Franklin Today

Hales Corners McDonalds might relocate

HalesCornersNOW had an article this past Thursday about the McDonald's on the corner of Hwy 100 & Forest Home Avenue. Apparently due to its odd-shaped corner and the increasing traffic on Hwy 100, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation is considering options that would include having the McDonalds relocate elsewhere. Other businesses in the sights of WISDOT include Bosch's and its neighboring floor covering business, on the corner of Hwy 100 & Janesville Road.

While I hate to promote being a "bad" suburban neighbor of sorts, it's very apparent to me that one suburb's loss is another suburb's gain. Just down the road from the Janesville/Forest Home/Hwy 100 triangle is the city limits for our fine community. As of right now, when we enter Franklin via Hwy 100 we're greeted with several auto dealerships, a strip mall with its anchor store vacant, and a massive Menards with one outlot occupied by WaterStone Bank. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this...

If WISDOT decides to ax the McDonald's and perhaps two other businesses, there are openings in Franklin not far from their current locations. McDonald's would probably have the easiest time making a move, since the article reports the current restaurant is corporately owned. This makes obtaining finances to build a new restaurant not a big issue. The other, locally owned businesses, however, might have some difficulties. We'd only hope that WISDOT would literally move the historic Bosch business to a new home, since that particular building really stands out as unique and impressive.

As the discussions continue, it would make sense for Franklin officials to keep their ears tuned.

A Franklin conservative derails Olson's grand plan for Franklin businesses

Check out Fred Keller's research and remarks on the proposed sick leave mandate ban by Alderman Steve Olson. Needless to say, I was very surprised to witness firsthand a conservative like Keller aim and fire at will towards an individual who proclaims conservative values like Olson. What was written on Bullseye was right on topic, and actually is pretty damning towards suburbia's panic rush to approve these bans throughout Milwaukee County.

From Bullseye:

I can’t help but think that the City’s namesake – and one of our county’s Founding Fathers – Benjamin Franklin, is spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken at Sendik’s Market, at the thought of Franklin’s Common Council adopting Alderman Olson’s flawed and ill-conceived, “pro-business” ordinance, named oddly enough—"Non-Regulation of Employee Wages or Benefits for Private Businesses."

In the draft I’ve read, Alderman Olson’s proposed Ordinance seeks to affirm that the Franklin Common Council wishes to foster a positive and growing business climate within the City, and that Franklin is currently home to many small and medium-sized businesses.

To convince existing and future businesses that Franklin is “pro-business,” Olson’s Ordinance further states that the Franklin Common Council recognizes its responsibility in promoting a free market and limited government intrusion into private enterprise. (Emphasis added) I’ll have more to say on this at the end of this piece.

Olson’s Ordinance also includes, that the Mayor and the Franklin Common Council through this Ordinance enact the limitation of municipal regulation. And therefore, no Ordinance of the City of Franklin nor any other municipal Ordinance, rule, or regulation shall mandate that any business entity, other than the City itself, shall provide certain wages or benefits to its employees, or set forth the amount or type of any employee wages or benefits provided by an employer located within the city limits of Franklin.

In other words, what's good for private business in the City of Franklin, doesn't apply to the City, whose employees' salaries and benefits are paid by taxpayers like you and I!

Guy Balistreri steps down from School Board race

This is appalling, to say the least.

Here's what I don't like about this:

1. It impacts the credibility of this particular election. For an individual to step down in the middle of a 3-way race for 2 seats is outrageous, to say the least. The credibility is impacted because of the other points below.
2. It definitely could be a blow to the Franklin School Board. If Guy is one of the two picked by voters, and he darn well could be, the Board then handpicks an individual for the seat! Talk about true "Democracy in Action" with the School Board if that's the case.
3. Mr. Balistreri should have contemplated his coaching situation with his Board campaign/run prior to entering his name on the ballot. Not in the middle of the race.
4. If there was the potential of a conflict of interest in this case, who told Mr. Balistreri it was a-OK to toss his name on the ballot to begin with?

Sorry if I sound a little suspicious and even a tad upset over this, but the fact is our community's political scene can just be ridiculous sometimes. Things like this almost tempt a person to wonder if there was another motive behind Balistreri's whole campaign from day one. It's rather disturbing to hear that all it takes is one popular coach to be placed on the ballot, step aside halfway through, and still grab enough votes to technically "win" for the School Board to handpick who they feel should be on the Board. Ick!

Mayor Taylor encourages all residents to support efforts to keep Harley in Franklin

Talk about being a tad late on this entry...

Mayor Taylor at Monday's Economic Development Commission meeting had a brief note for the commissioners and the Council members in attendance. He mentioned that he spoke with Harley-Davidson reps and he didn't feel they were 100% on closing their Franklin site at this time. Therefore, he made a very public statement calling on all Franklin residents to support the Common Council, City Staff, and the EDC in attempting to bring back Harley from being in the "doubtful" status of having a distribution center in Franklin in the future.

Leave it to Mayor Taylor to make such a statement, though. If his blood wasn't totally filled with politics, I might be able to actually sift out the political bull with reality. At this time, I'm more than happy to join with Mayor Taylor and anyone on the Council or EDC who should be working to keep Harley in Franklin. However, I hope you all can forgive me if I'm just a tad skeptical over the Mayor's comments on practically any subject.

Mayor Bolender of Oak Creek vetoes OC resolution on Drexel interchange

This has probably been the most confusing week for blogging on the Drexel interchange. Whether it is the media reporting on the story or the elected officials themselves, someone has to be doing flip-flops right about now...one way or another.

Mayor Dick Bolender, which wrote his rebuttal to a blog entry of mine yesterday, vetoed the Oak Creek Common Council resolution that would have put up $3.8 million, or 25% local share, for the Drexel Avenue interchange with I-94. Now enters in the issue of either the media getting their facts incorrect or Bolender trying to cover his tail, since the media reported that it was Bolender who worked on the same "compromise" legislation that he just vetoed. Bolender strongly denies the charges in his response to MMT.

Meanwhile, what's left is a ton of confusion on too many angles. To be frank, I think the primary confusion must be with the Oak Creek Common Council, who apparently cannot trust either their Mayor or their media. Next up would be the City of Franklin, who keeps getting nagged and pestered by Oak Creek officials to come up with some magical number to financially support the Drexel interchange. While Franklin Alderman Steve Olson, who is Chairman of the Joint 27th Street Steering Committee, is claiming ignorance on whether or not Franklin residents want to spend up to $4 million on an interchange in Oak Creek. How do I know this? I received an e-mail from a concerned citizen who e-mailed Alderman Olson with some questions. Originally Olson had this to say to the citizen:

You mix several issues. First is the interchange itself. Second is who pays for it. I support a new interchange at Drexel Avenue. I believe it will benefit the entire region. I also believe, that due to the regional benefit, the state, using federal funds, ought to pay for it 100%.

The citizen then asked:

It is abundantly clear Franklin taxpayers want no part of that interchange on Drexel Ave. Why is this dead horse being whipped again? Are you a part of this travesty? Are you in favor of it in spite of the taxpayers' wishes?

Olson responded:

You make a lot of assumptions in your statements. I don't know if taxpayers in Franklin are for or against an interchange at Drexel.

I don't have to sit back and think twice to know my answer is an absolute NO towards favoring an interchange at Drexel. Why? Well, unlike Olson, I have been upfront in noting time and again that Oak Creek has wanted funds from Franklin, funds that Franklin taxpayers simply cannot afford. What Olson does is neglect the whole issue about Oak Creek's desire for our tax dollars pouring across the border, and thus he bounces off the direct questions. His statement that the feds should cover the interchange is nothing new with regards to rhetoric. He wanted Milwaukee County to pay for upgrades to S. 76th St in Franklin; upgrades that included what the county considered nearly $8 million in improvements and wouldn't pay for. Olson fought back with another alderman and ultimately lost that battle. If Olson can't win a battle with Milwaukee County, who's to say he can win a similar one with the State of Wisconsin?

In my opinion, it seems that Franklin officials are trying yet again to get their hands dirty with this interchange, which is simply ridiculous considering we have the option of simply walking away from all the nonsense and the bologna.

Perhaps the last angle of confusion has to be with those communities impacted further north of the interchange, like Greenfield and the City of Milwaukee. Several leaders from both cities have lodged complaints against the interchange, and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce seems to agree with a pending ACLU lawsuit alleging discrimination between a heavily minority-based population in Milwaukee and a heavily Caucasian suburb in Oak Creek. If the interchange is dead, there technically wouldn't be much of a lawsuit! However, if it is alive and well, I'd presume the lawsuit would be, too.

Ah, it's all in a week's worth of Franklin and Oak Creek politics. It never ceases to amaze me.

Is your favorite restaurant or store on the list?

This list is with the City of Franklin, and I'm assuming that members of the Economic Development Commission have copies of this sheet. Furthermore, I would hope that Franklin developers have this important piece of information. It would make sense that if a developer brought forward businesses sought by Franklin residents, it would receive a LOT less criticism through the approval process.

Back to the list, they forgot two restaurants: Ruby Tuesday and Red Robin. If you have any additions, post a comment below or send me an e-mail!

Economic Development Commission approves sick leave mandate ban

Earlier tonight I was in the audience of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting. I was glad to see all the members of the Common Council were present, minus Lyle Sohns. Tonight's agenda was a great one for heavy discussion and potential arguments, and both were quickly fulfilled. I plan on writing about the EDC over the next day or so, so please stay tuned to this blog!

I figured the first item to discuss was rather obvious. The sick leave mandate ban ordinance that was proposed by my alderman, Steve Olson, has triggered a lot of negative entries on the blogs and even sparked a debate between Common Council President Steve Taylor and Alderman Olson, as we saw several days ago. An EDC member, John Michlig of Sprawled Out, also had a lot of entries covering the topic and as expected provided a ton of commentary before the final vote. Here's how it broke down in what I felt was the briefest I could be for this subject:

Alderman Olson stated several facts on the proposed ordinance:

1. If the Council does nothing, direct legislation (like what happened in Milwaukee) could make a significant impact. If his ordinance is passed, however, it prevents direct legislation from creating an ordinance "out of the blue".
2. Direct legislation cannot impact an existing ordinance
3. While the ordinance could exist in a few weeks with Council approval, citizens can still petition the Council to repeal it.
4. He stated he was motivated to do this after seeing how it could affect the business in which he's employed, which is located in Downtown Milwaukee.

According to the Assistant City Attorney, who was present at the meeting, Whitefish Bay and Bayside were named as communities who put a similar ordinance off to the side until further notice. As far as I know, these are the only two suburbs to actually take a stance AGAINST enacting a ban on sick leave mandates.

Commissioner Joe Haselow was the first one to speak.

1. He supports Olson's ordinance proposal
2. It's his belief that mandates like this should come from a larger government, such as the state or federal levels. He doesn't believe municipalities should have this ability.

Enter in John Michlig:

1. Why move quickly on this ordinance when there's nothing pending on this issue?
2. He dubs this a "predatory" ordinance. From what I heard, it sounded like John was describing a "ring" of suburbs around the City of Milwaukee, like vultures surrounding an animal before it dies.
3. Due to the pending court case, why prematurely vote on something that could be dead after the trial?
4. Franklin is in no danger from its residents regarding direct legislation for an issue like this.
5. How could an elected Council truly make a good vote on this matter. If the Council turns away this "predator" of an ordinance, they could become earmarked as anti-business and could harm their "loyalty oath". This issue could be put on campaign literature to promote who is more "pro business". I liked this part of Michlig's opinion. If you don't know what he means by a "loyalty oath", check out the campaign donation sheets from many of the aldermen and the Mayor. I have, and due to this I thought he was spot-on!

Commissioner Jon Zawacki provided a few tidbits against Olson's proposal as well.

1. There was no data presented to the EDC regarding the impacts in cities that have a sick leave mandate in place
2. While he was opposed to the ordinance as it was presently worded, he believed a middleground proposal would do well for both the Council and the people of Franklin.

Olson noted that there is data out there, but when asked why it wasn't at the meeting the response I saw was a simple shrug of the shoulders. This was when Chairman (and alderman) Ken Skowronski noted that a sick leave mandate is interpreted as a threat to small business owners. Commissioner Diane Oleson shared a similar point-of-view with Skowronski, noting a conversation she had with a small business owner in Muskego who wouldn't cross the Milwaukee County line due to this percieved fear.

Now came what I felt was the important points from Commissioner Joe Haeslow. Joe stated some opinions prior to this, but they were basically surrounding his family history and beliefs. His thoughts were:

1. Businesses ARE taxpayers in Franklin
2. He believed the city should leave the issue of sick pay to the businesses to handle themselves and independently
3. As far as he was concerned, with a passing of this ban Franklin has an advantage over the City of Milwaukee

This was when Michlig had several rebutting points.

1. There is currently NO sick leave mandate hanging over the residents of Franklin or their Common Council
2. What is the impact of such a mandate? (Alderman Skowronski chimes in quickly to say that it's big)
3. Passing the mandate ban now could be considered as spiteful towards the City of Milwaukee, going back to his stance on how it's a "predatory" piece of legislation
4. He cites his wife's intimate knowledge of working with students on a daily basis. She works at an area school, and from what he has learned from her it's that people who don't seek treatment(s) for illness(es) fast enough can spread it quick.

Commissioner Rosanne Burac-Englert's comments followed John's.

1. She believes it is the mission of the Economic Development Commissioners to promote economic development.
2. It's one or the other, you're proactive or reactive to proposals like this.
3. Retail spaces currently in the city are geared for small businesses. Smaller businesses = bigger impacts with wages and this mandate
4. Talk about sick pay and health of others is more of a social responsibility issue.

John Michlig responded to that by noting that the loss of wages due to rapidly spreading illness(es) can have a big impact on the local businesses.

Commissioner Mary Karolewicz now had her turn to speak. She really only had a few questions:

1. If this ordinance fails at Council, what happens to businesses in Franklin? Do they get slapped with a mandate? The answer was no.
2. She then asked the threat level of such an ordinance via direct legislation, like Milwaukee's. That answer was diverted into two other issues, thanks to Alderman Olson. Olson noted that Franklin residents passed one direct legislation item; it was an ordinance regarding elected officials' elections. Olson also noted that a group was about to propose direct legislation on big boxes but was quickly stopped because the Council agreed with the group and enacted their own ordinance against big boxes over 125,000 sq ft. Olson called this citizen action "positive". I'm assuming this was in reaction to the Wal-Mart Supercenter proposal on Hwy 100 & Loomis 4 years ago.

It was during this time when Alderwoman Kristen Wilhelm asked for the Assistant City Attorney (ACA)'s legal opinion. The ACA went on to then state the pros and cons of such a ban, and then opined that the chances could be high that the workforce would likely go to cities or communities where the benefits are better. During this response I was rather disappointed with Commissioner Haselow and Alderman Skowronski, who were exchanging notes to each other via a piece of paper while the ACA was stating his thoughts. I found that rather rude of them to do, and Alderwoman Wilhelm did interrupt the ACA noting her displeasure over Commissioners not seeming to be interested in the ACA's advice and thoughts.

In the end of all of this, the final vote was 8-2. Chairman Skowronski decided the issue was so important that he voted YES to this ordinance as well. The two NO votes came from Commissioners Michlig and Zawacki. There was one "YES with reservations" that came from Commissioner Karolewicz. With that said, tonight is the final piece of the citizen group discussion on this proposal with the Finance Committee bringing it up. I have no doubts that it will be recommended to the Council for approval unanimously. The EDC was the biggest challenge, if you want to call it that, to the proposed ordinance. With recommendations from three citizen groups, as noted earlier, the Council is likely to pass it at the next Common Council meeting in February.

Franklin dog missing; have you seen her?

Check out FranklinNOW.com for the details, photo, and contact information.

Make sure to attend the Corks for Kids fundraiser!

Dedicated Franklin citizen and friend Shari Hanneman sent along an update regarding the Root River Junior Women's Club event on February 6th. It's called "Corks for Kids" and will be featuring a variety of entertainment, including a silent auction and wine tasting. Here's what Shari had to say:

Hello again Friends and Neighbors,

As of today, this event is nearly a sell-out.  There are only 30 tickets left at Sendik’s Fine Foods in the Shoppes at Wyndham Village.  Thank you to all who have helped spread the word and If you haven’t purchased your ticket yet, you may wish to do so soon!

We hope to see you all there!

Shari Hanneman

You can check out the event by clicking this link for the flyer. As Shari mentioned, there are only 30 tickets left for purchase. You can get them at Sendik's Fine Foods at the Shoppes at Wyndham Village (next to Target). Tickets are $25.

Senator Feingold has his heart in the right place, but not his amendment

Yesterday many Wisconsinites found out that US Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is planning to propose an addition to the US Constitution in the form of an amendment. The amendment would require all states to have what I'd like to call "vacancy" elections. Basically, whenever a House or Senate member would accept a position or step down for God-knows-what reason, the Governor of their particular state would not be able to place his choice of individual as a replacement. This amendment sparked Feingold's fancy after several US Senators, including Sens Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Ken Salazar (D-CO) have been placed in positions within the Executive Branch. To top it off, both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were both US Senators, from Illinois and Delaware, respectively.

The issue Feingold is wrangling with is certainly a noble one. President Obama's replacement is perhaps the most controversial in the history of US Senate replacements. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) is accused of selling the seat and is facing several charges from the feds on this matter. After the Illinois legislature couldn't make up their decision on the future of the seat, Blago took matters into his own hands and simply appointed someone to the seat...as he would have originally done without a scandal. In many (if not all) states, it's solely up to the Governor for replacements; the people don't elect (or in this case, re-elect) the individual until the term of the former is up. What Feingold wants is immediate elections for those seats. Naturally, these would be special elections that perhaps would have a term limited to the remainder of the tenure the resigned legislator would have had.

After reading the above, I'm sure most of you would find that fine and reasonable. Heck, even I don't seem to have that big of issue with Feingold's intentions. However, I do have a problem with the concept of adding it as an amendment to the United States Constitution.

When I went to school and learned in-depth about history, it was repeated over and over again that amendments to the Constitution were extremely important. These amendments at times took years, even tens of years, to finally be added onto our most coveted piece of laws. Any amendment in the Constitution needed a minimum 2/3 vote from Congress and 2/3 of the states to be made official. From this perspective, because of this I'll argue that it takes a lot of discussion and deep thought before something like an amendment should be considered. Even with that done, however, I still have another conflict with this proposal. Perhaps this is the time when some of my liberal or Democratic friends will question my true political nature, but hey - - it is what it is.

Personally, I feel any legislation regarding the replacement of elected officials should be decided by each state independently. There shouldn't be a blanketed federal law on an issue like this. There are reasons why we have Governors. When we go to the voting booths on those election days, we cast our ballots for the individual we believe will govern our state with dignity, honor, and respect. We put our faith and trust in that individual to carry out the will of the electors. Unfortunately, there are times when the people certainly question the decisions made by that individual while in office. There are also times when those individuals violate the law, which give the people and the elected members in the state legislature to impeach the individual and remove him/her from office. This is a rarity, especially during times when the Governor is in the middle of a resigned Senator and about to name a replacement.

There's the saying, "one bad apple spoils the bunch". I tend to agree with this saying many, many times. It would be unfortunate for me to say it on this occasion, though. Yes, we had a rash of US Senators resign their posts for offices in Obama's administration. Yes, several replacements have been controversial. However, there have been instances like this in the past, and if the selected individual didn't work out as the Governor intended, the people vote him/her out of office when the term is up. If the people in states like Illinois or New York want to elect their replacement Congressman or Senator, then they should stand up and flood the Illinois or New York State Capitols with phone calls, e-mails, and letters to their legislators. If residents in Wisconsin feel the law should be modified or changed to have special elections in the case of a resigning member of the House or Senate, then they should also do what was said in the previous sentence.

The federal government doesn't need to be a consistent babysitter for individual states. Just because one or two states have a ruffle in their feathers shouldn't mean the other 48 now have to go through a change in their state laws, too.

Senator Feingold is correct in making a statement that perhaps the argument should come up right about now as to whether or not special elections should be held. In my opinion though, he's using the wrong venue to make those discussions happen. Those discussions need to happen in newspaper editorials and in the "Ted's Take" of TV news and in the State Capitols throughout the United States. Not in the Constitution itself.