Posts
Monday, June 16, 2008
Hickory Lanes Cleanup
Labels:
Monona
A brief update on the removal of the remaining trailers from Hickory Lanes. The city staff has obtained an updated bid for removal and demolition of remaining trailers that will be presented to the Finance & Personnel Committee in July 2008. Whatever you may think about the way the former tenants of the park were treated, the present condition of the park is deplorable, unsafe, and presents a poor face of the city to out-of-town visitors who can see it from Lottes Park, on the water, and from the boardwalk at River Place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What happened to the guy who was going to originally develop the property?
ReplyDeleteKevin Metcalfe is still around (he built the Water Crest condos on Monona Drive by Cottage Grove Road. I think he is still interested in pursuing the Hickory Lanes project when the market and economy conditions are more favorable.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I think the trailer park owners made a very bad judgment when they terminated all the leases before they had a firm deal. It seemed like they panicked when the project generated a little controversy and decided to kick everyone out. Mansel Johns recently passed away, but I think Mrs. Johns still owns the property.
So who is paying to have the trailers removed? Your post makes it seem like the city, but you say the Mrs. Johns still owns the property. Will the city recover their money from the owners?
ReplyDeleteQ: Who is paying?
ReplyDeleteA: Good question. I am double-checking. My working assumption is that the city will pay for it upfront to get it done and be reimbursed by the property owner. The city has ways of making you pay!
So, if the city, is paying to clean up the property, doesn't this qualify as eminent domain?
ReplyDeleteIt would be a great addition to Lottes park.
Speaking of parks, what is going on with that formerly for sale property on Winnequah, near Maywood? Some trees were cut, the Mayor was seen there yesterday meeting a couple of guys.
"if the city, is paying to clean up the property, doesn't this qualify as eminent domain?"
ReplyDeleteA: No.
"Speaking of parks, what is going on with that formerly for sale property on Winnequah, near Maywood?"
A: Put down your drink and move away from the bar. "Speaking of parks"? That's not a park, that's a residential lot. The mayor bought the lot and is building a house.
Wasn't some sort of condemnation needed? I don't think the city can simply go onto someone's property and remove thngs without legal action, correct? If I don't mow my lawn, I know the city will do it eventually, but not without orders, citations, etc....
ReplyDeleteYup... and this mess is of no
ReplyDeletefault of the city.. heh heh..
the tenents in the park get basically thrown out and lose everything and the mayor gets to
build a new house..
How sweet..
See anything wrong with this picture?
"Condemnation" is a very specific process that the government has to follow in order to take property. The city did not have to follow that process, but yes, the city has followed proper legal procedures.
ReplyDelete(Actually, before we vote to approve this action, whether the city has followed proper procedure will be one question that will need an answer).
"Yup... and this mess is of no
ReplyDeletefault of the city...
the tenents in the park get basically thrown out and lose everything and the mayor gets to
build a new house..
See anything wrong with this picture?"
MD: I wasn't going to publish this comment because it unfairly and anonymously attacks the mayor, but the comment is so dumb I couldn't resist.
First, the owners terminated the tenants' leases, not the city. They did so prematurely and as a result a lot of people were forced out at least prematurely. Kevin Metcalfe promised to pay the tenants $3000 (of course, one could argue that coming out of city TIF money). The development hasn't occurred, so there's no money for the tenants.
What in the world does that have to do with the mayor building a new house? He 'gets to build a new house'?? To state the obvious, he's doing that with his own money (OK, probably a good chunk of a bank's money) and ot has nothing to do with Hickory Lanes.
Logic. Try it.
You still haven't said under what process the city recovers its money....
ReplyDeleteIt's a secret.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the update Doug. It is unfortunate that there is no protocol/procedure for park owners to follow when notififying owners of manufactured homes of the sale of a park, or a closing. Homeowners were never told a definitive procedure or deadline for removing the homes. The parties involved were assured that homes would not be considered abandoned. After many deadlines, promises of financial assistance, and eventually a closing of the park, this has now become a prime example of why an authoritative body should take charge of closings of parks.
ReplyDeleteThis happened back in the late 80's and early 90's with Happy Acres. I hope no one gets hurt down in the park as happened back in Happy Acres, a little child was assaulted and that is the ultimate crime.
The city admin shared that the owners of the park, the Johns, will have the cost of cleanup added to their tax bill. It's sad also with Mr.Johns passing. The UW Platteville is a co-owner as of last spring according to AccessDane's records.
I wonder though, why aren't the folks who still own homes in the park contacted? Seems strange that a manufactured home, though not "real" property, doesn't entitle a person to being fully informed with full disclosure.
Thank you again for posting the news of the cleanup of the park in your blog. I hope it doesn't take too long for the slow careful process to take place. It was once a beautiful neighborhood, now it literally scares me.
Thanks to Tanya for reminding the city of the need to make the place safe.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're correct: the cost will be put on the tax bills (it's not really a secret).
I assume someone - either the city or property owner - is supposed to provide notice to the trailer owners. In all honesty, though they all appear to be abandoned with little or no value at this point.
UW-Platteville is part owner?
ReplyDeleteWhat the?
Mansel Johns graduated from UW-P in 1948:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.uwplatt.edu/news/2007/07/uwp-foundation-recognizes-supporters-at.html
My understanding is they did not have any children and planned to leave this property to UW-P.
So, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, the one who posted the June 19 comment about the mayor's new house - the comment I called dumb - sent a comment this morning. The comment was over 600 words long, quite contentious, and double-dog-dared me to post their comment.
ReplyDeleteWell, I wanted to wait until I had a chance to think about my response to their new comments. I figured I would get it after work or over the weekend - I've already put in a lot of blog time this week.
This evening I checked my email after a nice bike ride over to the arboretum and Mr. or Ms. Anon has already submitted another comment.
This one says “Didn't think you would post my response...YOu have the ultimate censorship...Crumb...”
Pal or Gal, I don't get paid for this blog. I do it on my own time and in my own time. This is NOT my job. Declining to post a comment is not censorship. I'm not the government; it's called editorial discretion.
And daring me to post your comment usually back fires; I can be contrarian. Calling me a name, especially a lame one, pretty much guaranteed I would not post your first comment.
And really, if want to get personal in your comments about me or the mayor or anyone else, have the small courage to sign your name to your beliefs.
Weiner.
After a week of licking his/her anonymous wounds, the mad poster submitted another comment. Here's part of it:
ReplyDelete"You didn't get screwed by the johns's or the lack of action by the city."
No, I didn't. But Peter McKeever and I actually attempted to get help for the folks who lived there with only modest success.
As for the city's inaction, the basic problem was that the developer wanted all of the TIF upfront. That would have meant the city would borrow the money and pay the interest on it until the increment in value generated by the development created enough TIF revenue to pay the city back - if it did. That was financially a nonstarter for the city.
If the Johns had waited to see whether the development proposal panned out, everyone could have stayed put when the deal fell through.