A New Vision for Justice in Milwaukee: Safe Streets and Second Chances

Introduction: Building Safety with Dignity

Milwaukee stands at a crossroads in how we address crime and punishment. We can continue down the path of mass incarceration that has left us with high recidivism and fractured communities, or we can choose a forward-thinking alternative – one that improves public safety by upholding human dignity. I propose a bold solution: the construction of a 20-story rehabilitation-focused corrections facility on the vacant lot at Van Buren and Kilbourn in East Town. This high-rise facility, modeled on Norway’s internationally acclaimed Halden and Bastøy prisons, would allow our city to prosecute and house a limited category of mid-level felonies (“M-Felonies”) through a city-managed program. By treating incarcerated people as members of our community who can be redeemed, rather than exiling them as permanent threats, we align our justice system with Milwaukee’s values of safety, equity, and compassion. This approach is not soft on crime – it is smart on crime. It recognizes that nearly all offenders will return to society, and it asks: in what condition do we want them back on our streets? The answer must be: as stable, productive neighbors, not as embittered, ill-equipped ex-prisoners likely to reoffend. In this essay, I will lay out why a “rehabilitation skyscraper” in downtown Milwaukee – coupled with new legal authority for the city to handle certain felonies – is our chance to lead the nation in justice reform. We will see that this approach powerfully aligns public safety with human dignity, drawing on proven lessons from Norway’s model of corrections. We will explore how a vertical, urban facility can integrate humane practices floor by floor and fit into the East Town zoning and legal framework. We will chart the legislative pathways to make city-run prosecution of M-Felonies a reality. We will examine the costs and benefits, from dollars saved through reduced recidivism to the ripple effects of urban reinvestment. Finally, we will address the understandable public concerns – from “Not In My Backyard” fears to questions of cost and safety – with both facts and heartfelt reasoning.

The challenges we face are serious. Milwaukee has long grappled with crime, and too many of our citizens – disproportionately people of color – have been caught in a destructive cycle of incarceration. Black Wisconsinites make up just 6% of the state’s population yet represent 41% of state prisoners, with over 6,600 Black individuals from Milwaukee County currently behind bars. This status quo has not made us safer; instead, it has devastated families and neighborhoods. State prisons often release people back into Milwaukee after years of punitive treatment, only for 60% of them to be rearrested within two years. Each reoffense creates new victims and perpetuates fear in our city. We can do better. We must do better. By pioneering a new correctional model focused on rehabilitation in the heart of our city, Milwaukee can break this cycle. We can transform lives and enhance public safety at the same time – a win-win that traditional get-tough approaches have failed to achieve.

Public Safety and Human Dignity: A Unified Goal

At the core of this proposal is a simple but profound principle: treating people in our justice system with dignity makes us all safer. Too often, the debate frames public safety and humane treatment as opposites – as if we must choose between being “tough on crime” or respecting the humanity of those who have broken the law. Norway’s experience, as well as common sense, shows that this is a false choice. Public safety and human dignity go hand in hand. When we treat incarcerated individuals like human beings capable of growth, they are far more likely to return to society as law-abiding, productive citizens, which means fewer future crimes. Conversely, if we treat people “like dirt,” we shouldn’t be surprised when they come out acting like “dirt,” to paraphrase a Norwegian prison warden’s blunt wisdom. A system that deliberately demeans and dehumanizes prisoners effectively incubates more crime – turning out embittered individuals who struggle to function in civil society. That approach has failed Milwaukee and cities across America.

By aligning our justice practices with human dignity, we actually address the root causes of criminal behavior. Offenders often have histories of trauma, addiction, lack of education, or mental illness. A dignity-centered approach recognizes these underlying issues and works to heal them, rather than simply inflicting more trauma through harsh conditions. This is not about coddling anyone or excusing harm – it’s about holding people accountable in a way that leads to better outcomes. Even the leadership of Milwaukee County’s own Community Reintegration Center (the former House of Correction) acknowledges that “incarceration alone isn’t the answer to improving public safety” and that we must provide resources to rehabilitate residents if we want “safer communities” with “less victims”. In other words, punishment for its own sake doesn’t make us safer; positive change in offenders’ lives does.

Evidence from around the world backs this up. In the United States, a punitive system has yielded some of the highest recidivism rates in the developed world – roughly 60% of released inmates are back in prison within two years. But in Norway, where prisons are designed to be humane and rehabilitative, only about 20% reoffend within two years, the lowest rate in the world. That remarkable difference is not due to Norway being a homogeneous or tiny country – indeed, before Norway implemented reforms in the 1990s, its recidivism was as high as 60–70%, similar to ours. The change came when Norway deliberately shifted to a dignity-centered model of corrections. As one Norwegian prison governor put it, “In Norway, the punishment is to take away someone’s liberty. The other rights stay”. Incarcerated people there keep their rights to vote, to family visitation, to education and health care – because the goal is for them to succeed after release as fully functioning members of society. Rather than seeing this as “soft,” Norwegians see it as common sense: these individuals will be neighbors again, so it’s in everyone’s interest that they come back as better neighbors. “We’re releasing neighbours every year,” a Norwegian warden reminds skeptics. “Do you want to release them as ticking time bombs?”. The answer is obvious – of course not.

Treating people humanely in custody also taps into a fundamental aspect of human behavior: people respond to how they are treated. Norway follows the principle of dynamic security, which means building respectful relationships between staff and inmates to maintain order, rather than relying solely on brute force or isolation. Guards in Norwegian prisons don’t tower over people with weapons; they eat meals and engage in activities alongside the residents. The idea is that trust and respect become the currency of safety inside the prison, creating a calm environment where personal growth is possible. This directly contrasts with the old notion of “static security” – guards as armed sentries and prisoners as caged enemies – which breeds resentment and unrest. Dynamic security does not mean being naïve about dangers; it means proactively preventing bad behavior by addressing bad intentions through rapport and mentorship. It turns out that when you treat incarcerated individuals like they are worth something, they are far more likely to start acting like it. As the warden of Norway’s Bastøy prison famously said, “Treat people like dirt and they’ll be dirt. Treat them like human beings, and they’ll act like human beings”. That philosophy is at the heart of aligning dignity with safety.

Milwaukee has the heart and the know-how to adopt this philosophy. We are a community that values redemption – many of our neighborhoods are sustained by churches and civic groups that believe in second chances. And we have seen on a small scale that rehabilitation works. Programs in our county that provide cognitive therapy, job training, and drug treatment to offenders have shown reduced reoffense rates. When an individual gains employment skills or completes addiction counseling, that person is far less likely to return to crime, meaning one less robber, one less burglar on our streets. The public safety payoff is direct. Conversely, every time we release someone from prison with no improvement in their capacity to live a lawful life, we are almost guaranteeing future victimizations. That is an unacceptable outcome for both the ex-offender and the community.

Our proposed approach – a city-run M-Felony program in a new rehabilitative high-rise – explicitly weds public safety goals with an affirmation of each offender’s human dignity. In practice, this means those convicted of certain mid-level felonies (such as burglary, robbery, battery, and non-gun assault) would serve their sentences in a facility that emphasizes normalization of daily life, rigorous programming for self-improvement, and preparation for reentry from day one. Rather than a warehousing prison, this building will be a correctional college of sorts: a place of learning, healing, and personal accountability. The expectation is that residents (not “inmates,” but residents of the program) will work, study, and engage in therapy while serving their time. They will be guided by well-trained staff who act more like counselors and educators than armed guards. Rules and discipline will certainly exist – this is still a secure facility where liberty is restricted – but the discipline will be consistent with respect and aimed at teaching responsibility. By designing the experience this way, we fulfill the true purpose of incarceration: not to brutalize someone into submission, but to send them home better than when they arrived. That is how dignity delivers safety.

Lessons from Norway: Rehabilitation That Works

To understand the transformation we seek, consider the example of Norway’s prisons – frequently cited as the most humane in the world, and with results to match. Halden Prison, opened in 2010, is a maximum-security facility that looks nothing like the concrete cages we imagine when we hear “prison.” It has been described as “incredibly luxurious” by observers, with design features carefully chosen to create a normal living environment. Every inmate at Halden has a single-occupancy room more akin to a college dorm than a cell. There are no iron bars on the windows – in fact, there are no bars at all, just large windows letting in natural light and views of the forested outdoors. Each room comes with a private bathroom and a flatscreen TV, and inmates are provided with real beds, desks, and closets. Hallways are painted in bright colors and decorated with murals by professional artists. The architecture won awards for its modern, positive design. Halden also offers facilities that would be unheard of in a typical American prison: a fully equipped gym, a music recording studio, a woodworking shop, a school for academic classes, a library, and a chapel. In a particularly striking touch, Halden built a house for family visits on its grounds – a small home where inmates can spend weekends with their spouses and children in private, cooking together and maintaining family bonds. The philosophy is clear: life inside should resemble life outside as much as possible, so that when people exit the prison gates, they can transition back to normal society smoothly. This is known as the “principle of normality”, and it is a cornerstone of the Norwegian model. The only thing the state truly takes away is your freedom of movement; otherwise, you remain a human being with rights and responsibilities.

Interior of Halden Prison (Norway), often called the world’s most humane prison. Rooms have doors (not bars) and normal furnishings, reflecting Norway’s principle of “normality” in prison design.

Just a few miles from Halden is Bastøy Prison, located on a bucolic island. Bastøy is even more radical in its openness: it’s often likened to a small village or even a summer camp. There are no perimeter fences on Bastøy Island, no armed watchtowers. Inmates live in cottages, tend to farm animals, grow crops, and even enjoy recreational activities like swimming, fishing, skiing, and horseback riding during their free time. Guards on Bastøy do not wear uniforms, and they socialize with prisoners – one might see an officer flipping burgers at a barbecue alongside inmates on a sunny afternoon. Conjugal visits with spouses are allowed. There’s a communal grocery store, a church, a library, and even a beach where everyone sunbathes together in the summer. If this sounds shockingly lenient, consider Bastøy’s track record: only one escape attempt in its history – because prisoners know that if they break the trust, they will be sent back to a more restrictive prison on the mainland, losing the “privileges” of Bastøy’s lifestyle. Inmates who have experienced Bastøy’s approach often describe it not as a vacation, but as a responsibility. They must work hard to keep the community running – chopping wood, farming, cooking, cleaning. They learn trades and habits that prepare them for life after release. Bastøy and Halden both operate on the conviction that idle hands are the devil’s workshop, so the incarcerated residents stay busy with constructive activities from morning to evening. There is discipline in this model, to be sure: the discipline of holding a job, sticking to a schedule, and learning to live cooperatively with others. It’s just a very different kind of discipline from the coercive, militaristic regimen of American prisons. It’s the discipline of real life, which is exactly the point – prison life should mirror real life enough that making the right choices becomes second nature.

The outcomes speak volumes. As noted, Norway’s recidivism rate is roughly 20% within two years, compared to about 60% in the U.S.. For Bastøy specifically, recidivism has been measured at an astonishingly low 16%, one of the best rates ever documented in corrections. Think about what that means: if 100 people are released from Bastøy, 84 will not reoffend. Eighty-four people get to move on with their lives, and countless potential new crimes never occur – sparing would-be victims and saving law enforcement resources. Social scientists have studied Norway’s “experiment” in humane prisons and found that being locked up in a Norwegian prison really changes the course of people’s lives. One team of Norwegian and American economists in 2018 found that for every person who goes through a place like Halden or Bastøy, there are, on average, 11 fewer crimes committed in the future by that person (compared to a similar offender given a non-custodial sentence). Moreover, that person’s chances of gaining employment after release jump by 40%, because of the skills and confidence they acquired inside. These are staggering figures – they suggest a single progressive prison bed can prevent a slew of future victimizations and turn someone from a tax burden into a taxpayer. It’s hard to think of a more potent public safety investment.

Critics often assume that Norway’s results must come at an unbearable financial cost. Yes, it is true that Norway spends more per inmate than we do – about $93,000 per prisoner annually, roughly three times what the U.S. spends (about $31,000). Quality rehabilitation programs, well-trained staff, and decent facilities are not cheap. But here’s the catch: the investment pays off. Those same economists calculated that although Norway spends nearly twice as much per prisoner per day as the U.S., the reduced reoffending yields dramatic savings. Each person who goes through Norway’s prison system, on average, saves $71,000 in future law enforcement and victim costs (because they commit fewer crimes) and contributes $67,000 in added taxes and reduced welfare dependence due to better employment outcomes. In short, the upfront investment of rehabilitation yields over $138,000 in benefits – more than double the cost. As the analysis concluded, even using conservative assumptions, “the Norwegian prison system pays for itself more than two times over”. And that’s without even putting a dollar value on the most important outcome: fewer victims of crime. How do we quantify a mother in Milwaukee who never has to endure a home break-in because the would-be burglar turned his life around in our program? Or a teenager who never gets caught in gun crossfire because a repeat shooting was averted? Those are priceless dividends of a humane approach. The bottom line: Norway’s system is better, more humane, and ultimately less expensive when all costs and benefits are accounted.

Of course, Norway is a different country with its own culture. Can we realistically implement their model here in Milwaukee? I believe we can take the core elements and adapt them to our context. In fact, it’s already happening in parts of the United States. North Dakota, of all places, has piloted a “Norway-style” initiative in its prisons, inspired after officials visited Halden. At one North Dakota prison, they eliminated harsh solitary confinement practices, set up more home-like living units, and trained staff to interact on a first-name basis with residents. The warden reported that the facility became calmer and safer, and one long-time inmate said he felt like he was “somewhere bettering myself,” not just being punished. North Dakota’s recidivism rate, already low, showed signs of further improvement as they embraced rehabilitation. Oregon’s state prison officials have also incorporated lessons from Norway, changing policies to focus on normalcy and respect. If North Dakota and Oregon can move in this direction, surely Milwaukee – a proudly progressive city when it comes to social policy – can be at the vanguard. The key ingredients we need are political will, public buy-in, and a well-designed plan. That’s exactly what this proposal offers.

Key elements of Norway’s model that we will integrate into Milwaukee’s facility include:

• Normalization: Our high-rise facility will be designed to feel as non-prisonlike as possible. Private rooms with doors (not iron bars) will replace traditional cells. Communal spaces – kitchens, dining areas, recreation rooms – will be built to domestic scales, resembling a college dorm or apartment building more than a jail. The architecture will incorporate natural light, outdoor views, and even greenery where feasible. Just as Halden has art and color, our facility will collaborate with local artists to create a positive environment. Milwaukee’s rich arts community can help ensure the building’s interiors are uplifting rather than dreary. Residents will wear normal clothing (perhaps a standard issue casual wardrobe, but not orange jumpsuits or degrading uniforms). All of this sends a message: you are a human being and we expect you to conduct yourself as such.

• Dynamic Security and Staff Training: We will staff the facility with a new breed of correctional personnel – think of them as coach-officers. These individuals will receive intensive training in communication, counseling, and conflict de-escalation, akin to Norway’s two-year training program for prison officers. They will be taught that building rapport is their primary tool, not dominance. We will recruit a diverse staff, potentially including more women officers as Norway does (where roughly 40% of guards are female). This balance can humanize the atmosphere and reduce the machismo that fuels violence. Officers (or “facilitators”) will be encouraged to participate in activities with residents – whether it’s joining a pickup basketball game or leading a workshop – because shared experiences build trust. The security ethos will be proactive: by knowing each resident personally, staff can anticipate tensions and address issues before they explode. Make no mistake, safety will always be maintained – there will be protocols and backup teams for serious incidents – but our goal is to create an environment where such incidents are rare. The experience of Halden and Bastøy shows that when inmates feel respected, they in turn respect the rules and the staff, drastically reducing violent episodes. We can expect the same here.

• Rehabilitation Programs: From day one, every resident in the Milwaukee rehab facility will have a personalized plan for self-improvement. This includes education (basic literacy to college courses through MATC or UW-Milwaukee partnerships), vocational training (trades like carpentry, welding, culinary arts, coding – aligned with job opportunities in our region), cognitive-behavioral therapy (to change criminal thinking patterns), substance abuse treatment if needed, and mental health care. We will incorporate restorative justice practices: for example, guided victim-offender dialogues or letter writing (when appropriate) so that offenders truly comprehend the harm caused and take responsibility in a constructive way. A robust counseling staff – psychologists, social workers – will work alongside security staff. The facility can also host outside volunteers and mentors from the community, much like some of our reentry programs currently do at the county’s CRC. By clustering services on-site, we make it easy for residents to access everything they need in one place. The high-rise design even allows stacking these services: one floor might house classrooms and a library, another floor a job training workshop and counseling offices, another floor a health clinic and therapy rooms. This vertical integration means residents can go from math class to a job interview workshop just by taking an elevator – a far cry from idling in a cell for 23 hours a day as happens in some prisons.

• Family and Community Connection: A critical aspect of Norway’s success is keeping inmates connected to the outside world – it maintains their identity as fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, and it gives them hope and motivation. In our facility, we will incorporate ample visitation space, including child-friendly visitation rooms. Given the downtown location, families will be able to reach the facility by public transit or short drives instead of trekking to far-flung prisons upstate. Visits could be scheduled multiple times a week. We can even emulate Halden’s idea of an apartment-style family visit unit for extended visits – imagine a setup where an inmate nearing release can spend a weekend living in a supervised apartment with their family as a trial reintegration. Additionally, communication with the community will be fostered: we’ll have monitored email access, more frequent phone privileges, and perhaps controlled internet access for education and communication purposes (while ensuring security). Another innovative idea drawn from the “justice hub” concept: design parts of the building to be shared with the public at certain times. For instance, the facility could include a floor with a gym or basketball court and a small indoor garden that is used by inmates during the day, but could host community recreation leagues or therapy gardening workshops in evenings for the public. Or a ground-floor café or art gallery operated as a social enterprise where carefully selected residents work alongside staff, and neighborhood residents can drop in. These kinds of blurring of “prison” and “community” space, as radical as they sound, are being discussed by forward-thinking architects and criminologists. The idea is to “reduce the fear and stigma” by making correctional facilities part of the community fabric rather than isolated fortresses. When done carefully, this can also give residents pride and real-world work experience. Milwaukee’s facility can be a national prototype of this community-integrated approach, showing that a correctional center can contribute to the neighborhood rather than detract from it.

The Norwegian model teaches us that culture and environment matter greatly in determining how inmates behave. If you treat prison as a “factory of despair” (as Rikers Island was called), you churn out despairing people. If you build a culture of respect and hope, you cultivate people who have self-respect and hope for their futures. Our mission is to build that culture right here in Milwaukee.

A Skyscraper of Second Chances: Designing a Vertical Rehab Facility

One might ask: why build this facility as a 20-story skyscraper in East Town? Why not a low-slung campus on the outskirts? There are several compelling reasons. First, land and location. The vacant lot at North Van Buren Street and East Kilbourn Avenue is one of the last undeveloped parcels in downtown’s East Town neighborhood, a site that has been crying out for a new use for years. In fact, the city has previously approved high-rise developments on this very site – at one point a 37-story apartment tower was proposed, and more recently a 21-story mixed-use building was greenlit. The project didn’t move forward, leaving us with a prime empty lot. We have the opportunity to put this land to work for public good in a way that aligns with the surrounding urban fabric. East Town is accustomed to tall buildings; sleek residential and office towers dot the skyline here, and just a block away stands the 25-story Ascent tower (the world’s tallest timber building). A 20-story institutional building would not be out of place. On the contrary, activating that corner with a dynamic civic structure could enhance the neighborhood by removing an eyesore (the empty lot) and bringing 24/7 activity to the area.

Secondly, building vertically allows us to embed this facility in the city it serves. Justice should be as local as possible. Currently, when Milwaukee residents are convicted of felonies, they often get shipped to state prisons hours away – Green Bay, Waupun, or farther. Family members without cars struggle to visit. Employers and reentry counselors in Milwaukee lose touch with inmates before release. The whole process creates a huge disconnect between the offender and his or her home community. By locating a corrections program downtown, we ensure that Milwaukee’s offenders serve their time in Milwaukee. They will remain literally and figuratively closer to home, making eventual reintegration smoother. They can build release plans that involve local employers, local housing, and support networks here. It’s also symbolically important: it shows that we as a city are taking ownership of our own challenges. We’re not banishing our problem to some remote fortress; we’re confronting it in our midst and working to solve it. This transparency can foster trust – the facility can be open to oversight and even public visitors or tours, showcasing that we have nothing to hide in how we treat people.

Now, designing a high-rise correctional facility does come with challenges. Traditional prisons are sprawling, one-story complexes surrounded by yards and fences. How do we translate that into a vertical format without losing humane features? We can start by learning from past examples of vertical jails – including what not to do. In the 1970s, the federal government built a handful of high-rise jails such as the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in downtown Chicago, a 28-story triangular tower. While innovative for its time, the MCC was essentially a concrete silo – tiny 5-inch wide slit windows (to prevent escape or overlooking neighbors) and only a cramped rooftop exercise area. Inmates there have described it as a high-rise dungeon, lacking fresh air and any semblance of normal life. We will avoid those mistakes by utilizing modern architectural solutions. For instance, instead of narrow slits for windows, our facility can use tinted or frosted glass panels that allow abundant natural light while obscuring direct sight lines for privacy of neighbors. Windows can be designed high on the wall of each room – letting light in but not enabling a view out to nearby apartments. Advances in secure glass technology mean we can have large windows that are virtually unbreakable. As for outdoor space: rather than one tiny roof yard, we can create multiple outdoor terraces or indoor-outdoor hybrid spaces at different levels. Imagine a “sky courtyard” on, say, the 10th floor – an open-air rectangular terrace, enclosed with high-strength steel mesh or Plexiglas overhead and around, where residents can play basketball, tend garden planters, or simply feel the sun on their face. Several floors could have balcony-like recreation decks for fresh air, staggered up the building. We could also designate the entire rooftop as a secure outdoor park/exercise area, perhaps covered by a retractable roof for winter use. These design features would ensure that being in a tall building does not equate to being sealed in a concrete tomb. Yes, the footprint is limited, but by stacking functions vertically, we can actually dedicate more area to programming than many horizontal prisons do. Every floor is an opportunity: one level for a cafeteria that feels like a food court, one for workshops full of natural light, one for a library and computer lab with sweeping city views to remind residents of the world out there waiting for them.

Another concern with high-rise jails is movement of inmates – will people be stuck in elevators all day? We will mitigate this by smart vertical zoning inside. We can cluster living quarters in groups of floors so that interactions mostly occur within a few adjacent floors. Perhaps floors 5–8 form one “community” of 50 residents who live, dine, and do most activities there, while floors 9–12 are another community, and so on. Each community level could have its own small dining area, rec room, and classrooms, reducing the need to travel floor to floor constantly. Elevators would of course be secure and supervised, and a modern elevator system can move groups quickly. Stairwells can also be used (good exercise!) with proper monitoring. If designed well, a resident’s daily routine might involve only a couple elevator rides – say, going to a specialized workshop on a different level, or to a central medical clinic floor when needed. Proximity to the courthouse (about a mile away) is another benefit – perhaps we’d have a shuttle or even arrange virtual court appearances from a dedicated video courtroom in the building. The vertical design is a creative challenge, but not an insurmountable one. In fact, architects and planners have been actively debating how to humanize vertical jails in cities like New York, which is planning new high-rise jails to replace Rikers Island. Their studies emphasize designing these buildings to integrate with their surroundings – for example, giving the façade an attractive, civic building look rather than a brutalist wall. We will ensure Milwaukee’s facility is architecturally attractive, perhaps with glass and brick elements that echo nearby structures, and a street presence that might include public art or a small plaza. At the street level, we could incorporate community space – even retail. One could envision, say, a Milwaukee Public Library branch or a job training center occupying part of the ground floor open to the general public, which also serves the inmates upstairs at designated times. This blurs the line between “inside” and “outside” in a positive way, exactly as the Van Alen Institute’s Justice Hub concept recommends. If a passerby walked by this building, they might not even immediately recognize it as a correctional facility – and that is by design. We want it to feel like part of the neighborhood, not a forbidden zone. Safety is maintained through technology (e.g. secure entry vestibules, surveillance cameras, electronic locks) rather than ominous razor wire and guard towers.

Crucially, the East Town zoning and regulatory framework can accommodate this project. The site would likely need a zoning change or special use permit, as a correctional facility is not a typical use in a commercial downtown district. However, Milwaukee has mechanisms for this. The Common Council can create a Detailed Planned Development (DPD) for the site, as it has done in the past when approving high-rises there. In 2019, the City Plan Commission reviewed and the Council approved a DPD for a 21-story apartment tower on this exact block, demonstrating the city’s willingness to adapt zoning for large projects. We would follow a similar process: engage with the Department of City Development, present detailed plans emphasizing how the building will function and benefit Milwaukee, and go through public hearings. It helps that the land is currently vacant and underutilized – there are no residents to displace, and it’s not a historic property that would raise preservation issues. We will, of course, need to be sensitive to nearby uses. East Town includes residential condominiums, hotels, and businesses. Part of our design and planning commitment will be ensuring that the facility does not create nuisances. For example, we’ll manage any outdoor lighting to avoid glare, we won’t have loudspeaker announcements audible outside, and any exterior signage or appearance will be modest and respectful. Traffic impact should be minimal – this isn’t a huge jail with hundreds of daily visitors like a courthouse; it’s a controlled facility with a stable population. Visitor parking can be arranged in nearby garages (perhaps partnering with the adjacent parking structure). We can even offer to include some public parking or amenities as a community benefit in the development, which would help smooth zoning approvals.

From a legal framework perspective, siting the facility downtown could actually simplify some logistics. It’s close to key justice infrastructure: the Milwaukee County Courthouse and Safety Building (where courts and the Sheriff’s office are) are about a 15-minute walk or 5-minute drive. The Milwaukee Police Department headquarters and District 1 station are also downtown, meaning emergency response to the site is readily available. The proximity to hospitals (e.g. Aurora Sinai about a mile away) is also a plus in case of medical emergencies. Being in the heart of the city ensures that the facility and its residents are not isolated from support networks – local nonprofits, workforce development agencies, and faith groups can easily access the facility to provide programming or mentorship. Public transportation is excellent downtown, so staff and visitors alike can reach it without issue.

In summary, the vertical design is not a compromise – it’s an opportunity. It forces us to innovate and pack rehabilitation features into a compact footprint, potentially making a model that other cities could copy when they too have limited land. Milwaukee can show how to build “up” instead of “out” in criminal justice, reflecting the reality that our urban challenges must be solved within urban spaces. By integrating this skyscraper of second chances into East Town, we send a message that justice is not exiled to the hinterlands; it’s part of our everyday city life. And by doing so, we destigmatize and demystify the justice process. Imagine downtown office workers or college students knowing that in that tall building across the street, people are working hard to turn their lives around – it reinforces a culture of rehabilitation citywide. It builds empathy. It reminds us that those folks in orange (or in our case, perhaps grey sweatshirts and jeans) are Milwaukeeans too, working to earn a second chance.

Local Control of Justice: Legal Pathways for Milwaukee’s M-Felonies

A transformative facility alone is not enough; we also need the legal authority and framework for Milwaukee to operate this rehabilitation-oriented justice program. Currently, under Wisconsin law, almost all felonies are prosecuted by county District Attorneys (state officials) and all felony convicts are in the custody of the state Department of Corrections. So, how can the City of Milwaukee prosecute and house “M-Felonies” – our term for targeted mid-level felonies like robbery, burglary, aggravated battery, and assault (excluding the most heinous crimes such as homicide, sexual assault, and gun offenses)? The answer lies in innovative governance and partnership. We will pursue a combination of legislative changes and intergovernmental agreements to carve out a special role for the city in handling these cases.

One approach is to seek a pilot program authorization from the State of Wisconsin. The idea would be to work with our state legislators and the Governor to draft a bill allowing Milwaukee to have concurrent jurisdiction, or even exclusive original jurisdiction, over a defined list of felony offenses committed within the city limits. This could be framed as a 5- or 10-year pilot project, evaluating outcomes in terms of recidivism and public safety. Essentially, the state would be saying: for these specific crimes (e.g. second-degree robbery, non-domestic aggravated assault, burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, etc.), the City Attorney or a specially designated City Prosecutor’s office may prosecute the case in a municipal division of the circuit court, and any sentence of incarceration can be served in a City of Milwaukee Corrections Program rather than a state prison. The legislation would spell out the criteria (perhaps limited to offenders with no prior violent felonies, or sentences not exceeding a certain length, etc., to target those who are most reformable). Importantly, the bill should also allow state funding to follow the inmate – meaning some portion of what the state would have spent to incarcerate that person in a state prison is instead provided to Milwaukee’s program. This is not unprecedented: states often fund county-level alternatives (for example, many states have community corrections acts that send money to counties to supervise lower-level felons locally). In our case, since we are adding a function to the city that normally is county/state, we’ll need that funding stream. We already have a related example in the works – the state’s plan to build a new juvenile corrections facility in Milwaukee. In 2022, Governor Evers signed legislation providing $42 million for a new youth prison in Milwaukee, as part of the effort to close Lincoln Hills/Copper Lake youth facilities. The Milwaukee Common Council voted 11-1 to approve a site for it, showing local support when state resources are provided. That facility will still be state-run, but it sets a precedent of moving corrections into Milwaukee with the blessing and funding of the state. We can leverage that momentum and propose that an adult pilot be funded next – a collaboration where Milwaukee operates the program but with state oversight or partnership. After all, reduced recidivism benefits the state too, and freeing up state prison beds (by keeping M-Felons here) could eventually allow the state to downsize expensive prisons elsewhere. It’s a true win-win.

Another pathway is through Wisconsin’s strong home-rule tradition for cities. Milwaukee might assert that under home rule, it can create a parallel ordinance or legal process for these crimes, focusing on rehabilitation. For instance, the city could enact an ordinance that mirrors the elements of certain state felonies (robbery, burglary, etc.) and classify them as municipal offenses punishable by up to (for example) 3 years in the city corrections program. Normally municipalities can’t make something a crime that’s a state crime, but if the state consents or delegates that power in legislation, then it’s permissible. We would need to negotiate the details carefully to avoid constitutional issues, but it might be structured such that upon agreement of the defendant, the case is diverted to a municipal court track – essentially a voluntary opt-in to the city program in exchange for perhaps a capped sentence that’s shorter than what state law might impose. For example, a young man who commits a home burglary (with no occupants home) might ordinarily face a state prison term of 5 years. Under our program, we could offer him a plea to a city offense of “municipal felony burglary” with a sentence of, say, 2 years in the city rehab facility followed by 2 years of intensive community supervision. He might take that deal because it’s a shorter, more constructive sentence – and the DA might agree because it saves resources and likely produces a better outcome. Thus, with the defendant’s consent, Milwaukee could effectively handle the case entirely. This approach would require memoranda of understanding between the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office. Fortunately, both entities ultimately serve the same constituents (the people of Milwaukee), so we can cultivate cooperation. The city could employ or contract experienced criminal prosecutors for this division, ensuring that while our approach is rehabilitative, we still competently prosecute and establish accountability.

Legislatively, we may also need adjustments to the state statutes on sentencing to explicitly allow sentences to the city facility. Currently, if someone is convicted of a felony, a judge sentences them to either jail (typically up to 1 year, served locally) or prison (state for longer terms). We want judges to have the option of sentencing certain felons to the “Milwaukee Rehabilitation Facility” for terms longer than a year. That might be worded as: for designated offenses in Milwaukee, the court may commit the person to the custody of the Milwaukee Corrections Program (MCP) in lieu of state prison, provided the city program is certified by the Department of Corrections for that purpose. We would likely invite Wisconsin DOC to license or inspect our facility, to ensure state standards (like fire safety, health services, etc.) are met, giving state officials confidence to sign off. But crucially, Milwaukee would manage and staff it, giving us the flexibility to implement the Norwegian-inspired model free from some of the rigid DOC rules that govern state prisons. Perhaps a new Milwaukee Department of Rehabilitation and Correction would be created within city government to run it. This department could be overseen by a board including community members, formerly incarcerated individuals, and corrections experts to maintain transparency and mission focus.

Another legal aspect is funding and liability. Running a correctional facility is not cheap, and Milwaukee’s budget is already stretched. That’s why state partnership is key. Part of the legislative push will be to secure ongoing funding – maybe through a state grant or per diem for each inmate housed (for example, the state might pay the city $100 per day per offender, which is roughly what they spend now on incarceration, and the city would cover any additional cost to achieve the higher programming standards). If our program indeed reduces recidivism significantly, it will save the state money in the long run, which we can use as an argument for why they should fund it upfront. We may also explore federal grants; the U.S. Department of Justice has supported “Second Chance Act” programs and innovation in reentry. Milwaukee could become a national demonstration site and attract federal dollars or foundation grants (MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge, for example, funds local reforms). The legal framework should allow Milwaukee to accept such funds for this purpose.

In terms of legislation, we would likely need to lobby in Madison. This means building a coalition: Milwaukee’s Democratic legislators, perhaps some forward-looking Republicans who see the fiscal benefits, the Governor’s office, and community advocacy groups. It will be important to show broad local support – from the Common Council, the Mayor, maybe even the County (since the county might appreciate the city taking some burden off the overcrowded jail and HOC). We should involve stakeholders like judges and the District Attorney in planning, so they are on board when legislative hearings happen. The call to action to the public (which I’ll emphasize in closing) will include urging citizens to support these legislative changes.

One can imagine the legal groundwork being laid out as follows:

1. City Resolution – Milwaukee Common Council passes a resolution formally requesting authority from the state to pilot a local corrections program for M-Felonies, citing the public safety rationale and our readiness to build the facility.
2. State Legislation – A bill is introduced, say the “Milwaukee Community Corrections Pilot Act,” which authorizes the city’s jurisdiction in specific cases, allocates funding, and sets up oversight (perhaps a requirement for annual reports on recidivism and outcomes to the legislature). The bill might also authorize additional program elements like allowing the facility to operate certain community programs.
3. Agreements – Once legal authority is granted, a Memorandum of Understanding is signed between City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County (and the state DOC as needed) delineating how prisoners will be transferred, how records are shared, etc. (For example, a person arrested for an M-Felony by Milwaukee Police would still be booked in the Milwaukee County Jail initially, then at charging the DA or City Attorney decides if it’s a case for the city program, and if so, after conviction the person would be transferred to the city facility instead of a state prison. We’d work out those logistics carefully to avoid confusion.)
4. Judicial Buy-In – We might need an agreement with the Chief Judge of Milwaukee County that certain judges (or perhaps a dedicated Milwaukee Municipal Judge upgraded with felony jurisdiction) will handle the court proceedings for these cases. One idea: create a special Milwaukee Rehabilitation Court division, where judges are oriented to the rehabilitative sentencing goals and monitor progress (a bit like a drug court model, where judges stay involved). This could even involve post-sentencing check-ins – the judge might receive periodic progress reports on each individual in the program, and if someone is struggling or not participating, the judge could adjust conditions, much as problem-solving courts do.

While this may sound complex, it’s essentially extending what we already do on a smaller scale. Milwaukee Municipal Court today handles municipal ordinance violations and can impose certain penalties or programs. Milwaukee County’s Deferred Prosecution programs handle some felonies by diverting them to treatment if the DA allows. We are amplifying these concepts to a larger, structural level, with the city taking charge of a chunk of the justice system.

It is worth noting that giving Milwaukee more control could also address some racial equity issues. Right now, Milwaukee’s Black and brown communities suffer the brunt of state incarceration, often under policies shaped by people outside the city. By localizing control, we can innovate culturally competent programs. We can hire staff from the same communities as the inmates, tailor programs to urban realities, and ensure people aren’t uprooted from their cultural context while incarcerated. The Center for Popular Democracy’s recent report highlighted how Wisconsin’s system has been a “collective source of trauma” for Milwaukee’s Black neighborhoods. Our local program could be a step toward healing that – a home-grown solution where the community feels a sense of ownership and pride in reclaiming our people from the clutches of a punitive state system.

In sum, the legal and legislative path is navigable with political courage and collaboration. It boils down to this principle: Milwaukee should have the right to protect its own public safety through methods that Milwaukeeans believe in. If the state truly wants safer outcomes, it should enable its largest city to try a new approach when the old approaches are failing. We aren’t asking to go rogue; we’re asking to pilot something better, with appropriate checks and data to prove results. Ten years from now, if Milwaukee’s city-run program shows lower recidivism for M-Felons, perhaps the state will expand it elsewhere or adopt similar methods statewide. We’ll be trailblazers, but working within the law every step of the way.

Investing in Change: Costs and Benefits

Let’s address the practical question of costs: What will this skyscraper and program cost, and is it worth it? The project will indeed require a significant investment, but the returns – both financial and societal – make it a wise investment. We must consider both the direct fiscal costs and the broader cost-benefit analysis including reduced crime, productive citizens created, and neighborhoods stabilized.

Construction and Facility Costs: A modern 20-story building with specialized security features, educational facilities, and residential quarters will likely run into the tens of millions. For context, the Ascent tower (25-story mass timber residential building on the same site) reportedly cost around $128 million to develop. Our facility might cost in that ballpark or a bit more due to specialized needs (let’s estimate roughly $150 million as a working figure, which could be refined by architects). This sounds high, but keep in mind: traditional large prisons aren’t cheap either. For example, a new state prison can cost $300 million or more, especially when land acquisition and sprawling infrastructure are accounted for. Building vertical might actually contain some costs by using less land. Moreover, because our facility would prioritize quality construction (for humane environment), we should see it as a capital investment in the next several decades of safer Milwaukee. We could finance it through bonds, potentially revenue bonds if state funding per inmate is secured. Given the public purpose, we should also explore federal funding sources: perhaps stimulus funds for infrastructure or public-private partnerships. Milwaukee has savvy developers who might partner on construction if, say, we incorporate mixed-use elements (imagine if a private developer builds it and leases part of ground floor for commercial use while the city runs the upper floors – creative models exist). Maintenance and operations will also be significant – staffing a 24/7 rehab facility with high staff-to-inmate ratios (which we want for dynamic security) will be the biggest ongoing cost. However, many of these costs are already being incurred in a worse way: the state pays to incarcerate these individuals elsewhere, and Milwaukee pays in police and victim costs when they reoffend. By reallocating some of those expenditures to upfront rehab, we change when and how the money is used.

Savings from Reduced Recidivism: As detailed earlier, the Norwegian model more than pays for itself. Let’s apply a hypothetical to Milwaukee. Suppose our facility houses 300 residents at a time, and each stays on average 2 years. That’s 150 people completing the program each year. If we achieve even half the recidivism reduction Norway did – say we cut reoffense rates by 25–30 percentage points (e.g., from 60% down to 30%) – that means for every cohort of 150, about 45 fewer people return to crime who otherwise would have. Those 45 individuals avoiding reoffense translates into dozens of crimes prevented – potentially hundreds, since some offenders would commit multiple crimes in a relapse. Conservatively, if it prevents 45 burglaries/robberies/assaults, think of the costs saved: police investigation time (easily $5,000+ per incident), court and incarceration costs for those re-arrests (tens of thousands each), not to mention the human cost to victims (trauma, property loss, medical bills). Even one serious crime avoided (like a violent assault) can save society on the order of $100,000 when factoring the justice system and victim costs. So 45 fewer crimes could mean millions saved per year. Multiply that over a decade – now we’re talking on the order of tens of millions in avoided costs, offsetting construction expenses.

There is also the economic benefit of turning lives around. Each individual who leaves our program and gets a stable job contributes to the economy rather than draining it. Recall that Norway found ex-convicts from their system had a 40% higher employment likelihood. Milwaukee’s program will focus heavily on job readiness, and we could expect similar gains. If a person goes from unemployed and possibly on public assistance or hustling in illegal economies to holding a $35,000/year job, that’s a huge swing. They pay taxes, they spend money in the community, maybe they support a family. Over years, each rehabilitated person could contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars of economic output. When we talk about 150 people a year, even if only, say, 50 of them achieve lasting employment that they wouldn’t have otherwise, that’s an economic boost to Milwaukee in salaries and taxes. There’s also a social ROI: families remain intact (incarceration often plunges families into poverty – avoiding that keeps families off welfare, etc.), children with parents not cycling in and out of prison are more likely to succeed in school, and so forth. These are harder to quantify but very real.

Urban Reinvestment and Neighborhood Impact: Placing this facility at Van Buren & Kilbourn also has local economic impacts. Construction will create union jobs, with hundreds of workers over a couple of years – an infusion of activity for our construction sector. Once operational, the facility will employ a sizable staff: correctional officers, counselors, teachers, doctors, maintenance crews, admin. We could be looking at 200+ good-paying jobs (and we would prioritize local hiring, perhaps requiring a percentage of employees to come from within the city). These employees will eat at local restaurants, shop downtown, maybe live nearby, contributing to East Town’s vitality. The visitors coming for family visits might frequent cafes or stores in the area (though visitation is not like a convention, it still brings some foot traffic). The presence of a modern civic building could spur further development – for instance, maybe a nearby lot becomes attractive for a coffee shop or community center to cater to people associated with the facility. Instead of a dead zone, that corner becomes a locus of purposeful activity.

We should also consider justice reinvestment – a concept where savings from reduced incarceration are plowed back into the community. As our program proves effective, Milwaukee can advocate that some of the money the state saves from closing prison beds be returned to fund community programs in high-crime neighborhoods (the very neighborhoods our participants come from). This could mean more funding for schools, youth programs, mental health clinics, and affordable housing in Milwaukee’s inner city. By demonstrating success, we build the case for that reinvestment. It’s a virtuous cycle: fewer prisoners -> savings -> invest in prevention -> even fewer crimes -> and so on.

Opportunity Cost of Doing Nothing: While tallying costs, we must acknowledge the cost of maintaining the status quo. Right now, what does it “cost” us to funnel a young person who made a terrible mistake into a distant prison where he spends 5 years learning nothing except maybe how to be a more hardened criminal? It costs us public safety when he returns with no change and perhaps more anger. It costs us morally when we effectively give up on people rather than help them. And it costs us the productivity and potential of that person. Milwaukee has lost too much human potential to the revolving door of prison. We’ve lost potential entrepreneurs, workers, fathers and mothers, community leaders even – because our system wrote them off after one or two mistakes. Let’s imagine one participant in our program – perhaps a 20-year-old who was involved in a robbery. Instead of sitting in Oshkosh Correctional Institution bitterly for 4 years, he comes to our facility for 2 years. He finishes his high school diploma there, gets cognitive-behavior therapy to address impulsive thinking, trains as an apprentice in carpentry, and reconnects with his family through counseling sessions. When he leaves, he’s placed in a job with a local construction firm (maybe one that helped train him) and continues to get support from a city reentry social worker. He never reoffends. Over the next 10 years, he works his way up, maybe even starts a small contracting business, mentors younger guys away from trouble, and raises a family. That one turnaround story multiplies: his kids grow up without stigma, his coworkers and neighbors see an example of success, and taxpayers benefit because he’s contributing instead of consuming tax dollars in prison. Now imagine dozens of those stories. How do we measure that payoff? It is immense and generational.

Sure, not everyone will be a perfect success – some will stumble, some may reoffend. Rehabilitation is not 100% guaranteed. But even if we reduce failure by a significant margin, the benefits far outweigh the cost. And beyond numbers, this is about Milwaukee’s values. Do we value our fellow citizens enough to invest in their turnaround? I say yes. We pride ourselves on being a city of neighborhoods and community – and community means we don’t throw people away. There is also a fairness element: for too long, it is Milwaukee’s poorest zip codes that supply the majority of inmates to Wisconsin’s prisons, essentially exporting our problems. Those same neighborhoods see little return on the billions spent on incarceration. This plan effectively says, “Let’s take that money and spend it smarter, right here, where the problems originate, to actually fix them.”

Finally, let’s consider long-term sustainability. If Milwaukee can show a reduction in crime due to this program, that has huge economic implications: property values stabilizing in high-crime areas, attracting businesses to neighborhoods once avoided, reducing healthcare costs from violent injuries, etc. Public safety is the foundation for economic growth. So any upfront spending to improve safety via reduced recidivism is arguably a direct investment in Milwaukee’s economic future. Companies are more likely to invest in a city that is proactive and innovative about tackling crime. We could become known nationally not for our incarceration rate, but for our innovation in justice. That reputational boost can attract grants, talent (perhaps criminologists and social entrepreneurs will flock here to be part of the change), and even tourism in a sense (people coming to see our model facility, attend conferences on justice reform, etc.). All of that has intangible but real value.

In conclusion on cost-benefit: we will absolutely be responsible stewards of public funds, seeking cost efficiencies (like using energy-efficient design, sharing resources with the county where possible, etc.). But we won’t short-change the necessary spending on quality programs, because that is what yields the payoff. As one analysis put it succinctly: better correctional programs aren’t a naïve luxury; they are actually less expensive in the long run because they work. Milwaukee’s taxpayers deserve results for their money – and results are what this approach will deliver, in safer streets and restored lives.

Addressing Public Concerns and Fears

It is natural for people to have concerns about a proposal this ambitious. Change can be unsettling, especially when it involves crime and punishment, issues that hit close to home. I want to address some of the anticipated public concerns head-on – with facts, evidence, and an understanding of the emotions involved. This plan will only succeed with community support, and that means listening to fears and responding with both reassurance and tangible solutions.

“Not In My Backyard!” – Neighborhood Safety and Image: Perhaps the most immediate concern from East Town residents or businesses might be: Do we really want a jail in our upscale downtown? Won’t it be dangerous or at least a blight on the area? I empathize with this concern. No one wants to feel unsafe where they live or work. However, I firmly believe that this facility will not compromise neighborhood safety or property values – in fact, it can enhance them. First, remember that the people housed here are already in our community. These offenders are Milwaukeeans who, if not in this facility, would either be in a state prison (temporarily, before returning here) or potentially on our streets committing crimes. Housing them in a secure building does not create criminals; it contains and reforms those who exist. There is a big difference between a correctional facility and, say, a homeless shelter or drug treatment clinic that neighbors sometimes worry about. Our residents will be securely confined at all times when they are supposed to be. This is not an open halfway house where people come and go. Escapes from secure facilities are exceedingly rare, and we will design this building with state-of-the-art security (without it looking like a fortress). Key card systems, surveillance cameras, and controlled entry points will make unauthorized egress virtually impossible. Downtown Milwaukee already has some correctional institutions nearby – for example, the Milwaukee County Jail (near 9th and State) and the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (at 10th and State). Those facilities, while not popular, have operated for years with minimal impact on downtown commerce or safety. One could walk by MSDF and not even realize what it is. Our facility, being new and purpose-built, will be even less obtrusive and more secure.

From a visual and community standpoint, we are committed to avoiding the look of a stereotypical jail. There will be no barbed wire, no looming guard towers, nothing that screams “prison.” As mentioned, the architecture will be contextual and attractive. We want neighbors to feel proud that their community is hosting a pioneering institution that solves problems. We will engage with the local neighborhood association and stakeholders during design – maybe incorporate public art on the facade or a small gallery inside that residents can visit, to make it an asset rather than an eyesore. Recall that initial images of New York’s proposed jail towers caused backlash because they looked like “brutish concrete silos” looming over the street. We will do the opposite: a design that could be mistaken for a modern university building or tech campus. Think glass, think some greenery (vertical green walls, planters), think a welcoming lobby for visitors. We want this to humanize, not stigmatize, the area.

Another point: the facility’s function is to reduce crime, and that directly benefits neighbors. If you live or work nearby, you can feel safer knowing that 300 people who might otherwise be out committing thefts or robberies are instead under supervision and becoming better citizens. And when they leave, they are far less likely to victimize anyone. In the long run, East Town and all Milwaukee neighborhoods should see lower crime rates as a payoff. We will track and publicize those outcomes, so people know this isn’t just lofty talk – it’s making a difference.

Property value impact is often raised. Studies have shown that well-run public facilities (even jails) often do not harm property values if they are properly integrated. Since our building will not generate late-night noise, pollution, or high traffic, it’s akin to having a government office building next door. In fact, we could beautify the streetscape around that corner, working with the city to improve lighting, sidewalks, maybe add a mural. With staff and visitors coming, it might even increase daytime foot traffic to support local cafés. I’d also note that doing nothing with that lot has a cost too – empty, fenced lots can drag an area down. Filling it with a vibrant, purposeful building can boost the sense of community.

Cost to Taxpayers: Another concern: Can we afford this? Are you raising my taxes for a fancy prison? I addressed the cost-benefit earlier, but let me reassure: this is not going to be funded by suddenly hiking property taxes on homeowners. We will seek a combination of funding sources, including state and federal. We will phase the project sensibly – for instance, maybe start by renovating an existing building as a pilot if needed (though the preferred plan is new construction for full effect). And any local investment will be justified by savings. I’d ask taxpayers: Are you happy with how your money is currently spent on corrections? Wisconsin spends over a billion dollars a year on prisons with mediocre results. Milwaukee taxpayers indirectly foot that bill (through state taxes) and directly foot the bill for endless police and emergency responses to repeat crimes. Our plan is to spend smarter, not necessarily more. Even if there are upfront costs, the long-term savings in policing, court cases, and victim losses are enormous. Moreover, as noted, improved public safety spurs economic growth which broadens the tax base in the long run, keeping taxes lower for everyone.

There is also a moral argument on cost: If something isn’t working, pouring any money into it is wasting money. Right now, a system that sees 60% recidivism is wasting our money. If we have a chance to cut that in half, we are ethically obligated to try, because it’s a better return on each dollar spent. I will fight to ensure that we capture those savings and reinvest them in Milwaukee (not have them siphoned elsewhere). The community should see tangible returns such as fewer crimes and also budgetary relief over time. Imagine if in a decade Milwaukee’s jail and prison populations drop so much that we can close a section of the jail or reduce spending on law enforcement overtime; those funds could go to parks, schools, or even tax relief.

“Soft on Criminals” – Public Safety Concerns: Some people might object on a gut level: These are criminals who did harm. Why give them nicer conditions and so much help? Isn’t this coddling them and ignoring victims? This is an important emotional concern. I want to make one thing absolutely clear: accountability remains central in this approach. Those who commit crimes will still be arrested, convicted, and serve a sentence that deprives them of their liberty. The difference is in how they serve that sentence to ensure it actually leads to changed behavior. Our facility does not equate to “getting off easy.” In fact, some offenders might find a highly structured, introspective rehabilitative program more challenging than just sitting in a cell watching time pass. They will be expected to confront their mistakes, to apologize and make amends, to work every day on self-improvement. That is hard work. It’s much easier to be bitter and idle in a cell than to wake up at 7 AM for a full day of classes, therapy, and job training that forces you to rethink your life. We should frame it as “tough on crime’s causes.” We are being tough on what causes crime – lack of skills, lack of self-control, addiction – by attacking those problems relentlessly.

Victims’ voices are important. Many victims, once their immediate desire for justice is met, do not wish the same harm on others that they suffered. What most victims ultimately want is to know that no one else will have to go through what they did. They want to be the last victim. Our program offers the best promise of that, by ensuring the offender does not create a new victim in the future. If we just lock someone up in a degrading environment, they might come out more dangerous – meaning someone else down the line gets victimized. That is not justice; that’s a cycle of pain. Instead, if we can transform that person such that there are no more victims, that is the best service we can do to honor the original victim’s suffering – to prevent it from happening again. I would also consider involving victims (where appropriate) in the rehabilitation process. Some victims find healing in participating in restorative justice dialogues, hearing sincere apologies, and seeing the offender change. Knowing that the person who harmed them is making restitution by improving and perhaps eventually contributing positively to society can be more satisfying than knowing they sat in a cell accomplishing nothing. Of course, not all victims will feel this way and none would be forced to engage – but we will not “ignore” victims. Restitution (financial or symbolic) will be part of our program. Also, a safer community benefits past victims too – they live here as well and don’t want crime around.

It’s also worth noting that our focus is not on the worst of the worst. We are not talking about coddling serial killers or repeat gun offenders. Those will remain in state facilities under conventional measures. We are targeting those who are at a crossroads – those who, if given the right intervention, can turn either way. This is the smart place to intervene. As for being “soft,” one might recall the famous phrase “nothing works” from the 1970s cynicism about rehabilitation. That mindset led to mass incarceration and ultimately higher crime in many areas, proving itself wrong. Even the originator of “nothing works” retracted it, admitting that properly run programs do work. We have decades more evidence now that certain approaches (education, cognitive therapy, etc.) reduce recidivism by significant percentages. So it would be “soft-headed,” in my view, to ignore evidence just to look “tough.” Real toughness means facing the problem and solving it, not just posturing with harsh rhetoric.

NIMBY and Community Input: I want to assure East Town and all Milwaukee residents that there will be a transparent, inclusive public input process. Before anything is built, there will be public hearings (as required by zoning) and we will hold community meetings. I want to listen to the neighborhood’s ideas on design and operation. For example, residents might say “we want to ensure there’s adequate parking” or “how about adding a little police substation or safety office within the building for extra presence.” We can incorporate reasonable requests. If security is a worry, we might station some additional police patrols in the area during initial months to ease minds (though I doubt it will be needed long-term). If people worry about loitering by released inmates or visitors, we can create comfortable indoor waiting areas so people aren’t hanging around outside. Also, keep in mind the scale: this isn’t a Rikers with thousands of people. It’s a few hundred at most, and their visitors will trickle in in small numbers (especially since many are local, they won’t all come on the same day for long trips). We can schedule and manage visitation so it’s not a rush.

For those whose gut reaction is discomfort, I ask you to also see the pride and progress angle. Milwaukee can be the first U.S. city to boast a modern, humane, effective justice center of this kind. We’ll be in the news for the right reasons. Residents can say, “Yes, that’s in my backyard – and I’m glad my city is leading the way.” It can actually become a point of civic pride that we took a stand to fix a broken system. Already, community leaders and activists have been pushing for such change. Reports have condemned the current system’s harms and recommended investing in communities and oversight. This project is a concrete manifestation of those recommendations.

Emotional and Ethical Appeal: Finally, I want to address the emotional heart of this. Fear is a natural reaction to crime. We fear being hurt, we fear our loved ones being hurt. We also fear change, because what if it makes things worse? I acknowledge that fear, but I counter it with hope and trust. Hope that we can actually reduce the very thing we fear by trying something new. Trust in our fellow human beings’ capacity to change, and trust in our community’s ability to manage this change responsibly. Milwaukee is not the first to try a humane approach – we have the shining example of Norway, but also smaller examples at home like North Dakota’s success where a man in their program said “I feel like I’m somewhere bettering myself” instead of just being punished. That is a sentiment we want to hear from people here, because a person bettering themselves is a person not hurting others.

There is also a matter of justice equity. For too long, it has seemed that there are “two Milwaukees” – one that benefits from downtown development and nice amenities, and another that fills the jail and prison. This project in some ways bridges that divide. We are saying that even those who stumbled deserve a place in the heart of our city, literally and figuratively, to be restored. It’s a statement that everyone in Milwaukee counts. We won’t relegate you to an invisible corner. This can build community unity. Imagine church groups “adopting” floors or volunteering in mentorship programs at the facility, downtown professionals coming to teach a class on entrepreneurship to residents, universities sending interns to learn and help – it could forge connections that make our city more cohesive. Crime has a way of isolating and dividing us; rehabilitation at the community level can bring us together around a project of uplift.

In discussions, some neighbors might express: “I’m worried, but I also see the system isn’t working – I had a break-in last year by someone who had been in and out of jail. I’m tired of it.” To them I say: we are tired of it too, and that’s why we’re doing this. This plan is precisely to stop that revolving door so you won’t have that break-in next time. I also remind everyone: this facility’s residents are not monsters, they are mostly young men and women who made bad choices. Many of them themselves were victims earlier in life – of abuse, of neglect, of systemic injustices. That doesn’t excuse their crimes, but it means there’s a human being there worth saving. If we as a city can’t extend a hand to them, who will? And if not now, when? We have an opening in public discourse right now, a growing recognition on both sides of the political aisle that mass incarceration needs rethinking. Milwaukee can seize this moment.

Conclusion: A Call to Leadership and Community Action

This campaign is about more than building a facility – it’s about building public trust and a safer, more just future. By supporting a rehabilitation-focused skyscraper corrections facility and the legal reforms to empower it, we are choosing leadership over complacency. We are choosing to shape the future we want for Milwaukee rather than accept the failures of the past.

As your candidate for alderman, I am asking for your trust – trust that we can make visionary ideas into practical reality, and trust that our community can come together to support bold solutions. I do not make this proposal lightly. I make it because I have listened to constituents who are fed up with both crime and the ineffectiveness of our responses to crime. I’ve spoken to the mother in Harambee whose son was incarcerated at 18 for a stupid mistake and came out at 22 with no support and quickly reoffended. I’ve spoken to the small business owner downtown who has been robbed twice and says, “What will it take to stop this endless cycle?” I’ve talked with police officers who respond to the same people over and over, and they themselves say, “We arrest them, but nothing changes.” This plan speaks to all of them. To the mother, it says: we will give your son a real second chance to turn his life around, close to home. To the business owner, it says: we have a strategy to prevent that third robbery by fixing the person who would do it. To the officers, it says: your work will not be in vain; when you bring someone in, we’ll actually correct the behavior, not just warehouse it temporarily. And to the community and taxpayers at large, it says: we value results over rhetoric, and people over failed policies.

I recall the words of Chantell Jewell, the superintendent of our Community Reintegration Center: “Incarceration is only one part of the response to community safety… We also have to ensure resources to rehabilitate residents. Our goal is to create safer communities and create less victims.” That encapsulates the ethos of this project. We want less victims – that is something we all, regardless of politics, can rally behind. Every prevented crime means one less trauma in a neighbor’s life. How often do political ideas promise that kind of direct benefit?

I also invoke Milwaukee’s tradition of innovation. We were the first city to implement many forward-thinking ideas in governance and social support during the Progressive Era. We are a city that pioneered public health initiatives and social security ideas. Let us now pioneer “urban rehabilitation justice.” Let Milwaukee be the city that proves America doesn’t have to choose between safety and humanity – we can have both. In fact, the truest public safety is achieved through humanity.

To get there, I need your help. I need you – the voter, the neighbor, the stakeholder – to lend your voice to this cause. Talk to your friends and family about this proposal. If you find yourself persuaded that this makes sense, explain it to those who might be skeptical. Often people’s initial reaction to “Norway-style prison” is disbelief, but when they hear the logic and the data – that it actually produces far fewer crimes – they come around. Share the statistics: tell them Wisconsin’s recidivism is nearly 70% while Norway’s is 20%, and ask which outcome they’d prefer. Share the simple moral logic: “We’re releasing neighbors every year – do you want them back as better people or worse?”.

Contact your state legislators and the Governor’s office. Let them know you support giving Milwaukee this opportunity. When the legislative session takes up criminal justice reforms, make sure Milwaukee’s pilot program is on the agenda. As your aldermanic representative (if elected), I will champion this in City Hall and collaborate with our delegation in Madison, but your voices amplify mine. A chorus of constituents saying “We want a safer, smarter approach” will carry weight.

Support the zoning and funding when they come up for local vote. There will be public meetings – come and speak in favor. Often, officials only hear the few loud opponents; we need the supportive majority to be vocal too. If you live in East Town or nearby, your endorsement will particularly matter to alleviate any lingering fears.

Hold us accountable. If this program is implemented, we will closely monitor outcomes and share them transparently – I promise regular reports to the community on recidivism rates, success stories, and yes, any challenges we encounter. If something isn’t working, we will tweak it. Your input won’t stop once the building is built; community oversight boards or advisory committees can be formed to keep the program on track. This ensures public trust that this isn’t some unchecked experiment – it’s a community endeavor, with community eyes on it.

In closing, let’s cast our gaze to the future we could have: Picture Milwaukee in 10 or 15 years. The vacant lot at Van Buren and Kilbourn is now the Milwaukee Rehabilitation and Justice Center, a bright addition to our skyline. Inside its walls, hundreds of men and women have found a path away from crime – earning degrees, certifications, and self-worth. Our city’s crime statistics have improved as repeat offenses plummet. Neighborhoods from East Town to the North Side feel the difference as more and more returning citizens come back as contributors, not threats. Milwaukee becomes a model for the nation; delegations from other cities and countries visit our facility to learn about our “Milwaukee Model,” just as we once visited Halden Prison for inspiration. We’ll proudly show them a common room where inmates and staff are having a weekly game night, or a workshop where they’re rebuilding old bikes to donate to kids – scenes of normal life and service that you’d never expect in a “jail.” We’ll show them the floor where a community college instructor is teaching a coding class to residents alongside a couple of interested community members, both groups learning together. We’ll walk them past the lobby art exhibit that features paintings created by residents, which local downtown gallery owners come to admire. And we’ll show them data – charts on the wall highlighting recidivism at 25%, 20%, maybe even trending toward that 16% of Bastøy. We’ll introduce them to program graduates who might even work in the building now as peer mentors or staff – living proof of change. Milwaukee will be known not for its struggles, but for its solutions.

That future is within our grasp. It will take courage, investment, and collaboration to get there. But I have faith in Milwaukee. We are a city of industrious, big-hearted people. When we see a problem, we roll up our sleeves and fix it. It’s time to fix our justice system at the local level, with local ingenuity. Public safety and human dignity are not mutually exclusive – they are mutually reinforcing, and together they form the foundation of a just and vibrant city.

I ask for your support – for this vision and for my candidacy – so we can make Milwaukee safer, fairer, and more united. Let’s build this 20-story beacon of second chances and show what true forward-thinking leadership looks like. The cost of inaction is too high, and the rewards of success are too great to pass up. Join me in making Milwaukee a city where public safety is achieved through opportunity and hope, not just through punishment. Together, we will create a legacy of which we can all be proud: a Milwaukee that leads with both strength and compassion, ensuring a brighter future for every single neighbor, on every single block.

Let’s turn this bold idea into reality – for the sake of public trust, for the sake of equity, and for the sake of our shared future. The work starts now. Thank you for believing in this vision and for taking action to support it. Milwaukee’s next chapter can be one of redemption and renewal – and we will write it together.

Sources:

• Norway’s recidivism rate is about 20%, dramatically lower than the ~60% rate in the U.S., thanks to its focus on humane rehabilitation.
• Economists found Norway’s approach, though costly per inmate, saves society twice the expense in reduced reoffending and increased employment of ex-prisoners. Fewer new crimes also mean fewer victims – an invaluable outcome.
• Dynamic security and normalization in prisons (guards building positive relationships, life inside mirroring life outside) are key to Norway’s success. Treating inmates with dignity – e.g. allowing voting, education, family visits – is linked to easier reentry and lower reoffense.
• Milwaukee County’s own correctional leader notes that simply locking people up without rehabilitation does not improve safety; resources must address root causes to “create safer communities and less victims”.
• New York City’s plan for borough-based high-rise jails shows that if designed well to integrate with surroundings and provide community facilities, urban justice centers can reduce stigma and improve conditions for inmates and neighborhoods.
• The vacant East Town lot at Van Buren/Kilbourn has long been slated for a high-rise; city approvals were given for 19, 21, even 37-story towers on that site. A civic facility would fit the scale and fulfill the goal of activating that prominent downtown corner.
• In 2022, state leaders funded a new youth prison in Milwaukee with $42 million, and the Common Council approved the site 11-1, showing local willingness to host correctional facilities when they promise better outcomes than the status quo.
• Wisconsin’s incarceration of Black residents (especially from Milwaukee) is egregiously high – Black Wisconsinites are imprisoned at 11.8 times the rate of whites, mostly from Milwaukee’s north side. This has devastated communities and underscores the need for a different approach that Milwaukee can control.
• North Dakota’s Norway-inspired reforms demonstrate success: providing a more normal environment and supportive staff led incarcerated individuals to feel they were “bettering” themselves and helped reduce projected prison growth.
• A Milwaukee County program leader summed up our mission best: “Incarceration is only one part of the response… We have to ensure we have resources to rehabilitate… Our goal is to create safer communities and create less victims”. That is exactly what the city-run rehabilitative facility aims to do.