The fate of the Riverfront site and the Sunrise Proposal will be decided at this Monday’s Village Board meeting. For those of you would like to attend, it is at 7:30 at Village Hall.
I am opposed to the Sunrise proposal. Having read many of the associated documents and emails related to the Sunrise project, I appreciate the amount of staff work that has gone into it. However, built up momentum is not a reason to move forward, if Village residents would be better served by putting on the brakes and reversing course. Why am I opposed to the Sunrise proposal?
- Sunrise is not a corporate citizen we want in Shorewood right now. Accounting fraud, insider trading, irregular stock options policies, and defamation lawsuits are only several of the questionable aspects of Sunrise’s corporate governance as of late. Their treatment of their own shareholders at their annual meeting led the New York Times to publish an article entitled “Welcome to the Annual Meeting. Now, Be Quiet.” As it stands now, we are prepared to pay $800,000 in incentives, and millions more in infrastructure upgrades to bring this company into Shorewood. We can do better than Sunrise.
- The plan meets only one goal, and not the most important one. The only discernible benefit to this plan is a significant increase in the property tax rolls. Other worthy goals, like attracting school aged children, and maintaining Shorewood’s charm and character have been elbowed roughly aside. If the reason we have not seen mixed use or residential proposals is because of the negative residential real estate environment, as President Johnson suggested in an interview, surely we can wait several years until the market improves. Whatever we put on this site will be with us for decades. Temporary market conditions should not control what goes in there.
- The plan is not in keeping with Shorewood’s character. Several architects offered critiques of the proposal which resonate with me, calling the proposal a “stock plan,” and “not the best design for the village,” and “out of character with Shorewood.” I personally stray toward the more harsh assessment offered by a city planner in the UK, who called the Sunrise proposal in his city “alien, overbearing, and visually dominant.”
- We could potentially do better by waiting. True, the Sunrise proposal may be the best alternative to emerge to date. The land value increase and tax advantages of the proposed Sunrise development will be significant. However, I am convinced this proposal is worse for Shorewood in the long term than what is on the site right now, and definitely worse than what we might obtain with a little patience. While a rejection of the Sunrise proposal may temporarily cause developer interest in our Village to lessen, this interest will return as time moves forward, and the value of our available development sites becomes apparent. I believe this delay in new development is a price Shorewood residents will be willing to bear to keep the Village's unique identity intact.
A "No" vote on Sunrise would signify a clear return to the distinctive values and unique atmosphere that have made Shorewood a great place to live, and send a signal that this period of slip-sliding toward Stepford is over. I urge our Trustees to vote "No" on Sunrise.
