By Leon Cohen
of The Chronicle staff

Officials of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation and Harry & Rose Samson Family Jewish Community Center say that Whitefish Bay opponents of plans to remodel, reconfigure and build on the Karl Jewish Community Campus are resorting to “misinformation,” “exaggeration” and “innuendo” in their campaign against it.

Moreover, the campus project has become a key issue in the April 2 election for WFB president, the first contested election the village has had for that office since 1945.
In an interview this week Stephen L. Chernof, an attorney and chair of the MJF steering committee of the Milwaukee Jewish Community Capital Project, said the opponents are “exaggerating what we propose and instilling fear in the neighbors” (see related column on page 5).

He cited particularly a cartoon that opponents’ organization, Stop Expansion, published as an advertisement in the Feb. 14 Whitefish Bay Herald. Under the words “The Year 2015,” the cartoon showed a multi-story JCC building-complex completely covering the site on Santa Monica Blvd. and Devon St., bumper-to-bumper traffic filling both streets and “For Sale” signs on all the nearby houses.

This cartoon is “a distortion” of the intent and provisions of the plans, which have been modified in response to neighbors’ concerns, said Chernof and Jay R. Roth, JCC executive vice president.

“The fact is that all our experts say that our proposal will be in harmony with the neighborhood, will help rather than hurt the traffic flow, and when it is completed we will have more green space than any other similar use in the village,” said Chernof.

The cartoon also suggests “that at the center we keep expanding and will keep on expanding,” said Roth. “And that’s not correct.” In fact, he said, “there’s only been one change to the center building since 1987, when we opened,” when the JCC north entrance was made handicapped-accessible.

Reached an impasse?

Moreover, opponents allege the JCC will be offering “new things and services,” said Roth. With the exception of building a new outdoor swimming pool, open only in the summer, all the other construction will be devoted to things “being done at the campus already. The problem is our space and facilities are not up to standard. We want to maintain quality.”

The opponents allege that “the federation said there would never be an expansion” and that the “planned unit development” ordinance that governs the property “doesn’t allow it,” said Roth. “That’s an outright lie.”

In fact, the PUD “allows for amendments consistent with the original purpose of the facility, which is what we’re proposing,” said Roth.

But campus neighbor Gary Close, a frequently cited spokesperson for the opponents, told The Chronicle that “We don’t believe we’ve misrepresented anything” and that the opponents and proponents “have reached an impasse….”

“I think the concern of the neighborhood is looking ten to 15 years down the road,” Close said. “Are the changes going to meet the requirements for the next decade or two, or will they expand? If they have to expand, then I have to believe this in an inappropriate place for them to do that. They have to do it in a location that imposes no restrictions on things they want or need to do for their membership.”

Close contended that “when this property was purchased,” MJF officials “gave the village assurances that they would not grow the campus.”

Bert Bilsky, MJF associate executive vice president, was director of the capital campaign at the time MJF purchased the campus in 1984-5. When asked if the federation at the time ever made such assurances, he said, “Absolutely not…. We never said we would never change or grow the campus.” Indeed, MJF officials knew when the campus was first opened in 1987 that the building housing the JCC was “was not really conducive to our needs” and would need changes under the PUD, said Bilsky.

Close said he understood the PUD allowed MJF and JCC officials the right to ask for changes, but they “have the responsibility to understand where they are located. They knew that when they purchased it.”

Close said that he himself has been a JCC member since 1992 and “there is no doubt that the facility is not optimized for how the JCC wants to conduct business. I’ve never objected to remodeling [or] enhancement of the existing facility.” He is objecting, however, to “adding square footage, a substantial parking lot and putting in an outdoor pool.”

When asked about the charges and counter-charges, James Gormley, village president for the past 12 years, said, “I have not heard at first hand any distortions or misinformation.”

He said he didn’t know what the opponents have been distributing or saying to the campus’ neighbors. He has received letters from opponents and regards them as expressions of opinion, he said.

Gormley said that during the election campaign he and his opponent have been asked about the campus, but “because I’m on a decision-making body [the village president chairs the village plan commission] that will examine this, I have to say I will judge the proposal on its merits measured against the requirements, standards and objectives of the planned unit development ordinance. I can’t pre-judge it.”

His opponent, Kathleen Pritchard, told The Chronicle that she has spent “a lot of time going door-to-door” in the area around the campus. Her impression is that “there is a group of organized residents who want no change whatsoever,” but “a good number say the JCC has always been a good neighbor, that they have received important services from them, and would like to have them continue to work to meet their space needs and work to control noise and traffic in the neighborhood.”

Pritchard said she is concerned that “expansion opponents … are reacting most to the original plan and not considering the concessions that have been made, [and] are playing off projections — ‘If you approve this, what will happen in the future?’…”

Therefore, she said she feels “strongly about seeing a plan and responding to the state that it’s in” and that it should “be given fair consideration.”

Roth and Chernof said the opponents’ campaign has had an effect. A Stop Expansion petition with some 600 names on it was recently submitted to the village government.
Nevertheless, Roth and Chernof said the JCC and MJF will continue efforts to seek approval from the village government and the neighbors. Said Roth, “We believe a lot of those people signed because they don’t know the facts.”

Roth said he knows of at least one person who signed that petition who later wrote a letter to the village in support of the campus plans after learning more about them.
Roth said the MJF and JCC hope to present their proposals to the WFB plan commission in mid-April. Meanwhile, “we have been in touch with all village trustees and plan commission members, and will continue to meet with them and help them understand the facts,” said Roth. “We believe there is a reasonably good understanding of the needs of the center and the campus and that after 17 years there need to be some changes.”