I first heard about this yesterday — and saw the flier — and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel now has a story on it: The group organized to fight the Walmart in South Milwaukee is seeking sigatures on direct legislation campaign.
The upshot, if enough signatures are collected and verified and this ultimately comes to pass: All capital spending projects costing $1 million or more would have to be approved by voters in a referendum.
(You’ll recall the city is poised to borrow $1.5 million to help fund cleanup costs at the proposed Walmart site on North Chicago Avenue — a vote that was postponed earlier this month with a “hold over” motion from two aldermen.)
Check out the Journal Sentinel story here.
I’d like to know what you think about this. Post your comments below.
I’ll share my thoughts in a future post.
South Milwaukee Blog 
This has got to be to the most utterly stupid idea I’ve heard of. What do we elect people to represent us for? We might as well abolish all elected positions, call referendums on everything and have absolutely nothing get done all because some short-sighted people hate Walmart.
some of the elected officials spend OUR money to freely
Then don’t re-elect them!
Agreed. We should reduce the number of aldermen to 1 per district instead of two per district. This would save the community $24K per year.
Regarding the monies invested into the brown field dedicated to Walmart, South Milwaukee is acting like the developer of this property. If a developer were to purchase a 20 ac pasture from a farmer and decide to subdivide this property the community would require the developer to put in roads, curbs, water, sewer and possibly sidewalks then they would have the developer turn these improvements over to the community at the developer’s expense. The developer would then take these costs and amortize them over the cost to develop the lots which, when sold to individuals looking to build a home or business, would assume a portion of these costs in the purchase price of the lot. You need to think of City of South Milwaukee as the developer of the property.
South Milwaukee has identified the “Walmart” property as an underutilized property and inconsistent with the 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the City has taken necessary steps to make this property conform to the Comprehensive Plan. In order to make this property attractive to a potential business it needs to improve the property by updating the water and sewer lines to the property (these are about as old as the City), clean up the property of any environmental contamination to be compliant with all State and Federal regulations, make any necessary sidewalk, street or landscape improvements in order for the potential “buyer” to invest in establishing their business at this site. Now, if you, and the Aldermen of the 1st District, studied the plan all of you would realize that the City would recoup their investment in this infrastructure within 5 years through the tax assessment applied to the Walmart property. The City is going to need to make this investment in this property if they expect to have any company locate at this site. We should be thankful that there is a company like Walmart, with deep pockets, that can be here to cover the cost of this City investment.
I think that is a wonderful thing. The people of the City have a right to know and to say how OUR money is being spent. It’s about time. The two aldermen who run this city need to know the people who are against the walmart are not just setting idel and letting things get passed. I don’t mean the two aldermen in the walmart district I mean the two aldermen who seem to propose and second everthing at the meetings I have attended. I aplaud the two aldermen in the walmart district for standing up and voting against the walmart. They listened to the people of the district. I respect them for that. The other aldermen seem to agree with what ever the other two aldermen say. I think they need to listen to the people of South Milwaukee. I hope the election on Tuesday is a good turn our for the City.
First, two aldermen per district is completely ridiculous. If you want to cut expenses reduce the aldermen to 1 per district. None of the surrounding communities have two aldermen per district. As a matter of fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY community that has double representation. Two aldermen per district cause confusion with the constituents and are an unnecessary expense for South Milwaukee. If we want two aldermen, then they have to listen to EVERYONE in the district and split their vote since there is just as many residents in the 1st District FOR the Walmart as against the Walmart. These Aldermen in the first district DO NOT REPRESENT me NOR HAVE THEY LISTENED to me and many other people I know. Stop coddling their uneducated and spineless decision.
Next, read the comments that have been posted at the JS article posted above, we are the laughing stock of the southern suburban area. Time to pull back the curtain and realize that South Milwaukee isn’t Oz. I would recommend reading the 2000 Comprehensive Plan for South Milwaukee. It can be found at http://smwi.org/comprehensive-plan. The Walmart completely fits into this plan.
A question and a comment on your convictions about Maass and Van Dusen’s decision.
My question is about your source for the statement, “There are as many residents in the first district that are for the Walmart as against the Walmart.” Mr. Brooks cited several polls in another post that, as a whole, appeared to be inconclusive, although the more recent ones would suggest that there were more people against the Walmart than for it. For the convenience of anyone trying to follow, the post I’m referring to is this one: https://southmilwaukeeblog.com/2012/03/22/council-update-walmart-borrowing-put-off-with-procedural-maneuver/
Your statement is a very specific one, so may I ask where this information comes from? That’s all.
My comment is this: I don’t think Maass and Van Dusen’s decision was spineless, far from it in fact. From their perspectives at the very least, I think they are representing quite a few people that are not okay with having a Walmart put in South Milwaukee, particularly in the district they represent. They are also going against the majority of their peers, which takes spine, not a lack thereof.
Also, I agree that having two aldermen per district seems unnecessary, from what I’ve heard so far. Are there any benefit’s you can think of to this system?
By the results of the election it looks like the majority of residence in the first district are in favor of the Walmart being built. I know I’m in favor of it. And I’m quite pleased with the results. I just hope that Van Duesen and Maass will represent the majority voice.
Please let us remember there is more to being an elected official than one issue.
Agreed. Not that a million dollars is a small amount of money, but perhaps some do not realize how many projects this would apply to. We’d be holding off every major infrastructure improvement until an election could be held. Further, aside from this one particular hot-button issue, I’d be willing to bet that turnout at said elections would be pathetic. People elect politicians because they don’t want to spend every minute of their life pouring over the specifics of each and every issue presented to the city. Love them or hate them, they serve a purpose.
Regarding this particular issue (Walmart), it seems to me that the aldermen are doing exactly what they are elected to do. I know in the third district where I live that most folks I’ve spoken with are supportive of the Walmart because the city is short on development opportunities otherwise. Using the land will generate traffic, clean up an eyesore, and add some sliver of tax revenue eventually, tax revenue that will theoretically take some burden off of the residential property owners. My alderpersons seem to be voting in line with what the district feels. The first district aldermen are voting against the project, and it seems that is reflective of what many in the first district feel. I would hope my aldermen would do the same on an issue that my neighbors and I are against. In this case, it seems that most of the city is in favor of the Walmart and the alders have voted as such. Short of the first district seceding from the city, it seems as if they have been outvoted. Like most issues, unfortunate for some, beneficial to many.
Agreed, the City should be in favor of the Walmart. We have been hard pressed to hold up any other major (or minor) “economic” success for the myriad of vacant store fronts and vacant brown fields. I have worked with the School District and they would welcome the part time employment opportunities for the students at the High School and funding opportunities for the District. Keep in mind that over 40% of the students that attend school here in South Milwaukee qualify for FREE or REDUCED lunch due to their parent(s) income. If our School District is producing a student that is going to excel and get additional education beyond high school how are they going to afford to go and get additional education beyond High School if they don’t have employment opportunities close to home? How are we going to keep these students that we invested our tax dollars in educating closer to, or in, South Milwaukee? Again, read the 2000 Comprehensive Plan for the City and you will see that we have been seeing a “brain drain” for better than two decades. The Walmart should not be the only employment opportunities that the City pursues. This should be only the start.
Also, if you think that Government moves slow now, wait until you need to have a “special” election for every budget item over $1M. Nothing will get accomplished. Elect people that are able to lead and communicate to the people that they represent. This will solve most of the problems that this community faces. Having two aldermen per district does not help this problem.
Right on Mike! Your comments are right on!
If I’m understanding the statute correctly, this sets a very dangerous precedent that will have a potentially devastating effect on the city. If we use the example of an emergency sewer upgrade to prevent people’s basements from flooding, if the cost is over $1 million (a capital expenditure), it would need to go to a referendum. If the referendum is voted down, it seems like the affected homeowners will be out of luck. (Erik, is this your interpretation?).
It is unbelievable how far this minority of people, many of whom we now know are basing their opinions on bigotry and labor union mentality, are willing to go to kill this project and the economic growth that will come with it. Apparently, they are now willing to sacrifice the future of this city as well. It’s time for them to accept the fact that they had their say and lost. It’s time to move on. If they don’t like the way their representatives voted, there’s an election coming up in one week.
Chris: Yes, that is my understanding as well. But I must admit that I need to do more in-depth study on the issue, too. And I will.
$1 million referendums. Sometimes this community can be so small minded. This is exactly the thing that has driven some great people away from us. Come on, $1 million seems like a lot, but not really a lot when we are talking capitol expenditures.
What are we going to do next see if we can find a groupon to fund our next big project?
While I’m wholly against Walmart, I don’t think that this move is that great.
an interesting read:
http://citiwire.net/columns/multi-use-downtown-development-puts-standard-malls-yax-yield-to-shame/
here’s some fact backed info:
http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/factsheet/