Message-ID: <003801c87895$f2d4ed40$ca01a8c0@uwec7nyqnsifeg> From: "Mary Weil" <mw2085@charter.net> Subject: Fw: jail expansion Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:37:59 -0600
Below is a letter (blue font) one of my friends received from Mr. Moore,
the supervisor Mr. Mowry mentioned. Below his letter are my concerns
(in black and maybe clumsy and uneducated) with a few questions.
To continue the education process for us, in red are the responses from
Ken Fuglione.
Mary Weil
I thank you for sharing this. It is well thought out from Mr. Moore's
perspective and should be respected. but also should be looked at for
what it says and what he fails to see.
I will try to respond and clarify where I am able ... and give my
opinions. (see below in red>) I do not mean to be disrespectful below.
so please keep that in mind. Feel free to share my thoughts
Ken
My Thoughts on County Facility Needs and Plans - February 23, 2008
Gregg Moore - Eau Claire County Board Supervisor - District 17
At the corner of Lake Street and Oxford Avenue, the sign reads, "Eau
Claire County Government Center." Housed in the Government Center
facility that fills the block bordered by Second Ave., West Grand Ave.,
Oxford Ave. and Lake Street are the courthouse, jail, joint law
enforcement center (city police and count sheriff) and other county
offices. The courthouse and jail have been located on this site since
1873 (before 1952, the jail had been located on the north end of the
county's Oxford parking lot at the corner of Oxford and West Grand).
This is all rather irrelevant.. but yes we did have a little house that
served as the original jail back in the 1800's.. And the library is now
city hall and there was a little house over by the hospital that is no
longer. The real question is .. Is the current space remaining adequate
for long term needs and if not .. do we want to continue down this path
to the degradation of the neighborhood and contrary to the current
thinking of the city as to how we want to protect and make better use of
our city riverfronts.??? Or should we begin the migration and
separation now.
For the past five years, county facility planning has been a major
policy item for the County Board. Elected officials, staff, citizens
and consultants have devoted a great deal of time to assessing facility
needs, studying the options, and making recommendations for meeting both
the short-term and long-term needs of Eau Claire County and, in certain
service areas, the City of Eau Claire. The city currently leases space
in the Eau Claire County Government Center for the Police Department,
Communications Center and City-County Health Department.
Since 1991, numerous studies have been conducted that have consistently
shown that, among other space needs, the law enforcement center needs
much more space and the current jail is extremely inadequate and poses
significant liability risks for the county. Some of the findings in the
2003 State of Wisconsin Jail Inspection Report were:
Jail support areas are undersized or non-existent
There is lack of segregation areas for special needs, mental health,
medical and high security inmates
Jail control areas are accessible to inmates and pose significant
security risks
Facility is not efficient, is staff intensive and is unsafe to operate.
Even if the need for more secure beds could be eliminated by reducing
arrests, modifying charging practices by the district attorney, or
reducing the length of jail sentences, I believe the existing jail is
fundamentally inadequate and needs to be replaced.
The question of if we need a new facility is not at debate. I can see
from his long explanations that he is sincere..I also see from his
comments a need to re-locate a portion of the jail outside of the
downtown area. From everything I have followed and researched . yes the
current justice system needs to be fixed and the jail as a part of that
system as well as treatment and services needs to be addressed.. Again
we have not addressed the long term plan and why the county thinks that
this location is adequate. Their own plans and projections show they
will need more than this current 2 story facility is a very short time..
So why not plan correctly NOW.????
From 2003 - 2005, the county conducted a major space needs study, which
received extensive media coverage and included dozens of public
informational meetings. If I'm not mistaken, between 2003 and today,
more than 100 public meetings of one sort or another have been held to
seek public input and inform the public of the issues. In addition to
documenting the county's facility space needs, 14 alternative scenarios
were considered for addressing these needs.
This is funny. I wonder what he means by public meetings? I'll bet Mr.
Moore thinks that every time a meeting is held and they post a sheet
down in the foyer of the court house that the meeting is taking place ..
It counts as a public meeting. It is a different philosophy of
constituent involvement I must say. When the public actually did attend
sessions there was strong opposition. it was politely listened to and
the project moved on. How many of his constituents signed the 1000
signature protest petition??? Did he even look at who did sign it when
it was left in the front of the county board meeting room ... What I
find interesting is that the majority of this process was not even known
by the members of the board let alone the public. if it did occur as I
am sure it did in some fashion . Someone did discuss these things and
narrowed it all down.. But with very little true constituent
involvement.
Democracy is a sloppy business.. There is always 11th hour questions by
constituents. and if the process is flawed and the constituents did not
truly have any opportunity to buy in and be involved In the process.. It
gets even messier . as it is now.
Four scenarios were selected for more in-depth analysis. Pros and cons,
as well as estimated costs, were identified for each the following
scenarios:
I reviewed these scenarios and they were all or nothing pictures.
limited by someone's idea of efficiency. I never did see anything about
a proposal supposedly presented by CTTC (????) Nor did I see discussion
details about a split campus concept where the processing, booking,
intake and short term confinement was maintained at a remodeled 3rd
floor and the longer term confinement & programs where located remote
say out by the west side tech school ?? or outside of the downtown area.
For some reason this less efficient concept was not discussed.. When
they get the public in a discourse they will find that there may be
ideas outside of the box that may be worth considering.
Scenario 1 - Government Campus (new court services building and new jail
adjacent to existing building, between Second and First Avenue; law
enforcement and other offices remain in current building)
Scenario 2 - Split Campus (new court services building adjacent to
existing building, between Second and First Avenue; new jail and Huber
at a remote location; law enforcement and other offices remain in
current building)
Scenario 3 - Addition Plan (close Oxford Avenue and build over parking
lot; utilize space between Second and First Avenues for surface parking)
Scenario 4 - Remote Campus (remote location for jail, court services and
law enforcement; other offices remain in current building)
All of these are all or nothing approaches. and to be honest even
though we have a lot of data .. Until just last week we have not really
even begun to analyze what it is we really need in terms of beds or the
type of people we are serving or what their needs are.. But they KNOW WE
NEED A JAIL .. Bull, they wanted to build before they study. and if
their idea of getting the public input into a session is to have a
non-elected person who does not work in the system to be in attendance
.. They did a bad job at it .. and now they still need to sell an idea
that was not developed inclusive of the public when it was born. >>>
Sorry
In March 2006, the County Board selected the Government Campus scenario
as the preferred solution. This approach is consistent with the City of
Eau Claire Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2005 following
significant citizen input and involvement. The Comprehensive Plan
"encourage(s) expansion of the Courthouse facilities to be oriented east
toward the river.." The plan's map indicates "Major Public Facilities"
in the area between the current building and First Ave. Plan also
provides that "The Courthouse campus serves as the key anchor for this
(Courthouse) district and should be designed to take better advantage of
its riverfront setting and provide suitable transition to the
surrounding neighborhoods."
I believe we have a slight mis-understanding of the comprehensive plan.
It is easy to use only the portions that one wants to apply. Visit the
city's website for a full version that will clarify the need to respect
the neighborhood as well .. It is also understood that there is a
difference between a courthouse campus... and a 4 to 5 story jail no
matter how it is decorated. The long term plans of the county do not
work into this area. They need to begin moving some of it out of the
area and NOW is the time most suitable since a jail that will grow is
best located outside of the downtown.
I should note that the proposed Government Center building that would
house the jail is designed to blend in well with downtown Eau Claire
architecture, be aesthetically attractive, and be a positive,
complementary addition to the existing facility. As a practical matter,
the exterior design of the building is essentially independent of the
interior structure and function. In other words, the building facade
can look like almost anything. Regarding the footprint of the proposed
building, it is to be set back 30 feet from the sidewalk on First Ave.
In June 2007, County Board approved building a new jail that would
connect to the current Government Center facility, expand law
enforcement area and address other county facility needs within the
existing building. The County Board also passed a resolution of intent
to borrow $59.1 million to fund new construction and remodeling of the
existing building.
In November 2007, the County Board adopted a budget that included a
property tax levy rate adjustment to meet the debt service requirements
for paying off the bonds within 22 years. At $3.62 per $1,000 assessed
value, this property tax rate is still well below the median rate for
Wisconsin counties, $4.74. While expensive, I believe the proposed
building project is fiscally responsible and reasonable.
The County Board continues to support numerous programs intended to
reduce recidivism and address some of the underlying causes of crime.
These include Drug Court, AIM Court (which targets single mothers with
drug, alcohol and/or mental health issues), and Mental Health court.
The Criminal Justice Collaborating Council (CJCC), which the County
Board created nearly two years ago, provides a mechanism for all the key
players in the justice system to address system wide issues. The CJCC,
among other things, asked for a justice system assessment (not just a
jail study) by the National Institute of Corrections, a service agency
of the US Department of Justice. It is hoped and expected that the
consultants' recommendations will help improve performance of the
overall justice system.
Although the consultants' final report will be submitted in a few
weeks, they did make an unequivocal finding that was reported in the
February 22 issue of the Leader-Telegram:
"You need a new facility," Cushman said, adding that the present one is
"inadequate and undersized." While Cushman said he wouldn't take a
stance on the county's chosen site for the new jail, he did mention that
it is best to have one in a city setting with easy access to community
services and transportation. A remote site not only makes it more
difficult to get supplies and services to a jail, he said, but it
stigmatizes inmates into thinking they are not part of a community.
I attended this "public discussion session" It was quite good but
another of the hardly public sessions since it was never announced to
the public.. Any way. They did indicate that we needed to have more
analysis and as we all believed that a larger facility was needed.
There as many options and positive benefits from a remote site, a split
site and a new jail elsewhere as there are for a jail on the river. The
gentlemen presenting the findings they put together over a 2 day
interview and data compilation period . did not want to comment on the
downtown location of the jail because they did not look at the site nor
study the effects that site would have on the neighborhood and the
community. They did indicate that a remote site could stigmatize
inmates and then went on to talk about the jail shaped like a sheriff's
hat with a badge that was located out in the middle of a desert... That
is a far cry from the west side of the city where they would be close to
tech school facilities and training programs that would also be able to
be better expanded in that area .. And it is on the bus line or would
be..
Based on three key criteria of need, cost and location, I continue to
believe that the past County Board decisions are in the best long-term
interest of the community. The needs are compelling and well
documented. The cost is expensive but, as I noted earlier, I believe it
is reasonable and fiscally responsible. And finally, I believe the
location of the new Government Center building between Second and First
Avenues is the most appropriate one and is consistent with the city's
Comprehensive Plan.
I think the new building will not be a blight on the riverfront, as
some people seem to think. As noted earlier, although the functions
within the building will be for a jail, the exterior will be an
attractive facade that will enhance, not detract from, the riverfront or
downtown development efforts. The building would be set back well away
from First Avenue (30 feet from the sidewalk) so as not to encroach on
the riverfront.
What about future plans and expansion needs . why not include them in
our planning now????? We show is all squeezed in and we show the
elimination of Lake st homes .. We even have a map showing the
elimination of Grand Ave businesses.. What will the long term need be?
I also believe that it would be a major mistake to separate the jail
from courts and law enforcement. Even with continued use of video
arraignment technology, there would be permanent increased costs and
security risks associated with transportation of inmates from a remote
jail to the courthouse.
I and many other believe it would be a mistake not to split the campus
now and use the property for the betterment of downtown planning.. So
now we have opinions without consensus from the constituents who have to
pay for this and leave it as the heritage of our city.
If the courts and law enforcement as well as jail were moved to remote
location, I believe that, too, would be a major mistake. Separate county
complexes would decrease public convenience and increase costs for
travel between facilities. I also think it would adversely affect
downtown economic development. Not only would many government employees
no longer be working downtown (and eating and shopping at local
establishments), but also many associated businesses would likely
relocate to be nearer the courts (e.g. law firms, Public Defender
offices, and Probation and Parole).
This is a totally false scare tactic.. Please don't even waste your time
re-reading that bunk. With a place for an expanded courthouse and a
remote split jail facility we would have room for specialty shops,
restaurants and boutiques along a meandering bike trail along the river
.. And those in the county building and courthouse and visitors would
flock to the area.. See it all depends on the perspective one wants to
paint.
So in conclusion, I believe that, on balance, the proposed building
plan makes the most sense and will have a positive, not a negative,
impact on public services, the downtown, the riverfront and the
community.
And I and many many constituents that he should have consulted with
along the process do not believe that this is the best direction for the
city and its new commitment to develop and improve our river fronts.
Though I neither a rich investor nor a developer, I am a citizen of Eau
Claire. My concerns and comments are:
I think Mr. Moore makes a valid argument for the jail to be on the
riverfront, but I still wonder what will be the state of need for a
further expansion of the jail in the next 10 to 15 years. The current
investors will be long gone with new investors taking their places. I
will still be around, hopefully, and do not want to have to revisit this
need then. If it is as we were told, that the original construction was
just a band-aid and that the need was not addressed when this jail was
originally built, and that a decade from now, the cost will be even more
compared to today's standards and then we will once again need to
fulfill the requirements of an inevitable expansion. Will this also be
on the riverfront? What is the long range plan for further needed
expansion??
Though the argument may also be a good one regarding publicizing the
information over plans for a jail and community opportunities to have
dialogue, as in any situation, the citizens of any community have many
other things on their agendas such as: increased taxes and how to pay
them, who will get the second job to help put the children through
school, will we drop health insurance to pay other bills, etc. These
concerns are more important to the average citizen than concern for jail
proposals that are in the early stages. This attitude of truly
concerned citizens is unfortunate but true anywhere, not just in Eau
Claire.
I do not feel the plan fits the city's comprehensive plan as I am a
purist and would have no buildings blocking the view of the river from
any behind it. That of course is my personal opinion. I also do not
approve of this "imminent" eminent domain (in almost any case) and that
our county and city government is moving in to evict small businesses
and homes. This to me, personally, is indefensible.
A couple more concerns: The statement: "A remote site not only makes
it more difficult to get supplies and services to a jail, he said, but
it stigmatizes inmates into thinking they are not part of a community".
We are not a backwoods community with wagon paths here. One can go
almost anywhere within a few minutes on very well maintained roads. I
need further detail as to what this consultant is attempting to infer.
Also, might a less "fancy facade" reduce the cost of the building, then
expenses to transport prisoners and get supplies to another location be
considered a wash (with a practical cement gray building away from the
public and tourists' view)?
I also need good psychologically based information as to why a different
location for the jail "stigmatizes inmates into thinking they are not
part of a community". Maybe a better question is what has gone on in
the lives of these inmates that have caused them to not feel committed
to our community nor feel respect for his or her fellow citizens?
That question leads me to ask the following. What are the taxes for
businesses in our community? Is there a tax break to keep businesses
from leaving and going elsewhere? I would rather the jail be
unattractive in some more remote area and cause criminals to go
elsewhere where they can enjoy a lovely riverfront jail. (A bit of
humor) Is there a county strategy to make businesses commit to the
community? Are there tax incentives for businesses that make them
identify with the community? Why would a business identify with the
community if it does everything in its power to prevent itself from
paying its fair share of taxes? We seem more concerned for prisoners to
feel they belong and commit to our community than we are businesses.
Most confusing in this scheme of things is the increase in property tax
to fund the jail. Our city and county needs to take into consideration
one's ability to pay yet another tax increase. This letter is not a
condemnation of taxes. However, it is a condemnation of taxes that
result (literally) in people losing their homes. I believe that taxes,
when applied fairly, provide necessary and essential services. I
understand the value of a new jail. But taxes on homeowners in this area
must not increase without regard to the ability of individuals to
afford such increases. The so-called market value of a home is not
necessarily indicative of a homeowner's other assets. For those with a
limited income who happen to live in an area where property values may
increase dramatically, the problem becomes insurmountable. How many
people have had to resort to using credit to pay property taxes, further
going into debt just to keep their modest homes? This must be a
consideration in how much citizens are to be taxed for this new jail.
Between 1970 and 2003 the share of property taxes in Northern Wisconsin
paid by residential owners went up from 46% of the total tax bill to
about 70%. At the same time the share that businesses paid decreased to
30%. People argue that if we tax businesses more they will leave the
state. On the contrary, taxing corporations their fair share should be
viewed as part of doing business; their responsibility and pride of
being members of a community. Though they use the same services, they
are paying a smaller and smaller share of the costs. Why? Is it because
big business is very successful at lobbying our lawmakers? So, I ask
again. Is there a commitment from the county and city to tax
corporations their fair share as a part of doing business because there
is a sense of responsibility and pride from those businesses in being
members of our community? Or is Eau Claire more concerned about the
stigma inmates might have of not feeling a part of a community they have
just assaulted?
Hmm...I guess if I have to make a decision, if we are even slightly
pandering to big business, I opt for businesses rather than inmates to
be influenced into thinking they are a part of the community.
As for the concern about business loss from moving the prison from the
river area, I need the data on how much business is done in the downtown
by jail personnel and what would be the financial loss to downtown
businesses? Would we be better off continuing to improve downtown and
thus attract new small businesses, get our people to shop and eat
downtown and promote tourism? I truly wonder about the concern for the
long term future of Eau Claire as the developers' trend continues to
build businesses in the green space out by the mall. I understand there
is work being done downtown but truthfully, do the developers continue
to influence the council members rather than the citizens?
A tourist friend recently stated to me: "You know, Eau Claire used to
be so beautiful as I drove into this area of Wisconsin. I thought of it
as "The Gateway to the Northwoods". Now, its beginning to look like any
other big city with all the trees gone and the chain restaurants and
stores taking their places. It is disappointing to me."
Mary Weil