Tag Archives: direct legislation

In April, I wrote about the effort by some local residents to use the direct legislation process to enact an ordinance requiring that all city capital projects costing more than $1 million be put before voters in a binding referendum.

To make this happen – and either compel the South Milwaukee City Council to pass the ordinance or at least call a referendum on the referendum requirement – the group needed 1,197 valid signatures, or 15% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.

Well, the group turned in its signatures recently, and there aren’t enough.

That’s according to this letter sent from the city to Jim Leavens, one of the leaders of the direct legislation campaign.

The letter notes that the city found there were only 1,172 signatures submitted.

And not all of those signatures were deemed valid, either because they fell outside of the 60-day window necessary to obtain them, were missing key information, or other factors – including 17 sheets that were signed and dated by the signature collector before the dates accompanying the signatures themselves.

The group has 10 days to fix some of the “deficiencies,” and if 1,197 valid signatures are not presented within that timeframe, the city clerk will not forward the petition to the City Council.

I’ll keep you posted on what happens … and I reiterate my stance against the proposed city “spending cap.” You can see my argument in my previous post, but it boils down to this: The City Council is elected to make decisions like this, and putting major spending like this to a vote not only is unwieldy, costly and chilling to the prospects of necessary projects, it goes against the whole idea of representative government.

City leaders are up for election every two years. That’s the ultimate referendum.

As you’ve probably read, heard or even seen on your doorstep, the group opposed to the Walmart project is gathering signatures as part of a direct legislation effort that would require all city capital projects costing $1 million or more go to referendum.

I first heard about this last week, and I have no idea where they stand on gathering the upwards of 1,200 signatures they need.

I won’t be signing.

Why? Because these types of decisions are why City Council members are elected … and the referendum on the job we’re doing is held is every two years. It’s Election Day.

Of course, my job as an alderman only begins on that day, and job No. 1 is to be responsive to my constituents, gathering all the facts and listening to the people who put me in office before deciding what I believe to be the right course of action for the city.

This is true on any and every issue, and I take that responsibility seriously.

You then pay me to act on that responsibility. To vote. Not to wait until the results of the latest referendum roll in.

We live with a representative government, and it’s that way by design, because the other option is simply unwieldy and untenable.

In this case, it’s also imprudent.

For starters, these referenda cost real money. Elections are expensive – you need not look further than at the added costs to local governments coming from the recalls — and, if one is required for every major capital spending project, taxpayers will feel that.

Taxpayers also lose if the city can’t continually invest in its aging infrastructure. And requiring referenda on all city capital spending over $1 million could hamstring the city as we continue to make necessary, and costly, upgrades in this area. Roads, sewers, utilities … all of these projects and others will require major investments in the years ahead, perhaps exceeding that threshold. And none are cheap.

Needing a majority of voters in a referendum to approve the spending could stall these efforts, or kill them altogether. Who does that benefit?

I also object to potentially applying the direct legislation to the Walmart project (and I’m not sure if it even can be). The council has already voted a number of times to back this development, and we have a responsibility as a city to live up to our word with the retailer.

Yes, according to the Journal Sentinel, the Friends of South Milwaukee group claims the “campaign is the result of concerns about the city’s capital spending” and “the Walmart spending plan is just part of those concerns.”

I don’t buy it.

This is absolutely all about Walmart, and this is an attempt by the opposition group to stop construction – even though I continue to believe that the majority of South Milwaukee residents (certainly those in my district) support building the store.

Moreover, the impacts of the referendum requirement would extend well beyond that development and well beyond 2012. Yes, the unintended consequences are real.

That’s why I’ll do my speaking at the ballot box. It’s the ultimate referendum.