An interesting thing happened at work yesterday. For the past week, we've had a coworker from one of our offices in India visiting, making trips to several clients while he was here. Yesterday we found out that he needed to get to the Dells area to visit a client the next day. Someone from our Madison office said he would take him to the Dells, so all we had to do was get him to Madison this morning.

Of course, everyone joked, "Let's put him on the high speed train!". And then we started looking to see what our options were.

For $129 round trip, he could have flown from Milwaukee to Madison, but the flight times weren't ideal, and he'd still have to get to the airport and back. What about taking a regular low speed train? Surely if they want to put a high speed train in, there must currently be an Amtrak run going to Madison, right? If you go to the Amtrak website, and say you'd like to go from Milwaukee to Madison, it will first put you on a train to Union Station in Chicago, and then they'll put you on a bus from Chicago to Madison. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

But what about buses? As Patrick McIlheran points out, there is a very successful bus line that runs from Milwaukee to Madison right now. It's also very flexible, since it doesn't depend on massive infrastructure to support. In fact, there's a pick-up and drop off at various Park and Ride locations in Milwaukee on the way to Madison, including a stop at State Fair Park.

What I found interesting, was there was only one bus line that made the Milwaukee-Madison run... Badger Bus. Wisconsin Coach Lines will go down to Chicago, and Lamers will handle all your needs going up US-41. That surprised me. After all, with all this talk about the need for a high speed rail line to Madison, I was imagining this huge pent up demand for mass transit there. And yet, with all this supposed demand, there is only 1 bus line supporting it?

The liberals reading this will immediately react and say... See, we need a high speed rail line! Or perhaps, the demand isn't there at all... and maybe a single bus line going back and forth is more than enough to support mass transit to Madison... and all these billions of dollars that people want to spend will be an absolute waste. After all, imaging how many buses you can buy with that amount of money!

So there seems to be a little bit of a controversy surrounding one of my favorite Republican Congressmen... Paul Ryan. Last week, Paul Krugman attacked Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future v2.0" as "leftovers from the 1990s drenched in flimflam sauce." I'm not sure exactly what's in flimflam sauce, but I assume that like McDonald's Secret Sauce, it's really just Thousand Island Dressing.

Krugman then goes on to complain that Ryan has not gone to the right sources for any scoring or verification on his claims. Ryan has now responded in an op-ed in the Journal, correcting Krugman on his incorrect claims. I'll let you read both Paul's yourself and decide who has the correct take on the fiscal impact on the Roadmap for America's Future, because I want to concentrate on a different aspect to this particular controversy.

While Krugman calls Ryan a charlatan and claims that Ryan's numbers are fraudulent, I believe that Ryan is actually a charlatan because were Ryan given the opportunity to vote for his own plan, given his past voting on fiscal measures, he would actually vote against it. I know I seem like a broken record on this, but that's because everyone continues to ignore Ryan's voting history.

Let's start with the fact that the Roadmap for America's Future has been revised to version 2.0. One of the reasons why the revision was required was because in the time between version 1 and version 2, significant new spending was passed by Congress which totally destroyed all the base numbers in version 1. Among those new spending increases were the auto bailout and TARP. Both of which were supported by Ryan.

Even worse is Ryan's flip flop on Medicare. If you read the Roadmap, he talks very bluntly about the need to control Medicare spending, and how it's an entitlement which has grown out of control. What Ryan never says, is that he voted for the largest increase to the Medicare entitlement since it was originally enacted... Medicare Part D. In other words, he helped to create the very problem that he now wants to solve. How generous of him.

And while the Roadmap does have a pretty website, we still don't know if it will become an actual budget proposal that could... you know... actually get voted on. Republicans are pushing this harder and harder right now as the November mid-term elections get closer, but people should be very worried about a GOP Bait-and-Switch here. When ObamaCare was in it's full push, one of the Republican talking points was that Medicare would be cut, and that they would protect it. This is one of the worst examples of GOP political opportunism. When ObamaCare was going to touch Medicare, they saw it as a chance to scare the elderly and to block it. Now that Medicare as seen as a weapon in the budget, they want to control Medicare spending. Given that its nearly impossible to cut programs in the Federal government, especially one that the elderly depend on, does anyone actually think the GOP will back this plan?

Now then, I wouldn't put it past the GOP to flip-flop again if they manage to regain control of Congress in November, but the reality is that the GOP has a poor track record on following through on it's promises of fiscal conservatism once it actually gains power (see 2000-2006 for proof). Just looking at Ryan's own voting record should cast the legitimacy of the Roadmap into doubt. So while Krugman's analysis of the numbers may be wrong, his labeling of Paul Ryan is not. I'll wait until the Roadmap to America's future is pushed by someone who doesn't have a record of creating fiscal problems in government before supporting it.

I went to Wauwatosa City Hall tonight in order to attend the Planning Commission meeting, which was considering a TIF District in order to pay for infrastructure to support the UWM Engineering School proposed for the County Grounds on Watertown Plank Rd. There were approximately two dozen people present, along with representatives from UWM in support of the measure. The vast majority of those present (except for the aldermen) were opposed to the TIF District for various reasons. Most were against it either for environmental reasons, or because it seemed like the UWM plan was based on too much speculation without enough backing data. The meeting began with an overview by the Community Development Director who wrote the TIF along with a representative from UWM:

• The TIF is for $12 million which is to be used solely for infrastructure improvements including water, sewer, roads and "decorative" improvements to the roadways.
• The Land Use and Zoning plans were already approved by the Common Council, and are no longer under review. This was only for the TIF District.
• The funds were for infrastructure only, and would only be used by the city.
• The money would not be spent all up front, but as development required it. In other words, the $12 million is the maximum to be spent, but would not all have to be spent.
• The plan calls for both the UWM Engineering school, a research park, and housing and rental properties that would be ideally suited to graduate students, professors and area professionals.

After that, there was one member of the Citizens Advisory Board in favor, followed by a rather long line of people against. A member of the Milwaukee River Keepers was concerned that:

• There was a lack of information in general, and that approval of the TIF district seemed premature based on that lack of information.
• All data regarding the potential value seemed to be from UWM. (As it turns out the Springsted report was commissioned by the Common Council).
• Unlike most TIF Districts, this area is not considered blighted.
• The land has not been purchased yet, and funds have yet to be allocated by UWM.
• The plan incorporates plans for private housing, despite a very soft housing market.
• Current business parks (including the other Wauwatosa Research Park) have significant vacancies. Condo and rental development also has many vacancies as well.

Other concerns were voiced by various members of the community, including:

• UWM has already missed two payment on the County Grounds, and the entire proposal seemed to be dependent on the TIF district for success.
• Everyone seemed to be in agreement that infrastructure would be placed in phases, but based on past developments, this is usually not efficient, and most infrastructure is done up front. This seems contradictory. What happens if all this infrastructure money is spent up-front, and the Business Park flops?
• Everyone seemed very concerned regarding the guarantee of preserving the Eschweiler buildings. (The UWM plan does call for the renovation of those buildings for rental property.)
• There seemed to be no information regarding ROI calculations on the research park, and also no information regarding what the bond rates would be, and what effect it would have on the city's bond rating.
• For those who were opposed to the County Grounds plans in general, using tax dollars further for this purpose seems like a slap in the face.

I personally voiced several concerns:

• In many instances, infrastructure improvements are paid for by the developers. Since many of the proposed research interests are supported by large businesses (like Honeywell for instance), it is troubling that the city is being asked to back what seems to be Corporate Welfare. If this were a good business decision, then the TIF would be unnecessary. It would seems that they are coming to the Wauwatosa Taxpayers to help finance a marginal plan which nobody else is willing to finance.
• The UWM plan would renovate the old Eschweiler for rental housing. However, based on the experience of the renovated buildings in the other Research Park in Wauwatosa, it seems doubtful that professionals would want to live in an old renovated building like that. Most businesses that are in the older renovated buildings in the current Research Park absolutely hate them because of how old they are, with no air conditioning, and limited ability to make the space as they'd like. Its only used by small startups until they can afford something even marginally better. As soon as a small startup grows to a certain size, they immediately bolt to a newer building, often times in a different office park. It is doubtful that the Eschweiler building renovations will be that much better for housing rentals and would attract many renters.
• The Springsted Plan payback plan seemed to be based on very speculative land valuation which would be highly dependent on the actual development plans which don't exist. In other words, it was their best guess based on plans that are still in flux. Even then, they can only say it's likely that it would be paid off in the maximum time allotted for in state law. So if anything went wrong, it would take even longer to pay off.
• The $12 millon for infrastructure is based on today's dollars. But if it's a phased plan, then those estimates will have to go up, as inflation takes hold. That means that if the City invests a certain amount of money now, the people will be committed to potentially more than $12 million in the future as inflation takes hold in order to continue the needed infrastructure improvements. Even in the TIF District were to amended and require approval for the extra money, the sunk cost will likely make the passage of such an amendment a virtual guarantee. In other words, it will end up being a snowball rolling downhill.
• With the housing market in it's current condition, is really that smart for the city to become involved in more housing speculation? If a private entity wants to take this risk on it's own, then that's their business. But it is not the Wauwatosa's job to speculate on real estate.
• The City Development Director admitted that the UWM plan could not go forward without the TIF District approval, and that more research and planning was also dependent on the TIF approval. In other words, we wouldn't know how much this would all truly cost until it was approved. This seems to be the local version of "you don't know what's in the bill until you pass it."

Former Aldermen Richard Bachman also spoke:

• Having previously been involved in the creation of several TIF Districts, he had never seen this much public opposition to a plan.
• The Springsted study which said that the group would likely be able to pay off the costs in the maximum 27 years provided for by state law, seemed like a very soft promise.
• UWM pays "user fees" to the City of Milwaukee, and members of UWM had previously said they would do the same to Wauwatosa. Now, UWM is saying they are fully tax exempt which would seem to indicate they would not do the same to Wauwatosa. What is UWM's position on this?
• Part of the proposal includes a Federal Block Grant requiring local matching funds. Will this TIF District be considered those matching funds, and is that even legal? That concept seemed to be in contradiction to the City Development Director's statement that all money would be used solely for infrastructure improvements.

Several of the Council Members, although generally in favor of the proposal had extra concerns:

• The UWM Master Plan had several major projects including the new Fresh Water school. The Engineering School and Research Park was the 3rd priority. What happens when money is tight? How will those priorities affect the building plans?
• How does this TIF District compare to other successful TIF's like those in other communities like Menomonee Falls?

One of the final points made by Ms. Welch was the banks right now aren't lending money for these types of developments. The Council Members seemed to think that this was a good reason to create the TIF District, and nobody saw this as a reason for caution. Why are banks unwilling to lend on these types of development? It's not just because of the current economic environment. Currently, the market simply is not supporting these types of proposals because businesses aren't growing like this at the moment.

I did have a chance to talk to the board members afterwards for a few moments. My general impression was that everyone really wanted to vote this forward, but couldn't because of the degree of opposition that was voiced. In fact, several of the aldermen on the board talked about how Wauwatosa is too conservative when it comes to "speculative TIF Districts" and that many cities such as Menomonee Falls and West Allis have been very successful with them. Of course, those were made in very different economic times. One of the ones we talked about was Woodland Prime in Menomonee Falls. Drive up there some time. It's a virtual business park ghost town.

The motion was made to place the plan on hold without prejudice until the next Planning Commission meeting when more information could be presented next month.

Morgan Shelton on the Journal Reader Advisor Committee seems to think Milwaukee has a "Big Problem":

A new report says Wisconsin has the highest rate of obese African-Americans in the U.S. – one out of every two adults. Since most live in Milwaukee, our city has a BIG problem. Poverty and pricey healthy foods are two cited reasons. I'm calling out African-American women specifically for worrying more about sweating out their hair than caring about their bodies. Out of the handful of African-Americans at the gym, I only see a couple of women busting a sweat. The other few in matching outfits are busy "looking cute." Maybe we should start a "Wrap It Up or Braid It Up" campaign. Any takers?

Morgan does not link to the report, not does he give a clue as to the author of the report, but I'm guessing it's this one. What I found most interesting, was that poverty and high prices were the reasons for a rise in obesity. In most countries, and even in our own country not too long in the past, those two things would have led to greater hunger and starvation.  Of all the "problems" that a community can have, I can think of few better than being too fat because you are poor.

I am also curious as to why Mr. Shelton is "calling out" anyone. They are the ones who have to live with their bodies, not him. Unless of course, he is simply "offended" at having to look at fat women... which sounds more like a personal problem than anything else. Certainly, it seems counterproductive to complain about anyone who has taken the time, and money, to join a gym. Why don't you concentrate more on your own workout Morgan.

Wauwatosa has a lot going for it right now... the community is great, as are the people... and the businesses are trying very hard and being very successful. In fact, I'd say that Wauwatosa is having somewhat of a renaissance right now. Unfortunately, the Wauwatosa Common Council still likes to get in the way. Recently, the issue of expanding the very successful Alterra on 92nd and North came before the council. Alterra wants to expand their outdoor patio seating, which is somewhat confined. They wanted permission to expand their patio area and put seating closer to the street.

Fortunately for Alterra, they were able to garner enough votes for passage, but not without objections from some of the council members (emphasis mine):

Other opponents to replacing developer Sean Phelan's plan cited an appreciation for the aesthetics, a belief it would attract business to an already successful café, an objection from the business to proposed changes and the lateness of the submission.

Alderman Brian Ewerdt didn't support Birschel's proposal, but he did say that he, too, had concerns about the safety of Phelan's plan - that's why he also voted against that plan.

Now, I can understand safety concerns, especially given the incident at Starbucks just a few weeks prior. But I want to know who on the council thought it was appropriate to object because it would make the Alterra more successful. At a time when the economy is struggling, the last thing we need is for Aldermen to be deciding which businesses are doing "too well", and make efforts to throttle their success. Ideally, the Common Council should have the minimum amount of involvement possible in how businesses run... but short of that ideal, the Aldermen should be finding ways to work with business expand and become more successful, not the exact opposite!

I look forward to reading the minutes from that Common Council meeting so I can find out which Alderman should be voted out of office.

On the day after Independence Day, people in the state of Wisconsin lost one more freedom... the right to decide whether or not people are allowed to smoke in an establishment that they own. But now the bigger problem arises... where will all the money go from the tickets the police are going to write?

The Milwaukee Common Council delayed action Wednesday on a measure to enforce the new state smoking ban, after a lengthy debate over who would write tickets and how the city would define the enclosed areas where smoking is prohibited.

Without city action, only Milwaukee police are empowered to enforce the ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and other buildings, and any tickets they write would be referred to the Milwaukee County district attorney's office for prosecution in Circuit Court, Deputy City Attorney Linda Burke told the council. The state law took effect Monday.

Wednesday's debate focused on a measure to write the state smoking ban into city ordinances, which would allow violations to be prosecuted by the city attorney's office in Municipal Court, where the fines levied would flow into the city treasury.

But the ordinance also would define enclosed areas differently than the state law. Tavern owners believe the state law would allow smoking in a bar that has large open windows on two sides, Assistant City Attorney Robin Pederson said. The city ordinance would allow smoking only in areas that have no more than two walls and a roof, Burke said.

Now if I recall correctly, one of the major arguments made by the proponents of the state ban was that there was too much variance between all the different municipal laws that had been enacted. Not only did some communities not have a ban (the horror!), but the bans were written differently in each community. A state law, they claimed, would solve that problem, and bring a uniform ban to the state.

The problem is... apparently... the money from the tickets will go to the county instead of the city. So now, the City of Milwaukee wants to write their own new, stricter law, anyway, so that they can write their own municipal tickets which will go into city coffers instead of state ones. Also of concern to me is the following from an article when the state ban was signed:

Under the law, the local bans remain in effect until the state one starts, but local governments would not be allowed to pass stricter regulations.

But that's exactly what the Milwaukee Common Council wants to do... which at least according to Fox 6, would be illegal under the current ban. So if Milwaukee still has to pass it's own ordinance, despite the existence of the "uniform ban", then what was the point in the statewide ban to begin with?

This entire debate of course shows the real reason why cigarette taxes and smoking bans are popular. They allow the government to rake in more money. It's not about keeping people healthy, because the government becomes addicted to the revenue that cigarettes bring in. California has created programs specifically with the funds brought in by its cigarette taxes. But now that the funds are drying up, because people are quitting due to the high cost, "the children are suffering".

Jay Bullock has his panties in a twist, calling Scott Walker (or more accurately his communications director) a "damn liar", over emails sent by the Walker Campaign regarding jobs... the loss of jobs to be specific. In that email, the campaign says that Walker won't "sacrifice your job to score political points".  He then goes on to list how Scott Walker has sacrificed jobs in Milwaukee:

But here is a partial list of jobs that Walker has sacrificed in his time as Milwaukee County Executive:

• All of the security guards at courthouses and other buildings
• All housekeeping staff
• All food service jobs
• Most of the parks workers
• Staff at BHD: nurses, CNAs, specialized therapists and doctors
• Clerical staff who help the few remaining county workers get the job done
• Highway workers
• Firefighters at the airport
• Economic Support staff (until the state takeover)
• However many people lost their jobs when 20,000 of them had their transit routes cut off

That's a lot of jobs. But wait a second. Does that mean that the courthouses have no security at all? I can just take a gun in there right now and go crazy? Am I to assume that no county owned buildings are being cleaned? If I walk into one this morning, will trash be piled everywhere? Is food not being served anywhere? You mean county employees are starving?! And the parks... aren't being taken care of at all? You mean the Award Winning Milwaukee County Park system?!

Of course not... because those jobs were not lost! Union jobs were eliminated, and were replaced with non-union jobs from a private firm. For example, security at county facilities is now provided by G4S Wakenhut. Housekeeping was similarly privatized last year. And guess what... the companies hired to provide those services didn't have staff just sitting around waiting for work when they got hired. They actually had to go out and hire people to fill the new work they were contracted to do.

Now we can argue until we're blue in the face about whether it's better to have those jobs unionized, or not. We can argue ad nauseam regarding the higher cost of employing union workers because of steep medical benefits and pension plans. But the fact remains... those jobs still exist. People are still performing those duties. You may not like who is doing the work... but its getting done.

The fact is, this sort of debate is raging at all levels of government... especially in the federal government where employment is booming... to the detriment of the private sector.

Yeah... they pretty much all sound like this: