Milwaukee Water Works’ bad idea approved for suburbs, too

The Milwaukee Water Works’ really bad proposal to gives incentive to companies  to waste water was approved by the Public Service Commission last week and, over the objections of the city, extended to suburban communities that buy water from the utility.

Yup, the city comes out with absolutely no net advantage with its new, screw-you-residential-ratepayer plan and avoids for at least another year dealing with the hard issue of excess capacity in its water system. Big water using ratepayers get an economic development rate discount; others get the bill for the city’s failure to deal with the issue.

A really, really bad aspect of this new discount is that the companies that get it don’t even have to show that new jobs they add have anything to do with the additional water that is going down the drain or with the rate break they are getting.

So much for Milwaukee city government trying to sell itself as “green.” Mayor Tom Barrett and the Common Council should be embarrassed about this one. Residential ratepayers and anyone who cares about the health of area waterways should be furious.

To qualify for the bad new discount, a new business must use 500,000 gallons of water per billing period, and an existing business must increase its water use per billing period from a baseline of at least 1 million gallons  to 2.5 million gallons, or by 50%, whichever is less.

A business seeking the discount must submit a water use and efficiency plan to the Water Works, and file an affidavit swearing that it would not increase water consumption without the encouragement of the economic development rate. (Emphasis added.) Enforcement of the plan? Water Works would be allowed to audit each recipient’s water use, but there is no mention of who would do the auditing. New staff? Doesn’t that cost money, requiring more revenue, requiring higher water rates? And if a company is caught cheating, it will have 90 days to stop. (“Really, officer? I was going a hundred miles over the limit? I promise I will slow down in three months.”)

The firm must create 25 jobs within 90 days of approval of the discount. There is no requirement that adding the jobs have anything to do with the additional water use or the water rate discount. There just needs to be 25 new jobs.

Let’s think about this one a little bit. Let’s say you are a big water-using-business planning to expand and add jobs. Wouldn’t you apply for the discount and wait until you know if you have gotten it before adding those jobs? It’s not a hard decision to make, since if you add them too soon, you won’t qualify for the discount! By waiting and adding the jobs later, you can get the discount that has nothing to do with the jobs you were going to add anyway. What a deal for the business! There is a downside, though, for the city: job creation may actually be put on hold until while the company waits for its free money to be confirmed.

And let’s say you are a new business that adds 600 jobs but only uses 400,000 gallons of water per billing period. What you get is — jack sh–! Too bad, buddy!

There are a few environmental requirements that must be met to qualify for the discount, but they are almost laughable. The Water Works must certify to the PSC that the additional consumption won’t hurt the water supply and that it will not increase water rates for other customers. If the latter is true — if the Water Works can lose revenue from one source without replacing it from another source — then it already is operating with a bloated budget and is overcharging customers and the PSC should re-examine the huge rate increases it just granted to the utility.

If  the Water Works must charge other customers more to recover what it loses by granting the discount, then it will either have to deny all discount applications or pass those costs on to other customers in the form of increased rates.

And how is the Water Works supposed to know the impacts of each business on the overall quality and health of the water system? Are cumulative impacts considered? It does not appear that they will be. So if each of 100 businesses receiving the discount has a negligible effect on Lake Michigan, but collectively they will destroy it, the collectively part of the equation will not be considered.

The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, meanwhile, must certify that it can treat the increased wastewater without adversely affecting the operation of its plants or increasing charges to other customers. Given the flooding and overflows in recent years, how on earth could it possibly do that?

This is a crazy, bad plan. The Milwaukee Water Works how has the authority to implement the crazy, bad plan, but it is not required to do so. And it should not.

Barrett should veto this idiocy

The Common Council, without a shred of public input, this week decided that anyone wanting to park a car that is for sale on the public property must get a $40 permit from the city, show the Department of Public Works the title to the car and have the vehicle inspected by a DPW employee.

This burdensome, idiotic requirement was adopted on a 10-4 vote without much thought at all. The justification behind it is absurd.

“The Common Council finds that a disproportionate number of vehicles that are for sale on public property are unlicensed, unregistered or are offered for sale by individuals who have no legal authority to do so,” the newly-expanded ordinance reads.

Poppycock. Show me the data on that one. And how the hell is requiring a $40 permit for a street sale going to prevent someone from selling a stolen car through some other — any other — means?

Ald. Robert Puente suggested the ordinance should apply citywide, rather than limited to areas where street sales of cars is a problem, so the police would have an easier time enforcing it. Yup, residents of Milwaukee should face a burdensome, expensive, useless requirement so cops don’t have to think or learn a new set of boundaries.  I thought the police were here to serve the citizenry, but it looks like that idea has been totally flipped backwards and upside down.

Technically, the ordinance prohibits parking any car for sale on public property, whether there is a “for sale” sign on the vehicle or not. You can get busted for driving the car and parking at the library, even if you leave the “for sale” sign at home. That is not what the council intended, but it is what the ordinance says.

Mayor Barrett should veto this idiocy. The ordinance, even narrowly interpreted, obviously will hit hardest at people in the city who can’t park their for-sale cars on private property — those whose garages are accessed through alleys or who don’t have private parking at all. The latter, of course, includes many poor people of the variety who don’t have the money or time to go chasing down to City Hall to pay $40 and go through a hassle to sell a $300 car.

We are in danger of having a bad ordinance that has been poorly drafted inflicted on the city. The Common Council should have realized that is a common result when legislation is rammed through without  much thought or consideration. Barrett really needs to kill it.

Council, without public input, passes $40 car sales fee

It will cost $40 to park a car on the street and stick a “for sale” sign on it, under an ordinance adopted Tuesday by the Common Council.

Anyone wanting to sell a car on public property — namely, streets — will have to fill out an application and have the vehicle inspected by the Department of Public Works. There could be fines and towing for those who don’t obey.

The public not notified of the ordinance or provided an opportunity for input before the measure was  debated and approved, 10-4, by the council Tuesday morning.

The $40 fee already is in effect in small areas of the city, and Ald. Joe Davis asked the council’s Public Safety Committee to extend it to his district as well. The committee, instead, recommended Tuesday morning that it be extended to the entire city and the council agreed a short time later.

A portion of Ald. Robert Donovan’s district was the first to be subject to the $40 fee. Donovan told the committee that the large volume of car sales on the streets were causing problems in some areas. He said some of the cars sold turned out to be stolen.

Ald. Robert Puente said it would be easier for police to enforce the ordinance if it were citywide.

Voting against the measure were Aldermen Jim Bohl, Michael Murphy and Joe Dudzik and Alderwoman Milele Coggs.

Murphy pushes for better Brewers-related traffic control

The Milwaukee Brewers and Milwaukee Police Department should resolve their differences over who should pay for traffic cops at intersections near Miller Park on game days and make sure those traffic cops are posted, Ald. Michael Murphy said.

“I’ve received complaints on the ad hoc placement of officers,” he told the Common Council this week.

Traffic near the stadium has become a bigger issue since the Brewers started winning regularly and drawing large crowds. Brewers-generated traffic jams made it extremely difficult to enter or leave the Story Hill neighborhood last year on some big game days because there were no traffic officers assigned to intersections such as W. Bluemound and N. Hawley Roads or Bluemound and N. Story Parkway.

The Brewers pay for the city to provide security at Miller Park and the council this week approved a $1.5 million agreement for the upcoming season. There apparently is disagreement, though, between the Brewers and the Police Department about who should pay for traffic officers working on city streets outside of Miller Park, Murphy said.

“The two of them need to get that resolved in the coming season because there is a traffic safety issue,” Murphy said.

City opposes protections for convicted criminals seeking housing

The Common Council went on record last week opposing a bill backed by some Milwaukee Democrats that would prohibit housing discrimination based on arrests or convictions that are more than three years old.

“My office, in meeting with landlords, regularly advises that one of the things that landlords can do to make sure their properties are not facilitating drug dealing or gang activity is to screen their tenants,” Assistant City Attorney Adam Stephens told the council’s Judiciary and Legislation Committee ealier this month.

“That would be a problem” if the landlords had to worry about becoming criminals themsleves, he said.

Under the proposed legislation, a felon who served four years in prison for a serious crime would be protected under the law because the conviction would be more than three years old, Stephens said.

“Obviously, that’s a very practical concern,” he said.

A less serious offender serving probation on a more recent conviction would not be protected, he said.

“I’m a little confused as to the point of this legislation,” Ald. Ashanti Hamilton said.

The major sponsor of the draft legislation, which has not yet been introduced,  is State Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids). Assembly co-sponsors  include Milwaukee Democrats Annette Williams, Tamara Grigsby and Fred Kessler, city officials said.

Schneider has long been concerned about the misuse of electronic court records in employment screening, and other legislators believe that convicted criminals need a place to live and deserve a second chance, city lobbyist Jennifer Gonda said.

“There’s sort of a sympathetic factor there,” she said.

Ald. Jim Bohl said he was confident the vast majority of constituents would support him in door-to-door debates with the legislation’s sponsors over the proposal’s merits.

“This is not something that would be positively viewed by most of their constituency,” he said.

Bohl predicted the committee’s recommendation to oppose the measure would sail through the full council.

It did — unanimously.