Posts
The city council took up the resolution offered by Alder McKeever and me proposing to direct staff to assist the tenants at Hickory Lanes. Let's just say that it met with less than a warm embrace. Everybody wanted to say somebody else should do something, but time is running out. I don't get it - why are the city leaders both elected and employed not falling all over themselves to try and help these people?
Well, duh, they're poor.
I mean all Peter and I asked for was to direct staff to make it a priority to try and get these people some help. The administrator tried to say he and the staff had done a lot for these folks. They helped set up two meetings last summer. Oh, and he knew that a survey was done - also last summer - but not the results. Fine, whatever, but why the resistance to helping them now? Can we at least find out the scope of the problem we are dealing with (or more accurately, trying not to deal with)? We have heard there are cases of severe chronic depression, physical incapacity, and so forth.
Alders Suslick and Wiswell argued that the Johns' sale to Metcalfe is a free market transaction! Excuse me, but two other items on the agenda related to establishing a TIF district and negotiating a developer's agreement for a TIF district that has the exact same boundaries as the mobile home park! The CDA has recommended that the city provide $2.6 million in TIF assistance to the project - assistance that will allow Metcalfe to acquire the property.
This was really special Alice in Wonderland stuff. We are supposed to swallow that this TIF deal has nothing to do with the sale of the property. The current owners, the Johns made the weak claim that they had to sell now because their lawyer told them to. OK, but does that prevent them from lifting a finger to help these people, their 'family' move?
Now, I have to emphasize that Kevin Metcalfe has agreed to pay $5,000 to the tenants, including the ones that have already left. Again I say 'good for him'. But that doesn't help these folks get through what could be an ugly crisis.
If it really was just a private transaction with a private developer buying a mobile home park property and building condos on it, then one could argue with a straight face that the city had nothing to do with it. Thus, we would have no obligation, legal or moral to do anything. Even then I'm thinking, gee shouldn't city government care enough about its residents that when the tenants come to us and ask for help, maybe we should at least look into helping?
The real subtext here is the fear that city will get sued and have to pay relocation costs. Just like we did in eerily similar circumstances in the early 1990's. And so we are supposed to pretend that the sale and TIF district are completely unrelated, a proposition that does not pass the laugh test.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Exactly - I hope this city holds up consideration of the TIF district until this issue is straightened out.
ReplyDeleteSince Wiswell is taking the position that this is purely a private transaction, I assume he is voting against the TIF district?
The Cap times covered the issue today, quoting Wiswell suslick. I have to say I find their comments indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of TIF financing. This is not a private sector transaction - it is reliant on 2.7 million in TIF financing - dollars that come out of my pocket because they don't go into the general fund. This is a partially publicly funded transaction - and the least we should expect for our public money is that someone sees that the good taxpaying residents of Hickory Lanes are safely resettled.
ReplyDeleteI agree. But it wasn't just Wislick and Suswell, Thomas and Kugle were firmly in the "its not our problem" camp too.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you referring to with an earlier lawsuit?
ReplyDeleteCrack open the history books. Back in the early 1990's, the city adopted the Broadway Corridor Plan. (Kathy Thomas and I were on the council at the time.) The devloper David Simon bought the trailer park called Happy Acres at the location of current Riverplace.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall Simon forced the tenants out, they sued for relocation benefits, we thought we would win, but the tenants prevailed and we and Simon ended up paying relocation benefits. It was an ugly thing and I always regretted that we did not step and offer the benefits.
And now it's deja vu all over again.
Been talking to the Johns, Metcalfe and Ms Cohen. Seems like there is a easy, non-city Council answer out there. Call me for thoughts and I'll post what I hope will clarify a little better thought on the meeting the other night. Dale Suslick 575-5511
ReplyDeleteThe situation at the Hickory Lane Mobile Home Park can be a difficult one
ReplyDeletefor a number of people and while I am not certain there is anything for the
Monona City Council to do, it nevertheless does not diminish the difficulty
some people will face.
Whenever anyone rents from another, they can lose their rental property or
land lease if the owner decides to sell. In this case it may seem unfair,
but it is our system of government that we encourage home and business
ownership. People who own property have the final say in the disposition of
property. And while government should never be in a place where they could
force someone to sell their property without proper payment, they should
also not be in the position where the government prevents someone from
selling their property. Ownership determines the timetable in these
matters.
I know that Mr. and Mrs. Johns have enjoyed having all of their tenants
through the years and they, too, probably wish there was a better
alternative available. But they have a right to dispose of their property
and put the money towards their retirement. This has been their investment
through the years and it would not be correct to stop them from receiving
it.
Under the circumstances, it might be appropriate for Mr. Metcalfe to send a
letter to the residents and inform them about various agencies that might be
able to assist them if they have dire circumstances and need help. I
suggest this because Mr. Metcalfe is asking for city tax incremental
financing assistance and it would show good faith on his part that he, too,
wants to help the displaced citizens.
Dale Suslick, Monona City Council and Dane County Board Supervisor
608-575-5511 Please call me with questions, comments or concerns on this or
any Monona issue.
Mr. Suslick, the city has the ability to create a TIF and as part of that, you have moral and ethical responsibility to the people who are affected. Yes, the Johns have a right to sell and realize profit on their investment, but through TIF, the city is boosting their profit by making their property more attractive to the developer. That's a fact. If you are such a believer in private property rights, then why are you using, through TIF, public funds to help out Metcalfe and the Johns? Why is that ok, but it's not ok to help out the people who own the trailers? Please answer.
ReplyDeleteMr. Suslick - the purpose of government is to promote the common good. In this case the city is arrainging TIF financing to that will directly benefit the john and metcalf. It is city funding that is making this deal possible and putting money in the john's pocket - We have a moral obligation to see that the actions we take (TIF FUNDING) promote the common good which meand that they do not have a disproportionate negative impact on some residents of our community. You have an obligation to look out for ALL RESIDENTS, not just your wealthy friends who own the land or are developers. In fact your obligation is first to the RESIDENTS, not the developers. The developers have plenty of resources to look after their interests, the residents, sadly, only have you.
ReplyDeleteMr. Suslick - what was particularily disgusting was the suggestion made that the county or churches should look to this problem but the government agency closest to these residents had no obligation because city staff was busy enough. Go ahead pass the buck. But I have a suggestion, why don't you let the churches or the country see to the TIF financing, freeing up city staff to help its residents. It seems that you think welfare for the wealthy is ok, but not for the needy.
ReplyDeleteI respect Mr. Suslick for at least reading this and responding the intital post, but it's disappointing he isn't answering the tough question of public funding making profit for the developer and landowner, while causing economic hardship to the residents because that is a legitmate point of debate. I will assume it's a problem with time contstraints and not that he doesn't have a good response for these issues. Maybe he should just try serving in one office instead of two.
ReplyDeletewhy are we beating up on Dale?
ReplyDeleteON the day after this debate-I read this "blog" and Mr. Wood treated me to a full paragraph filled w cuss words about Dale and Jeff.
That long and stupid paragraph has since been delted.
Dale is here thinking, engaged and clealy sarching for answers (and not swearing at folks). He is playing elecation year politics.
my two cents.
I meant to say...he is NOT playing elecation politics.
ReplyDeleteThe "deleted paragraph" contained the phrase "holy crap" and a couple of disparaging non-swearing comments.
ReplyDeleteIt also referenced Dale's comment that "If Madison does it, then it's a bad idea." He made this comment (or one very much like it) with regard to my proposal to put kayak racks in city parks.
That was all from a private email that I copied some text from into the blog post and inadvertently forgot to delete the rest. When I noticed it the next morning I deleted it.
We can argue about what the city's obligation is, but in the end it doesn't matter. I want to proud of the way my city treats its vulnerable residents, not disgusted.
ReplyDeleteTo D. Suslick, you refer to this "easy" solution here on this blog. Quote you "Seems like there is a easy, non-city Council answer out there. Call me for thoughts". Why leave it for individuals to call you?
ReplyDeleteOpenly share this information as it is being discussed here.
Also, Mr. Suslick, you suggest that the possibly soon to be buyer/developer, Metcalfe, could possibly send a letter referring to resources in the community. Quote you "it might be appropriate for Mr. Metcalfe to send a
letter to the residents and inform them about various agencies that might be able to assist them if they have dire circumstances and need help." Isn't that what was done last winter/spring/summer/fall/and again this winter? That suggestion was not well thought out on your part since you are well aware of the resources being alerted and the information being dropped at the doors of all residence still at the park.
Note it's well known, that the resource meetings, two of them, and the one last week, were organized by the resident homeowners of the park for themselves, not the City of Monona.
D. Suslick, please share with your colleagues and constituents here your simmple answer. If there is such a simple answer this is a forum you could state it here.
It is a situation that started many months ago, late 05. The asking for TIF means there are citizens tax monies paying, including the park residents, that is being used to displace these homeowners.
This was not an issue that was just brought to the attention of the Council.
It is evident there are elected officials who see this for what it is. Wood and McKeever drafted the resolution recognizing this, even if that resolution is never voted and passed.
The residents have been given deadlines, commitments of monies, and had the dates changed multiple times, and the sale hinges on the TIF approval. It was on the January 06 Council minutes. This was not just learned.
My 2 cents…
ReplyDelete1.. The fiasco now known as the
Monona LLC and Johns real-estate
deal would have never came to this
point if it hadn't been filled with
self serving deciet and untruths
by the sellers and, if the buyers
would have just paid the residents
what they had invested into their
homes.. The payout would have been
about the same bucket of money,
but split out differently..
This, is not, and never will be
a "One size fits All", situation.
Some got 3 times more of what they
paid and are very happy, some got
2-3 times less than what they
paid.. AND, these residents paid
that kind of money for the same
reason the developer wants the
land.. WATERFRONT with LOCATION,
LOCATION, LOCATION.
2.. It was in the best interests
for the sellers only, to DUMP the
responsibility of payouts into the
buyers lap. It was really the
sellers responsibility to take
care of their "Family". Who in
fact for 40+ years provided the
sellers with a very nice income
and lifestyle.. Anybody else take
any cruises lately??
3.. This IS NOT a private deal if
it needs 2.6M dollars of tax
incremental financing to go thru.
If the government approves this
without making everybody whole who
is getting the short end of the
stick (literally), then this is a
government approved strong armed
robbery of the citizens of Monona.
4.. For an alder to come out and
try to take credit for the city
for all the meetings that have
been held is pathetic. The only
thing done by the city up until
the meeting on 2/8/07 was to allow
the people affected by this
abomination use of a room to meet,
nobody from the city was at those
meetings to help these residents..
The credit for gathering the
resources together and putting the
meetings together for helping
the residents go to Tanya
and Linda. And you can go ahead
and prove me wrong!! Please do.
I would welcome that.
I also would like to thank and give
credit to Doug Wood and Peter
McKeever for standing up for what
is just plain, "The right thing to
do".
5.. The Elected and paid officials
that are against making the
residents complete should be fired
and voted out of office. Its
intuatively obvious to even the
most casual observer that these
people have forgotten why they are
there.. Time to "Throw the Bums
Out".
They were put there to SERVE THE
PEOPLE, not friends, and/or a
person, and/or any special
interests.
6.. What I see here is a
government gone astray. and
speaking of strays.. Do you even
get it that at this point the Dane
County Humane Society puts more
effort into saving a stray dog
than Monona has put into helping
its long term taxpayers until they
have been forced to by outside
influences.
7.. The closing of the park was a
tactic to avoid laws that won't
even come into being for 2 years
or more, that’s if it even becomes
a law.. AND if it does, I vote for
it to be called the "The Monona
Johns Law". Not for the respect
some might think, but for the dis-
respect for what is morally right
blatantly pushed into this deal.
8.. My point is.. That if, that is
a huge, great big IF, #1. There
was truth and honesty from the
beginning. #2 If the required
payout to the mobil home owners
covered the costs of the
investments in their home and
say a $1500 kicker for those who
would have needed it..
NONE OF THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING!!!
As it is right now, because of the
sellers actions, and the developers
decisions there has been, and will
be a huge cost to the taxpayers
at the City, County and State
level to bring the residents of
Hickory Lane Mobil Home Park
online with the appropriate
entities to help. I think most of
the programs associated with this
are taxpayer funded.
All in all this whole mess could
have been totally avoided..
Nobody, I repeat, Nobody has been
on their high horse jumping
up and down yelling, "Save our
Homes". Everyone seems to
understand that the Mansels have
the right to sell their property.
But doing it Honestly, truthfully
and with integrity and making
sure that the "Family" members
were dealt with fairly has all
been missing.
By the way..
Closing the park because the
owners could not handle the
stress of collecting $300 per
lot was just another step in
the deciet that is a constant.
The true reason was because
they had been consulted with
and it was recommended
because of a non-existant but
possible law in the future
that would basically have had
no effect on this soured up deal.
Now you have 30 or so families
thrown out of the homes they own.
Helloooo, Helloooo....
Does anybody see what is wrong
with this picture??? Hellooooo?
As an American with certain
guaranteed rights, I do have an
opinion. You can delete my post
if you feel it does not coincide
with yours.