RE: JAIL !!! DOWN TO THE WIRE !!!

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view
Drumm, Dan L. (DRUMM@uwec.edu)
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:05:43 -0500



From: "Drumm, Dan L." <DRUMM@uwec.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:05:43 -0500
Subject: RE: JAIL  !!! DOWN TO THE WIRE !!!
Message-ID: <EEA4CA65D05DC54E874A89D9F518681953EF81EAB3@CHERRYCOKE.uwec.edu>

Hi Crispin,

I welcome disagreements because they offer a chance for clarification and d ialog.

I'm sure you are aware than we've taken another step in the process when th e special committee voted 10-5 to try to keep the jail location previously rejected by the city.

It seems you've bought into the line that the jail placement is all about d owntown residents or businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 I agree with "smart growth" principles, and that's what we should be using
 to determine the best placement for the jail. That said, there are also ma ny other considerations, not simply the natural environment, or proximity t o the current court building which will also be rebuilt.

Having been involved in this process for quite a while, I've spent many hou rs reading government documents and speaking with County Board and City Cou ncil members, County/City Administrators, Professors, Planers, and consulta nts for the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). I can confidently sta te that following the NIC recommendations of locating a jail in a light ind ustrial area, away from schools, churches, recreational areas, waterways, t rails, etc., is really the way to go. The guidelines (written by consulta nts that have studied many well designed and poorly designed jails) recomme nd that sites should be selected which can double in size if necessary. The y recommend a site where inmates can have at least some access to the outdo ors - something that is not possible at the cramped downtown site.

Building at a site with an adequate area (most are on the outskirts of town
) would not be more expensive, in fact it could well be less expensive. It would certainly be more efficient to start on land free of development and without the need to reroute traffic, destroy and rebuild streets, water and
 sewer infrastructure, etc. The downtown site cannot take advantage of bel ow grade construction, and the ground needs extra reinforcement to hold the
 three story jail and five story parking ramp.

I do not see any reason to believe construction in one location would cause
 more pollution that in another location, so we disagree there as well. Als o, with either location there will be degradation of "natural areas" whethe r that is by the construction of justice system buildings, or the construct ion of business that are displaced. I would rather go to shops downtown th an on the city fringes or in industrial areas.

I realize that many people have been misinformed by the barrage of newspape r articles and opinions of editors in the county's back pocket. There is a
 whole lot more to this issue than you are lead to believe. I am not aware of additional sustainability amendment to the comprehensive plan, but I do know the site recommended by the committee already violates the city's comp rehensive plan, according to at least three of the drafters to whom I have spoken.

I feel strongly that we need to plan for the future. We need to plan long t erm, not just 15 years down the road when we will again be faced with the d ecision to destroy more property downtown, or put the jail where is should have been put 15 years ago when the city claimed it would never need more l and after destroying the property along 1st avenue.

Many of us opposing this downtown location, including City Council and Coun ty Board members do not live in that neighborhood. This is not a NIMBY iss ues, although that's easy to conclude if your only source of information is
 our local paper.

- Dan

-----Original Message----- From: Pierce, Crispin H. Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:13 PM To: Drumm, Dan L.; SFPJ Subject: RE: JAIL !!! DOWN TO THE WIRE !!!

Hi Dan,

While I understand the concerns of downtown residents and businesses about the proposed onsite expansion (which indeed would demolish several older bu ildings), I feel strongly that both private and public development should b e governed by "smart growth" principles. Building a new large facility "on
 the perimeter of Eau Claire" would be expensive, cause greater pollution, degrade natural areas, and be inconsistent with the new sustainability amen dment to the comprehensive plan now being considered.

I feel strongly that an expansion or other redevelopment of the courthouse/ jail facility should be part of our city core.

Sincerely, Crispin

-----Original Message----- From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu [mailto: [mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.e du] On Behalf Of Drumm, Dan L. Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:00 PM To: SFPJ Subject: FW: JAIL !!! DOWN TO THE WIRE !!!

A new site for the jail is about to be recommended.

I'm forwarding this because it's important to me, and I think it should be important to you. It's vital that everyone on this committee either hear f rom you by phone, email or they see you at Thursdays' meeting. They have t o understand that people are watching. Even a very short email or call is all that's required, but it's required now.

The entire process of selecting a jail site has been stage managed from t he beginning. It's difficult to list all of the double standards applied to
 try to manipulate the outcome. Even when committee members select criteri a, the county staff retroactively defines their words. (i.e. "a Jail shoul d not be located close a school, waterway or recreational area" means a ja il should not be located within 320 feet of these things.)

It's hard to image shoehorning another jail expansion in the area they prop ose downtown, but even after condemning more riverfront property we are sti ll left with no room for expansion of our ever expanding jail system. Toni ght an old timer told me they condemned some beautiful homes along the rive r for the previous jail expansion and promised never to do it again... He re we are again. The newest plan puts a three to five story parking ramp d irectly on the river.

If you care at all about Eau Clare and it's downtown, please forward this e mail to others, and then send a quick email to the committee members below.
  We have some wonder options on the perimeter of Eau Claire, With room to expand if necessary and room for programs that rehabilitate.

Thanks!!!

- Dan

Special Committee to Resolve Jail Space and Site Needs

Colleen Bates, Chair 405 Skyline Dr. Eau Claire, WI 54703 835-9813 pbates9813@charter.net<mailto:pbates9813@charter.net>

Will Fantle, Vice-Chair 901 Platt St. Eau Claire, WI 54703 839-7731 wfantle@sbcglobal.net<mailto:wfantle@sbcglobal.net>

Kathleen Clark 2014 Linda Ln. Eau Claire, WI 54703 832-5078 kcamacoy@sbcglobal.net<mailto:kcamacoy@sbcglobal.net>

Ken Fulgione 330 Lincoln Ave. Eau Claire, WI 54701 577-4197 Ken@Fulgione.net<mailto:Ken@Fulgione.net>

Howard Ludwigson 5537 Bayview Dr. Eau Claire, WI 54703 577-6759 ludhv@charter.net<mailto:ludhv@charter.net>

Maureen Slauson 322 West Grand Ave. Eau Claire, WI 54703 832-5338 mtslauson@gmail.com<mailto:mtslauson@gmail.com>

Jerry Wilkie 3114 Coltman Ln. Eau Claire, WI 54701 835-9524 gwilkie@charter.net<mailto:gwilkie@charter.net>

Dave Duax 2003 Noble Ct. Eau Claire, WI 54703 835-0905 dave.citycouncil@charter.net<mailto:dave.citycouncil@charter.net>

Kerry Kincaid 4441 S. Lowes Creek Rd. Eau Claire, WI 54701 831-1013 kerryjsk@charter.net<mailto:kerryjsk@charter.net>

Tom Barland 1617 Drummond St. Eau Claire, WI 54701 835-5326 tbarland@charter.net<mailto:tbarland@charter.net>

Hal Davis 3521 Ellis St. Eau Claire, WI 54701 831-0618 aehedavis@charter.net<mailto:aehedavis@charter.net>

Jerry Foote 606 4th Ave. Eau Claire, WI 54703 834-5923 kfoote@uwec.edu<mailto:kfoote@uwec.edu>

Jeff Halloin 4113 Birch Crest Ln. Eau Claire, WI 54701 832-5884 jeff@landmark-company.com<mailto:jeff@landmark-company.com>

Web Hart 116 W. Grand Ave. Eau Claire, WI 54703 832-3491 web@eauclairelaw.com<mailto:web@eauclairelaw.com>

Rick Kayser 1219 Graham Ave. Eau Claire, WI 54701 835-1165 praedld@aol.com<mailto:praedld@aol.com>

Subject: !!! DOWN TO THE WIRE !!!

Hi Everyone: 3 HUGE things: 1) It's down to the wire for the Special Committee; they very likely WILL VOTE...DOWNTOWN VS. REMOTE SITE at their next meeting. It's too close to call, but they actually might vot e in favor of a downtown jail expansion. This despite a long list of reason s why an expansion belongs on a larger remote site; reasons such as:

       * At current site, inevitable future expansion would be impossible
;
       * Expansion at current site would eliminate prospects for 1st Ave.
 development, an ideal location for revenue opportunties;
       * All 25 jail expansion plans at current site shoehorn jail/justic e center needs into insufficient acreage and clumsy design for effective op eration;
       * Issues remain with proximity to river, historic neighborhood, ch urches, schools;
       * And the list goes on. . . SOOO. . . WE NEED YOUR HELP!!

Please contact Special Committee members to say that you - and the citizens
 of Eau Claire - remain opposed to a jail expansion downtown. It's so impo rtant that they hear from you! Spec. Comm member contact info is attached.
  Call them, please!

2) Special Committee Meeting: Next THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 6:30 pm, County Co urthouse, Rm 2550. It's soooo important that you. . .

 * COME: We need to pack the house to show our opposition to a jail expa nsion downtown. Please come and show your support.
 * SPREAD THE WORD. . .tell lots of people -- Let's turnout and fill the room with citizens from our community to witness this vote. SPREAD THE WORD.........PLEASE COME!

Below are some of the concerns about the double standards applied to the si tes. It's easy to see how the public can perceive this process as rigged.

OFF Site

Downtown

Six vague renderings of facilities showing all negative aspects of topograp hy rather than potential assets. None given serious consideration. None nea rly as detailed as Downtown plan.

Over 25 highly detailed plans for a single site attempting to cram a jail i nto an small downtown area. No Plans leave room for expansion.

Items used to eliminate one off campus site were the proximity of a church,
 recreation area, water way, etc.

Is near a school, park, waterway, trails, and adjacent to a church. Not eli minated from consideration.

Does not require eminent domain

New property would need to be acquired, against the will of the owners

Only two meeting spent looking at remote sites

Many more meetings on the 1st Ave site trying to fit over 25 plan variation s onto 1st Ave.

Only sites with 15 or more acres are considered. Site with less than 15 acr es are dismissed out of hand.

Downtown site is 11-12 acres. Not eliminated.

None of the off-site locations were considered using a below grade level (b asement) although they all could accommodate it. That's an immediate cost a ssignment of 8-9% of the construction cost. Most of the off site properties
 required NO raising of structures and ground remediation before constructi on could begin

On-site proposals lack the cost saving of a below grade level. No serious d iscussion of this disadvantage compared to the cost savings elsewhere.

Only single parcel sites are considered

Plan includes combining multiple parcels

Site needs to have enough space for at grade parking

Parking ramp is proposed directly across the street from the river. At grad e parking not a requirement.

Only sites with a willing seller are considered

Property owners will have homes demolished, likely against their will. No r equirement for 'willing sellers' apply.

No plan variations considered for off-site locations.

The concept of adapting the building to the site is continually being appli ed to the on-site plan(s)

Off site plans rejected because the optimum jail plan would not fit.

Optimum plan will not fit downtown either. Site not rejected. Alternative p lan after alternative plan attempts to solve the problem.

Property owners needed to contact the County to get their properties back o n the table. County did not try very hard to find them.

Three downtown plans still on the table with more coming to the next meetin g. No deadline exists for this plan. County has not contacted any of the af fected people.



New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view
This archive was generated on Mon Mar 23 2009 - 14:05:56 Central Daylight Time