A year ago, Republicans were salivating over the race for attorney general. Incumbent Democrat Peg Lautenschlager, after getting embarrassed by a drunk driving conviction and later headlines suggesting she used a state-owned car for personal purposes, looked dead, dead, dead. Just about any Republican should have been able to coast to victory.
Instead, the two Republican candidates, Waukesha District Attorney Paul Bucher and U.S. Attorney J.B. Van Hollen, have completely forgotten the party’s 11th commandment (Thou shalt not attack another party member), with a campaign that has often resembled a food fight. The tone of their televised debate on August 10 was ugly at best, with Bucher sniping at Van Hollen and Van Hollen telling Bucher “You suck.” Geez, even Democrats don’t get that nasty with each other.
At this point, it’s an open question whether either candidate could defeat Lautenschlager. Indeed, a mid-August poll taken by WISC-TV in Madison found that both GOP candidates were running behind her. This against a candidate with astoundingly high negatives: The polls found that 32% of voters had an unfavorable opinion of Lautenschlager and 34% had a favorable impression. To be running behind a candidate that weak takes a special kind of Republican, but this fall, the party has come up with two such losers.
Meanwhile, the other Democrat in the race, Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, has been mostly floating above the fray. The same poll showed her defeating both Republican candidates by a slightly larger margin than Lautenschlager. More importantly, as of the last accounting, Falk had three times more money on hand than Lautenschlager and nearly as much as her three opponents combined.
So who have the Republicans been going after? Not Falk, the obvious front-runner, but Lautenschlager. They have launched two ethics complaints against Lautenschlager, neither of which has gone anywhere. The headlines from this will of course add to negative impressions of Lautenschlager, which will help Falk in the primary, making the stronger Democratic candidate even stronger.
When Falk entered the race, it looked like she might win in a walk. But Lautenschlager has fought hard and has turned out to be more formidable than some pundits (including me) had supposed.
That has made the Democratic primary a bit more dramatic, though Falk still looks likely to win. But it’s hard to imagine how either Republican will recover from this ugly primary.
Joe Zilber’s Pabst Plan: A Gift With Strings
In announcing his purchase of the old Pabst Brewery property, longtime developer Joe Zilber announced that “I owe a lot to this city and I want… this historic property to be my legacy.”
Going along with that PR spin, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel offered a front-page headline last week: “Money Won’t Limit Pabst Brewery Project.” In the story, Zilber was quoted as follows: “It doesn’t make any difference if I make money or not. I’ll be 90 next year; my money has to go somewhere.”
Doesn’t that sound like Zilber is going to give us fine Milwaukeeans a big development for no charge? But in fact, his company is asking the city for a subsidy in the form of a Tax Incremental Financing. The total amount, Zilber says, will be less than the $41 million asked by the last developer, Wispark, whose proposal was rejected by the Common Council.
In short, Zilber appears to care greatly whether he makes money. Mike Mervis, Zilber’s assistant, concedes the obvious, that this will be a for-profit development. But Journal Sentinel reporter Avrum Lank left readers guessing what was really going on.
So here’s the deal: Zilber isn’t giving a gift, but he is taking on a high-risk development, including some buildings that are blighted and some that are historically significant. It’s the sort of risky venture that would require a high pay-off for a developer, but Zilber, it would appear, is willing to take a low return. Mervis promised that all of the details would be transparent, with the city taking some risk but also getting some profit sharing, which is quite unusual. The TIF money would also come in precisely spelled-out steps, with both parties required to make certain commitments at each point or the deal won’t go forward.
The plan is so positive for the city that “it’s going to drive other developers nuts, but it’s good public policy,” Mervis declared.
I was among the opponents to the Wispark proposal, with its emphasis on a House of Blues and other big-scale entertainment venues. Zilber’s proposal, which calls for one-third retail, one-third office and one-third residential development, makes far more sense. It’s also very flexible and can adapt to proposals from anyone who wants to occupy or develop space. But the details remain to be seen. Until such time, it’s misleading to portray Zilber as some kind of benevolent saint.
Balcerzak Survives as Police Union President
Last week, I predicted that Police Union President John Balcerzak might not survive a recall election. False alarm, it turns out. The vote, compiled last Friday, was 209 for a recall and 397 to retain him.
That’s a victory, if not a huge one, for Balcerzak. He was originally elected in May 2005 in a close vote, with 521 votes to 453 for challenger Sebastian Raclaw. Raclaw resigned from his position as the union’s vice president in June 2006, citing disagreement with Balcerzak’s leadership style.
Raclaw has appeal for younger officers, but older officers (as with most unions) are more likely to vote. Balcerzak is up for re-election in November, but no candidate, including Raclaw, has emerged so far to oppose him.
My column last week also suggested that Balcerzak got snookered by Mayor Tom Barrett on the deal providing state funding for more officers. Both Balcerzak and the mayor deny this. “We were singing out of the same hymnal,” says Barrett. I’m guessing Barrett is the tenor and Balcerzak the baritone.
At issue is whether the $950,000 in state funds will go for more sworn officers. Last week, I suggested it would not, but Barrett’s office says it will. In essence, the state money will simply go for police overtime, because it takes so long to hire and train new officers. But by reducing city costs for overtime, it frees up money to hire new officers. The package approved by the Common Council will eventually hire 40 new officers, but will also hire a group of community service officers, which are not sworn officers or union members. So there is both a gain and loss from the perspective of the union. That’s a better scenario for Balcerzak than I suggested last week, and to that extent my description was inaccurate.
