Low Income Housing Proposal Approved
Mayor Kristine Deiss cast the deciding vote approving the developer’s agreement that will allow the River Bluffs Townhomes project to be build on Wisconsin Street downtown.
And she cast her tiebreaking vote for the $7 million project in front of a decidedly hostile crowd Monday night following a 4-4 vote by the Common Council.
“I believe it is in the best interest for this entire community,” Deiss said of the nine building, 36-rental unit complex that will be built on 2.9 acres east of the Eisenbahn Trail.
“I expect none of you will agree with me,” she said to a crowd of about 60 spectators, nearly all who opposed the city allowing a housing project in its Tax Incre-mental Financing District 5.
And this is a bit surprising.
Duquaine said he was sick to his stomach because the city’s RDA already had agreed to an option to sell the parcel to the developer, which the Common Council could not reverse. “What we’re part of now is nothing but ceremony,” he said of Monday’s vote.
I’m curious about the legality of this. Can the RDA go into a contract like this without a vote by the Common Council? I suppose it depends on how much authority the council has delegated to the RDA, but it is disconcerting that the RDA could execute a binding contract on behalf of the citizens of West Bend without a vote by their elected representatives.
How nice….I move into a relitivly old but nice area in West Bend. Close to the walking trail. Quiet and pretty clean. I have been spending a notable amount of time restoring our home and our property. The city has been trying to revitalize the old downtown so there are doing a bit of restoring themselves. So what does the city deside to do?? Dump low income housing right in the heart of the old downtown. No matter what I or others think….when you “give” low income housing out it not only brings people that do not take ownership of thier property but also crime. Recently, my family and I have spent some time thinking about West Bend and our longterm plans. Well, lets just say this, our plans just changed…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0829 hrs
Deiss should never have been reelected once her “appointment” as Mayor ran out. This is what happens when Progressives get power, decisions that run counter to the will of the people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0842 hrs
They also voted to Table it, but that didn’t pass (I wonder why????) The only one in the audience that spoke in favor of the plan was the Developer. When the Council was asked if they had read the Contract, NONE HAD! -sound familiar? You had a bunch of Downtown Business people voicing their concerns against this, and Local Residents were outraged that this Council would not slow the proess down and examine some of the options.
The Pompous asses that voted to Ok the Plan (Without reading the Contract) were Anderson-Dobberstein-Schlotfeldt and Turner.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0850 hrs
What can we, the people of WB, not that the votew was passed. Is there anuthing we can do? i really do not want to look out my window at home and watch this occur. What legal action can we do? Do anyone know? How can we stop the proceedings until the elected officials have done thier do diligence??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0907 hrs
JJ, Once a vote is taken, there is little that can be done to undo it. Remember when Tommy! persuaded the legislature to “stick it to” the Stadium District? The member who changed his mind at the last minute was recalled, but the Brewers still got their taxpayer-funded gift.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0920 hrs
Eh, it is what it is. But sometime before we leave West Bend, I would like to see a big ass Target store somewhere in this town. Please. Or better yet, a Bed, Bath, & Beyond. Ooo, or better yet, if you could just move Fox River Mall to somewhere just off the Eisenbahn, I’d be giddy. I put more miles on my car looking for decent places to shop…West Bend just doesn’t cut it.
I’ll put together my proposal and submit it to the Council.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0923 hrs
Wendy I agree with you. Not to mention what viabale and profitable business will want to be butted up next to low income housing. Business want to be near affluance. Anyway, unfortunetly, the “is what it is” is will litterally be my neighbor…..and I dont like what it is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0932 hrs
Gota love it when politicians ignore the will of the people to do what they think is right. I say that everyone who voted for building the progects downtown be required to live there as long as they hold office.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0932 hrs
Are they changing zoning for this?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0946 hrs
No, it was already zone multi-family. I know it has been that was for atleast a year or so. Not sure how much longer though.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0954 hrs
Already Zoned Multi-Purpose.
If the Fab-5 that voted for this think it’s so great for W/B, lets see how many show up for the Ribbon Cutting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0956 hrs
No matter if your pro or con in regards to this project the way the city has handled this should be very concerning to every taxpayer.
They knew this was a done deal since Feb of 2009 and dragged everyone around and played charades for 16 months before they dropped the bomb last night.
Its not fair to attack all the alderman as some found out last night just like we did.
Who are the people on the RDA board (names) ?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1007 hrs
Some might have found out last night but Deiss, Dobberstein, Anderson and Turner all had prepared Statements on why they were voting for it!!
Turner sits on the DRA - not sure who else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1035 hrs
Perhaps a closer look at the behind the scenes dealings needs to be considered. Seems our small town leaders might be trying to mimic “Doyle’s style” of political procedure.
Psst, hey buddy, a few bucks to my (wink, wink) “campaign fund” will go a long way to getting this proposal passed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1039 hrs
From the city’s website:
Updated: 05/04/10 28
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
6 Citizen Members, 1 Alderman 5 Year Term (Staggered)
MEMBERS TERM
Alderman Tony Turner 2009 – 2011
Kirk Emerich 2001 – 2012
John Duwell 2001 – 2013
Chris Guse 2008 – 2013
J. Douglas Fitzgerald 2005 – 2015
Michael Palm, Chair 2001 – 2015
Rick Steiner 2004 – 2011I was at the meeting and want to thank the 4 aldermen who voted with the people. We need more like them on all local boards.
Thanks, too, to all who showed up and voiced their desires. Keep it up and don’t forget to go to the polls next spring.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1104 hrs
So now Tony Turner is targeted? Wow. Being a good representative should never come down to one vote.
On the face of it, I don’t know if I agree with it, but I’m not so arrogant that I am sure I know better that the RDA folks who have much more information.Posted by Charlie Hillman on June 08, 2010 at 1126 hrs
I like Tony and think he has been a good, thoughtful representative. I disagree with him on this issue but think his reasoning is sound. I just find the counter arguments to be stronger.
Posted by Owen on June 08, 2010 at 1132 hrs
Charlie
Perhaps the RDA did have good information, would it be to much to ask that they share it with the community?If they are sitting on information the public dont have dont you think anytime now would be a good time to bring it forward so perhaps we could start to understand there perspective?Several bankers on the RDA list anybody know what bank will be financing this developer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1300 hrs
Maybe this “project” will be the exception where the increase in crime and the need for public services don’t meet the dire predictions, or past history. It’s about as likely as obama turning out to be the best President this country has ever had, but now that we’re saddled with both what other options are there but to hope we are soon to see pigs fly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1328 hrs
I wonder something. Was Tony Turner on the RDA when the deal was approved? On the website it says his term began in 2009, the same year the deal was approved (in February, I believe). It could be that another alderman sat on the RDA when the deal was approved and Tony’s term began later in the year.
I don’t think anyone is “targeting” Tony, or anyone else for that matter. The truth is, the only vote a community member has is at the polls. Once elected, those in office can vote as they see fit. Our job as electors is to vote for folks with our values and hope we can count on them to do the right thing while in office.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1339 hrs
Here’s a link that lists all the WHEDA low income tax credit projects. Look to see if there is one in your town.
Ozaukee County (page 182-183) has 11 projects - some dating back to 1988. In Fredonia, Mequon, Port Washington, Cedarburg, Saukville, Saukville.
Washington County (page 246-249) shows 15 projects, dating back to 1987. In Jackson, West Bend, Newburg, Slinger, Hartford, Germantown, Kewaskum.
Waukesha County (page 250-255) shows 25 projects dating back to 1988. In Eagle, Waukesha, Hartland, Meno Falls, Sussex, New Berlin, Muskego, Delafield, Brookfield, Mukwanago, Town of Waukesha.
Looks like these places are all over - of course, probably half of them are low income elderly - not sure what the criminal element would be in that population.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1401 hrs
Wow. This response to a “low-income” housing development is really *surprising* coming from a community that is constantly crying about the high rate of unemployment and other “hardships” that are being suffered. I would think this alternative would provide some relief or at least some housing alternatives to people in the community. By the way, “low income” isn’t interchangeable with “miscreant.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1402 hrs
Bill,
Can you please explain to us how low income housing attracts jobs.
-ThanksPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1416 hrs
Bill…......surprising….really? You think so? I for one dont think so. The people of West Bend want whats best for thier local community and admittedly best for themselves. Thus as a property tax payer I personally have a vested interest in this(which these renters will not be paying thus do not have a vested interest in my neighborhood). The location is idiotic at best. What better way to bolster economic infrustructure into the slowly growing old down town by bringing in low income housing. I agree with you about those who would qualify as low income are not miscreants as you stated. Again as a vested citizen of WB and sadly a neighbor to this development I personally will see a negative impact for one in decreased property value (albeit I am certain the city will find a way to raise it to get more taxes anyway), decreased postive exposure when I do sell and yes higher crime wether it is petty or signifigant I dont want it. Check the average property values and the crime rate in close proximity to the other low income housing we have. You will unduobtedly find lower home values and higher crime. I do understand there is a need for low income housing but not in the heart of a slowing reviving downtown. What buniesses will want to set up shop real close by? As a businessman, I for one would look eslewhere just like many already have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1429 hrs
Careful JJ- Progressive Bill might argue that you have way too much already. He might you to “Share” more of what you have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1448 hrs
Bill must have been educated through our government run schools.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1456 hrs
I want to be careful not to attack people here for having a different views rather i would attack the view they hold. However the facts are still the facts. This whole ordeal wasn’t completly thought through or it was at least one sidedly. Bill…correct me if I am wrong but I am guessing it isnt you that is having the project built in your back yard? that it isnt you who will have to remeber to lock all the doors and make sure your kids bikes are stored every night or else they will be taken (yes these are petty examples but i think you get my point). TAXTOTHEMAX….whether or not your statment about Bill is correct or not is irrelevant but your statement in general is complty true as we all have to remeber who the subsidisers are in the subsidised housing…the tax payer, you and me and everyone in the state for that matter. Mary…what does the school he went to have anything to do with the issue at hand? I went to public school too, does that make me or others “bad”. Correct me if i am wrong but isnt it your husband (who i voted for and had his sign in my yard) on the board that represnents that government run school? Your points previously today were valid and appropriate but these type of statements are inflamitory and do nothing to address this issue it only shuts down the ability to communicate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1517 hrs
JJ,
Here’s the deal—-Downtown West Bend was turning into an inviting place to go for an evening. Many of the Restaurants have outdoor seating- the Binkery-Art Museum- the Trail- Music on Main- etc, etc, and then this???
I’ve already received questions from friends and relatives from surrounding communities asking what the hell West Bend is doing. We’ve turned into a joke.
It’s my prediction that the Fab-5 (Turner-Anderson-Dobberstein-Deiss and Schlotfeldt) just handed Downtown West Bend a slow Death Sentence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1533 hrs
TAXTOTHEMAX - I couldn’t agree with you more. Slow death indead.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1536 hrs
JJ,
My comment about the government run schools was meant to bring to light the lack of teaching about a free market society and its benefits to a culture. Government run schools tend to be more in sympathy (my own children’s education in them brought this to light - highly dependent on their teacher’s viewpoint) with a socialistic government/welfare state.
Bill seems to think that offering low-income housing will help the problem of unemployment in our community. More and more government is simply not the answer.
I am concerned for the people in town who are struggling to rent their already existing properties and will now need to compete with government subsidized housing. Those folks came to the meeting and expressed themselves very well last night, but it all fell on (5) deaf ears.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1809 hrs
River Bluffs: “monthly rents ranging from $650 to $935” acc. Daily News: Andrew Schaefer, vice president of development for Real Estate Equities.
I rent in WB for $575: (free water, no heat, month to month). No evictions. No crime or legal issues out of 5 tenants/parties since 2003 in this price range/ demographic. Background check via WI circuit court access, past landlords and employer and a quick check of the applicant’s car interior does the trick (They’ll treat the apt. like they do the car). River Bluffs is not a threat, to me.
“government run schools ... lack of teaching about a free market society and its benefits to a culture” WBSD has optional economics and macroeconomics courses. Re: “socialistic government/welfare state” teaching agenda? Of this I am unaware. Report issues to the superintendent.
Frankly, I knew placing a lot of wealth and energy into WB rental properties would be a competitive/ challenging choice since 2001.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1903 hrs
It’s easy (and convenient) to complain when things don’t go your way, but this is democracy at work. Many here argue that local communities must be able to make local decisions for themselves. Well, that’s what happened here. There wasn’t any dictatorial power grab; duly elected council members voted, and per the rules, the duly elected mayor broke the tie.
(And TAXTOTHEMAX, or Gamazy, or whatever your name is, you’re heated rhetoric isn’t helping)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2028 hrs
We as a city are being played for suckers by this developer. They will get this property for pennies on the dollar and we won’t get the tax this property should bring in. The improvements to this area (road placement, art museum, Binkery, train depot, Eisenbahn Trail) are in their infancy and will attract development that will benefit the TIF district. This housing will not. Downtown businesses are small mom and pop style businesses that cannot compete with the prices charged at the big box stores. The residents will not patronize the downtown businesses but they will have to travel to the edge of town. This project should be built near Walmart and McDonalds. Some will call this statement insensative but I call it realistic. As a business owner in downtown I have to question my committment to staying in West Bend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 0909 hrs
Georgie—
Rhetoric?? - I just call’m the way I see’m. Like many others I’m sick and tired of the people we elect making STUPID Decisions!! At least the School Board “Tax to the max” Crowd came out to support the Boards decision. Where the hell was the public support here?? The Fab-5 had the opportunity to Vote no,or at least vote to table it. But voted to pass it without reading the Contract.
If you think this Development is good for Downtown West Bend, please enlighten us as to why.
Are you one of the FAB-5? or the Developer?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 1005 hrs
I am not low income, but I live in a town with pretty much low income housing within walking distance of the village center. It seems to me that mixed use areas within a downtown are sensible. If West Bend (I don’t know if this is true, just speculating) is trying to develop a walkable downtown that encourages more folks to come and stay downtown with their spending money, doesn’t it also make sense to offer a variety of housing arrangements to spread out the profile of downtown businesses? Low income folks can and do shop at places high income folks do. Low income can and do invest in the health of their community.
Renters are property tax payers. They pay the landlord’s property tax. Often renters contribute more to the health and wealth of a community and its businesses than do their landlords, who likely live somewhere else and frequent different businesses and have little other interest in their property than keeping up the value and collecting rent.
I don’t understand how low income housing spells the death of a growing downtown. Shoot, you get a broad enough spectrum of the population down there, and you might lure a Target or BB&B to the neighborhood, too.
Posted by Mike on June 09, 2010 at 1103 hrs
Monday night I witnessed the elected officials being handcuffed by a choice an appointed commitee made.
The RDA board and other commitees are are put in power by the Mayor, she has complete control of who stays or goes on these commitees.
Something this big should not be decided by an appointed board, we hold elections so we can put in place the people we feel are best qualified and will best serve our interests.Something is starting to cloud the waters and i dont like the direction we could be heading. Will there become a time soon when we cant even call the local aldermen with a problem with out them responding I am sorry I agree but my hands are tied a commitee makes that choice for me I am just an elected official I have no real powers?
Back in the day I dont beleive it was ever the intent to have personaly appointed people dictating such large scale issues.
items like this need to fall directly upon the pe
ople we elected for office nobody else should be involved. Several times now I have heard alderman speak out that they wanted more control or say of who is serving on these appointed commitees, as of right now the mayor appoints whoever she feels like and does not have to explain why or how they fill the criteria, not to mention what is the criteria.If we are handing out this much resposibility to citizens, game altering choices that effect the lives and business of other citizens, then maybe we should be electing these commitees, or idle down the authority they have, at the very least these commitees and boards should be formatted somehow so that the elected alderman are part of the selection process.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 1348 hrs
Charlie,
“So now Tony Turner is targeted? Wow. Being a good representative should never come down to one vote.”
I could not disagree more. In a town like WB, most of the votes an alderman make don’t really have a lot of impact….but when someone breaks with the populace on something this important, and betrays the principles you thought they had when you elected them, people have a right to be steamed. I’d certainly “target” Tony if I lived in WB. He sold out your town, and you should be doing everything including a recall if possible to drum him out.
There are lots of votes that someone makes (like voting for the “stimulus package”) that are more than enough grounds to “target” someone…..
I’d argue, that it is often one or a few votes that define a politician, and i think this one just defined Tony.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 1738 hrs
she has complete control of who stays or goes on these commitees
the city council has to approve her appointments, no?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 2340 hrs
Good point George, proof positive rubber stamping will come back and bite you every time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 0838 hrs
Total Entries: 19644
Total Comments: 129733
Most Recent Entry: 02/08/2012 01:08 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/08/2012 01:08 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 128
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/08/2012 01:27 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).