Those who differ on opinion on whether voters should say Yes or No to the GM/JATCO site referendum on Nov. 3 agree on some points. They disagree on a lot more.
One big split between those who are lobbying for voters to defeat the referendum, and those who are urging voters to vote Yes, to it, is over the magnitude both the size of redevelopment projects, and their financial impact that the two sides believe could be at stake.
At a town hall forum The 69蹤獲 hosted Wednesday night, moderators asked several questions of six panelists whose opinion on the referendum varies.
Our questions included a hypothetical about whether panelists would be comfortable asking voters to OK a large-scale development project at the GM site. The question was framed around a project the size of which might bring $800 million in investment.
The referendums passage would allow voters the final say to approve any redevelopment project at the GM/JATCO site over $450 million.
Those who oppose the referendum said Wednesday that the GM sites future could be limited if the referendum passes, because it would leave big-scale, monolithic reuse prospects in the hands of voters a prospect some of the forums panelists argue would make developers of megaprojects leery of the GM site.
Supporters of the referendums passage question whether the future of the GM/JATCO site should revolve around the prospect of megaprojects, with some on the panel arguing that the 250-acre site could be in line for a future that relies more on smaller-scale projects.
One of Wednesday nights panelists, George Cullen, President of Janesville-based regional commercial construction contractor JP Cullen, opposes the GM/JATCO referendum. He co-leads Grow Janesville Responsibly, an advocacy group made up mostly of local commercial entities and labor groups.
Cullens group has argued for months that the referendums passage comes with a risk of chasing away one hope for the future of the GM/JATCO site: Large-scale redevelopment through big transformative projects.
Cullen pointed to statements that Greg Piefer, CEO of Janesville-based nuclear technologies company SHINE Technologies, made about the referendum.
Piefer said in one recent interview with conservative think tank the Badger Institute that over the last decade, SHINE has spent more than $450 million developing fusion technology facilities in Janesville.
He said, and was quoted that if that referendum was in place and it had to go before we could develop in Janesville, we would have been challenged to do so, Cullen said.
Cullen called Piefers words a data point of caution over the GM/JATCO referendum.
Cathy Erdman, one of the panelists, leads SNOW Janesville, a south side Janesville neighborhood advocacy group that supports the referendum. Erdman was among residents who spearheaded a petition drive that got thousands of signatures, enough to put the referendum to the Janesville City Council as direct-legislation, and ultimately, onto the November ballot.
Erdman pointed out that large-scale developments, such as the $700-million soybean-crushing facility thats coming to Evansville are highly uncommon in Wisconsin.
She said her own research pegs average new development and redevelopment projects tend to be smaller scale.
Certainly, we can market the whole thing as one 250-acre monolith. But that may not be the most effective way to ensure the site returns to productive use. Because at that 250-acre mark we are really looking for that one very special, white whale of a projects, and those white whales dont come along every day.
Erdman said the bulk of projects in Wisconsin are well below $450 million, with less than 10 mega-projects going in Wisconsin at any given time.
The panelists joining Cullen in advocating for a no vote were commercial real estate specialist Mandy Witt and Maiken Westphal, the CEO of Westphal & Co. electrical contractor. Erdmans fellow yes vote advocates were Alyssa Capoziello, a founder of No Janesville Data Center, and area resident advocate Dan Hartung.
The full event can be .