They'd Pave Over a River If They Could. Wait, They Already Did That!

Tweet

No, that's not a photoshop or an artist's rendition of some jackwagon city planners dream to pave over a river with a parking lot. That's the real thing courtesy of Google Earth.

The parking lot sits over the bustling Rock River between Court and Milwaukee Streets in Janesville. It was built in 1963.

Janesville officials are now considering its permanent removal, which seems very odd for a city that vigorously adheres to old world industrialist sprawl plans. But whatever they decide, I won't put any hope into thinking they have turned towards organic and sustainable economic planning models. They are just entering 1955 only now.

Related:

Janesville's Comprehensive Plan Grows a Poor Future

Janesville Considers Expanding Industrial Base Into Farmland

City Growth Plans Are Set In Stone, Unless...

Tweet

During a city council discussion to consider a property owner's zoning change request came this remark from Janesville Council Member Tom McDonald regarding the city's Comprehensive growth Plan.

Quote From Council meeting:
(March 22, 2010)
"Again it is my understanding that this rezoning would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, so under Wisconsin law can we even do this? My understanding is we would have to open up the (Comp) plan and actually change the plan and there would be an entire process that would go into that, so that is something we would not be able to do tonight."

The response from the city staffer? "Correct!"

Oddly, nobody challenged McDonald on that assertion. I say that because when the city council voted to approve of the city's growth plan just over one year ago, several council members justified their vote in favor of approval by insisting the plan was not set in stone because each zoning, annexation or development request would be judged case-by-case. Excluding this blog at the time, that premise was left unchallenged.

In addition to the obvious false justifications to hurriedly approve of the Comp Plan, and less than one month after (April, 2009) the plan was approved, the Janesville community planning director (no less) said that the city’s newly minted Comprehensive Plan was actually unable to direct future growth within the city's own school district. At least 60% of future development growth is expected to occur inside the Milton School District! Just incredible.

In another council discussion a month after (May, 2009) the school district disclosure, several council members repeated yet again how each parcel, development and proposal brought to the council would be acted upon and voted independently on their own merit. That the plan was not laid in stone, but simply a guide that could be changed at anytime.

In yet another challenge (June, 2009) to the city council's sense of flexibility regarding the Comp Plan guidelines, the City Manager (who did not challenge the council's "flexibility" assertion during approval of the Comp Plan) repeatedly interrupted and warned council members that approving a zoning change request that happens to run counter to the plan would set "a new and dangerous precedent."

However, that McDonald's statement on Monday night went unchallenged was finally an admittance that the council's general understanding of the Comp Plan was false from the start. Once the Comprehensive Plan and its boundaries and zoning requirements are approved, it becomes the written law making it nearly impossible to change zoning or deny annexation other than that specified by the plan. Unless as McDonald said, it is cracked open which will probably require public notices, additional hearings and of course, a different approach and goal to future growth.

After rushing the plan into approval eight months early, it's unfortunate that their willingness to accept some truth had to come one year too late.

Note: The city council eventually voted against the property owner's zoning change request at Monday night's meeting because, "it is inconsistent with the city's Comprehensive Growth Plan."

Janesville Considers Expanding Industrial Base Into Farmland

Tweet

When it comes to city growth plans, this has to be the worst of the worst.

JG Excerpt:
The Janesville City Council on Monday will consider adding 185 acres of vacant land to TIF No. 26 for industrial development. The land is being farmed but is zoned for industrial and residential.

Is it farmland? Well....uh...its zoned for industrial and residential development. But it's being farmed. So....uh...it's vacant land. That's it...it's vacant land! Is the owner paying property taxes based on typical city lot vacant land or is the owner paying pennies on the dollar in property tax taking advantage of Wisconsin's land-use assessment by paving it with crops? Huh...what business is this of yours? Why does this matter to you? It does matter because this is farmland, and the Gazette went to great lengths to avoid the term and the relationship in today's article misleadingly titled, "TIF district expansion would include GM plant." (The actual TIF boundaries does not include GM) Instead, the newspaper ran with comments from pro-sprawl city administrators spinning the request into a positive for the nearby and vacant industrial complex.

Not only is the city willing to expand its industrial base (or residential) into farmland, they are eager to accomodate the farmland owner(s) by drawing a tax incentive TIF district around it.

But it gets even worse. This farmland/industrial expansion is within 1/2 mile from the sprawling GM plant. And instead of taking a step back and looking at the folly of their position, the proximity of the farmland to over 300 acres of a wide assortment of existing prime, classic and vacant industrial buildings and supporting structures, including the GM plant itself - they call the passage of this breach against all common sense as an "opportunity."

JG Excerpt:
"The proposed TIF No.26 boundary amendment will add additional industrial lands that can be improved with municipal utilities and services to attract continued industrial industrial development."

Well, hardee-har and har. And to make sure no one should question the outcome of this request, particularly any snarky bloggers, environmentalists, genuine farmers, concerned citizens or other activists......

JG Excerpt:
If the council approves the amendment, it will be forwarded to the Joint Review Board made up of representatives from the city, school district, county and vocational school district.

So there!

The Gazette article also stated no public hearing is scheduled, and it's just as well. It probably wouldn't make any difference. In the past some guy (or gal) from Forward Janesville, the Fourth Ward neighborhood or the city's far NE side would step up and Kumbaya the same line, "I support our city leaders and visionaries who refuse to stand by and watch our city deteriorate. This TIF district and expansion over farm vacant land is just what we need to bring in jobs and increase our tax base."

It never fails.

"It's consistent with the city's Comprehensive Growth plan."

The TIF proposal on the city's agenda rambles on for 46 pages and builds a case for it by jumbling Wisconsin TIF laws in with various numbers showing the expected effects of the expanded tax base.

Well, that's good enough for me.

Agenda Excerpt:
City staff is proposing a third amendment to TIF No. 26 to add
approximately 185 acres of vacant farmland planned for industrial development.

City Staff is proposing? Did the landowner request the TIF inclusion? Or does the city just haphazardly draw TIF districts around working farmland without any regard to the owner? Or the farmers? Why isn't the landowner making the presentation requesting the amendment? Why aren't the landowners names, along with their preliminary plans, goals, intentions and interactions with the city documented in the proposal? Instead we get state statutes, historical charts and projections?Boundaries not exact - for demonstration only.

The irony: Had the owner(s) of the farmland approached the city or county requesting to change the residential and commercial zoning back to AG, the city administration would have vehemently protested stating something like, "That's a non-compliant request because its inconsistent with the city's comprehensive growth plan."

Note: This posting is not a position or attack against the farmland owners or their plans. They obviously have the right (within the law) to do as they please with their land.

Growth Plan's Flexibility Tested - Fails

Tweet

Monday's Janesville city council meeting had one of those "who blinked first" moments during a discussion over what appeared to be a rather harmless zoning change request for a banquet hall on the west side of town.

The applicant's request for B3 zoning which would allow for "permitted use" of a banquet hall was not recommended by the city administration. They advised the council to modify the request to a B2 zoning designation which would allow for a less favorable "conditional use." No big deal, right? But who would think that a request to change zoning on an existing developed parcel would pose a test of both the city's Comprehensive Plan and the city council's flexibility and integrity? At first not me, but such was the case during Monday's meeting.

To see this relationship unfold we have to rewind slightly to a little over three months ago when city council members each presented their positions on the city's growth (Comprehensive) plan. During that meeting, several council members justified their vote in favor of the Comp Plan passage by insisting it was not set in stone because each zoning, annexation or development request would be judged case-by-case.

Possibly unaware of the banquet hall zoning connection to the Comp Plan, council members during Monday's meeting quickly moved to make a motion to approve the original request changing the parcel zoning from O1 to B3. After a short discussion among the council, they appeared to be on the verge of approving the B3 until the City Manager, Eric Levitt, interrupted and repeatedly warned the council members that changing the zoning on this particular parcel to B3 runs counter to the recently approved Comprehensive Plan and that doing so would set "a new and dangerous precedent." Well, if there ever was a time for the Janesville city council to demonstrate the flexibility they spoke about when they hastily approved of the Comp Plan several months ago - now was that time.

Although the city manager offered few details as to why the B3 request was not consistent with the growth plan, he did make it clear to the council that any deviation from the plan now could damage the plan's integrity. After a few more assurances by the administration that the zoning change applicant would not be charged additional money (from multiple applications), the city council surrendered to the manager's suggestion and approved of the rezone, but only to the Comp Plan-compliant B2.

However, in retrospect, this "growth plan set-in-stone awakening" at Monday's meeting clearly proved that months ago, several city council members spoke either prematurely or unknowingly when they claimed the Comprehensive Plan was not a rigid document but just a guideline that could be changed at any time. It also brings attention as to why the city manager failed to question, rebut, correct or even politely challenge the council member's claims during the city's run-up to approve of the Comp Plan. Yet he had no reservations now advising the council against exercising any flexibility they previously insisted the Comp Plan possessed.

This entire city council episode including the potential and serious implications it held with the Comp Plan received the following report in the Janesville Gazette.

JG Excerpt:-- Rezoned the former Moose Club at 120 N. Crosby Ave. so the owner can build a banquet facility in the basement.