Blood On The Hands Of Obama Gun-Seizure Rumor-Mongers

I hope the righty talkers and bloggers who have been fomenting this gun seizure insanity are happy.

Mark Sanford Channels His Inner Scott Walker

The South Carolina Governor stimulus-basher agrees to accept the money - - after saying he wouldn't take it.

And faced a revolt over that stance in his legislature.

Hmmm...does that you remind you of a certain Milwaukee County Executive and his Board of Supervisors?

Barrett Stops Heist Of Stimulus Dollars

A powerful moment for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who helped Friday morning convince a transportation planning committee in charge of federal stimulus spending that pouring $7.5 million into River Hills, Germantown and suburban West Bend does not meet the federal requirement that the money be spent in economically-distressed communities.

Barrett is right:

Here are the federal rules, which the Committee's parent organization, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission had previously distributed.

I had blogged about this for several days, with some documented opinion, here added after the planning commission staff caved-0n to political pressures and signalled its willingness to basically overlook the federal rules.

Following the 14-5 vote, the committee made the vote unanimous, and urged the State Department of Transportation, which had approved the three projects prematurely without the committee's requisite role, to fund the projects from a different pot of funding, according to the Daily Reporter.

So to the Milwaukee representatives on the committee, the others in the 14-5 voting majority, and the Mayor: Well done.

Breaking News!! Ratings Win For Channel 4

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Tim Cuprisin reports that channel TMJ4 10 p.m. news has won the most recent ratings period.

Breaking News Wins!!

This is good news, so to speak, for Milwaukee viewers want all the creepy details of the latest child molestation flashed up right at the top of the newscast, or that weather guy with the goatee breaking into Saturday Night Live with doomsday coverage of approaching showers in East Troy.

As I Predicted, There Is Criticism Of The Madison Airport As High-Speed Rail Stop

People are noticing that putting the Madison high-speed rail station at the airport on the far NE side of town discourages riders interested in using the service between Milwaukee and Madison.

I raised this point a couple of weeks ago.

There will need to be connecting rail from the airport to the Capitol Square to make the service attractive, much as there is in cities like Washington, DC and St. Louis.

Advice To Commenters: Lose The Adjectives

I get some really insightful, and data-packed comments that I hold because they use language that gets close to, or over the line.

So one bit of advice: try and lose the adjectives.

Walker's Flip-Flops On Stimulus Funds Are Gold-Medal Worthy

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's off-again-on-again-off-again-on-again relationship with federal stimulus financing is a political mystery tour without an apparent end.

Let's now take predictions about how this will be spun into 2010 gubernatorial campaign literature, in twenty-five words or less...

MSNBC's "Countdown" Uses Journal Sentinel Interview To Flog O'Reilly

O'Reilly as the victim is hilarious: kudos to the local paper's Tim Cuprisin.

SEWRPC Caves, Will Send Stimulus Poverty Funds To Rich Communities

The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission is signalling it will reverse course and greenlight millions in stimulus transportation dollars for three projects in upscale areas - - though the clear intent of stimulus funds for transportation purposes in the region is to assist economically-distressed areas.

So River Hills, one of the wealthiest communities in the entire state - - with two families below the poverty line, according to the US Census Bureau - - will receive the only first-round stimulus road spending in Milwaukee County.

SEWRPC talked a good game ten days ago when it took off the list the three projects - - all in Republican State Sen. Alberta Darling (River Hills) District - - but maybe the tantrum she threw in response about legislative prerogatives and the power of the Committee on Joint Finance spooked SEWRPC's reversal.

Ah, stimulus-worth River Hills - - where the official village website says 85% of the houses in the 100% residential community are on lots of five acres or more, and where the median home value is close to $900,000, and household median income is $181,000.

Wealth measured in multiples of the statewide demographic averages, and certainly lower-income Milwaukee's - - median household income, $35,000/median housing value, $133,000, according to the US Census Bureau.

Yes, River Hills, which will save a grand total of $67,000 in local property tax dollars when stimulus funds cover state and local costs to repair the River Road Bridge.

No doubt saving River Hills from municipal bankruptcy.

The other two communities seeing stimulus money invested - - this time in the millions - - for repairs and upgrades to Highways Q and Y in Washington County, and at the Waukesha County border, are a) the upscale Village of Germantown, and b) the Town of Addison outside of West Bend, with an official website extolling its quiet, rural lifestyle.

But miles from Milwaukee's core, which apparently is the real criteria for this round of stimulus road spending, and about which the ACLU of Wisconsin has already warned.

The capitulation by SEWRPC comes Friday morning - - meeting details here - - at the Milwaukee County Downtown Transit Center; travel there from any direction will take you across city/urban streets, avenues, boulevards and highways that need more attention - - in economically-distressed neighborhoods - - than the three projects that will walk off unjustifiably with $7.5 million dollars.

This now becomes exhibit "A" in the case for dismantling the agency, permitting Milwaukee to form an urban-focused planning agency, and withdrawing Milwaukee County's self-destructive $800,000 annual property tax payment to the Pewaukee-based, seven-county agency.

River Rat Blog Deserves Your Attention

Classy new blog about rivers and life on the water in Wisconsin, and elsewhere, courtesy of the dedicated folks at River Alliance of Wisconsin.

Good to see environmental organizations availing themselves of new media opportunities.

And River Rat gets Best Blog Name of the Month, hands down, so this is an easy one to add to my blog roll and bookmarked favorites.

Should River Hills, And Washington County, Get Stimulus Dollars Meant For The Urban Poor?

The regional planning commission's advisory group that is in control of some stimulus spending for transportation projects will meet Friday in Milwaukee to discuss whether to approve $7.5 million for three projects in River Hills and Washington County - - miles, light years away, perhaps, from the economically-distressed urban core to which this funding is supposed to go.

If a bridge in River Hills and two road projects in Washington County are in the economically-distressed urban core, then the English language and the US Census Bureau's data have no value.

There appears to be no opportunity for public comment at the meeting, but showing up and demanding to express your incredulity that these projects could get green-lighted - - while Milwaukee got zero dollars in first-round local transportation project stimulus financing - - is very important.

Here is the agenda - - and the meeting begins at 9:30 a.m. Friday at the Harbor Lights Room in the Milwaukee County Downtown Transit Center, 909 E. Michigan St., which is across the street from the Betty Brinn Children's Museum at the corner of Michigan and Lincoln Memorial Dr.

Scott Walker Releases List Of Stimulus Projects

Give Walker the Milwaukee Chutzpah award.

Actually, retire it.

Skirmish Over Stimulus Funding Has Winners And Losers

So Milwaukee County will apply for stimulus funds after all, as the drama over County Exec. Scott Walker's synthetic opposition grinds to a merciful halt.

The winners:

Milwaukee County taxpayers, who because of County Board leadership, should see some service and infrastructure improvements, though their applications go to the back of the line.

Another winner: Gov. Jim Doyle, who benefits from Walker's self-inflicted wound during his obsessive campaign for Doyle's job.

The loser: the indifferent, then indecisive, and finally, out-voted and defeated Walker, who put self-serving alliances with talk radio and their ideological templates above the interests of his constituents.

There Is More To The Presidency Than Making Economic Policy

Another fresh sign that President Barack Obama's election continues to bring about change: the administration, reversing the Bush administration position, has asked for a seat on the UN's Human Rights Council, allowing the US to re-engage on foreign affairs instead of stubbornly going it alone.

Madison Journalist, Now A Publisher, In The News In Detroit

Jon Wolman, a former AP staffer who got his start in Madison, is quoted in today's New York Times as the editor and publisher of The Detroit News; that paper began its cost-saving planned reduction of daily deliveries coincidentally on the same day the city was overwhelmed with breaking news about Detroit's automakers.

Talk about bum luck, and a taste of what's in store for readers and consumers of news as newspapers go online, or disappear altogether.

I've known Jon for years: his dad J. Martin "Murph" Wolman was formerly publisher of The Wisconsin State Journal, Madison's morning paper.

These are sad, bad days in the newspaper business, and I suspect rough on someone like Jon who was born into the profession and is watching it spiral downwards.

Negative Reviews Of New Berlin Water Plan Intensify; Will DNR Get The Message?

The drum beat against New Berlin's water diversion plan - - and how its official review may be handled by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - - is getting louder.

In a nutshell, the DNR could mishandle this review and set off a chain reaction of disappointment and opposition across the Great Lakes, with subsequent applications, such as those coming from Waukesha, paying the price.

Here is what is going on:

Last week, the Alliance For The Great Lakes, and the National Wildlife Federation raised objections, which I posted, as the comment period on the application established by the DNR wound down.

The DNR has sole authority to approve this application because part of New Berlin is in the Great Lakes basin, but future applications from other communities that are completely outside of the Great Lakes basin will require a review and approval by eight states.

Then a dozen Wisconsin groups weighed in, too, citing deficiencies in the application ranging from inadequate conservation planning to confusing official maps suggesting where the diverted Lake Michigan water might be used.

These are required elements in an application, according to the in-place Great Lakes Compact, signed into law last year in Wisconsin, by the seven other Great Lakes states, and the US Congress and President, too.

Now I see that several groups from other states signed the objections filed by the Alliance, and the Wildlife Federation, so I will post below the text of that letter.

The authors of the critique call the New Berlin application "gravely deficient."

The DNR really needs to more carefully review New Berlin's plan, and approve rules prior to approving New Berlin's application.

Failing to get the horse before the cart would be a little like going to trial, but having jury instructions issued after a verdict.

Or playing the World Series, and having the umpires issue the ground rules after the games were over.

If the DNR alienates these influential, mainstream interests in the other states - - set aside that Wisconsin groups are raising similar objections - - the push back will come during the review of Waukesha's probable application because that one needs the approval of all eight Great Lakes states.

Message to DNR: think strategically, not short-term.

There is more on the table than New Berlin's plan, which, it seems, is inadequate and incomplete, and headed for DNR review without guiding rules in place.

The critics, with solid legal and conservation objections, are offering the DNR all the material and context it needs to slow down its review, write its rules first, and get the New Berlin review and the overall processes done right.

The DNR simply has to say it will put rule-making before application approval.

It's not a delay. It's basic Governance, and Water Stewardship, which are at the core of the DNR's mission.

Here is the text of the letter to the DNR from the Great Lakes regional groups:

March 27, 2008

VIA E-MAIL, FAX AND POSTAL MAIL

Deb Lyons-Roehl
DG-5
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
(608) 267-7650
dnrnewberlindiversion@wi.gov

Re: Application for a Diversion by a Straddling Community – New Berlin

Dear Ms. Lyons-Roehl:

The Alliance for the Great Lakes (Alliance) and National Wildlife Federation (NWF) thank the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) for this opportunity to comment on the first proposed Great Lakes water diversion by the City of New Berlin (City).

We urge the WDNR to ensure that the City’s application for a diversion as a straddling community is complete and is reviewed utilizing a thorough and publicly accessible process. In addition, any subsequent approval must fully support the sound implementation of the Compact and Wisconsin’s legislation.

Background: The Compact – A Forward-Looking Policy

On October 3, 2008, the President signed a joint resolution of Congress consenting to the Compact.

This followed nearly five years of negotiations between the States and three years of review and approval by the eight Great Lakes state legislatures. Our groups were actively engaged in Compact negotiations and worked with state and federal officials for Compact approval. The Compact is intended to provide a comprehensive management and legal framework for achieving sustainable water use and resource protection in the Great Lakes basin.

The Compact framework requires each state to create a management program for water withdrawals and consumptive uses within the Great Lakes basin, a program that Wisconsin created through Act 227.

While the Compact prohibits new or increased diversions of water outside of the basin, it includes exceptions for public water supply purposes to communities that straddle the Great Lakes basin divide and to communities located wholly within counties that straddle the basin divide.

The standards for approval of a diversion by a community located wholly within a county that straddles the basin divide, like Waukesha, are more stringent than those for a community that straddles the divide, like New Berlin. The most notable difference is that applications by communities that straddle the divide are approved at the state level, and do not require regional review.

However, there are very substantial similarities. It is vital to the sound implementation of the Compact that, in those aspects where the requirements are equivalent, the review, process and conditions of any subsequent approval of the City’s application set a high standard.

Absence of Rules & Regulations: A Hindrance to Determining Application’s Completeness

We commend the WDNR for initiating the March 12, 2009, public hearing on New Berlin’s application. However, we are concerned that the WDNR has initiated a review process after stating in the public notice that it has “…determined that the application materials submitted by the City of New Berlin constitute a complete application under Wis. Stat. § 281.346(9)(b)1.”

Whether the intent of the Compact is fulfilled depends in part on the states and provinces requiring complete applications. The City’s application is the first test of the Compact and, unfortunately, the application is incomplete, as detailed below. Because the application is incomplete, it appears that the City’s project would not fulfill the terms of the Compact.

It could be inferred from the language in the public notice that Wis. Stat. § 281.346(9)(b)1. governs the completeness of an application. That section of the statute is, however, limited to issues regarding public notice.

Requirements for a diversion application are found in Wis. Stat. § 281.346(4)(b). These requirements include the following: “A person who applies under subd. 1. shall provide information about the potential impacts of the diversion on the waters of the Great Lakes basin and water dependent natural resources and any other information required by the department by rule (emphasis added).”

Because the City’s diversion proposal would increase the withdrawal of water from Lake Michigan by a maximum 30-day average over one million gallons per day, that increased withdrawal requires approval not only under the "straddling community" exception, but also approval of an individual permit under Wis. Stat. § 281.346(5).

The withdrawal must meet the standards set forth in the state decision-making standard in Wis. Stat. § 281.346(5m), including use of conservation practices and an assessment of "other potential water sources for cost-effectiveness and environmental effects."

No diversion can proceed unless this individual permit is issued. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 281.346(5)(n), an applicant for this permit is required to submit "information required by the department by rule" (emphasis added). But it is unclear how the WDNR can determine whether an applicant has submitted the correct information if there is no rule in place.

An additional application requirement is found in Wis. Stat. § 281.346(4)(g). Under this paragraph, the WNDR is directed to "promulgate rules specifying the requirements for an applicant for a new or increased diversion subject to par. (f) to demonstrate the efficient use and conservation of existing water supplies for the purposes of pars. (d) 2. b. and 3. b., (e) 1. d., and (f) 1., including requiring the applicant to document the water conservation planning and analysis used to identify the water conservation and efficiency measures that the applicant determined were feasible."

In turn, under Wis. Stat. § 281.346(f)(1), the WDNR must decide if "[t]he need for the proposed diversion cannot reasonably be avoided through the efficient use and conservation of existing water supplies as determined under par. (g)" (emphasis added).

In the short time since the approval of the Compact, the WDNR has not developed approved rules as called for above. It is unclear whether New Berlin's application is complete because there are no rules specifying the documentation New Berlin is supposed to provide to WDNR, specifically on conservation and efficient use of supplies.

It is also unclear how the WDNR will decide whether New Berlin meets paragraph (f)(1) "as determined under par. (g)" when the rules called for under paragraph (g) have not been issued. The Alliance and NWF are concerned that WDNR is proceeding in the absence of these rules which makes it difficult to judge whether the City’s application is complete. Our concern is heightened by the absence of state drinking water conservation standards and in the absence of a meaningful water conservation program in the City’s application.

Application Fails To Meet Compact’s Water Conservation Requirements

While the City’s application has no State conservation rules or standards to comply with, it fails to fulfill the Compact’s intent for water conservation. Under Section 4.9 1 b. of the Compact, this applicant must meet the Exception Standard requirements found at Section 4.9 4 of the Compact.

Paragraph e. of that Standard states: “The Exception will be implemented so as to incorporate Environmentally Sound and Economically Feasible Water Conservation Measures to minimize Water Withdrawals or Consumptive Use.”

The Compact defines these measures in Section 1.2 to include "those measures, methods, technologies or practices for efficient water use and for reduction of water loss and waste or for reducing a Withdrawal, Consumptive Use or Diversion that i) are environmentally sound, ii) reflect best practices applicable to the water use sector, iii) are technically feasible and available, iv) are economically feasible and cost effective based on an analysis that considers direct and avoided economic and environmental costs and v) consider the particular facilities and processes involved, taking into account the environmental impact, age of equipment and facilities involved, the processes employed, energy impacts and other appropriate factors."

Under Wis. Stat. § 281.346(f)(6), "[t]he applicant [must] commit[] to implementing the applicable water conservation measures under sub. (8)(d) that are environmentally sound and economically feasible for the applicant."

There are additional conservation requirements required under Wis. Stat. § 281.346(5m). Wis. Stat. § 281.346(8)(d) directs the WDNR to issue rules "specifying water conservation and efficiency measures for the purposes of implementing [the statewide program]."

Once again, it is unclear how WDNR can decide whether New Berlin has committed to implementing such measures when the agency has not issued rules.

The City’s application does not incorporate reasonable environmentally sound and economically feasible water conservation measures to minimize water withdrawal. Water conservation is hardly mentioned in the application materials. While addressing most significant issues, an application document titled The Water Supply

Service Area Plan contains neither existing nor proposed water conservation practices.

No Demonstration That A Portion Of Diversion Can Be Avoided

Because the City’s water conservation plans have not been fully developed – and in fact are still in the planning stages – it is probable that part of the demand for Lake Michigan water might be reasonably avoided. Compact provision 4.9(4)(a) states that an exception (allowing a diversion) can be granted to a straddling community “only when…the need for all or part of the proposed Exception cannot be reasonably avoided (emphasis added).” It is probable that some portion of the Lake Michigan diversion request might reasonably be avoided because the City has implemented few basic water conservation best practices.

Switch To Lake Water in 2005 Does Not Constitute Water Conservation

A 3/9/09 letter from Steven Schultz of Ruekert/Mielke addresses questions raised by Eric Ebersberger of the WDNR. Question #2 raises the water conservation issue. The reply includes a graph of per capita water use from 2000 through 2007, citing a decline of about 10 percent.

This decline is attributed to several factors, including some outdoor limitations on watering and a water conservation education program. Also listed, and more pertinent, is the reduction in water softener use in the eastern portion of the City since the 2005 switch to Lake Michigan water. The chart reveals that most improvement in per capita use occurred since 2005, and the reply admits it is probably largely due to the reduction in the use of water softeners.

A declining use in water softener backwashing will lead to significant water savings and a decline in per capita use. But it is a one-time savings that is not a water conservation program practice.

Reliance On Unspecified SEWRPC Water Conservation Assumptions

The City cites the Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) regional water supply plan and its alternatives analysis, which assumes increasing levels of water conservation that could reduce consumption by up to 10 percent. The City indicates that it will consider implementation of water conservation practices in keeping with the SEWRPC plan.

But the SEWRPC plan recently presented for public comment does not include information on best management practices that might achieve that level of reduction.

Stormwater Management Practices Are Not Exception Standard Conservation Practices
Attached to the 3/9/09 letter is a copy of a draft water conservation plan prepared by City staff. It includes a recitation of many water conservation practices undertaken in the City.

While these programs are commendable, and improve the water quality and hydrologic health of water in the environment, they are primarily storm water management practices that do not impact potable water consumption and water withdrawal.

Water Conservation Plan Must Precede Diversion

The 3/9/09 letter also cites the on-going efforts of the City to develop a water conservation plan, starting with their staff’s draft. Mr. Schultz’s reply includes minutes of a New Berlin Utility Committee meeting from September, 2008 and notes that this: “…shows the Committee’s willingness to deal with conservation issues in a more aggressive manner following completion of the Lake Michigan water project (emphasis added).”

The City has the sequence backwards and must define a meaningful water conservation program as a part of its application and must commit to its implementation as a condition of approval to satisfy the requirement of Compact section 4.9(4)(a).
The only meaningful conservation measures in the application are existing limitations on outdoor water use and an education program.

The application commits to the implementation of no additional specific practices. While the staff’s draft water conservation program suggests many demand-side practices, the only mention of supply-side practices is a brief suggestion for a leak detection program. Supply-side conservation practices can have a significant impact on reducing water use, as well as enhancing City revenues.

It is important for the City to proceed with and complete the current public process for developing a water conservation program that includes demand-side management practices. A participative process will lead to better implementation.

However, the City can define and commit to numerous supply-side water conservation best management practices immediately.

These can be unilaterally implemented by the City’s water utility without the active participation of the public, and include but are not limited to: conducting annual water audits to determine the amount of unbilled water; an on-going water meter testing and replacement program that specifies the replacement interval for water meters; a leak detection program that is on-going and specifies the time interval for incrementally testing the entire distribution system; and a water main replacement program tied to the leak detection program as well as to a commitment to replace the distribution system over a specified time period.

It is a serious deficiency in the City’s application that the water conservation program is not in place so it can be reviewed for its adequacy as a part of the City’s diversion application.

Ecological Improvement (Restoration) Measures Are Insufficient

In approving the Compact, the states agreed to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage Great Lakes resources (emphasis added).

In considering this first application for a diversion, and to meet that obligation, it is critical to establish that approvals for diversions be accompanied by a restorative action that is in addition to those that are unavoidable consequences of receiving and returning Great Lakes water.

All environmental benefits cited by the City are such unavoidable consequences.

The City should be required to make an affirmative restorative commitment to a resource in the basin.

Conclusion

The City of New Berlin’s application is gravely deficient in meeting the water efficiency and conservation requirements of the Exception Standard.

And it provides no restorative effect other than unavoidable consequences. All of those who worked to draft and approve the Compact, all of those who worked to pass implementing legislation in Wisconsin, and all of those anticipating the benefits of Compact implementation deserve better.

We request that the WDNR, before further consideration of the application, 1) require the submission of a meaningful water conservation program and a commitment for program implementation, 2) ensure that the applicant meets the requirements under Wis. Stat. § 281.346(5) for an individual permit, and 3) require a commitment to an affirmative restorative action to a resource in the basin. We also think it is a mistake to proceed with the review and approval of diversion applications without developing related rules and regulations called for in Wisconsin’s implementing legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Should you have any questions about our comments, please contact Ed Glatfelter at 312-939-0838 x235 or eglatfelter@greatlakes.org.

Sincerely,


F. Edward Glatfelter
Water Conservation Program Director
Alliance for the Great Lakes


Marc Smith
Great Lakes State Policy Manager
National Wildlife Federation

And on behalf of the following:

James Clift
Policy Director
Michigan Environmental Council

Gary Botzek
Executive Director
Minnesota Conservation Federation

Kristy Meyer
Agriculture and Water Director
Ohio Environmental Council

Virginia Rediscovers Street Grid, Cost Savings

Virginia has decided that suburban cul-de-sacs waste money, and that road-building drains budgets.

This is New Urbanism And Policy Sanity 101.

Talkers Go Around The Bend

Records for ridiculous rhetoric were set Tuesday, as right-wing radio ranters blasted Barack Obama in the wake of changes at General Motors and Chrysler forced by the government that has rescued the companies with billions of tax dollars.

Sean Hannity, professional demagogue, yelled "shut up, shut up" as he overrode an Obama sound bite Hannity had ordered his producers to play, then twice called Obama "an idiot," and declared the President "the Mussolini of our times."

No doubt many listeners under the age of 60 had no clue to the reference.

Mark Belling, bemoaning the fate of GM investors, tried to draw an analogy between what he sees as the US public's acquiescence to Obama's decisions and the passivity of the German public as Hitler rose to power.

And there is a steady drumbeat on right-wing talk radio as talkers and callers repeatedly call Obama a socialist, a communist, a dictator, an American Hugo Chavez, and so forth.

Obama has been President for less than 100 days, and talk radio is already in full campaign mode.

How are the talkers going to survive four-to-eight years of an Obama presidency?

Actually, I know the answer: swimmingly, as Obama is great for their ratings.

SEWRPC Committee Provides Blueprint For Agency Replacement: A Milwaukee-Centered Commission

A relatively obscure but important advisory committee of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) offers a tantalizing road map to get Milwaukee and an urban agenda to the center of regional planning in this area.

As things stand today, SEWRPC is composed of seven counties - - Milwaukee, Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Racine, Kenosha and Walworth - - with each county holding thres unelected commissioner seats on the SEWRPC governing board.

SEWRPC's direction is heavily suburban and exurban.

Its management and staffing is overwhelmingly white; its offices are located in an upscale Waukesha County suburb, and recent SEWRPC planning and hiring decisions have led frustrated organizations and others to file two separate discrimination complaints against the agency.

The City of Milwaukee, with a population greater than each of Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, Racine, Kenosha and Walworth Counties, has no commissioners, and thus is in a taxation-without-representation relationship with SEWRPC because City of Milwaukee taxpayers provide about $400,000 annually for SEWRPC operations through their Milwaukee County taxes.

Last June, I proposed in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Sunday Crossroads op-ed that Milwaukee - - the city, or County, or both - - use available processes in state statutes to leave SEWRPC and create a more urban-focused planning body.

Dane County and the City of Madison share planning activities, for example, in a planning commission that performs all the tasks that SEWRPC is empowered to do, but in a more equitable structure.

And the legislature changed the Dane County format a few years ago, so there is precedent for reworking the shape of a state-authorized planning commission when there is the will to get it done.

There was the predictably dismissive response to my op-ed in a subsequent Crossroads op-ed signed by several regional county officials, but the City of Milwaukee Common Council approved unanimously a resolution that asked the state legislature to approve basic representational changes to SEWRPC's structure, and if that did not occur, requests the creation of a new planning organization with Milwaukee and urban priorities front-and-center.

Though the exact mechanics and details of a new entity have yet to be formally debated, and you could configure it in many different ways, it's important to note that one powerful SEWRPC advisory committee - - in structure and function - - already provides some important clues about how to better organize planning and public spending with Milwaukee and an urban agenda as the core.

The endlessly-titled "Intergovernmental Coordinating And Advisory Committee On Transportation System Planning And Programming For The Milwaukee Urbanized Area" does just that.

Let's call it for the purposes of this argument the Committee.

And it's an important Committee, because it has the power to authorize how federal transit and highway money, and now, stimulus money also, are spent in the Milwaukee area.

Here is the map that reflects where the transportation stimulus funds should go.

Clearly, Milwaukee is its appropriate focus.

With transportation being a key element in true, comprehensive regional planning because of its linkages to land-use, housing, development and other planning basics, why not use the Committee as a model for the creation of a new regional planning body?

It has 19 members - - this link to its structure does not account for three current vacancies - - but unlike the SEWRPC governing body, is based on population, including these representatives:

Five from Milwaukee County;

Two from Milwaukee County's Western Suburbs;

Two from Milwaukee County's North Shore communities;

One from Milwaukee County's South Shore communities;

Five from the City of Milwaukee;

One from Waukesha County;

Two from Waukesha County cities, villages and towns;

One from Ozaukee and Washington Counties.

A Milwaukee area planning commission that is based on the Committee model provides a reasonable basis upon which to provide planning and related spending in the area - - the Milwaukee area - - because it improves upon the arbitrarily-drawn seven-county SEWRPC map that disenfranchises urban populations, and Milwaukee residents, but takes their money.

Without Community Input, SEWRPC Will Hire PR Manager

The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission is closer to hiring an outreach/public relations manager, but in its reliably ironic and tone-deaf manner, has not included in the process any input from...its existing outreach advisory group known as the Environmental Justice Task Force.

The Task Force was formed in 2007 to help the agency overcome outreach deficiencies noted by federal reviewers during the agency's contentious 2004 public certification hearing.

SEWRPC prefers these closed-door, in-house hiring procedures; its 2008 closed-loop hiring of Deputy Director Ken Yunker as Executive Director was a perfect example, and it looks like the agency is going down the same, self-defeating path as it hires an outreach manager without reaching out to its outreach advisory committee.