be quickly approved. Quite the contrary! Every day the stock market reels some more from the slump in housing and rise in foreclosures.

In the west, there is no need to rush through the Urban Growth Boundary that cuts people off from long-expected compensation without fashioning some alternative. Yes, the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to be done by 2010, but already some communities are applying for extensions. And a lot could be accomplished in two and a quarter years if CEDA and other government bodies made it their priority to explore what other cities have done, and to come up with proposals for Fitchburg.

Pourchot Hopes for Courageous Path

Caleb Pourchot's testimony from Aug. 7th Public Hearing:

Good Evening

The elephant in the room tonight that we, the citizens of Dane County, continue to ignore is the fact that we are using more water than is falling from the sky. Saving Stoner Prairie or southern Fitchburg, or even the Northeast Neighborhood for groundwater recharge may be completely irrelevant if we continue to exponentially increase the amount of water we pump out of the ground and send down to the Gulf of Mexico.

Developing around railroad corridors makes a lot of sense, but it ignores the fact that the groundwater underneath us is already tapped beyond its capacity to sustain us. The cones of depression in the deep water aquifer that have developed as a result of over 60 million gallons a day of water pumping have fundamentally changed the hydrology of our area to the point where our lakes are now feeding into our drinking water supply. To take a deep, hard look at this reality and its consequences requires courage and an abandonment of decades of economic dogma.

A dogma that assumes that future problems can be deferred as long as short term interests are fulfilled permeates our culture. Must we always be faced with imminent crisis before we act in our children’s best interest?

Perhaps the purpose of our municipal planning departments should be to re-design what we have in such a way that we can sustain the current population in health and happiness rather than encouraging double-digit growth and expediting our future water crisis.

To this end, as we talk about growth boundaries, we should be talking about the boundary that already exists– that is, the current Urban Services Area. We should also be talking about methods for permanently preserving the land outside that boundary that are fair and equitable to the land owners. Farmers must be preserved as well as farmland. The City should actively promote programs that allow farmers and other agricultural enterprises to innovate and thrive in the urban shadow where they will be perfectly situated to feed the local economy as well as the local population.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

These are challenging words, indeed. My hope, however, is that there will be a few among us who are courageous enough to confront the truth that stares us plainly in the face, and that they will lead us out of our old ways of thinking and blaze a new path toward a sustainable future for our children.

Thank you

Shape Future with Phil Lewis' Vision

Terry's Carpenter' testimony from Aug. 7th Public Hearing:

I would like to see a 50 year or permanent growth boundary and I believe that this process is not a prediction, as some have said, but an effort to shape the future. I want to pick up on Samuel’s comments. On page 138 of his presentation, Phil Lewis provides examples of his Diverse Density design (see below). This graphic shows high density, mixed-use development right along the rail line. Just below that, is the transition to Moderate density as you get farther away. Farming would be adjacent to the Moderate density area and then lastly, Nature.

On the graphic for page 137 (see below), Mr Lewis shows how this would work, from Greentech Village to the points east, including the NE Neighborhood. You can see the existing rail line running N and S parallel to Syene Rd and the existing E-Way, shown in green, creating a buffer of open space north of this entire area extending all the way from Fish Hatchery Rd on the left to Lussier Heritage Center on the right. There is also a large area of greenspace around Lacy Road at the bottom of the highlighted rectangle that represents Watershed Protection for Swan Creek.

Inside the highlighted rectangle, the leftmost reddish/orange box represents High Density along the rail to about ½ way between the tracks and Hwy 14. Moderate Density is shown as lighter orange and ends at Hwy MM on the east. The yellow area from MM to Larsen Rd shows food production and Fitchburg actually ends there but the map goes on to show the Town of Dunn with a large Natural area extending close to Lake Waubesa.

Although Mr Lewis’ vision is being used in the proposed UGB, for example by focusing on the rail corridor, it is being ignored with regard to the NE Neighborhood. His design shows that everything to the east of Highway MM should be Agriculture and therefore excluded from the UGB and I urge you to remove the NE Neighborhood to accomplish this vision.

I think Mr Lewis would agree that more information is needed to see what impact any development in this area would have on the wetlands, streams, lakes and aquifer. So, portions of the NE Neighborhood that are west of Hwy MM should be included for Moderate Density if and only if they can be shown to cause no threat to Lake Waubesa or its ecosystem.

Phasing is extremely important to the promotion of rail for mass transit. So, I also hope that you will not allow leapfrog development to skip over Greentech Village into the NEN.

Another difference between the current UGB and Mr Lewis’ design is that he excludes large portions from the N/S rail corridor for environmental buffers as you saw on the map on page 137. This is important to allow wildlife, wetlands and streams to flourish and I hope you will designate such environmental corridors to connect natural areas and farmland on the east and west sides of the rail line.

I applaud the emphasis on Mass Transit. And rail seems like the best tool for the long term if we want to reduce our carbon emissions and global warming. Although rapid bus transit might be an interum solution.

I also urge you to seek solutions that will not only protect farmland and other resources but will allow farmers to retire gracefully and help new people begin farming in the urban shadow. We need Purchase and/or Transfer of Development Rights and other programs to empower all farmers, including those whose families settled the Town of Fitchburg. We can’t ignore the fact that our decisions pit neighbor against neighbor as farms fall under different economic rules based on changes to the Growth Boundary. We need to protect farms and respect farmers.

I disagree with some who believe that we owe a profit to land speculators. But, I strongly believe that we owe a decent living and retirement to farmers after their decades of Debt, Sweat and Fears. I hope you will take this into consideration. Thank you

Cooke Explains the Depths of Frustration

Samuel Cooke's testimony from Aug. 7th Public Hearing :

I appreciate what you have to go through to set policy. It is not easy weighing all the issues and deciding what is important and what is not regarding land use. That being said, I have to say that I, and others, both here at the meeting and not here at the meeting, are getting very frustrated with what we see happening. Many of us prepare statements and come to the meetings, we write letters to the editor of the Star, for example, and spend lots of time preparing comments on the reports but the Northeast Neighborhood portion of the Urban Development Boundary Map remains exactly the same as when it was originally proposed.

So, I want to help you to fathom the depths of our frustration, such as when we see what the stated Planning vision is for Fitchburg and then we witness something different. Here is the first sentence of the Draft City of Fitchburg Vision Statement’s second paragraph:

Respectful of its past, its unique natural areas, and its agricultural heritage, Fitchburg’s government recognizes the values of the community - our citizens.

That is what this public hearing is all about. That is what previous public hearings have been about. Yet when large numbers of people consistently speak out about the very real dangers to our surface water and groundwater from widespread development in the Northeast Neighborhood the Urban Development Boundary Map remains completely unchanged.

To further illustrate the frustration, 76% of residents who responded to the 2005 survey the City turned out (76%!) were “…very supportive of policies that would maintain open- or green-space between Fitchburg and neighboring municipalities. 79% were very supportive of open- or green-space within the city. That’s right from the Fitchburg website.

Yet the Northeast Neighborhood representation on the Urban Development Boundary Map remains unchanged. There are a lot of very frustrated people as a result of this – we seem to not be listened to at all. How would that make you feel?

And as I, and others, have participate in this process, through attending and speaking at meetings, by spending hours and hours reviewing and commenting on the Ruekert Mielke Draft Stormwater Management report I, and others, watch as many other changes were made from the initial Draft Urban Development Boundary Map. Changes that appear to have originated, at least in part, from comments and interests voiced at past public hearings and meetings.

But not a single change to the Northeast Neighborhood part of the growth boundary has been made.

The other changes have added hundreds of acres of land that weren’t in the original draft map (Stoner Prairie area, McGaw Neighborhood and the huge area north & south of Irish Lane, east of Hwy 14). Hundreds and hundreds of acres added for development and not a single acre removed from the Northeast Neighborhood, despite it being the part of Fitchburg that is adjacent to Nine Springs Creek, the E-Way, Swan Creek watershed, Lake Waubesa wetlands, Big Fen, Deep Springs, organic farms and our immediate neighbors to the east who have invested millions in preserving what a vast majority of Fitchburg residents value also – open, green spaces.

Maybe we just need to come together on a common vision. Maybe we just need to all really listen to Professor Phil Lewis.

Terry Carpenter and I recently attended a presentation on Regional Design by retired Professor Phil Lewis. Professor Lewis is the “father” of the E-Way and has served as a consultant to Governors and other notables from Wisconsin. He has studied the entire region for about 50 years. His vision of a sustainable future includes a number of Wisconsin cities connected by passenger rail. As I’m sure the Planning Commission is aware, he has included Fitchburg in some very special regional plans as part of a Circle City design. Other regional communities have embraced Professor Lewis’ vision. This is an amazing opportunity for Fitchburg to be part of the work of a visionary and his vision includes the Northeast Neighborhood.

I urge the Planning Dept to find a way to share Phil Lewis’ vision with area residents because Phil Lewis’ vision is right in line with what I think the Plan Commission and the Council wants – increases in density where it makes sense, reliance on commuter rail and what the Plan Commission, Council and the people of Fitchburg say that they want – protection of open- and green-spaces.

We are a very polite group and I respect the Plan Commission and Planning staff but we are frustrated. Please listen to our consistent and thoughtful message by following Phil Lewis’ concept of preserving the Northeast Neighborhood east of Highway MM and get the area east of Highway MM out of the delineated growth boundary.

Public Hearing Aug 7th - Yes that's tonight!

Come one. Come all. Let Fitchburg know that you care. Join the chorus (in or out of harmony). Make your voice heard!

This is your chance to comment on the current Long Term Growth Boundary sometimes called the 50-Year or Urban Growth Boundary. I know it's scary but someone has to think about the future. I wish my parents had thought about the future when they got me hooked on internal combustion engines and gadgets (just kidding -- I take full responsibility).

Now: To learn more about what the city’s current plans, go to http://www.city.fitchburg.wi.us/ and click on the link under Comprehensive Plan. Then, check out the Draft Urban Development Boundary Map to see what’s slated for development in the next 50+ years.

I don't like seeing the Northeast Neighborhood targeted for development along with many other rural areas. I think we need to preserve more land, protect more resources and treat the farmers fairly when we add or change rules. That's what I'll be talking about tonight. I hope to see (and hear) you there.

Tonight: Come to the Planning Commission meeting which begins at 7:00 pm in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 5520 Lacy Road. (If you leave now, you can still make it!)

Here is the agenda for the meeting: http://www2.city.fitchburg.wi.us/meetings/files/PLAN_080707_AG.pdf

Agenda item # 8 is a "Public Hearing regarding the draft amended long term growth boundary map in accord with R-30-07." You can register to speak but expect a 3 minute per person maximum. Please consider reading your remarks into the record at the Public Hearing so that everyone can benefit by hearing your concerns.

There are two other Public Hearings tonight so this might be a long one!

Agenda item #6 is for "Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution R-63-07, modifying Appendix H of 1995 Land Use Plan, re: clarifying where neighborhood plans may take place, and dividing McGaw Park Neighborhood into two planning areas."

Item 6 is a bit of mystery to me since I thought we were considering a moratorium on new Neighborhood Plans until after the Comprehensive Plan is completed. So, why would a division of any neighborhood need to take place now? Perhaps I'll hear the answer tonight.

Agenda item #7 is for "Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution R-64-07, a resolution to create Appendix I of the 1995 Land Use Plan re: classifying lands within extraterritorial plat review area as established in Ordinance 2007-O-15."

Item 7 was prompted by the proposed subdivision in the Town of Verona refered to as the "Desperate Housewives" Perhaps it should be called "Desperate Developers" since the plans wouldn't be approved based on current standards if this property were in the Cities of Verona or Fitchburg.

Tomorrow: I'll post my Public Hearing remarks on the Blog tomorrow afternoon and you'll be able to add any comments you have to that post.