The Leader

Private developers seeking to purchase the Columbia Hospital campus adjacent to UWM would have to get the property rezoned, but UWM could likely bypass city regulations and avoid city approval on any modifications made to the facility, a Leader investigation has found.

 

A November 2005 letter from Milwaukee City Attorney Grant Langley and Assistant City Attorney Thomas Gartner to Third District Alderman Mike D’Amato confirmed that any state of Wisconsin entity—including UWM via the Board of Regents—could likely bypass city regulations regarding local zoning ordinances if they chose to purchase the facility.

 

According to Gartner, zoning in the city is based on what type of operation a facility holds. If Columbia changes owners, the city must approve new zoning conditions except under two circumstances: if the property was purchased by another health care provider with the intent of retaining it as a medical facility or if the state of Wisconsin was the buyer.

 

“If a private person were to buy the complex and use it for condominiums or retail or some other institutional use, they would probably need to have the property rezoned,” Gartner said. “It is possible, however, that the state could use the property without rezoning.”

 

If the state purchased the property, it is unlikely the city would get involved in the rezoning process. The state is a superior sovereign government, Gartner said, and is “not subject to all of the municipal rules and regulations.”

 

If the property was purchased by a developer for private uses, the Milwaukee Common Council would need to adopt an ordinance for rezoning. Although the Council could take up the measure proactively, it would be more likely that an organization interested in buying the property would petition the Council. From there, the City Plan Commission would look at the proposal, hold public hearings and present a recommendation to the Zoning, Neighborhoods and Development Committee before being taken to the full Council.

 

One exception to the state avoiding zoning regulations, however, could occur if any private use of the facility—such as retail or leased restaurant space—occurred. Gartner pointed to the acquisition of the Kenilworth building, a mixed-use facility for student housing and classroom space, as an example. The Board of Regents purchased the land Kenilworth is on, but the building was bought by a private developer with the intention of leasing the space back to UWM.

 

Gartner stressed that his opinion was based only on the current situation and could change, but said that “if the state buys it for the benefit of the Board of Regents, I think the analysis would be that it does not require rezoning.” Gartner also noted that the state has different policies from department to department on respect for local zoning requirements and that the ultimate jurisdiction of any dispute over the property “would lie with the courts.”

 

Tom Luljak, vice chancellor for University Relations and Communications, called the Columbia campus an “excellent possibility” for university expansion and said that the university was pleased with Gartner’s opinion.

 

“It was the first time we had a definitive opinion on how zoning laws would affect the university,” Luljak said, noting that zoning issues had been under review for several years. “This letter is very helpful as we are…not only exploring the Columbia property but other options as well.”

 

UWM has been in talks with Columbia Hospital executives for years about potentially buying the site when Columbia vacates the property sometime after 2010. Luljak said UWM is “very committed” to exploring the Columbia acquisition, but has not yet decided whether it will pursue the project.

 

“We need to determine, as an institution, whether Columbia is a good fit for our plans,” Luljak said. “We need to measure our needs against the price. With the chancellor’s agenda of increasing access and growing research, it’s critical to make an informed decision about growing the institution…in that way.”

 

The conversations between Columbia and UWM have been positive, Luljak said, but the rezoning memo does not change UWM’s aggressive attitude towards acquiring the property. At the end of the day, “it depends on whether or not the facility can meet the universities objectives.”

 

In a position statement from January 2006, four neighborhood associations—Cambridge Woods, Water Tower Landmark Trust, Murray Hill and Mariners—voiced their staunch opposition to UWM’s proposed takeover of the Columbia campus.

 

The group accused Chancellor Santiago of wavering on enrollment cap proposals and said that more students and more on-campus housing over the last five years has “resulted in a significant increase and frequency in noise, litter and vandalism in the immediate neighborhood.”

 

The group said that home ownership in the neighborhood has sharply declined and nuisance violations from the Milwaukee Police Department have doubled since 2001. Although UWM has offered some additional funding to the Milwaukee Police Department for neighborhood patrols, the group said most of the brunt has been borne by Milwaukee taxpayers and that the only real neighborhood improvements have been made by stricter enforcement of city ordinances.

 

“Residents have grown tired of futuristic plans and studies that provide no real, immediate solutions to the on-going problems experienced by the unchecked growth of the university,” the statement said. “The university has prospered at the expense of the surrounding neighborhood.”

 

According to the statement, the group will only agree to the UWM acquisition of Columbia if UWM:

 

 

The neighborhood group may face opposition from more than one side. One UWM neighbor who has been following the Columbia acquisition said the letter gives UWM an advantage over private developers.

 

“Rezoning that property would be a long process, and that assumes that someone could afford the huge price tag anyhow,” said the neighbor, who declined to comment on the record. “This is going to be bad for D’Amato. His only bargaining chip with the [neighborhood associations] was the fact that he could make sure the property didn’t get rezoned for student housing. Now he might not have that option.”

 

Support from Columbia could be a factor, too. An April 2005 article in the Milwaukee Business Journal quoted Columbia St. Mary’s President and Chief Executive Office Leo Brideau saying UWM would be an “obvious buyer “for the property.

 

"We would like them to have it," Brideau said. "We think it makes sense for them."

 

Samantha Prahl, Student Association chief of staff and president-elect, called the neighbor’s demands “ridiculous” and said the ideas they have put forward are counterproductive to any discussions over the future of the facility.

 

“I am disappointed that D’Amato…and the university had this information but did not release it,” Prahl said. “We need an open, honest discussion on Columbia. Making radical demands is not the way to go about doing things.”

 

Prahl stressed that relations with D’Amato have improved since the veteran alderman met with SA reps in March and attended a campus forum April 20. Prahl said that she supports including student housing in Columbia, preferring to keep housing close to campus so students can utilize all of the university’s resources, but still keeping the proposed housing on North Ave. as an additional option.

 

“Students don’t choose to be crammed four people to a house, they cannot afford to do it any other way,” Prahl said. “[The neighbors] want Chapter 17, and it would be detrimental to students on campus. If the laws can’t be applied to everyone, not just students, how is that fair?”

 

D’Amato did not return calls seeking comment.