Ah, the joys of rental property. Most people's perception is that you just sit back and collect the rent. Maybe that is what our Mayor Jeff Speaker thought when he ventured into the landlord business? I don't think he is thinking that now. From the article:

Asked why he bought the Milwaukee apartment building instead of one in Brookfield, Speaker said he couldn’t afford one in Brookfield.

“It’s an investment, and they can be fairly lucrative if you have a good tenant mix,” Speaker said of Milwaukee rental properties.

He said he would like to get tenants who are on rent assistance “because you’re guaranteed your money.” But he said he couldn’t do that until he made more repairs.

“I’m trying to make a difference down there,” he said...

...He wants to hold annual barbecues there.

My husband and I were landlords for a brief time in our younger days. We bought the tiny Polish flat my husband lived in during his college days from his landlady. It was divided into 3 units and we lived in the upper front after we were married. A few years later, we purchases a second property from our former landlady. Hey, no money down, what did we have to lose except a lot of sweat equity.

People teased us a lot about being the land barons, knowing how we were working our tails off and operating on a shoestring. We repaired the numerous code violations and painted, refinished floors, and transformed them into rental units that decent people were happy to rent for a reasonable price. 

I had to smile when the article about Speaker's rental property violations mentioned that he planned a barbecue when it was all finished, because that is what we did! It was in celebration of our white trash tenants moving out. (We inherited them with the purchase--they were on welfare by the way--our landlady must have liked the rent assistance angle too?) 

The neighbors and other tenants were jubilant when the two families moved out.

Now the JS Editorial: Keeping Promises  compares Brookfield standards with the City of Milwaukee. (H/T Fairly Conservative) Ouch.

Later the article speaks to the heart of the landlord business when purchasing on the cheap:

“We recognize it’s difficult to bring it out of a crappy condition into a compliant condition,” Todd Weiler, spokesman for the city’s Department of Neighborhood Services, told Sink.

...But Weiler made another good point about buying a building in bad condition: “You should know that when you buy it and have hammer and nail ready,” he said. “It’s time. The proof will be in the pudding. We’ll see what happens to his promises.”

Truer words were never spoken. Both properties we purchased had been neglected for quite some time. Our Riverwest Polish flat was not so bad. The landlady left us alone in exchange for cheap rent, and so, we had fixed up our interior before we purchased. Once it was ours, the "hammer and nail" were always with us and we brought it back from the grave. Although it never was a great Milwaukee style flat, it did have a certain curb appeal when we finished it.

The second property, the huge flat and cottage, really needed work (1st photo). The neighbor lady was so anxious to get rid of our bad tenants there, she offered to help us fix up their units if we could get rid of them. She was faithful to her word.

I would like to say that I never have seen such neglect since our Milwaukee Landlord days, but the fixer upper we purchased in Brookfield in 1986 was just about as bad if not worse! Lots more sweat equity here on Kinsey Park Drive. Maybe that is why I'm still so tired? 

I suspect that with rental property, like boat ownership, the happiest 2 days are the day you purchase and the day you sell. At least it was for us.

As for making a "fairly lucrative" investment? I suggest a really solid mutual fund! 

 

Related Posts: This was the Polish flat I referred to in Remembering the BIG CHILLS the flat pictured was before my dad helped us paint. 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related news (updated every day).

Drill Here just reached the 1 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

 

Fellow blogger Janet Wintersberger recently echoed my sentiments that the Plan Commission rarely seems to listen to resident comments regarding development.

She wrote, regarding the proposed Fountain Brook Crossing, "Twenty-nine (of the 30) attendees' comments were negative."  The proposal got the nod anyway.

Our opinions did not matter when it came to widening Calhoun Road south either. I think there were 51 negative comments out of 54 left at one of the Open Houses. No matter, Calhoun is being widened.

So it seems our opinion seldom counts with the city or plan commission. But there has been one exception. (Janet's posting triggered my memory.)

Remember last year when the Fresh Market went up?

Every day it seemed they added a new color or texture to its hodge-podge exterior.

Then the GOLD trim paint went on.

That color choice did not sit too well with some people.

The brighter gold was then painted over with a slightly more subdued color.

Why?

Because 12 people complained to the mayor.

Twelve people?

It must have been newsworthy because there was even an article about it.

"Mayor Jeff Speaker said Thursday that he received about a dozen complaints about the color..." 

Now, I really don't know how anyone could so vehemently object to the gold trim on the Fresh Market and not also strongly object to Flemmings, which is painted a color I can only politely call raw umber. (I have heard it referred to as many other things, none of which I can put into print.) 

Why would the mayor jump in response to just 12 people's complaints when at other times our concerns fall on deaf ears?

A family member summed it up well, "It must have been the right 12 people!"

 

 

 

 

Flemmings, part of the Moorland/Bluemound gateway the City wanted you to say "WOW" about.

 

 

 

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

Did you read that Mayor Speaker wrote a check to fulfill his 2006 campaign promise regarding the return of his pay raise to the city? "'I kept my word,' he said." Unfortunately, he gave it to the wrong city!

The Journal/Sentinel reported that "Mayor Jeff Speaker returned his 2007 salary increase - and a little more - to city coffers Monday, making good on a re-election campaign promise."

But this statement is a bit misleading, because his returned pay raise did not go back into the city's "coffers" as he promised. Speaker instead designated that his pay raise go to the non-profit Sister Cities fund. (Want to see what Sister Cities does? Look at their Sept. 2007 meeting minutes.)

What is wrong with that?

His raise was not returned to the taxpayers of Brookfield as he promised. He in effect made a donation, with our taxpayer money, to a non profit cause of his choosing. (I understood the city was not to directly fund the Sister Cities project from our taxes.) 

Now his $1,750 check is hardly a make or break issue for our city, but I think it does reveal an attitude that taxpayer relief doesn't matter. I look at budgets as every little bit of savings helps. Besides, after 4 years the total starts to resemble real money. "...Speaker pledged if he won re-election to a second term he would not accept the pay raises and would return them to the city. That would mean returning a total of $14,223 through 2010."

Interestingly enough, the mayor returned more money than necessary. His check was for $1,750, but it only needed to be $1,401. I think if you make a promise that you are returning your raise to the city, it should go back into the city's general fund. So maybe Mayor Speaker could request that his $1,401 be given to our city and the remaining $349 go to his beloved Sister City project if he favors that cause so much? That would be a win/win arrangement.

By the way, the return of the mayor's pay raise was an issue during both campaigns. These quotes were taken from the transcript of the 2006 JSOnline forum:

Kilkenny: In your 2002 campaign literature you said, "The New Mayor Will Get A 28% Raise." On the reverse page, you say, "I will not accept the pay raise and will ask the aldermen to do the same." How did you follow through on this promise to reject the mayoral pay raise?

Speaker: When questioned by a reporter on that exact campaign literature, I stated that I would not take the raise for that year and pay back the City the amount for that year period. And I did donate it back to the City. As for what the aldermen did, I can only speak for myself.

In Speaker's first term, he returned his extra pay for his first year - $2,409. He kept the increases the next three years.

I recently heard about an elected official (out east, I think) who also returned his pay raises while in office to fulfill his campaign promises. But now that he was leaving office, he was requesting the raises back! Hopefully, that will not happen in Brookfield, and our taxpayer money being given to the wrong city will be resolved soon.

 

P.S. Don't forget the Public Information Meeting for the proposed Fountain Brook Crossing at Brookfield's City Hall, Wednesday, January 9th, 6:30 - 7:30 pm. This new development is proposed for Moorland Road and Greenfield Avenue. Big surprise here: The 97 foot tall development requires rezoning.

Town of Brookfield supervisors on Monday made another step toward cooperation with the City of Brookfield, as far as their fire station goes.

If you remember, the Town made an offer to the city: We offer our services to you.
The city made an offer to the Town: You pay us $875,000 next year, and we will man your station.
Now the Town said, send us a formal contract.

The situation is looking much more hopeful than it was a few months ago.

Aldermen Franz and Balzer were very reluctant to give their approval to the EMS/Fire Station Task Force’s recommendation at the HRPS meeting. Neither one of them wanted to move station #3 if cooperation with the Town could be achieved. The mood at that meeting was that cooperation would not take place, but now we see a glimmer of hope that it will.

But, here is the puzzler: Mayor Speaker still thinks the Moorland station should be moved 1 mile closer to the Town of Brookfield’s fire station!

What? His reasoning was that there were no guarantees that the Town would continue to allow the city to use its fire station, the JS Online article reported.

Well, that is true. We don’t know if the Town will continue to allow us to man and use their station.

BUT, it is equally true, that moving station #3 1 mile further west toward the Town’s fire station MAKES NO SENSE.

Station #3 is already in an equitable position to both the southeast side and southwest side. Moving that station 1 mile to the west will forever cause the southeast side to have much longer response times than the west side. Factor in the additional aid and proximity from the Town station, and to me, that move cannot be justified.

I would hope in light of this potential cooperation, the aldermen would decide to postpone the vote on the EMS/Fire Station Task Force recommendation.

If we ever do add that additional EMS station in the northwest corner, then our entire city would have fairly even emergency response times. Moving the stations all in a row, will never allow us that equitable distribution.

UPDATE: I missed this important detail, but a reader did not. The City only gave the Town the formal contract offer, but they only gave the Town DAYS TO ACCEPT IT.

The reader had this to say: I think the fact that Speaker sends a contract to the Town and gives them
only TEN days to sign it, and there will be no further discussion unless they sign it, just shows the absolute arrogance of Speaker... They don't really expect the Town to be able to sign in TEN days, so they can pretend that they were in fact willing to discuss the matter when the Town doesn't sign.

Time will tell what comes of the formal contract and 10 day deadline.

Robert Flessas', City Taxpayers won't be laughing now posting gives further insight into this Check: Check-mate negotiating between Town and City.






Is that your final offer?
Fire station #3 already IS in the right place!
The HRPS report: All 5 vote Yes, not all enthusiastic about the recommendation


WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield>Votenoapril3.com