From: "Kaldjian, Paul J." <KALDJIAN@uwec.edu> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:42:08 -0600 Subject: More on County Supervisor Moore and jail expansion Message-ID: <E7DFB9C7847A6242BCF1CEDE9AC1D1E3523BE24146@CHERRYCOKE.uwec.edu>
The following is a fairly long follow-up to recent postings regarding the
jail. If not interested, hit delete now and continue on with things.
--------------------------------------------------
Don, thank you for forwarding Mr. Moore's thoughts and rationale for suppor
ting the current jail expansion. (I would appreciate it if you can forward
this to him.) He has obviously given the issue lots of thought, as I would
hope somebody spending over $100 million of somebody else's money would do
. I do not doubt his sincerity and his efforts toward addressing our commu
nity's needy. By numerous accounts, jail inmate needs/rights are not curre
ntly being met. Just last week I got a collect phone call from an inmate p
leading for help, explaining that prisoners with mental health and emotiona
l problems are being ignored. I admire and thank Supervisors Moore, Bates
and others for their advocacy on behalf of prisoners and their families.
This need for improved services and facilities, however, is different from
the issue of putting them on the river. Also, and maybe I am being too cyn
ical, but if the county is not currently providing for the full range of in
mate needs why should they provide them later? In fact, if costs of a new
$100 million facility get too painful, the things that are being ignored no
w will be those we ignore later.
Thus, the issue is the fixation on the prominent riverfront site, not the n
eed for new facilities. Here are two fundamental problems I have with the
jail expansionist arguments for bullying forward.
Public Involvement
It is a misnomer that the public has abrogated its right to participate by
not speaking out en masse until recently. Some supervisors suggest that th
e jail planning process goes back to 1991. As I see it, the public has bee
n trying to hit a moving target - specifics that are released change even a
s the public begins to understand them. Even at the county board of superv
isors meeting a week ago, a board member asked the County's procurement off
icer when a detailed accounting would be available, and the county official
said that he hoped it would be within a few days. That is to say, public
confusion and fuzziness over what is happening is not a reflection of commu
nity laziness nor disinterest, but of the time it is taking to understand t
he project and its implications. Understandably, with or without good reas
ons, late public involvement is annoying - however, even this is part of th
e democratic process. Alternatives include dictatorships and disenfranchis
ement.
Comprehensive Plan
In September, 2005, the city adopted a comprehensive plan to "guide the Cit
y's decisions about long-term growth and physical development of the Eau Cl
aire community through 2025 (see http://www.ci.eau-claire.wi.us/e107_plugin
s/content/content.php?content.17 for the plan and its context). It was a t
wo-year process, the plan complies with state statute, and the plan subsequ
ently received an award from the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Planning
Association, in part for its incorporation of public input (see, e.g., pl
an commission minutes of 17 April 2006, http://www.ci.eau-claire.wi.us/e107
_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?126.post=).
At the county board meeting of 9 days ago, on 19 February 2008, Mr. Moore a
rgued that the jail expansion is consistent with the City's comprehensive p
lan (CP). I don't see how he can conclude that., perhaps only in the narro
west and most selective reading. At least two sections of the CP's chapter
on downtown (Chapter 12, see http://www.ci.eau-claire.wi.us/e107_files/pub
lic/files/community_developement/comprehensive_plan/chapter_12_downtown_a.p
df) pertain directly to the issue of the jail and its expansion toward the
river.
Objective 10 in Chapter 12 addresses plans for the Courthouse district (pag
es 12-18 and 12-19). Among other things, the plan states that the Courthou
se complex, "should be designed to take better advantage of its riverfront
setting and provide suitable transition to the surrounding neighborhoods,"
and that the economic focus of the Courthouse District should be on "profes
sional office, personal service firms, and convenience retail and food esta
blishments, primarily oriented to serve the residents and employees of the
district and County complex users. The district commercial area should be a
ctively marketed as a unique, pedestrian-oriented business district . . . .
" and "should also encourage marketing of housing along the river bicycle t
rail to take advantage of expanding trail use by providing 'bed and breakfa
st' inns near the riverfront (12-18)."
Regarding Neighborhood Preservation in the Courthouse District, "Commercial
and office uses should not be allowed to encroach into the nearby resident
ial area. Business properties should continue to be well maintained. The C
ity will encourage the preservation of existing homes and neighborhood char
acter . . . (12-19)."
Objective 6 on Downtown Design (pages 12-11 to 12-15) of Chapter 12 helps u
s understand the problem with jail expansion onto the riverfront. Specific
ally, public and private improvements downtown are to, among other things,
"acknowledge the rivers and encourage all development to draw from this beg
inning and enhance the Downtown's unique riverfront setting." Even more sp
ecifically, "Downtown should take better advantage of its greatest natural
attributes, the views of two rivers, and especially the confluence point. R
iverfront land should not be used for parking or other outdoor storage, nor
should buildings present their worst sides to the rivers. The river should
either be lined with public parks and walkways or land uses that benefit f
rom the location, such as apartment buildings, offices, and restaurants. Id
eally, there would be a public open space corridor between the top of the r
iver bluff and the adjacent private river-oriented development (12-12)." W
hat the county has unveiled disregards such a vision. Fortunately, the cit
y plan values and recognizes the importance of landscape, aesthetics, ident
ity and our two rivers' central role.
Comprehensive Plan and Public Involvement
The issue of public involvement is tied to the City of Eau Claire's compreh
ensive plan. One can reasonably argue that, on September 27, 2005, nearly
2 ½ years ago, the public of Eau Claire became involved with a clear stat
ement of its preferences and vision for the riverfront and its development.
This gave the county plenty of time to accommodate and incorporate the ci
ty's position, and, by extension, the public's. Thus, the comprehensive pl
an IS public involvement. For the county to blame city citizens for late i
nvolvement is wrong. Design emphasis for new county courthouse facilities
should be on how to meet the letter and intent of Eau Claire's comprehensiv
e plan, not on the expectation for a variance from them.
So, why the glaring discrepancies between what the city envisions for itsel
f and what the county proposes? Is it county arrogance or disregard? Does
the county simply operate with the expectation that the city will roll ove
r or, as one City Council member wrote to me, that "the County proposes and
the City disposes?" This suggests that the city is complicit or irrelevan
t. I am not ready to accept either. Recognizing that the county conscious
ly voted last summer to keep the issue from public referendum, and seeing h
ow numerous county members at the 19 February board meeting blamed the citi
zenry for its late involvement, I sense bad faith at the county level. May
the city respond with good government. The city spent years on the compre
hensive plan, it should now have faith in it.
Paul Kaldjian
From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu [mailto: [mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.e
du] On Behalf Of Mowry, Donald D.
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 4:42 PM
To: sfpj@listserve.uwec.edu
Subject: RE: Report on County Facility Planning by Gregg Moore
Dear Colleagues,
I am forwarding these thoughts from Gregg Moore because, whether you agree
or disagree with his position, I think they provide a good background for
the decision-making process that has resulted in a county board decision t
o build a new jail and remodel the existing courthouse.
I have worked with Gregg over the past year to develop an alternative to in
carceration program for single women with dependent children, and I respect
his work and his many years of professional service to the Wisconsin Distr
ict Court System.
Sincerely,
Donald D. Mowry, Director
Center for Service-Learning and First Year Experience