Oshkosh Common Council: Despite efforts of transparency, council couldn't see the forest for the trees
At its most recent meeting, four of the seven Oshkosh Common Council members voted to send back to the Plan Commission, a townhouse development project that had been rejected by the Plan Commission at its own meeting, but revised by the developer before the council meeting to address the objections of commission members and neighbors alike.
The majority of the council said because the plans had changed substantially it should go back to the Plan Commission for consideration, the main thought being to give neighbors time to comment on the revised plans. Within a week of the council remanding the project back to the Plan Commission, the developer - Kurt Koeppler - said he was pulling the plug on the project because, given the time of year, even a two-week delay would apparently not be conducive to a construction timetable. He also referenced a volatile economy in his explanation for the project being canceled.
Some, including mayor Paul Esslinger, have taken exception to Koeppler's reason, saying they can't imagine that two weeks would make that much of a difference. Evidently they think they know more about the development business than a well-respected, long-time developer himself. But whether two weeks would break the project or not is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Mr. Koeppler spent the days in between the Plan Commission meeting and the Common Council meeting revising his plans to address everyone's concerns. To say the neighbors needed still more time to review the revisions is taking transparency a little to the extreme. Here's why I believe that:
(1) Any concerned neighbor no doubt knew the plans had been revised as it was written about in the Oshkosh Northwestern. Granted, the article appeared in the paper the day of the council meeting, however, the neighbors also knew that if they were truly concerned about this project being approved they should be at the council meeting that evening, because the Plan Commission is advisory only and the Council always has the authority to approve something despite the commission's position.
(2) Mr. Koeppler made revisions to accommodate concerns by the neighbors and/or city. And according to the Oshkosh Northwestern, "Grove Street resident Tom Guenther Sr., who opposed the original plans, said Koeppler shared the revised plan with him and other neighbors. He said residents he's talked to are glad to see the changes and glad to hear something could happen on what now is a field of mud." So the neighbors apparently had already seen the revisions before the article appeared in the paper.
(3) Councilor Dennis McHugh, who sits on the Plan Commission and had been one of the commissioners who voted against the original plans, said he was now in favor of them, further adding that because people's concerns were addressed, he couldn't imagine the Plan Commission rejecting it a second time. He, along with councilors Burk Tower and Jessica King, voted against sending the plans back to the Plan Commission, but instead wanted them voted on at the council's Oct. 13 meeting.
Transparency is a good thing and had the developer not met with neighbors to show the revisions I might feel sending it back to the Plan Commission was the right way to go. But facts and circumstances being what they were, I believe the council's decision to have this reviewed again by the Plan Commission was micromanagement and overkill, especially since the commission doesn't have the final word on anything.
So what do we have now as a result of their action (or inaction, as the case may be)? We have a dirt-filled empty lot that neighbors don't like either, and $1 million less on the tax rolls. Nice job of watching out for the taxpayers, council. And you thought Jackson Kinney was the problem. Have we replaced one "problem" with another? It sure looks like it after this vote. Let's see what future ones bring.
The majority of the council said because the plans had changed substantially it should go back to the Plan Commission for consideration, the main thought being to give neighbors time to comment on the revised plans. Within a week of the council remanding the project back to the Plan Commission, the developer - Kurt Koeppler - said he was pulling the plug on the project because, given the time of year, even a two-week delay would apparently not be conducive to a construction timetable. He also referenced a volatile economy in his explanation for the project being canceled.
Some, including mayor Paul Esslinger, have taken exception to Koeppler's reason, saying they can't imagine that two weeks would make that much of a difference. Evidently they think they know more about the development business than a well-respected, long-time developer himself. But whether two weeks would break the project or not is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Mr. Koeppler spent the days in between the Plan Commission meeting and the Common Council meeting revising his plans to address everyone's concerns. To say the neighbors needed still more time to review the revisions is taking transparency a little to the extreme. Here's why I believe that:
(1) Any concerned neighbor no doubt knew the plans had been revised as it was written about in the Oshkosh Northwestern. Granted, the article appeared in the paper the day of the council meeting, however, the neighbors also knew that if they were truly concerned about this project being approved they should be at the council meeting that evening, because the Plan Commission is advisory only and the Council always has the authority to approve something despite the commission's position.
(2) Mr. Koeppler made revisions to accommodate concerns by the neighbors and/or city. And according to the Oshkosh Northwestern, "Grove Street resident Tom Guenther Sr., who opposed the original plans, said Koeppler shared the revised plan with him and other neighbors. He said residents he's talked to are glad to see the changes and glad to hear something could happen on what now is a field of mud." So the neighbors apparently had already seen the revisions before the article appeared in the paper.
(3) Councilor Dennis McHugh, who sits on the Plan Commission and had been one of the commissioners who voted against the original plans, said he was now in favor of them, further adding that because people's concerns were addressed, he couldn't imagine the Plan Commission rejecting it a second time. He, along with councilors Burk Tower and Jessica King, voted against sending the plans back to the Plan Commission, but instead wanted them voted on at the council's Oct. 13 meeting.
Transparency is a good thing and had the developer not met with neighbors to show the revisions I might feel sending it back to the Plan Commission was the right way to go. But facts and circumstances being what they were, I believe the council's decision to have this reviewed again by the Plan Commission was micromanagement and overkill, especially since the commission doesn't have the final word on anything.
So what do we have now as a result of their action (or inaction, as the case may be)? We have a dirt-filled empty lot that neighbors don't like either, and $1 million less on the tax rolls. Nice job of watching out for the taxpayers, council. And you thought Jackson Kinney was the problem. Have we replaced one "problem" with another? It sure looks like it after this vote. Let's see what future ones bring.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 12:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home