Mobile? Click HERE for m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr 
Wisconsin Film Festival

Thursday, September 2, 2010 |  Madison, WI: 74.0° F  
The Paper
 

NEWS

Edgewater Hotel plan secret, suspicious
Expansion backed by largely clandestine lobbying effort

A Hammes Co. rendering of the project: A $107 million upgrade on a $5.3 million building.
A Hammes Co. rendering of the project: A $107 million upgrade on a $5.3 million building.
Article Tools: Read moreRead more News items
Email this articleEmail this article
Print this articlePrint This Article
Email the authorEmail the author
Recommend This ArticleLike This Article Add to DiggShare this item

The Madison Trust for Historic Preservation is gravely concerned about a proposed $107 million expansion of the Edgewater Hotel. And not just about preservation.

"The whole process is so private that plans for the Edgewater will be so fully realized, so fully formed when they're finally revealed, that there will be no opportunity for public input," says Michael Bridgeman, a board member and spokesman for the Trust.

There may be reasons that the project developer, Hammes Company of Brookfield, is being secretive. It's engaged in what appears to be unreported lobbying. It's created a lobby group to back the project and what seems to be a dummy-front neighborhood organization. It's built questionable alliances with the mayor and Downtown Madison Inc.

"The process needs to be public," says Bridgeman, communications director for Wisconsin Public Television. "Not good. Not healthy. Not how it's done."

According to Dist. 2 Ald. Bridget Maniaci, in whose district the project lies, the Edgewater Hotel will expand onto adjacent property owned by National Guardian Life Insurance Co. The developer reportedly will request TIF dollars.

The Edgewater, 666 Wisconsin Ave., is in Mansion Hill, one of five districts with Capitol Neighborhoods Inc., a neighborhood group. The hotel, assessed at $5.3 million, sits in city and national historic districts, and in multiple zoning districts. There's a five-story, 50-foot height restriction within the area. Other regulations govern lakeshore development.

Historic districts' views are protected — more so here than elsewhere in Madison. In 1965 the city vacated part of the street for hotel expansion, and an ordinance was created protecting "the visual outlook from the vicinity of the intersection of Wisconsin Avenue and Langdon Street."

In the long term, the city's downtown plan has identified National Guardian's green space as a potential park. Mansion Hill recently filed a draft of its own neighborhood development plan with the city, after seven years of work.

Representatives of Mansion Hill have thus far had six meetings with Hammes. Their steering committee includes attorney and landlord Fred Mohs and Ledell Zellers, director of human resources for the State of Wisconsin Investment Board.

Hammes is a healthcare facility developer. Bob Dunn is president of its Madison division, Hammes Company Sports and Entertainment. Dunn is among the nation's most influential sports facility developers, according to Sports Business Daily. Projects include Lambeau Field, the Kohl Center, Ford Field in Detroit and the Edgewater.

Hammes has promised to reveal plans since January, but the neighbors have seen little. "It's all image. No plan," says Mohs. Dunn and Edgewater staff declined comment.

Last week, Dunn said he was looking for a media outlet to release information to, as part of an ongoing partnership. He offered this reporter, who lives in Mansion Hill, special and perhaps future writing opportunities, but no actual information. A story on the project then ran in Sunday's Wisconsin State Journal.

According to that report, the project will include an 11-story tower, a "grand staircase to the lake," and a public plaza overlooking Lake Mendota. It would include 230 hotel rooms, 364 parking spaces, restaurants and meeting space.

In the last several months, Hammes has greased the skids by meeting with people who make decisions. This includes at least 10 meetings since Nov. 14 with Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, city sources affirm.

In contrast, Brad Murphy of Planning and Development says Hammes has met with staff just "several times."

Zellers suspects a behind-the-scenes deal is being cut. As president of Capital Neighborhoods for three years, she's worked with developers on projects including the expansion of First United Methodist Church. "If every developer met with the mayor as often," she says, "our mayor would have no time to do anything."

Maniaci, meanwhile, says she's had at least one meeting a week on the project, either with Hammes or the Mansion Hill group. (Zellers says Mansion Hill has met with Maniaci three times.) Someone has been doing a lot of lobbying.

And this $107 million project in a historic district is proceeding at a time when the city has no preservation planner. Mayor Cieslewicz has frozen the vacancy.

Hammes Co. has even created a new lobbying interest at city hall. The group, which goes by the name Landmark X, has six registered agents, a massive number for Madison, and its leader is Bob Dunn. The rest are two Hammes staffers, two Boston architects and Henry Gempeler of the law firm Foley & Lardner.

And while Landmark X's stated business activity is "Edgewater Hotel redevelopment," the name "Hammes" appears only on the email addresses of Dunn and others. It would be possible to review the form and not even notice the connection.

The Madison city clerk received Landmark X's lobby registration forms on Feb. 6. But Hammes has been lobbying even longer.

"They were lobbying me last November and December," says Brenda Konkel, Maniaci's predecessor as alder. Neither Hammes nor Landmark X has filed contact or spending reports for 2008, as the city's lobby law would seem to require.

Edgewater project proponents have also helped create the Mansion Hill Neighborhood Coalition. It's a rival to Capitol Neighborhood's Mansion Hill, and it includes "institutions and civic organizations that have property interests in the Mansion Hill Historic District," according to a May 27 letter to the city.

Not surprisingly, the Coalition favors mixed use in the historic district and relaxing ordinances. Before even broad outlines of the Edgewater project were public, the Coalition was circulating a petition supporting it.

The Coalition was created at an Edgewater meeting March 26. Cieslewicz was there; it appears on the mayor's calendar as a meeting with Dunn. To create the Coalition, National Guardian Life retained Landmark X's firm, Foley & Lardner. The specific attorney tapped is Allen Arntsen, who just happens to be the chair of the executive committee of Downtown Madison Inc., which is backing the expansion. (Arntsen did not respond to requests for comment.)

Amy Supple of Hammes signed the May 27 letter from the Coalition strongly criticizing the traditional Mansion Hill neighborhood development plan. That plan is now stalled.

"I had a meeting with downtown Ald. Mike Verveer last night regarding the Edgewater Hotel," Supple wrote to seven Coalition members in a June 20 email. "He told me that he has convinced the neighborhood to set aside the plan until the Edgewater is through the entitlements process." Mansion Hill and Verveer confirm this.

"I think stopping the plan is a great win for the Coalition," Supple wrote. "I would suggest that we keep this momentum going and get the city to memorialize what they said they would do, which includes a) putting the [Mansion Hill] plan discussions on hold and, b) creating a fair and balanced subcommittee to review and change the plan once it starts up again."

What the city "said they would do"?

Is this Hammes lobbying or the Coalition? Will these exertions appear on Landmark X lobbying reports? And exactly how "fair and balanced" are the efforts by Hammes — and Landmark X, and the Mansion Hill Neighborhood Coalition — to push through this plan?

Comments (9)

From susan schmitz on 07/02/09 at 2:45 pm

Dear Jay:

I was very surprised to see (in the article on the Edgewater) that you said Downtown Madison, Inc. (DMI)had a "questionable alliance" with the Hammes Company.  The reason I was surprised is because you did not contact our office.  Mentioning DMI (without giving us a call) is not the way to get a good and open dialogue going. 

Susan Schmitz

DMI President 

From Bill Lueders on 07/02/09 at 4:46 pm

Jay Rath is an experienced reporter and can speak for himself but the fact is that we did contact DMI; we tried to talk to Allen Arntsen, the head of DMI's executive committee, whose role was what the article deemed questionable. He did not respond. Were we supposed to contact every member of DMI, in addition to the person who is most directly involved?

 

From Robert Jordan on 07/02/09 at 6:06 pm

Please explain to me what the problem is? I don't see a problem with any of this.

From Bill Patterson on 07/02/09 at 7:55 pm

Susan - now that you are aware of the article on the Edgewater, can you please set the record straight and tell us iwhat involvement, if any, DMI, Inc. has with the Hammes Company reguarding the Edgewater Hotel expansion plans.  Thank you~

From Tom Bergamini on 07/02/09 at 10:45 pm

Well I guess they were right about the sad state of journalism in America.  Hard to know where to start with this one: 

Mansion Hill Neighborhood Coalition is a "dummy-front neighborhood organization": 

Non-resident property owners of the Mansion Hill district, who make up approximately  95% of the district, have NO vote in their neighborhood association.  Here the explanation offered by CNI's Gene Devitt in the June-July, 2009 CNI newsletter:  "We have learned through experience that a result of allowing non-residents to vote produces meetings that may be packed with the developer's friends and associates creating a situation this is unrepresentative to residents.having them vote is off the table."  Nice inclusive approach, eh?

Apparently, in my neighborhood, Tenney Lapham, we have had no such experience with wily and conniving non-resident property owners, because we let them right in the door as regular, voting members.  Why the difference?  It is simple, actually.  CNI figured out long ago that control by single family homeowners was possible only if they excluded non-resident property owners from voting.  In other words, pure power politics played out at the neighborhood level, supported by our tax dollars (oh yes, Madison provides plenty of staff support and direct access to staff and alders to its neighborhood associations).  Now here come the excluded 95% in the Mansion Hill district, who finally wake up and organize to advocate for themselves, and what does Isthmus deem them to be:  a "dummy front" organization?!  So much for progressive values. 

"Massive" Lobbying   Madison's lobbying ordinance requires that even your nerdy drafting technician must register if she has any contact with staff or alders that might somehow be construed as trying to "influence".  This is a $100,000,000 project, so surprise surprise, as many as six people are working on it.  The fact that Hammes registered them means nothing more than they read the ordinance and are being cautious. 

Landmark X vs. Hammes subterfuge?:  Developers create single purpose limited liability companies to own property. If Landmark X is paying the bills, and has the contracts with the architects, wouldn't it have to register?  Another example of trying to make an issue where there is none.

The National Guardian Life (NGL) green space is a potential park in the "downtown plan"?  Huh? What are you talking about? The downtown plan hasn't even been completed yet.  By the way, if Isthmus had looked, the latest CNI newsletter says this about the NGL site:  "the neighbors have always understood that NGL's lawn was a potential development site and someday it would be developed."   I guess CNI didn't check with Isthmus about that park option before they wrote their newsletter. 

Arnsten somehow sways Downtown Madison Inc's   What a joke.  DMI has about 35 very independent board members, and unlike the neighborhood association, they each get one vote.  After hearing from both sides, DMI overwhelmingly voted to support the Edgewater development for its potential economic development and potential to enhance the access to Lake Mendota and potential TIF benefits.  As for Arnsten, he recued himself from the vote.

"Only" six meetings with the neighborhood to date and a "secretive" process:  Planning a project of this scope and complexity is like a assembling a puzzle when a quarter of the pieces keep changing shape and/or haven't arrived from the puzzle factory.  Unrealistically, the CNI "guide" to doing a development project, which runs to a staggering 117 pages, basically requires developers to present the neighborhood site layouts very early in the planning stage of a project.  That might be realistic for a small, simple, and self-contained development, but it virtually guarantees neighborhood frustration and accusations of "secretive and suspicious" when applied to a large project like the Edgewater, where big issues such as set-backs from the lake, purchases of adjacent property, crazy gyrations in finance markets and about a hundred other variables I can't even comprehend have to be sorted out before a design can be unveiled. 

Would it have been nice to see more complete site layouts and design details early on?  Of course it would, but the fact that the full design is just now emerging doesn't prove that Hammes was being underhanded.  Sitting at the water's edge of the Mansion Hill District, next to other large buildings, we just might be able to have our cake and eat it too:  that is, create hundreds of new jobs, tens of millions of additional taxable increment, and maintain a historic district which has actually seen very little influx of homeowners willing to take on the challenge of restoring a home.  Not a bad opportunity in a town that can no longer afford to rest on its laurels, and where in 2007 over 18% of its residents had incomes below the poverty rate.

 

But why look at this project with an open mind when we can instead do what we always do and assume ill intent of any successful businessperson that in any way challenges the comfortable status quo of those who arrived first, all under the guise and cover of a "progressive" tradition.  

 Tom Bergamini,

 


Last edited: 2009-07-02 23:02:18
From Jay Rath on 07/06/09 at 1:20 pm

Thank you to everyone who has posted here and in the Forum. As Mayor Dave Cieslewicz has pointed out, "there's still a long road ahead," and the discussion is just beginning.

Everyone of course comes to their own conclusions, but I did not intend the article to be about Downtown Madison Inc. (DMI), or the mayor, or the Mansion Hill district of Capitol Neighborhoods Inc. (CNI), or even about the proposed Edgewater project. It was intended to be about the process by which the project has so far advanced.

Some seem to be focusing on imaginary criticism or information that is not in the story. Still, let me attempt to respond to some of the comments.

From the mayor’s blog (http://www.cityofmadison.com/mayor/blog/): "The Isthmus breathlessly reported today that I have met with a developer. Stop the presses. Start the investigation."

The mayor of course must meet with developers.

Capital Times reporter Kristin Czubkowski in her city hall blog calls the mayor's response, "some of his trademark sarcasm" and adds, "The article is interesting -- I know I personally have not delved very deep into this story yet, but I think the Isthmus and others (like former Edgewater-area Ald. Brenda Konkel) have raised some legitimate concerns about the process."

The mayor writes of Edgewater developer Bob Dunn and Mansion Hill steering committee member Fred Mohs, who also sits on the DMI executive committee:

"For awhile I felt like a tennis ball. Meet with Dunn. Meet with Fred Mohs. Dunn. Mohs. Dunn. Mohs. Back and forth until enough compromises were made and I had enough information to feel comfortable supporting the project."

As Czubkowski writes, "the big question at this point is, as the mayor also points out, how many private meetings should a developer have about a project before going into the public process? In the Edgewater's case, it appears to be a lot -- is it justified because of the scope of the project, as the mayor asserts, or is it part of a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy of winning people over before the public gets to see the plans, as Konkel has said?"

Tom Bergamini, who has posted above, is on DMI's executive committee and chairs its economic development committee. He asks of my article, "But why look at this project with an open mind when we can instead do what we always do and assume ill intent"?

Again, the article was not intended to be about the project but its process. I do not yet know enough about the project to have even a private, personal opinion. I tried unsuccessfully for two weeks to get information of any kind from the developer. After my deadline and The Wisconsin State Journal’s article, they did kindly provide a short press release and artwork.

I do, however, know a lot about the process by which the project has advanced so far.

Bergamini also writes, "Developers create single purpose limited liability companies to own property." This is of course true. Landmark X, however, is neither a partnership nor a limited liability company, according to its lobbyist registration forms.

Bergamini also writes, "The downtown plan hasn't even been completed yet." Drafts of the plan to date show the area behind National Guardian life as long term potential parkland. This is confirmed by Mark Olinger, the city's director of Planning and Development.

Bergamini also writes, "After hearing from both sides, DMI overwhelmingly voted to support the Edgewater development for its potential economic development and potential to enhance the access to Lake Mendota and potential TIF benefits. As for Arnsten [sic], he recued [sic] himself from the vote."

For all I know, I would have voted the same way. Again, I have little information on the project itself, only about the process by which it so far has advanced.

As pointed out in the article, Arntsen (not Arnsten), did not respond to requests for comment. I’ve met Allen, and I applaud the work he and DMI have done to help bolster Madison arts and downtown life in general. I’ve attended all but one of the DMI arts discussion meetings Allen has called.

Bergamini writes, "Well I guess they were right about the sad state of journalism in America."

I would humbly exempt my own work, but we actually entirely agree on this!

Thank you again to everyone who has responded.

From Tom Farley on 07/06/09 at 2:20 pm

On one hand this article seems to be about some people's problem with not abiding by "the process" (as they define it).  It certainly isn't about the merits of this project itself. For that reason I would challenge anyone to make a convincing case for how Madison's (formal or informal) procedures are in any way functional or have produced anything more than mediocrity.  

Beyond that, it seems pretty clear that Bob Dunn has a vision for the Edgewater property that is directly linked to a lager vision he has for Madison.  A more revealing review of this project (not one based on who's meeting or not meeting with whom) would demonstrate Bob Dunn's deep and genuine passion for ALL of Madison - along with an equal determination to avoid any level of failure caused by a flawed process.  

What you WON'T find is anything so clearly self-serving as a single neighborhood's irritation over a change in their "views of the lake" or a developer who promises to "donate" money back to the city if they approve his plans to build a library.  

 

From Jay Rath on 07/06/09 at 4:55 pm

Hi, Tom. With respect, the article is not about "some people's problem by 'the process' (as they define it)" but with the process as defined by the city's lobbying ordinance.

From Genie Ogden on 07/07/09 at 12:04 pm

Why should absentee landlords have a say? They don't live in the neighborhood. Makes sense to me. Having rich people from Maple Bluff, or where ever they live, making decisions about something in Madison is silly. And to have the Mayor go along with them is even worse. The neighbors should  have a say, and then the city at large.

Log in or register to comment

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater
PluggedcommentsViewedForum
Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs RSS
Collapse Photo Bar