'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.

Ghost From Councils Past

At the Common Council meeting on Dec. 11, the Ghost from Councils Past was put to rest. Through the haze of "institutional memory," there was confusion about whether or not the city had prohibited aerial spraying of pesticides (fungicides, herbicides or insecticides) in the City of Fitchburg. So, some farmers and sprayers were refraining while others were not. While I understand the desire to clean up the books, it seems like overkill to me (no pun intended) assuming nothing was found in the books to clear up. But, I'm not a lawyer. That's why I thought the city attorney should have been asked if a resolution to rescind a ghost resolution was even needed.

[If you are still following me, you probably watched the last two Council meetings where this was discussed.] The bottom line: A resolution was passed to rescind any previous resolution in case one existed. Neither the ghost resolution nor the new one actually has any teeth since it appears the city has no jurisdiction over control of aerial spraying in the first place. I thought simply giving that information publicly would be enough to clear up the confusion and therefore this resolution was unnecessary. Some council members felt this way too.

This action did bring up a lively discussion about the use of pesticides (on farms and lawns) and whether the city would be promoting/encouraging their use by the wording of the original resolution which included phrasing like the city "affirms" the ability of farmers to use aerial spraying. This was later changed to "recognizes" and eventually it was removed from the resolution altogether leaving just the statement rescinding any contrary resolutions.

So, although I didn't think the resolution was needed, the final wording did the job of cleaning up the record without promoting anything. But, more importantly, almost every alder expressed concern about the dangers of pesticides and some wanted the city to explore alternatives such as conversion to organic agriculture.

I know that some alders and residents thought that arguing over something beyond the city's jurisdiction was a waste of time but I don't see it that way. This is an example of an important public health issue where the city can play a leadership role by educating the public and setting a good example.

Does the city use pesticides on any of its property? Are they poisoning the grass where our most vulnerable residents (kids) are playing?

What can you do? Three things:

(1) Attend any future presentation by fellow Fitchburg resident, Professor Warren Porter on the dangers of pesticides. In the meantime, FACTv has been replaying his November presentation as part of "Healthy Lawns, Healthy Children, Healthy Pets," and you can request a copy from FACTv.

(2) Learn more about maintaining a healthy lawn without pesticides. A talk on this subject given by Dr. Astrid Newenhouse, PhD Horticulturalist during the Healthy Lawns... event. So, again, watch for the replay or ask for a copy of this presentation.

(3) Contact your alder, get involved with a neighborhood group to explore this issue, or both!

Effective Simplicity

I recently completed one of Sustain Dane's discussion groups on “Voluntary Simplicity.” This is the second course I've taken and I highly recommend them. The last week of the series, I had a chance to be the "opener" for our discussion about putting what we'd learned into practice. The poem below sums it up.

Effective Simplicity

If Ignorance is Bliss
Why are we stressed out by competing with the Joneses?
Why are we less satisfied than when we knew the shoemaker?
Why do people suffer and die supplying our American lifestyle?
Why do we miss the vanishing landscapes and dwindling diversity of wildlife?

If Knowledge is Power
How can we value possessions over people?
How can we underrate true community?
How can we ignore the global consequences of our actions?
How can we justify destruction of the natural world?

If Love is the Answer
When do we help our neighbors?
When do we support the larger community?
When do we care about people we don’t know?
When do we protect our planet?

If Seeing is Believing
Close your eyes and…
Imagine a world where everyone’s health and well-being matter.
Envision a society where “waste equals food.”
Picture a community with its own sustainable economy.
Visualize your neighbors working together in a “cradle to cradle” cycle powered by the sun.
Now, open your eyes and …
Look for ways to live as “effectively” as a tree.


Terry Carpenter
11/18/2007

Bloomquist Takes Stand on Water

Submitted by Phyllis Hasbrouck:

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

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

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

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

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

“Why’d they shut the springs off?”

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

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

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

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

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

Alder Bloomquist responded,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alder Bloomquist later responded,

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

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

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

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