Madison’s Common Council declined to adopt a proposal determining the location of a permanent food market Tuesday night, instead choosing to refer it to the Economic Development Committee for further study.
The proposal, submitted by the Madison Local Food Committee, recommends the permanent food market be located at an East Washington Avenue and First Street site, over the alternative 1702 S. Park Street location.
Members of the community expressed frustration regarding the focus on the East Washington site, suggesting the single permanent market should be split into multiple smaller markets across various areas of Madison that could more greatly benefit from city investment, and that similar social justice factors should weigh more heavily when determining the location.
“If there is one site, why the East Washington site, which has numerous amenities already versus other sites,” Former UW faculty member Boyd Rossing said. “What I want to recommend is the consideration of multiple sites.”
Following public testimony, Ald. John Strasser, District 14, pushed to refer the recommendation to “another set of eyes with a business background” in the Economic Development Committee to review all data and site options once more and weigh in on a final location.
Given the permanent food market project has been in development for approximately the last 10 years, according to Ald. Lauren Cnare, District 3, some people viewed the decision to delay and refer the recommendations to another committee was viewed as unnecessary.
“The argument here in my opinion is on a social justice discussion,” said Ald. Steve King, District 7. “We are the appropriate place to have [this] argument, not the Economic Development Committee.”
Multiple alders cited a desire to see an end to the project’s continual gridlock but simultaneously expressed caution regarding the expensive costs entailed in construction and the consequences of choosing the wrong site without a complete economical study.
With Strasser’s assurances, the Economic Development Committee would address the purely financial and economical impacts of the project. The majority of councilmembers agreed to refer the proposal, with a total of 15 votes in favor.
