Renter, Homeowner Debate Erupts Over Plans for Brookfield Village Area

A debate over the future of the Brookfield Village area boiled over at a Common Council meeting this week into tensions between area home owners and renters, the latter of whom are claiming they’ve been dubbed derogatory terms such as “transient trash” and degenerates.

Meanwhile, some homeowners in the area say that renters have diminished property values and the neighborhood’s quality of life with loud parties, unleashed dogs, and fighting.

Steve Ottman, who currently rents a townhome along North Hills Drive, said renters have been dubbed “transient trash” by homeowners.  “We’re good people who believe you help yourself by helping others first,” he wrote to the city, saying that people who pay home mortgage payments are renters in a sense too.

However, resident Richard A. Cieslak wrote his alderman a letter that he asked to be read at the public hearing as he was out of town and could not personally attend.  A proposed North Hills Drive development for more multi-family units, which is part of the plan for the Village Area, he wrote, would promote “increased traffic, clutter and noise on our quiet streets.”

He disputed that additional apartments would generate more business, adding, “apartments of the quality that already exist attract a more transient population that is less committed to the neighborhood.”

Common Council President Mark Nelson told Patch that a revision to the village plan was the subject of the public hearing this week. About a dozen residents spoke after a brief presentation by city staff. The plan now goes back to the city Plan Commission for further discussion.

The plan includes numerous changes, including suggestions that the city hold a signature community event  in the village area as a draw. However, the piece generating the controversy involves whether and how the city should encourage “higher density in the village area to try to bring more people into the village,” said Nelson.

One way to do that under consideration: Zoning the village area to allow more multi-family developments. In particular, a plan to do just that by adding more townhomes  in a vacant lot along North Hills Drive has provoked dispute. A petition favoring additional multi-family development of North Hills (which already has a townhome development) was signed by 44 people; a petition opposing it was signed by 37. Most of those people live near or on North Hills Drive.

The Village revised plan would create allowance for an additional 100 rental units through zoning changes but says the Village area could ultimately support as many as 291 more.

“The question would be whether the city would allow additional multi-family higher density units to allow a developer or developers to try to bring in more residents,” said Nelson, who has not decided where he stands on the issue yet.

Multi-family units could include townhomes, apartment buildings, and condominiums, he said.

“The city is trying to promote revitalization,” he said.  “In the village area, there is not agreement with respect to what should the village look like. Therein lies the problem.”

Specifically, the proposed revisions to the plan include the following, according to city records:

• Consider eligible commercial properties in the area for the Brookfield Revolving Loan Fund, which provides low-interest loans to spur economic development.
• Expand a façade improvement program to eligible commercial properties in the village; funds could come from Community Development Block grants.
• Create or support an annual community event in the village area at McCoy Park modeled after Brookfield’s July 4 and National Night Out events.
• Support higher-density multi-family housing development, including the properties west of Brookfield Road and South of Brookfield Academy and land north of North Hills Drive.
• Support lower density multi-family housing development along Hoffmann Avenue and Pleasant Street.

The village area is one of 10 targeted investment areas in the city’s overall master plan. According to planning documents submitted to the council, the village area already has a higher density of multi-family developments than other areas of Brookfield. The goal, according to the planning documents is to bring more units because“the development of additional residences in the village area would add to the market demand for goods and services in the area. “ In particular, professionals find the village area appealing. According to the public hearing notice, the Brookfield Village plan was created in 2006.

The question is whether to bring in more people to generate further economic developments, such as “pedestrian friendly businesses like a coffee shop or floral shop,” Nelson said. “From the people that spoke, it was probably evenly split.”

Some homeowners are concerned an influx in renters would cause more problems. Others, some of whom are renters themselves, don’t agree.

As for the term transient trash, Nelson said, “I really don’t know what that was about. And quite frankly, at a public hearing people can get up and say things. That’s their opinion that cannot be attributed to the city.”

One man at the public hearing complained that renters bring problems like more dogs and parties, he said.

“Really I don’t know where that’s coming from quite frankly certainly insulting to the people who live there,” said Nelson.

Years ago, he said the city created a village plan that involved a task force. City planning staff felt the area wasn’t achieving economic development results hoped for in that plan.  So about six to eight months ago, they started looking at whether it needed changing to “jumpstart” the village economically.

Residential rental units are doing well in the village, Nelson said, but “the city staff believed that the economics down there was not being achieved as far as businesses moving in and people reinvesting in some of the properties down there.”

That’s why the other suggestions include such ideas as holding a signature event. “If we could have a fest and some music, that would also bring people in who would see the village and see a good event and that it’s nice place,” said Nelson.

Amy Jo Berge, a personal banker who rents along North Hills with her family, supported more multi-family units. “Renters bring in a positive impact to communities just as homeowners,” she wrote city officials. She said that renters deserve to have their children enrolled in quality schools as well.

Nicole Wagner, another resident in the area, urged the new development but only with proper management, saying, “my family and I welcome new development (multi-family or otherwise) in the Brookfield Village Area. We have been excited to watch new shops and restaurants arrive within walking distance of our home.” However, she also wrote that some rental units have caused problems in the area, including people “smoking, drinking, and barbecuing well into the evening.”

Daniel Ertl, director of Economic Development, wrote Wagner that he had asked the Brookfield police for a list of all incidents in the area and they reported that there was not an “abnormal volume” of reported or serious problems. However, he said there did need to be stronger management of some less “considerate” tenants. There are 14,000 single-family homeowners in Brookfield, he said, and further developments, including multi-family units, help alleviate the tax burden for them. Residents at multi-family developments already in place, such as Brookfield Junction, include many professionals, and even rented to an assistant coach for the Milwaukee Bucks and Kohl’s corporate officials, he said.

Other residents offered suggestions for revitalizing the area.

Resident Gil Krueger suggested historical walking tours in the village area and signs saying “Entering Historic Old Brookfield Village.”

Resident Laurie Runnoe suggested that the community event be more unique than a German heritage festival that some have raised as a possibility. She said an event focusing on the village’s historic nature would be better, with a historic event that included a trolley and costumed participants.

Cieslak, who also cited problems by renters, wrote that he was especially troubled by any notion that banks are getting more involved in design options for developments.

“I trust the city leaders will not make short-term, penny-wise, and pound-foolish, decisions in order to accommodate a big bank’s dictates.”

George Hadaway, another resident, said that rental units have caused issues in the area, such as “loud disturbances late at night, after hours fire pits on Saturdays. Old furniture and carpeting lying road side for weeks on end before it is picked up. Animals coming into my yard unleashed, making a mess…” Resident Gren Rudd concurred, but added to the list such things as “physical disputes between tenants” and “barking dogs left outside.”

Such allegations upset some renters. Sue Zimny and Daryl Palkowski wrote the city that they are renters in the area now and said they supported the building of more townhomes. “We are happy to be raising our young children here, our neighbors are like family, and we all watch out for one another… We are responsible, peace-loving people of many different occupations who choose to rent at this time.”

Michele Barnes, another renter, concurred, saying, “I have felt part of this community for almost my entire life. I work here, play here, pray here and I am raising my children here.”

Lana Gove and Ella Wolfgram, who also rent townhomes, said, “We hear we have been referred to as ‘transient trash,” – we highly object to this unfair judgment of us.” They noted they have lived in their townhome for five years.

Kevin Leitermann, owner of the current town homes, wrote the city that he wanted to continue to develop the 10 acre lot, saying, “the key to a vibrant community is people!” He said he has owned the townhomes on North Hills Drive for 12 years and that there is a current waiting list for his existing townhomes. “On North Hills Drive… I realize the five neighbors bordering this vacant field would like it vacant forever, so they can have an unobstructed view and a place to poop their dogs.” But he said developing the area was important to the area’s revitalization.

One woman, who also rents a townhome, said she has been “startled by the brouhaha and comments made by some of the residential homeowners within the area regarding the proposed project.  One neighbor approached me and tersely informed me that area homeowners do not want additional units built, which would attract more ‘transient trash’ and thus devalue their homes.”

The woman, who provided her name to the city but requested to remain anonymous, wrote the city that tenants in the current North Hills Drive townhomes where she lives include a senior citizen, airline pilot, engineer, and health insurance professional. She said she is a financial analyst and community volunteer.   

David and Jennifer Borch wrote that homeowners have accused renters of being “degenerates and non Brookfield people.”  She said that was “simply not true” noting that she and her husband own homes in another state, and are “upstanding and responsible members of society who highly prioritize our family and live by a strict code of conduct.” She is a registered nurse; he owns a computer repair business.