H -°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°It’s far too easy to scream and holler about the horror and tragedy of the proposed gentrification of the Mifflin Street neighborhood. It’s even easier when Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, muzzles rational discourse through inflammatory and untruthful quotations strategically placed in student newspapers read by his primary voting bloc: students. More on him later.
Consider the two plans under consideration regarding the future of our beloved Mifflin Street neighborhood.
“Plan A” proposes gutting and renovating the current buildings where they stand, with the intention of maintaining the same feel and character of the neighborhood. “Plan B,” however, emphasizes urban development and gentrification of the neighborhood, advocating housing appropriate for young professionals. Translation? This means tearing down some (not all) of the houses on Mifflin and replacing them with high-rise apartments up to six stories tall.
Indeed, many students — myself included — love the Mifflin Street neighborhood as it stands. At a gut level, we would hate to see things change. As undergraduates, we know Mifflin — for better or worse — epitomizes wild undergraduate life at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
But it is also our duty as students to consider the merits of both plans A and B, which have yet to be equally considered. We can’t afford to allow our love of Mifflin in its current state to cloud a vision for the future. After all, love isn’t rational anyways.
Verveer is in love with Mifflin and is deceptively espousing how horrible Plan B is, failing to let voters know there are compelling arguments for both plans. “I am not excited about almost wanton demolition of the area west of Mifflin,” Verveer told The Badger Herald (“Mifflin could see high-rises in its future,” Sept. 11).
Not all voices on this issue are as apocalyptic. Josh Molter — an Associated Students of Madison Legislative Affairs Committee member — told The Daily Cardinal (“Meeting clarifies plans for Mifflin renovations,” Oct. 14) Plan B would be a long-term, gradual project. As quoted in the Cardinal, Molter said, “It’s not like the city’s going to come in and say, ‘Hey, we’re tearing this down.’ It’s going to be a case-by-case basis of a developer coming and saying, ‘Hey, I’m buying these two houses and I’m going to put up a new apartment building.’”
And still Mike Verveer calls this “wanton demolition.” Sounds like political hyperbole if I’ve ever heard it.
A city well known for progressivism should be thrilled by a plan attempting to keep young professionals in close proximity to a major governmental employment hub: Capitol Square. Yet all we hear from Verveer is how the plan would boot students out of the neighborhood and negatively impact the Mifflin Street Block Party.
Sadly, Verveer is too shortsighted and concerned with political grandstanding that he fails to see — or at least take into consideration — the huge benefits the gentrification of Mifflin might provide. It’s in the city’s best interest to keep the brightest minds in town. Nice, new downtown housing for young professionals could prevent the dreaded “brain drain” and give these minds extra incentive to stay in Madison. Furthermore, by spewing out irrelevant sound bites about the block party, Verveer plays politics at its worst. As a representative of a district consisting heavily of UW students, he knows what students are interested in: partying. “I, for one, actually think that the tradition of the 40 years of celebration of the end of the school year — the beginning of spring — is a cool one,” Verveer said in an Oct. 15 Herald article (“Mifflin residents address renovation plans”), implying how tragic it would be for the block party if some of the houses on Mifflin were replaced by high-rises.
But what the public is interested in is not always in the public interest. While Verveer may have scored major points in the short-term on the Mifflin issue by manipulating an easy-to-manipulate young voting base, he is hurting the long-term prosperity of Madison. The future welfare of the city outweighs the importance of maintaining the block party in its exact form. Here Verveer plays great politics but advocates terrible public policy.
Steve Horn ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and legal studies.
IP hash: 6ee7f1f4
You’re kind of harsh on Verveer, for “playing politics,” just because he rightfully prefers “Plan A.”
Most students would prefer “Plan A,” to see Mifflin left alone. Those Mifflin houses are beautiful in their state of accumulated character. It’s in a league with Langdon, another street where you don’t want to screw with the chemistry.
So you’re making a mistake in saying that Verveer is “playing politics.” That phrase is loaded with bad connotations — none of which apply to this situation. He is quite simply representing the interests of the students.
To allow “Plan B” to go through would invite the eventual transformation of Mifflin street from a social and historical hallmark to a clinical piece of capitalist monotony. And that’s devastating to think of.
IP hash: fc365176
I agree with Falcon:I don’t think that Verveer is necessarily being disingenuous merely because he opposes plan B.
Your examples seem to presuppose that he is manipulating his constituents, while using those quotes to prove that he is manipulating his public.
Whether the reconstruction occurs over the course of 10 years or 2, the result is high rises on West Mifflin. If the goal is to attract more “young professionals,” there are various other neighborhoods that could be used in Mifflin’s stead. However, those neighborhoods don’t host an annual block party that the city is drastically trying to end.
Also, all of the arguments you use for keeping young professionals in Madison are great, however they apply to any neighborhood that the city chooses: they are not unique arguments to the Mifflin neighborhood. Thus, selecting a neighborhood with less ties to student traditions would appeal more to me personally.
IP hash: b85b88b6
PLAN B!
tear it down. I don’t give a shit, and neither do majority of students who only see Mifflin as a chance to party all day once a year. History schmistory.
IP hash: 21fa7185
Wasn’t Lucky built on the premise of also being able to house young professionals? Let them go there. New apartment buildings means higher rent prices. Mifflin continues to be the one area where a student can play a low rent and still have a “that’s a pretty cool place to live,” feeling to go along with it. Why would anyone want to ruin that?
IP hash: 021f53f6
Even if Plan B is a gradual apartment building here and there, it’s still a bad idea. Wisconsin is supposed to be a public school, yet everyday it’s turning into some North Shore development. All these new developments will hike up property taxes, which in turn will hike up rent. To find a decent rent you have to live almost two miles off campus; it’s rediculous. Plus, Mifflin is student housing, not housing for capitol lobbyists. We should keep housing affordable, and that means not tearing a bunch of houses and building ugly-ass highrises. I want the spirit of Madison, Wisconsin to shine through the streets of Mifflin, not the spirit of wealthy coasties.
IP hash: ebf83dbd
A few comments regarding your October 15 article, “Mifflin Residents Address Renovation Plans”…
�We don�t want [Madison] to look like New York City,� Mifflin Street resident Diane Broughman said.
-The Mifflin St area is the LEAST densely developed group of blocks in the area. ALL surrounding areas (to the north, east, south, and west) are currently more densely developed. Most all of the houses in the neighborhood are either single family or 2 units. The lots are 1/10 an acre or more. Most lots have a house near the front of the lot, and a gravel parking lot behind. This is terrible land use. I thought that this City (including Alder Verveer) were proponents of DENSITY. Now that there is discussion of 4 to 6 stories in this neighborhood (which I don�t see as going over the top, as most of the old houses in the neighborhood are already 3 stories high), everybody seems to want to �preserve� the low density. Isn’t it a bit ironic that Alder Verveer lives on the other side of W Washington in a newer condo building (this area has already torn down many houses to put up 3-6 story condo buildings where old homes once stood - and he�s bringing up gentrification)?.
�I really cherish the scale of houses � on Mifflin Street,� Verveer said.
-Did Alder Verveer not cherish the scale of the original houses in his area of the Bassett neighborhood?
Verveer said he believes the goal of the developers is to make the neighborhood not as accessible to students.
-No, Alder Verveer, the �goal� of developers is to maximize the return on their investment. Students are the target market for that neighborhood, and the students occupying the area is the �highest and best use.� On average, students pay more rent per bedroom (especially since they are sometimes doubling up in rooms) than does any other class of tenant in the City. And that is what developers want�more rent for the same space. Developers WANT student tenants, because again, on average, they pay more rent and therefore more income. And I don�t want to hear about young professionals and families moving into the neighborhood. The young professionals and families that chose to live downtown aren�t going to pick the Mifflin St neighborhood�too much noise, immaturity, and too many headaches to deal with.
I don�t want the neighborhood gentrified to the point that students are kicked out,� Verveer said
-Than why are you trying to block increased density? Over the long term, increasing density will result in lower rents, not higher rents. If there are more units of supply, the demand (and rents) will decrease. If you don�t belive me�let�s look at reality. Over the past several years, private developers have put up highrises containing hundreds (or thousands) of beds - Grand Central, Equinox, Palisades, Park Terrace West, 420 W Gorham, 210 N Charter, The Embassy, The Aberdeen, etc. - all of these buildings that have been built are full of STUDENTS. Apparently, they were not �gentrified� out of the area. Also, I can tell you that the rents for houses in surrounding neighborhoods (like Mifflin St, towards Tenney Park, south of Regent St towards the Zoo) have stabilized or even decreased because of all of these additional high rise units - again, more units equals lower rents. Anybody take Econ 101???
�I, for one, actually think that the tradition of the 40 years of celebration of the end of the school year � the beginning of spring � is a cool one,� Verveer said.
-That�s because you aren�t a property owner that has to pick-up/repair all of the trash and damage left in the wake of the �cool one.�
IP hash: 9f277184
As Chair of the ASM Legislative Affairs Committee, I can assure you that both options are being equally considered before we begin taking action.
Our meeting tonight on the 4th floor of the SAC will revolve around this debate and I expect something fruitful to come from it. I encourage everyone interested to attend and share your opinions.
Regardless of that, I have spoken with members of Capital Neighborhoods Inc. (the neighborhood association responsible for the Mifflin/Bassett area) who are greatly in support of keeping the current layout, and these guys have been living on the street since the block party began. The desire to keep the character of the street is not a uniquely student perspective and that’s something worth keeping in mind when debating the plans.
IP hash: 60fc68cb
Another weak article. Mifflin is a historic landmark on campus. Why would we want to tear it down and let young professionals live there. It is great for students because the rates are low. There are plenty of nice high rises on campus and around the capital for young professionals. If the city does go ahead with Plan B, it will be taking away a true part of UW campus life. Simply a horrible idea.
IP hash: 300706ce
Speaking as a 30-something lawyer who works on the square and has lived down here for a couple of years, I think the city needs to get a little more realistic about the prospects of young professionals living on campus (and all of downtown is basically campus, regardless of the window dressing). No offense to any of you, because I was a jackass at that age too, but I’d rather live anywhere in Madison than downtown.
The behavior issues, noise, property damage, and vomit stains aren’t offset by anything in the immediate area that isn’t just as easily accessible by car, cab, bus or bike from any other neighborhood in town. Madison is too small to start trying to build enclaves of young adults, or young families, or retirees in particular places, especially when those particular places already have an entrenched population that carries significant downsides for those who aren’t a part of it. Why would I pay an inflated amount to live downtown, with a lot of student related downside and little upside in the way of amenities, when I can live much more inexpensively on the north, east or south sides of town and be just minutes away from work on the square anyway? A handful of good restaurants? Tons of college bars? The Overture Center? Please. The kids are fine. It’s the city leadership that needs to grow up.
IP hash: 938bf163
Fancy new apartments means fancy new prices. And listen to the “young professional” on the comment board who says they don’t want it. Who’s left? Developers and students. And since when do we have to legislate to serve the interests of developers? Their money can talk for them. Plan B is at best giving developers essentially free reign, at worst a ploy by the city to end student partying and move it out of sight of the new yuppified downtown it hopes to build.