Yesterday afternoon I met with half a dozen board members of the Realtors' Association of Northeast Wisconsin. This outfit has "jurisdiction" over an area in Wisconsin that encompasses about 240 units of local government: cities, villages, towns, counties, etc.
They wanted to interview me regarding issues that were important to them. They asked questions like "How would you encourage development and maintenance of affordable/workforce housing?"
I told them that in all the years that I've been attending committee meetings and Council meetings, not once did the topic of "affordable/workforce" housing come up. I got a bit better view of what they were driving at; that is, fees that cities charge for storm water sewers and for water and fire protection, garbage collection, recycling, building permits, etc., are things that affect the affordability of real estate whether it's commercial or residential.
I also gave them a bird's eye view about the problem of getting information that regular people have when they become aldermen; about the reasons why it appears that aldermen spend a disproportionate amount of time on "little" things like newspaper vending machine regulation, whether roosters should be allowed in the city, or whether someone should get a bartender's license after filling out the application incorrectly. These are issues that Council members can get their arms around.
Trying to get their arms around 11th-hour changes to big construction projects is a lot more difficult...especially when the Council is only presented with the stacks of documents relating to the change two days before the drop-dead voting date as happened a couple of months ago when a change was made to the Plexus development project to add more parking. It increased the amount the city is on the hook for to over $8 million from about $6 million. 33% is not chump change. Two days isn't enough time to look at a complex agreement and decide it's all fine.
Anyway, I did most of the talking in front of the Board of the Realtors Association. Esther Walling asked one very pertinent question that I found it tough to answer: How would I influence the Council to go along with some of the things I'm interested in doing? It's tough. Consider all the political ads you've ever heard or seen that claim something to the effect of "If elected, I'll see to it that taxes are lowered, we have a better police force, and a chicken in every pot, yadda, yadda, yadda." Whether it's a legislative office or an executive office, the elected official doesn't act alone.
On the state and national levels in particular, legislators belong to a political party, and the party pretty much calls the tune when it comes to all those grand campaign promises. If it's advantageous to the party and in keeping the maximum numbers of legislators from that party in power, each legislator has to toe the party line and vote the right way.
In local government, I told the Board, the Common Council is non-partisan. There's no party behind the actions of the Council. Therefore, personal influence counts for a lot more: the personal influence of the Mayor and/or the Council President on individual Council members; the influence of important constituents on individual Council members; the influence of the members of the City's staff on Council members; and the influence they have on each other.
That personal influence includes determining who is simpatico on the Council and who is a rubber-stamper. My own influence would extend to seeking out people that would make good aldermen and help get them elected in place of the rank-and-file.
Additionally, my influence would be used to persuade the Council that certain unenforceable ordinances be removed from the books.
I'm also leery of the stated preferences of the city planners that "Anything not expressly permitted is forbidden." For better or worse -- better, in my opinion -- I'm in favor of less regulation and fewer ordinances.
I should know today or Monday whether the Realtors' Association will support me or my opponent in April.