Update: Here is the Journal Sentinel story.
The City Council gave its stamp of approval to the Walmart project Tuesday night following a lengthy and at times contentious public hearing.
The vote was 5-2 on the several votes the council took involving the project, with Ald. Craig Maass and Ald. Frank Van Dusen III voting “no” and the remainder of the council supporting the development.
As readers of this blog know, I was unable to attend the meeting due to an important work commitment – a major out-of-town meeting that I am helping plan and execute. Had I been there, I would have voted “yes.” Here is why.
As much as I respected (and in some cases, agreed with) concerns about the proposal, I couldn’t get past this fact: The Walmart development is a minimum $12 million project that will significantly add to the city’s tax base while also serving as a viable reuse of a contaminated parcel of land that would likely remain vacant for years without it. In other words, for me, this was an economic development issue. Or, better put, an economic redevelopment issue. And we need all of that we can get these days.
I also think a majority of 4th District residents support the project, based on countless conversations I’ve had, feedback from this blog and other sources over the past year. While it’s certainly not overwhelming support, I do believe more of my constituents want the Walmart built than don’t – a statement I certainly can’t make about the 1St District, the origin of most of the dozens of phone calls I received in the past couple of weeks. That is why I absolutely respect the vote Craig and Frank made and congratulate them for standing on their principles, even if I disagree with them.
I, too, heard loud and clear the concerns with the project – a fervor that I was told carried over to the council meeting Tuesday, with more than 200 people attending and dozens speaking out. I share some of those concerns.
As I’ve written, I remain uncomfortable with the amount of formal public comment offered on this issue. The Walmart project was first proposed last fall. To not hold a public hearing on the matter until nearly a year late is wrong. That’s why I voted “no” on the development agreement in September. I didn’t feel the public had a chance to adequately weigh in on that part of the project, especially the $1.8 million city contribution toward cleanup Walmart was seeking to move forward.
I stand firm on that vote and would not change it.
That said, it must be reiterated that the land (both the city-owned and private parcels) would need cleanup whether or not Walmart built there. So without Walmart funding about half of the estimated $3.4 to $3.6 million cost, the city would likely be left with a higher tab.
I also identify with the concerns over traffic and noise, but these are not deal-breakers in my mind. They can be, and are being, addressed. North Chicago Avenue is major South Milwaukee thoroughfare, and it will remain so. The planned traffic signal and minimal Chicago Avenue road widening will help keep the additional traffic flowing. And while I understand the fears about additional traffic on Badger Avenue, I just don’t see that happening. People will come and go from the store using Chicago or College Avenues via 11th Avenue.
I am also concerned about how the Walmart will impact our downtown area. While there are some signs of life in our city center, its struggles are real, and how will this new store impact any potential progress? It’s a very valid question. That said, I also struggle with this question: How can just one more big box store – when you already have dozens within a short drive of South Milwaukee already – really have that much of an impact on our downtown? I don’t see how it can.
And I also believe that Walmarts can force you to improve as a retailer. To compete, you must differentiate, or you may die. So do it better. You probably won’t do it cheaper.
I am also concerned about the impact on city services the store will have, specifically our police department. Any development like this will drive police calls, and our department is already stretched thin as it is. This bears close watching.
At the same time, I also don’t buy some of the arguments for the proposal.
I think the “new jobs” number may be closer to a wash, when considering how the store will likely impact the Kmart, Walgreens and Pick ‘n Save down the street in Cudahy (as well as stores like Ace Hardware and Pick ‘n Save in South Milwaukee).
And the whole argument about “more convenient shopping for South Milwaukee residents” is not on target, either, because of all the other retail options (from independent merchants to big boxes) that already exist within a few miles of our fair city.
Other arguments, however, were simply invalid to me, such as the sourcing of Walmart’s merchandise and the wages and benefits it gives to its workers. I never hear these kind of arguments made with any other retailer, local or national, and if you make it against Walmart, you have to make it against those others as well.
Should we ask every retailer that wants to come to South Milwaukee what it pays its employees, and should we keep them from coming here if we don’t like the answer? No. To me, this shouldn’t be part of the debate on this project, nor any project like this going before the City Council.
So, as you can see, I was conflicted on this. But, as I said, it all boils down to the economic impact on our city. And that is undeniable.
I believe the development will attract more traffic to South Milwaukee, and I think that will lift area businesses, even as the downtown concerns remain. And I believe in Walmart as a corporate citizen.
I am also OK with the $1.8 million city cleanup contribution, especially because the city would be on the hook for at least $800,000 of it no matter what project was in front of us to clean up the portion of the parcel we own.
This kind of funding is why tax incremental financing districts exist in the first place – to allow cities to borrow money to fund site improvements that make projects like this come to life. Without those funds, it is that much harder to get deals done. Now, do I wish Walmart would pick up the whole tab? Absolutely. Could they afford to do it? Of course. But that’s just not reality in the development world these days. Plus, the loan is expected to be paid off by 2016 because the tax “increment” on this project is so big.
Indeed, Walmart is expected to contribute more than $200,000 annually in city taxes when the TIF district is retired and the loan is paid off. To me, that’s a compelling argument on its face – the most compelling one, in fact.
(One other note: The rezoning issue will go before the council for another vote on Nov. 1, when the council is also expected to vote on the resolution with the intent to vacate 11th Avenue to make way for Walmart.)
