This is the last installment of my candidate interviews for Whitefish Bay’s Village Board. There are three candidates vying for two trustee positions on the board. The top two vote-getters in the April election will serve a three year term.
DAVID FEE
I spoke to David Fee for a couple hours last week. While Fee grew up in Brooklyn, NY, he’s spent the past 17 years in Whitefish Bay, and has served one term on the Village Board. He ran unopposed three years ago, making this his first election with a challenger.
I asked Fee why he was running again. He explained that he ran three years ago to represent the northern side of Whitefish Bay during the JCC expansion, but that you “get past that single issue pretty quickly. There are many more issues that starkly define the vision on how to manage our community. ”
Fee is pleased with a number of items he’s helped accomplish. He represents the Board on the Shorewood/Whitefish Bay Public Health Board, and in this past term, the Board, working with the Northshore Board of Health, hired a sanitarian to execute food inspections and perform training on food safety issues in the North Shore. Responding to his concerns for the tax-payer subsidy of this service, the communities voted to fund it primarily through the license fees, and to make it subject to efficacy audits to determine the cost effectiveness of annual and complaint based inspections.
Another item Fee was proud of, was the new rules for the Historic Preservation Commission. The original draft allowed the unelected commission to designate a property as Historic without the approval of the homeowner. Fee believed that over-stepped bounds and reduced homeowner rights, and obtained an amendment that dictates a homeowner must approve of the designation.
Fee believes the new rules concerning demolitions hit the mark as well, as he believes there is wisdom in the “organic replacement” of housing stock in the village. “When renovations are managed through the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to protect size and scale, demolition and renewal can add value to a block, and tax base to the community”, he said.
We then turned to the issues surrounding Silver Spring. “Silver Spring is a really disappointing commercial strip. There are virtually no trees. The way the area is framed is in a sorry state.”
Fee provided this quote: “Though a village survey found support for multi-use development up to 4 stories (Johnson Bank building), I am concerned that such extensive development the length of the street would drastically change the image of Whitefish Bay. I understand the CDA echoes text book planning to utilize a mixed used development with condos as a tool to enliven a commercial strip. My concern is that with the limited space of Silver Spring, and the existing residential density WFB, such mixed use would have marginal impact on the night life of The Bay. Given the significant number of un-leased apartments and office space in the new Bayshore Town Centre, and the below expected performance of virtually all the restaurants, I am very cautious on any joint development the Village would invest in through the eminent domain process.”
Fee pointed to fellow Board Member, Rita Cheng as an expert on how TIF monies should be used in redevelopment, and he summarized her repeated advice to the CDA and Board that “TIF money should go into infrastructure, like streetscaping, that benefits the whole community in the long term.” While skeptical, he is open to using TIF dollars for individual projects that subsidize one developer “if there is a clear business plan that indicates potential merchants that would occupy the space,” Fee added.
We spoke at length about the Talbots/Famous Footwear spot, and his vote to deny the village the use of Eminent Domain to purchase the property and try to develop it in accordance with the CDA’s master plan. Fee is joined by Trustees Brennan, Berg, and Cheng, who are against this process. In broad terms, Fee said he "will not vote for such action unless there is a solid business plan with identified financial partners." He said prefers “to negotiate for the site on the open market, rather than use eminent domain to force a ‘fair market valuation’ on the property owner.”
He stated a number of times that he would keep an open mind about the Village working with developers for Silver Spring, “but you can’t chase it. If there was a great business plan put forth, and a reason to believe it was a workable concept, I could see the village ponying up. No such plan has been presented at this point.” He also said he “had a philosophical problem with using eminent domain in a selective environment. If the property was clearly blighted, sure, but in this case it was a heavy handed ploy, and the village doesn’t have a plan for the property.”
Fee believes that if the Village were to ever propose making large investments in Silver Spring, he would support putting them to a referendum, so the citizens could have a vote.
Fee concluded with explaining how he loves Whitefish Bay. “It’s a special place. Development can’t be rushed, and the first rule is to do no harm. Governmental action can have unintended consequences and do far greater damage beyond the problem that was being solved.”
--------------------
I wish to thank David for taking the time for the interview. This concludes the candidate interview series.
I’m pleased all the candidates made themselves available for this, and learned a great deal about the political environment of Whitefish Bay in this process.
In mid-March, I will write summary of how I see the issues, the race, and who I will be voting for, and why.
Be sure to read the interviews of the other candidates:
