July 15 Common Council Review: Housing Forward and Lakeway Project Votes

Last Tuesday, July 15, Common Council had two main agenda items: the set of Housing Forward proposals that had been initiated by the Mayor, and a vote on whether to amend Section 8.35 of Madison General Ordinances to exclude the Lakeway project from a referendum.

Housing Forward

The three ordinance changes were

• Allowing duplexes in all residential zones
• Making it easier to build backyard lots, also known as flag lots or deep residential lots
• Changing the thresholds for when certain uses changed from a permitted to a conditional use in the downtown zoning districts

I was a sponsor and supported all three changes as another step forward in helping solve our housing crisis. Each of the 3 changes passed unanimously, with 40-50 people registered in support for each item and nobody registered in opposition. There were concerns from members of CNI's Tree Preservation and Planting Committee regarding how this could affect the tree canopy downtown, and they requested that we consider ways to support canopy trees. I plan on working with them to create standards that support tree canopies downtown, including increasing terrace space by removing on-street parking, and funding silva cells or similar technology to support tree growth.

Lakeway Project

On Tuesday, we also voted on whether to exclude the Madison Lakeway project from an ordinance requirement that would have required a referendum for changes to a shoreline park.

Background

The Lakeway project is a visionary plan to update the shoreline parks along Lake Monona, from Law Park through John Nolen Drive to Olin Park. This project has been in the planning stages for about 10 years, with multiple stages and opportunities for public input. It has probably been one of the highest engagement public projects in recent Madison history. But there was a catch, and it was one that I didn't know about, and I don't think most of my colleagues on the council knew about before our Council meeting. Madison General Ordinance 8.35 requires a referendum to approve any project in a park that borders a shoreline or navigable waters, with exceptions for projects with costs below about $2.5 million. The item Common Council voted on Tuesday was whether to exclude the Lakeway project from MGO 8.35, specifically because construction is starting on John Nolen Drive beginning in Fall 2025, and plans for Phase 1 of the Lakeway project are planned to start in 2027 after reconstruction of John Nolen Drive.

MGO 8.35

MGO 8.35 says "All City of Madison public parks bordering on lakes or navigable waterways shall be protected as public open space. Voter approval by city referendum shall be required for any change in the legal status of and before beginning or continuing major construction in any of these public parks.". The ordinance is listed as a charter ordinance, and it was passed by referendum in 1992. A charter ordinance is an ordinance that modifies the city's charter, and can only be changed via referendum. However, it has been the city attorney's opinion since 2004 that this is not actually a charter ordinance, because it doesn't reference a specific statue that it amends. This means that this ordinance is just a citizen led initiative, and can be modified by Common Council anytime after 1994. In fact, this ordinance has been modified multiple times since 1994, for

• Construction within Olbrich Botanical Gardens.
• Construction within Henry Vilas Zoo.
• Any change in the legal status of the properties located at 640, 646 and 704 East Gorham Street.
• Any construction or change in the legal status of that portion of Olbrich Park located northeast of the Union Pacific Railway and south and southwest of Starkweather Creek arising from the sale, lease or redevelopment of the Garver Feed Mill.
• Any change in the legal status of the property located at 1918 Norman Way to resolve boundary disputes with the adjoining property owner.

It would not have been possible to modify this ordinance without a referendum if this was a charter ordinance, so the Common Council's past actions are consistent with the opinion that this is not a charter ordinance.

Public Outreach and Feedback

This bring me to Tuesday's vote. Starting over the weekend and continuing through Tuesday, alders on the Common Council received hundreds of emails asking us to vote no on the exclusion of the Lakeway project from MGO 8.35, and instead put the vote to referendum. While most people expressed support for the project, many people were concerned about the impact the project could have on the shoreline, costs associated with the project, and that this sets a precedent that it is okay for projects to ignore MGO 8.35. I will repeat again, I did not fully understand 8.35 before this Tuesday, and although I read the agenda on Thursday evening, I did not expect this to be a controversial item. Coming into the meeting on Tuesday, I thought that I was going to vote no on excluding the project. It seemed to be counter to the requirements in the ordinance, and excluding this item from referendum could threaten the legitimacy of the project. However, as we continued discussing the item, I began to think more deeply and reconsider my vote.

The Issues

I would categorize the issues brought up by constituents into three main categories:

• Financial
• Environmental and Access
• Process

Financial

The financial concerns stem from the cost of the project. It was estimated in the 2025-2030 Parks and Open Space plan that the cost for the entire project would be between $250-$300 million. This is a large number, equivalent to about the entire city's annual capital budget. However, it is important to keep in mind that this amount is expected to be spent over decades, as the project has an enormous scope and will take decades to finish. The other part is that this is the total cost, not the total cost for the city. Throughout the entire planning process, and today, it is assumed that much of the total cost for the project will be raised through philanthropic donations, business partnerships, and public-private programs. That is the purpose of the Madison Lakeway partners, who are a private non-profit dedicated to fundraising for completion of the Master Plan.

I also want to note, any money that would be needed for the project still needs to be allocated by the Common Council. Nothing we voted on Tuesday night allocates funds or spending.

Environmental and Access

There were some concerns that by not going to referendum, this project would lead to environmental deterioration of our shorelines and lakes, or would lead to privatization of the shoreline. This line of argument confused me for several reasons. Foremost is that the master plan for the lakeway project is publicly available, and reading through it makes it clear that executing the plan would help increase access to the shorelines and the resiliency of our lakes.

Anyone who has walked or biked along the path that runs along John Nolen Drive knows that it isn't very pleasant. It is dirty and loud from the cars, and access to the shoreline is poor. There are limited piers for fishing, and most people choose instead to fish from Monona Terrace. The path is also poorly accessible for those with disabilities, and there are no accessible means to access the lake from the path. The purpose of this plan, and especially the first phase, is to address these issues. There are plans to increase the width of the bike path and provide separation of bike and pedestrian paths. There are plans to add fishing piers. There are plans to protect and enhance wetlands along the causeway. Whether we will be able to accomplish every aspect of the plan during phase one will come down to resources and execution, but I believe that we will be able to greatly improve this public resource.

The second area of concern in this category was that by excluding the project from referendum, land along the shoreline would be sold to private developers. This is not part of the plan, and I would not support selling our public parkland to developers. Additionally, any changes that would involve selling land would require Common Council approval, and I don't believe any Common Council would sell parkland.

Process

The final set of concerns were related to process. We heard from many people that they supported the project, that they wanted to see it completed, but that they still wanted the project to go to referendum. These concerns stemmed from the effort that many people, including some of my constituents, had put in to get the ordinance passed in 1992 in order to protect our lakeshore. Even though this wasn't legally a charter ordinance, they wanted the spirit of the ordinance reflected by going to a public vote.

This was the argument that I was most sympathetic to, and was the reason that I was thinking of voting no on excluding the project. There seemed to be an expectation that no matter how good the project, no matter how much previous input there was, it required a referendum. I believe that what finally changed my m ind was listening to previous examples of the success of the process, and thinking about the other implications of this ordinance.

The most commonly cited example of the success was the Goodman Pool. It was originally proposed in the early 90's as a city pool to be located in Olin Park. After MGO 8.35 was put in place, the proposal went to referendum and was rejected by voters in 1992. In 2006 Goodman Pool opened in its current location, although it didn't require a referendum because the new location was not in a park located along shoreline or navigable waters. Other referenda under 8.35 were the Monona Terrace, and the Garver Feed Mill, although the project approved by voters fell through and the Garver Feed Mill was eventually excluded from 8.35 by Common Council.

Many people cited the Goodman Pool as an example of the process in action. Voters did not like the original proposal, ostensibly because of it's difficult to access location in the park, and because it would impact the shore. I don't have any access to the original plans, but those arguments seem reasonable to me. When the Goodman family philanthropists came forward in the early 2000's with money for the pool, it was conditioned on groundbreaking starting by July 2005, kicking the Parks division and the Madison Parks Foundation into action.

What Changed My Mind

As I stated above, the Process issue was the one that I was the most sympathetic towards. I was not swayed by the Financial argument, because it seemed like supporters of that argument were using this ordinance not for the protection of lakes, but as another referendum on city spending. I'm not sympathetic to that because spending is in control of the Common Council, and we just had a referendum on the operating budget that was approved by voters, along with elections to Common Council. I was also not swayed by the Environmental and Access issues because I think their proponents were motivated by unfounded fears that this would destroy or privatize our parks. I would not support destroying or privatizing our parks, and I don't believe any Common Council would. In addition, the master plan for the Lakeway project lays out a vision that improves the health and access of our lakeshore parks.

What finally convinced me away from the Process argument was thinking about the long-term outcomes. District 2 has one major shoreline park, James Madison Park. It is a beautiful resource, and one of the gems in the heart of the city. As some of you may know, it also has a master plan. While I may not love every aspect of the master plan, it is overall very good, increasing the health of our shoreline by removing parts of the quay, updating facilities, enabling easier access to the water for fishers and disabled individuals, and beautifying the park. Right now the main impediments are financial, with much of the Parks division's money going to neighborhoods outside of downtown. However, if we are able to get money allocated for the park, then I would like to see it completed. But under 8.35 any change to the park, even changes that are part of a master plan adopted by the city and Common Council require a referendum. This doesn't sit right to me. Why do we need the entire city to approve of making our district's only major shoreline park better? Is it really equitable for people who have modern parks in their neighborhood to determine when we get a better park? I believe that I was elected to help make my constituents lives better, and that includes our parks.

And there are real costs to delay. Rejecting the pool in Olin Park did not immediately lead to a new pool in a better location. It took 14 years between the rejected referendum and the new pool opening, and construction really only began because we had a motivated donor who conditioned the donation on a timeline. Keeping the parts of our parks in the Lakeway project the same is not zero-cost. Our lakes need additional wetland space for filtration, and wildlife need better shoreline access. Our citizens want and need better and more accessible parks. The status quo is not the best that we can offer as a city, and the plan for the Lakeway shows how we can do better.

What this entire story boils down to is expectations. What is the expectation from my constituents, and from all of Madison with regards to how our city changes. In talking with people about the James Madison Park master plan, it has never come up that this would require a city wide referendum. I don't think that most Madisonians expect that they will be given yes or no authority on every plan before the city. Instead, I think people expect that I and other alders will protect the sensitive nature of our shore. They expect that we will increase access. They expect that we will keep shoreland in the city's control, and fight for improvements. My vote in favor of excluding the Lakeway project from referendum is a reflection of what I think those expectations and values are.