Housing Trust Funds: What is MJS Thinking?

In an editorial on Monday, The Milwaukee Journal gives us this sage advice:

Build more affordable housing in the areas around Milwaukee, and do it through a trust fund that would be used to build low-cost homes, rehabilitate apartment buildings and improve other housing opportunities for people of modest means. It's a good idea that government officials in Waukesha, Washington, Racine and Ozaukee counties should follow up on. ...

But governments in the counties around Milwaukee also need to step up and start supporting housing that workers of modest means can afford. Starting a trust fund - as Milwaukee was persuaded to do last year - can be a good start. Organizers of the recent meeting at Unitarian Universalist Church West said trust funds provide new opportunities for families and stimulate the economy by spurring investment in infrastructure and creating jobs in the building trades.

How to finance the trust fund can get tricky and should be left up to each local government. Milwaukee, for example, has issued $2.5 million in bonds.

Huh? We need a double-speak dictionary to discern what MJS is suggesting:

"Housing trust funds" means subsidized low income housing.

"Spurring investment in infrastructure" means local government (or local taxpayers) will need to pay for more roads and public facilities, not to mention police services, social services, and so forth.

"Creating jobs in the building trades" means that contractors, many of whom will not work or reside in the communities paying for this bad idea, will make some money off of local taxpayers.

"Bonds" means local government has gone further into debt.

"How to finance the trust fund ... should be left up to each local government" means even MJS cannot figure out how strapped local taxpayers can pay for this, but it suggests that they do it anyhow.

Liberals have lots of hair-brained ideas, but this registers extremely high on the looney-meter.

Why would Mequon, or Menomonee Falls, or Cedarburg consider this? What is in it for the taxpayers of those communities? $2.5 million (the amount allocated by Milwaukee) equals about 18% of Cedarburg's total expenditures to for an entire year. For what? It would provide housing for perhaps 50 workers (or a little more than the number of people employed by the typical McDonald's). If the communities are lucky, rent for these units might cover the interest on the bonds. If this is such a good idea, why aren't employers in those communities pulling together to provide this housing.

Funny that they ran this editorial on the same page they question business subsidies. Apparently, business welfare should be accountable but not social welfare.

(By the way Jay, MJS isn't liberal?)

West Bend's Disregard for Voters Revisited

There is not enough on the web, or in the MSM, about the dumb (or good) things done in local government. Therefore, when someone provides solid information, it is good to let people know.

I reported on an outstanding series of stories run by bootsandsabers about the total disregard for voters exhibited by the majority of the West Bend Common Council (including its new Interim Mayor).

Owen has run a great follow-up. Check it out.

West Bend: Government of the Government, by the Government, for the Government...

Owen at bootsandsabers.com has run a few posts, and published an article, on West Bend's efforts to appoint a new Mayor. Apparently, its Mayor left town.

Initially, I was not certain I agreed with Owen. After all, there will be an election early next year, and elections cost money.

Here is what they did:

The Council decided to limit applications for appointment as interim Mayor to existing Council members;

The Council decided not to hold an interim election;

The Council decided to replace the Alderman who would become Mayor using the same process (except, of course, they did not limit this application process to one of their own); and

The Interim Mayor tried to shut-up voters who appeared at the most recent meeting while the appointment was being made.

Upon consideration, I was wrong and Owen was right. An entire budget will be approved in the next 10 months. Significant new policies could be enacted. Staff could be promoted, demoted or replaced. The people ought to have elected representatives making those decisions.

Recall elections happen in a matter of month or so. West Bend could have done this in a similar manner.

The result might not have been different. Sitting Council members obviously have a leg-up in experience, knowledge of the issues, visibility and connections. Nevertheless, the people should have had the choice.

Odds are, most of you are not from West Bend. But, we know that bad choices one governmental entity makes will almost certainly be replicated elsewhere. That is one of the things this blog tries to do - raise issues related to local government (something the MSM too often overlooks).

So what should happen in these circumstances?

First, anyone should be allowed to apply for an interim position.

Second, if a replacement needs to be made too late in the year to allow the replacement to meaningfully participate in the annual budget deliberations (taking office in September?), perhaps it would be acceptable to wait until for the normal election cycle. Otherwise, hold a special election (later than that makes a special election superfluous). Otherwise, hold the election.

Third, the public should always - I repeat always - be allowed to comment at local government meetings. I attend many of them in a variety of communities, and the better bodies always allow public input. Sure, it should not be unfettered. There should be time limits, and some decorum. But shut out the public? Never.

I don't know much else about Kristine Deiss; however, based solely on her disregard for public input, West Bend needs a new Mayor.

Owen, thanks for bringing this to our attention.

A Republican Pandering to the League of Wisconsin Municipalities

Why is a Republican sponsoring legislation to increase taxes? It is even worse than that. This legislation purports to protect property taxpayers by having people forcing new services pay for them. But that is not the real reason municipalities want this. Instead, this simply fortifies the general fund. For example, it is absolutely unreasonable to require payment of an impact fee before the owner has even requested a building permit.

The fact that Rep. Gottlieb is a former Mayor does not excuse this blatant disregard for the rights of property owners. Gottlieb has many good ideas, but this stinks.

This is from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities website:

Impact Fee Trailer Bill Needs Co-Sponsors

Representative Mark Gottlieb (R-Port Washington) and Sen. John Erpenbach (D-Middleton) are circulating for co-sponsorship a bill the League supports that reverses some of the impact fee law changes that were made last session. The bill has bipartisan support and is a compromise between builders and local government groups.

Good things the bill does for municipalities:

Extends the time period in which impact fee revenue must be used from 7 years to 10 years and maintains the option for a three-year extension if the municipality justifies the need for the extension in writing.

Fixes retroactive application of 2005 Wis. Act 203.

Requires that all impact fees imposed on a development must be paid within five years after the municipality grants final approval for the development even if not all of the lots have been sold or no building permits issued.

Makes impact fee payments due at time building permit is issued instead of within 14 days of the date building permit is issued.

Restores the ability of a municipality to charge fees for park land and certain park improvements as a condition of approving new subdivisions.

Municipal officials are requested to contact their legislators and urge them to sign on as a co-sponsor of LRB 2113/3, relating to impact and park land dedication fees.

Taxpayers "are requested to contact their legislators and urge them" NOT "to sign on as a co-sponsor of LRB 2113/3, relating to impact and park land dedication fees."

You might never pay an impact fee, but this is another situation like that quoted in the header to this blog. As President Reagan said another time he used this line:

To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will.

Liberals and Conservatives Should Agree: Lack of Local Government Coverage Hurts our System

Conservatives are often complaining about the MSM. Here is my rant, but it has a little different spin on it, and conservatives and liberals alike should agree that this is a terrible development.

Despite the proliferation of media sources, the coverage of county and municipal government, as well as school board news, has never been worse. And while there are far more people expressing opinions about local issues (besides the MSM, we now have talk radio and blogs), there is far less information disseminated about what is actually happening at those levels of government.

As an example, 15 years ago local news in my community was covered by the Milwaukee Journal, the Milwaukee Sentinel and two local papers. All four papers sent reporters to most Common Council and School Board meetings. They dedicated reporters to specific communities. There was great competition to scoop the other reporters, and local news received attention.

Things have changed. First, in 1995, the Journal and the Sentinel merged. Then, a few years ago, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel combined many of its local beats, resulting in one reporter covering many areas, and covering none of them well. Last year, one of the two local papers went out of business.

With only one local paper, and almost no coverage by MJS, there is no competition for stories. Reporters have become more complacent. The result has been similar in most communities.

So what gets covered?

MJS and the local paper will cover a scandal. If a government employee is fired or an elected official gets in trouble, that will be covered.

They will cover a popular uprising. For example, if a large group of residents shows up about an issue, or a petition or recall occurs, that will be in the papers. That does not happen very often. Of course, because voters have less news and know less about local government, there is often less discontent (could that explain in part why so few local elections are contested?).

They will cover big new projects. Big projects make big stories (and the papers hope they might cause controversy).

Overall, there is little reported about what most communities are doing.

How often will a paper cover a local official who takes a principled stand? How often will a paper cover the rejection of a well-intentioned but expensive spending idea? How often will a local paper cover day-to-day decisions?

The answer to each of these questions is "almost never."

And, how much do voters learn and know about their local elected officials? Little or nothing.

Bloggers will occasionally raise an issue about their own communities. Sometimes it gets traction, and the MSM or talk radio picks-up on it. But with some notable exceptions (for example, Badger Blogger breaking the Michael Jackson/McGee Jr. bricks story), blogs spend little time on local government affairs, particularly issues outside of the City of Milwaukee. Why? Because most bloggers are not attuned to their local government, and they get their information from the MSM (which is not covering it) or other blogs.

The lack of coverage is unfortunate. People have little opportunity to see where there their money is going. They frequently can't separate the good guys from the bad guys. They vote based on personalities and gut reactions because they do not know how their elected officials vote. In most cases, other than at campaign time, they do not hear their local officials names, yet alone know what they are doing. The system ends up being a mess.