Want to join former Alder Eli Judge on election day? I am looking for your help! Send your contact information to Maggie at maggie@resnickfordistrict8.com. If you need some convincing, listen to Alder Judge himself:
Last night a special meeting was held among members of the City Council to discuss structural and redistricting changes that apply for the next 10 years. In the coming weeks, city council representatives will decide the new ward boundaries and determine the level of representation students and young professionals will receive.
Students on campus should realize that our district is rare; very few universities have a campus voice on city council. This is because cities of comparable size have less council members. For example, St. Paul, Minnesota (pop 287,151) has seven members on their City Council. In Durham, North Carolina (pop 223,284) there are six members. Most cities of our size average six to eight members. Madison has twenty, five more than any other city on the list. No city with a population between 200,000 and 350,000 has as many city council members as Madison, Wisconsin.
For student representation, this has both positive and negative consequences. First, there are more voices on Madison city council. On the positive side, there are essentially five campus area representatives. This provides students many channels for their voice and opinions to be heard. Unfortunately, this voice is often decentralized. Although students and young professionals represent nearly 25% of the population, we often only hold one (or more recently two) of the twenty voting seats.
This committee will have a huge impact on students – but will it be positive or negative? Reducing or changing the ward boundaries could infringe upon the student voice. Redistricting could also concentrate student votes, effectively decreasing the number of campus area city council representatives.
These decisions will be made when the 2011-2012 council is in its infancy. There will be at least six new alders on the council and as many as thirteen. With so much on the line, it is important to have a district 8 representative that is aware of the potential dangers to the seat.
As a member of the Campus Joint-Southeast Area Committee, I am knowledgeable of the city process. Moreover, as a former representative for the National League of Cities, the organization providing most the resources to the City Council on the topic on the topic, I am familiar with the sources used to education the council.
These decisions will impact campus for the next 10 years, and I will not let the student voice be silenced.
The last few days have been a whirlwind of political activism and democracy. First, I want to thank everyone who voted on Tuesday. Spring primary elections can be uneventful; however I was proud to receive a majority of the votes casted last week. Second, I want to thank my campaign staff, the College Democrats, and Young Progressives. Without your help, none of this would be possible.
However, the events that followed my election primary victory are the real story of the week. After our short celebration, most my staff and friends headed directly to the Capitol to testify in front of the Joint Finance Committee. We arrived at the Capitol at 11 pm and did not leave until 6:30 am. We literally saw the sun rise as we were leaving the rotunda. At some point around 4 am I fell asleep on the Capitol floor.
Since then, hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites have protested Scott Walker’s Budget Repair Bill. Union workers, teachers, firefighters, and police officers have stood together in solidarity. Moreover, liberal groups across campus have led efforts to coordinated efforts inside the Capitol and provide assistance to the protesters whenever possible. Among the many groups present, SLAC, TAA, College Democrats, and Young Progressive members have spent countless hours in the Capitol, rallying students on campus, and maintaining order after hours. It was a spectacular sight.
So, what can the city council do to protect union rights? On Thursday, I stood in front of city hall with 18 city council representatives and marched with of hundreds of firefighters on our way to an emergency council meeting. Here, the council voted unanimously to sign or extend 10 separate union contracts for city employees. These contracts protect current pension plans, secure health benefits, and include modest 2%-3% raises for the next two years. The council also rescinded co-pays for non-represented city employees. Overall, these benefits protect 3,530 unionized and 424 non-unionized employees.
The take-away point is that the contracts were unanimously extended. While very few city council representatives campaigned on a “pro-union” platform, every council member one unanimously voted in solidarity – both the liberals and conservatives. The City of Madison spoke with one voice, and that was to support unions.
Another take-away point is how to be respectful during political discourse. All week arrests have been low, and sometimes non-existent. Honestly, there are more arrests at a Badger football game than have occurred at the Capitol. Everyone involved should be proud that Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Tea Party members, and non-political observers could have been able to peacefully protest. I hope this becomes a model for future debates.
In closing, local elections and non-violent protests are exactly what Democracy looks like. I’d encourage everyone to be back in front of the Capitol on Monday.
(Note: If you would like to see personal testimony from the Assembly Hearing on Thursday at 12:15 am, you should be able to find it at wiseye.org)
Scott: Hi, name is Scott Resnick and I’m running for city council. I’m going around the district trying…
Brooks Street resident: I remember you. We talked about changing locks. Nice headline in the Badger Herald.
Scott: Awesome, thanks. Are you going to vote on Tuesday?
Brooks Street resident: Porchlight. Copy of my lease. I’ll be there.
Over the past few weeks I have knocked on hundreds of doors, and spoken to students about how we can make our campus safer, hold landlords accountable, and make our nightlife better. I had conversations with the Young Progressives about how we can improve our environment. I responded to questionnaires for the League of Women Voters, was interviewed by Laptop City Hall, and wrote a column for the Cap Times. I spoke to the Daily Cardinal about how we can improve our well-water and proposed new ideas to reverse the UW-brain drain to the Badger Herald. With any luck, all that work will pay off on Tuesday when residents will decide who they would like to see on the April ballot.
On this journey, I have received several spectacular endorsements from my colleagues in the district – and none of greater importance than current Alder Bryon Eagon. As the President of the State-Langdon Neighborhood Association, I have spent countless hours working with Alder Eagon on issues like Concrete Park and new economic development. Those who have spent any amount of time in common council chambers recognize his stellar reputation among alders. He has done an excellent job securing new lights in the Langdon community and promoting a pro-student/pro-safety agenda on ALRC. I was humbled to discover Alder Eagon endorsed me.
Today, Todd Stevens of the Daily Cardinal reiterated Alder Eagon’s endorsement:
“[Scott] is on the ball. Having already worked extensively with neighborhood policy, Resnick is a city policy wonk in the best sense of the term. His knowledge alone is enough to demand attention from the powers that be, and he backs it up with a substantive campaign.”
Todd—thanks for having confidence in me.
During this election, the College Democrats and Young Progressives interviewed all three candidates, and I am honored to have received both endorsements.
But tomorrow is not about endorsements; it’s about votes.
So tomorrow, Tuesday 15, I encourage you to talk about the election. Talk to your friends. Talk to your neighbors, your dormmates, your old roommates. Let them know a few things about me, Scott Resnick: for the last two years I have been the State-Langdon Neighborhood President and have experience with local issues. I have great ideas for campus safety, such as strengthening our lock ordinance and holding landlords accountable through building inspections. Perhaps most importantly, I love Madison. Tomorrow, bring your friends to the polls and vote Scott Resnick for City Council.
Vote on February 15th
Almost every senior in the district has at least one story regarding a deteriorating property on campus. Sometimes it’s a complaint about a broken window that’s never fixed; other times it’s an overflowing toilet that the landlord never completely addresses. One or two students have even complained of varmints living in their basement. The stories are endless.
Many students are first-time renters and often unaware of their rights or the proper recourse when their rights have been violated. Every fall organizations such as ASM and the Tenant Resource Center attempt to inform students of their rights as tenants in Madison. These services are critical for increasing awareness and promoting free housing counseling services for tenants. I support these services, and will work with these groups to better hold landlords accountable for their properties.
However, the City of Madison can go further to protect students. Chapter 27 of Madison’s Code of Ordinances explicitly outlines minimum housing and property maintenance codes. While these are quality codes (such as the extermination of any pests, heating requirements, and the use of smoke detectors), often they are only enforced when a complaint has been filed or the property is being sold. Therefore, I would reintroduce random inspections of campus area properties once every seven years.
Essentially, this proposal addresses the bottom quadrant of student housing and address many of the fore mentioned problems. Campus area landlords should not be allowed to let properties deteriorate. Random inspections “keep landlords on their toes” while protecting students and other residents of the downtown area.
This proposal is not without some drawbacks. First, there is a direct cost to tax payers. Additional fines levied will cover some of the costs of this program but additional funding will need to be located in the city budget. Second, building inspectors will need to enter student apartments. Now, inspectors would still enter apartments only with notification and once every seven years. Based on probability, some students would never be present for an inspection. Lastly, some of our cheapest properties may increase in rent to address problems. However, this should be viewed as a necessity to ensure the safety and well-being of residents.
Overall, this proposal will increase the quality of student housing and hold landlords accountable for their properties.
In the spirit of last night’s State of the Union address, I thought it would be relevant to discuss my experience speaking on national issues. During the 2007 Democratic Primary, I worked with the College Democrats and ABC News to produce short feedback segments featuring UW-Madison students speaking on issues such as job creation, global warming, the War in Iraq and tuition hikes. These videos were filmed all over campus and represented dozens, if not hundreds, of different viewpoints. My favorite video was filmed in front of the Charter Street Coal plant, challenging future leaders to address environmental concerns.
ABC News used my interview following President Bush’s final State of the Union in 2008 during its national syndication. During this interview I am critical of the President’s position regarding No Child Left Behind, an issue I worked when serving on the National League of Cities Youth, Education and Families Council. Enjoy the clip.
This video also captures my passion for government and strong leadership. This is the same passion I bring to the City Council and how I will advocate for students and downtown issues.
However, next time I may cut my hair before going on television.
Do you ever wonder who lived in your apartment before you? Last year, a graduate student discovered this answer in an unfortunate way. The previous male resident stumbled home from a night of drinking, unlocked the door of his former apartment, and attempted to climb into bed with the new resident. While this story has become a humorous anecdote about a wild first night in Madison, the reality is that landlords need to be held responsible for who has access to an apartment.
City law requires that all apartments must maintain both a primary and secondary locking device (22. 27.05(2)(h)3). Common doors such as an apartment entrance must also maintain a lock to provide a higher level of security. City code outlines monetary penalties for an offending landlord, ranging from a 5-20% abatement of rent. Unfortunately, some rental units fail to meet the minimum-security requirements for exterior and common locks.
In my experiences, landlords rarely account for all the keys for an individual apartment—particularly in houses. While the remedy for the landlord is to charge for missing keys on security deposits, the locking mechanism is almost never replaced. “Missing keys” jeopardize the security of students; new locks should be installed any time a key is unaccounted for.
Common doors provide an equally threatening problem. Dial tone security doors are a safe and modern measure for security—except when everyone knows the password. Residents in the Spring Street neighborhood commented that their password had remained the same for three years. This only changed when an unwanted resident began habitually sleeping in the hallways. Changing the password on dial tone security doors is a preventive security measure that requires almost no time or cost to a landlord.
As your city council representative, I will enforce current ordinances that require new locks if the security of a tenant is jeopardized. To better enforce the current ordinances, I will require landlords to notify students when their locks were last changed and verify that all keys have collected from a prior year. If a prior key is used to enter an apartment, that lock will be replaced by the landlord at no cost to the tenant. Lastly, I will require that landlords change dial tone security codes once per year.
On December 9th, I wrote a post regarding an addition to the former fraternity house on 640 N Henry Street. At a recent State-Langdon Neighborhood Meeting the developer presented new architectural designs for the property, and the overall consensus of the meeting was positive. Last summer, several members of Ambrosia Co-op and members representing several Greek houses were in opposition to the project, however the developer made significant changes to the plan to accommodate the desires of the neighborhood.
On January 13th, the project was on the agenda of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This committee addresses zoning applications that require exceptions and variances due to a project’s approximately to the lake.
Similar to the neighborhood meeting, the developer presented the same site design and drawings. The only notable difference was the layout of rooms between the two plans. Several rooms were combined to form two 8-bedroom units, which would be rare downtown.
Two members of the Ambrosia Co-op spoke in opposition of the plan, noting the larger rooms and obstructed view, however remained very committed to working with the developer during the construction project. Representing the Neighborhood Association I spoke neither in favor or opposition, recanting my observations from the neighborhood meeting in December and overall support the project had received.
The outcome of Thursday’s meeting was to unanimously approve the project. The next step in the develop process is to seek approval from the Planning Commission. That meeting will take place in March or April.
Today I am announcing my first policy paper – Win or Lose, We Still Booze: A Comprehensive Analysis of the ALDO and Practical Reforms.
Over the course of my campaign I will be releasing several papers addressing campus safety, tenant/landlord issues, and alder accessibility. Here is a summary of some of those recommendations:
Create an entertainment license with a 75/25 (alcohol/other revenue) ratio to provide alternative venues downtown
- Currently there is a dichotomy among liquor licenses: bars and restaurants. Restaurants do not conform to regulations established by ALDO whereas bars do. ALDO has caused bars to mask themselves as restaurants in an attempt to avoid regulation. This exception is for venues that will provide non-traditional aspects, such as drinking, such as live music, dueling pianos, a bowling alley or a movie theater. This will encourage new venues to open containing alternative entertainment as oppose to vertical drinking space. In light of this political reality, these licenses could also promote +18 entertainment options too.
Allow bars with positive track records to increase capacity, if permitted by code
- Currently ALDO prevents expansion of bars and provides little or no incentive for owners to make physical improvements to establishments. If permitted by code, a bar owner should be allowed to expand capacity after one-year of stellar operation. This will allow existing businesses with good track records to expand, and create an additional incentive to proactively address alcohol-related issues.
Create a student-lead taskforce to meet every six months to meet with ALRC members, tavern owners and law enforcement to review downtown bars
- Who knows the day-to-day operations of campus bars better than students? In my experience, members of ALRC take this fact for granted. While the student-voting member and ASM representative are obvious improvements to the committee, I would arrange a forum among students every six months to provide ALRC members, the alcohol policy coordinator, taverns owners and law enforcement with the student perceptive of the bar scene. Proactive measures can curb bad behaviors before they become reoccurring incidents and appear on police reports.
Improve tracking and ALDO statistics, including number and success of bar raids, time of day of an incident, bar associated with a given incident, student status of any defendant, approximate number of patrons per zone and the capacity for each ALDO establishment
-
At the conclusion of this ALDO cycle we are unable to measure the effectiveness of the ordinance. Quantitatively, crime increased around the 600 block of University while decreasing in areas around the Capitol. Similarly, while the number of establishments decreased, there is no qualitative evidence indicating that drinking decreased. If the police and city are to advocate for costly practices such as bar raids, it is imperative we measure the successes, or more importantly, address the failures.
To read my entire plan and five other suggested reforms, please click here.
This afternoon I attended the Alcohol License Review Committee’s Subcommittee on Downtown Alcohol Issues & Ordinances. This was the 16th subcommittee installment with the purpose of addressing the renewal and suggested modifications to ALDO.
The goal of today’s subcommittee meeting was to identify areas of continuity among members in regard to: capacity language, boundary proposals, the 365-day rule, the annual review, exceptional circumstance (rule that permits places like the Monona Terrace to serve liquor), and the creation of a new entertainment license.
There were several points that everyone could agree upon, particularly as it related to measuring the number of current capacity of the density ordinance, new measures for an annual review and how to approach new boundaries. There were also compromises involving the transfer of liquor license of a closed bar within the ordinance – 760 days after the former business closes.
Conversely there was less continuity involving the creation of a new entertainment license. Members discussed what the maximum ratio of profits are to be generated by alcohol sales. While I would personally recommend a 75% ratio, members were clearly in disagreement. Some were leaning towards 50% – which in my opinion would greatly restrict the number of entertainment options or require high cover charges. Also I am not in agreement with the compromise that did occur – a prerequisite for a business plan and mandatory audit each year. A professional annual audit costs $3,000-$5,000 and requires city resources to review each year. This impacts both the budget of both the small business and the City Comptroller.
I was also disturbed by a few comments by committee members that conveyed anti business and student rhetoric. When a member of the committee stated she did not care about the economic impact of ALDO or the number of house parties busted over the course of the year by MPD she was missing the overall point of the ordinance. Committee members are not only representing their own self interests but that of students and tavern owners as well.
In coming months, I hope greater compromises can be made by members to pass a student-friendly entertainment license.
