The developer of a proposed $7 million low-income housing project appeared at a keymeeting Monday by speaker phone. City staff pointed the above microphone at
the speaker to amplify the developer's voice. The commission rejected the proposal.
UPDATE, Feb. 3: With no debate, the City Council voted 14-0 to accept yesterday's Planning Commission's recommendation, formally killing what Alderman Greg Helding called "the infamous West Racine project." In the public comment section of the council meeting, five citizens spoke against the project, and one presented another 200 signatures on a petition opposing it.
Original post:
The Plan Commission, at the urging of a grassroots neighborhood movement, knocked out a proposed $7 million affordable housing development proposed for West Racine.
The commission voted unanimously Monday afternoon to deny the 55-unit apartment complex, which included commercial development.
The North Carolina-based developer did little to help its case at Monday’s meeting when it failed to send a representative to the meeting. An employee chimed in on a conference call, but dodged a poignant question claiming only another employee could answer it. Not exactly helping out concerns that you’ll be absentee landlords, folks.
The proposal moves ahead to the City Council, but is likely DOA. Chalk one up for participatory democracy. Dozens of opponents packed a public hearing last week to oppose the project. They turned in a petition with over 200 names on it objecting to the low-income apartments, and swayed a commission that appeared to be leaning in favor of the proposal.
Not that this is good news for the city. The vote puts developers and planners back to square one on a piece of (supposedly) prime real estate in one of the city’s most prosperous neighborhoods. It also means a loss of about $150,000 in property taxes, which could go to paying down the $2 million in debt needed to demolish buildings for redevelopment.
Here’s a recap of the meeting:
4:04 p.m.
City Council President David Maack calls the meeting to order. It’s his last Plan Commission meeting. He’ll hand over the gavel to Tom Friedel after Tuesday night’s City Council meeting. Maack reminds the crowd of about 30 there’s no comment during the meeting. Roll Call: Four members are here, but no Judley Wyant.
4:05 p.m.
Matt Sadowski, of the city planning department, is trying to get the developer on speaker phone … and there she is. It’s an odd sight. One of the City Council microphones is pointed down at a speaker to amplify the developer’s voice. I think the company knows this is a lost cause.
4:07 p.m.
Alderman Greg Helding asks for city staff’s recommendation. Sawdoski reads it off … staff recommends approval. So that sets up the showdown: the city’s development professionals vs. a riled up group of West Racine residents.
Aldermen Aron Wisneski, Sandy Weidner, Bob Anderson, Robert Mozol and Jim Spangenberg are in attendance. So is County Supervisor Van Wangaard.
4:11 p.m.
Helding moves to deny the project’s conditional-use permit (the commission is actually voting on giving the developer a permit to build on the land). Crickets. No one seconds the motion.
4:11 p.m.
Plan Commission member Brent Oglesby has some questions for the developer. Oglesby was for the proposal at the last meeting. (Wyant walks in.)
Oglesby asks the developer to prove they can’t build a smaller development and still make money. He points out they’re not putting in any of their own cash, because they’re using state tax credits to fund the project.
The developer, Heather Hammond, hems and haws about the numbers and then says she wishes “Jim” was available, because he could explain it. But Jim’s not here, and the question goes unanswered.
Oglesby then wonders if the developer actually has the money they say they have. Here’s the deal: the state tax credits this year are worth a lot less than tax credits from previous years. Why? Because everyone is losing so much money there’s no need to invest in credits that are essentially a tax write-off. Essentially, real losses mean there’s no need for fake losses.
The developer says they have a national network of investors who will cover the project’s cost. Oglesby openly shakes his head in disbelief, which is funny because the developer can’t see him.
4:15 p.m.
Helding again moves to deny the request. He wants to say why, but he needs a second. Oglesby seconds, recluctantly.
Helding says the development is too dense and there’s not enough parking. He says parking is an issue, because West Racine may fill up one day and need a lot of parking. (It’ll be interesting to see how important parking is if a 55-unit condo or senior housing development is proposed for the same site.)
Helding adds there’s already too much rental housing in the city, and points out that residents seem pretty strongly opposed to this.
“We have these public hearings for a reason … they can’t just be symbolic,” he says.
4:17 p.m.
Commission member Elaine Ekes-Sutton is worried the development is too dense. She says the idea is good, there’s just too many apartments. She’ll vote no.
4:18 p.m.
Oglesby says he’ll vote no. That’s a change from last week. He encourages the developer to resubmit a smaller plan, saying the state may give out two or three rounds of WHEDA tax credits this year. “I would not take this as a death shot,” he said.
4:19 p.m.
Wyant asks: Is this the best the city can do, or will something better come along? He thinks something better will come along.
4:20 p.m.
It’s unanimous. The commission votes against the conditional-use permit. The City Council could overturn the commission’s decision Tuesday night, but it’s probably won’t. The project may not get a single vote.
4:21 p.m.
That’s it. We’re adjourned. You have to wonder if this project fares better if Mayor Becker was still around. I suspect he backed this project and wanted to get things moving in West Racine. After all, a vacant lot with $2+ million in debt isn’t exactly a help to the city budget. (It’s also worth noting high-quality low-income housing is needed in the city. There are thousands of hard-working families in the city who make between $23,000 and $43,000 a year who could use a decent place to raise children or just come home to.)
But Becker is gone, no one was willing to standup for the project, and now it’s kaput.
