Village Spillage

At tonight's standing-room-only Plan Commission meeting, 80+ people attended to hear the application of conditional use by Sal's Pizza, who will move in to the location formerly occupied by Ciao Café in July.

After little debate, and a unanimous vote, Katie Pritchard announced "Welcome to Whitefish Bay, Sal's Pizza!"

(Oh, yes.  In other business, the Plan Commission thricely voted unanimously to permit Sendik's to expand their offices, Skin Guru to open, and Aurora/Advanced Health to open a clinic on the old Talbot's/Famous Footwear property.)

What can I say?  I knew it would be extraordinarily difficult for the Village to turn down a multi-billion dollar corporation to occupy a long-vacant location on Silver Spring.  Tremendous kudos goes out to Boulder Venture, who fought the winning fight, holding out for years to find that one solid renter with deep pockets, regardless of its benefits to the Village as a whole.

I remain in belief that the Village lost a tremendous opportunity tonight, not just to hold out for something better, but to send a signal to prime property owners that they are required, by the decision of the people, to find tenants that move the district forward and do better than "not hurt."   -- In the end, Sal's Pizza, with its tiny footprint, will benefit Silver Spring and surrounding businesses far more than the health clinic.

(In other news, a reader emailed me that a single buyer will purchase all three units on the top floor to create one residence in the 5600 Lake Drive condo building.  Who owns 5600 Lake?  None other than Boulder Venture.  With Aurora winning tonight, the champagne is flowing down at BV headquarters.)

(Thank you to KM for tonight's photo.)

I've written many times on the debate over whether Aurora/Advanced Health Care should be granted permission to move in to the old Talbot's / Famous Footwear location owned by Boulder Venture.

Tuesday, April 29th, 7pm, at the Village Hall, the Plan Commission will decide our fate.  (See Agenda)  The public is invited to appear and speak.   You may also send statements to the Village Manager (Manager@WFBVillage.org) who will forward them to the Plan Commission.  (Do so quickly.  The meeting is tonight!)

Since I've already written a half-dozen articles on this subject, I'll summarize:

1. Silver Spring Drive needs help, having lost 9+ businesses over the past year and a half.  While its infrastructure will be renewed in the next 18 months, the true cancer is the lack of broad-appeal retail and service offerings on the Drive.   

2. Because of this decline, we need aggressive action to improve the district, with a strong vision for the end goal of having a thriving business district full of entities the Villagers find necessary and interesting.  The Plan Commission (and CDA) should allow or deny businesses on the basis of whether said business moves us closer to that vision.   "Aurora won't hurt" signals a terrible policy direction: we've given up.  When prime locations are vacant, the Village must ensure they are used optimally.

3.  A medical clinic is not bad for the area; It is simply a poor use of prime land.  A clinic does not fill a need for Villagers, as there are over 200 physicians in a two mile radius.   Silver Spring needs businesses that provide spill-over from one establishment to another.  People who visit doctors do so for a clear reason, because they are unwell.  This means there will be little customer spill-over, as people will see their doctor, then depart the area.   Silver Spring needs businesses that "turn night into day" adding to the economic health of the street, past 5pm, at which time, a medical clinic will be a big, dark building.

4. For these reasons, I urge the Plan Commission to understand that the granting of a conditional use for Aurora on this prime land WILL impede the normal and orderly development and specifically impede the improvement of surrounding property in the district.  

As an additional note .. I am not anti-Aurora.  I am confident they have hundreds of caring professionals serving thousands of people in the area.   I would welcome them to other locations in Whitefish Bay that aren't front and center, signature opportunities.

-------------

If you'd like to read another letter sent to the Plan Commission, two residents have forwarded theirs for your perusal.

Just a quick update .. if you didn't get a chance to see the family of 3 owls on Shoreland (see pictures here) .. they've relocated in a pine tree grove just a half block north of their original nest.

They are in a grove of pine trees between St. Monica's church .. and the convent.

The owls are in a tree south of the blacktop path that leads from the parking lot to the convent.  Go about half way between the parking lot and convent and look south at a tree perhaps 20 feet from the path.

Here's a map of where to find them.

In today's NorthshoreNOW there was a "Public Forum" letter titled "Village could not dream of better proposal" .. which professed glowing support for the Aurora Advanced Health Clinic, to be discussed at the Plan Commission next Tuesday, April 29th. 

Seriously?  Could not dream of a better proposal?    "It is a much better proposal than boutiques that do not have a history of longevity."  

"Residents of all ages would have access in their own neighborhood to a physician.."    I had no idea the mostly well-insured residents of Whitefish Bay were so starved for health care.  One would have thought the 200+ doctors within 2 miles would be enough.  Guess not.

The author continues "..jobs would be available, and there would be no concerns about late-night hours or permits to serve alcohol."    Can you imagine the horror that would befall Whitefish Bay if there were businesses that drew people to Silver Spring after dark?  That serve booze?   Pandemonium!

And those "jobs" the writer suggests?  I got an email from a loyal reader today that might explain this...

The Public Forum letter in today's North ShoreNOW in support of the Aurora Advanced Healthcare Clinic is written by .. the wife of an Advanced Healthcare physician. She does not so indicate this in her letter.

And, if Google is correct, if this 2002 picture (page 5) is one of the author herself, it turns out she worked as a nurse at Aurora Healthcare!

Ahhhh.  Now I understand what "jobs" she's talking about.   Can you say .. conflict of interest?

Voter registration roles are public information .. the data for WFB is interesting.  There's a record for each of the 9,892 registered voters in Whitefish Bay, detailing their name, address, and voting record.  Yup.  I know if you, William Whitefishbay of 1234 Henry Clay, voted or not.  If you lived on Henry Clay, there's an 81% chance you didn't vote.  More about that later.

The data for the April 2008 election is not out, except for knowing that there was a 43% turnout.

I crunched the numbers from the April 2007 election to compare two similar elections.  In 2007, 4 candidates were on the ballot for Village Trustee (Brennan, Roemer, Foster, Anderko) .. and there was a WI Supreme Court race with two candidates, Ziegler and Clifford.  2008 had a contested Village Trustee race (Fee, Siegel, Fehring) and a WI SC race, Butler and Gableman.

2007 Compares to 2008 in that, for both years, there were WI Supreme Court races, and a contested Village Trustee race.   2008 also had a Milwaukee County Executive Race (Scott Walker/Taylor), a WFB Judge Race, and the Frankenstein Referendum -- It is interesting that voter participation went from 32% in April 2007, to 44% in 2008. 

I'm not sure how to explain that 12 point, 37% increase in participation from 2007 to 2008.  Maybe it was the Walker/Taylor race.. or the 100s of ads for State Supreme Court, but were there more ads for the 2008 SSC race, than the 2007 SSC race?  In comparison, Shorewood's turnout rate stayed around 34% for both April 2007 and April 2008.  So if the ads motivated WFB residents to vote, it should have also motivated Shorewood's residents.  And it did not.

Maybe WFB's voter increase had something to do with the nature of the Trustee race?  You could theorize that Villagers have been inundated with Silver Spring business closures over the past 12 months, which may have spurred people to vote.  Heck, I suppose one difference between 2007 and 2008 is that no one wrote extensive Candidate Profiles (cough, cough) in 2007, so who knows .. maybe this very blog made a difference, yielding a more informed electorate and higher turnout.  (I'd like to think I helped out.)

Ok .. enough with that.  Here's a table of a street-by-street breakdown of who voted in WFB for the April 2007 election. 

Clearly, short streets shouldn't win the prize for "Best Voters" .. I think that prize goes to streets like Lake View, Circle, Birch, Woodburn and Newhall.  Chateau, Anita, and Henry Clay are where the slackers live.

StreetName	Registered Voters	DIDN'T VOTE	VOTED	% Vote
MONROVIA	4		4	100.0%
SCHOOL	3		3	100.0%
KIMBARK	15	3	12	80.0%
MEADOW	30	13	17	56.7%
FLEETWOOD	4	2	2	50.0%
BLACKTHORNE	38	21	17	44.7%
MORRIS	36	20	16	44.4%
LAKE VIEW	120	67	53	44.2%
PALISADES	34	19	15	44.1%
CIRCLE	113	64	49	43.4%
BIRCH	97	55	42	43.3%
WOODBURN	265	152	113	42.6%
FREDERICK	12	7	5	41.7%
NEWHALL	142	84	58	40.8%
WILSHIRE	69	41	28	40.6%
CONSAUL	15	9	6	40.0%
DEVON	10	6	4	40.0%
COURTLAND	79	48	31	39.2%
BRIARWOOD	26	16	10	38.5%
SHEFFIELD	141	87	54	38.3%
HAMPTON	162	101	61	37.7%
DAY	85	53	32	37.6%
LEXINGTON	171	108	63	36.8%
SYLVAN	87	55	32	36.8%
WILDWOOD	74	47	27	36.5%
MAITLAND	22	14	8	36.4%
ELKHART	246	157	89	36.2%
BEAUMONT	89	57	32	36.0%
LAKE HILL	14	9	5	35.7%
MARLBOROUGH	90	58	32	35.6%
CUMBERLAND	292	189	103	35.3%
CARLISLE	88	57	31	35.2%
BELLE	20	13	7	35.0%
SHORE	118	77	41	34.7%
WOODRUFF	182	119	63	34.6%
BERKELEY	589	388	201	34.1%
MURRAY	44	29	15	34.1%
KENT	515	340	175	34.0%
ARDMORE	192	128	64	33.3%
LAKE	567	378	189	33.3%
LAKE DRIVE	15	10	5	33.3%
LANCASTER	67	45	22	32.8%
IDLEWILD	314	211	103	32.8%
WFB AVERAGE				31.8%
GLENDALE	60	41	19	31.7%
HOLLYWOOD	374	256	118	31.6%
SANTA MONICA	597	412	185	31.0%
COLFAX	30	21	9	30.0%
BAY RIDGE	612	432	180	29.4%
SHORELAND	575	407	168	29.2%
CRAMER	86	61	25	29.1%
LYDELL	296	210	86	29.1%
WILSON	7	5	2	28.6%
GLEN	50	36	14	28.0%
DIVERSEY	403	295	108	26.8%
BARTLETT	128	96	32	25.0%
LARKIN	191	144	47	24.6%
FAIRMOUNT	140	108	32	22.9%
LAKE FOREST	53	41	12