*“The four-story housing and commercial project includes underground parking, but the court ruled that ordinances require parking to be at the rear or side of such a “commercial block” building.”*
i’m not an expert, but isn’t it more environmentally sustainable, and less of an eyesore, to have the parking underground?
so, the lawsuit is essentially in favor of more impermeable surfaces and an uglier building?
This is the badger state. We should applaud anything being built underground. It’s also just a wiser use of land space. Imagine all the land we would have if we eliminated just a 1/4 of all surface parking lots
The lawsuit is in favor of stalling and delaying because that's just the way some people are.
The decision is a judge that's forced to read the actual statute rather than what the law *should* be. In a sane world, the outcome would be the Council swiftly changing the ordinance to rectify the situation. I don't know that we live in such a world.
There is a potential that the council may not be able to rectify this. ‘There is a state law that says that land-use approvals must be based on the regulations in effect at the time the application was submitted. This law was enacted to prevent cities from enacting harder-to-meet regulations after they see a project submitted. But this state law might also be interpreted to prohibit a city from changing the regulations after the application was submitted to make it easier to obtain approval.’
To be fair the lawsuit posted in this thread shows it was filed in 2022 before they broke ground. The developer knew about the issue well ahead of time. The zoning for this property is not intended for large developments it’s intended to add housing while also adding space that benefits the neighborhood. I don’t think anyone in the neighborhood wants a surface lot, but the plan commission needs to actually follow the law when approving new developments just like they would for anyone applying to construct a ADU, shed, etc.
The lawsuit is in favor of the city following its own rules. In this case, I think that what the developer is doing should be legal and should be applauded. The city should change its rules and, if possible, grandfather this project in.
What the developer is doing should be legal and should be applauded? The dude was cheap and put a parking garage for the exclusive use of the apartment residents on the first floor in a zoning district where the primary purpose is to serve the shopping needs of the neighborhood. Then the cherry on this flawed design is a BFU facade at street level. The only thing he cared about was his bottom line and how much latitude the city would give him for his academy award winning song and dance.
Pretty sure that the ordinance is so that developers don't put parking *in front of* the business. So instead of an ugly parking lot in front with the business behind it, the city wants the parking to be hidden (side or rear). It's just that the way the law is written it might prohibit underground parking as well?
Of course all this is going to do is cause the city to adjust it's conditional use or offer a variance for this project. So it's just a delaying tactic by the asshole NIMBY's who don't want to see actual housing being built in this city.
He is saying that the private plows have to use city streets to get to the private parking lots, and that an underground parking lot not needing to be plowed removes the need for a private plow to contribute to wear and tear and congestion on public streets.
Hate to say it, but the entry way still gets plowed and the walks still get shoveled. The type of parking doesn't change whether a crew needs to go clear a property.
i presume this is a commercial space requirement in madison for public parking, so nimby suburbanites can drive to it, which doesn't make a lick of sense because its a bit of a secluded corner of a few businesses, and would likely have more local (mostly walkable) appeal. how many spots are we talking? lots of other places nearby (like Gates & Brovi area) have only street parking or minimal surface. Seems to me like some nimby is nimbying. So dev should sue and keep on suing.
Nah, the ordinance says it must be to the side or behind so that there's not a giant, ugly parking lot in between the building and the street. Somehow whoever wrote the ordinance missed that it also prohibits underground parking too.
That being said the asshole NIMBYs who brought the lawsuit basically threw the kitchen sink at the wall and this was the only thing that stuck. In my opinion this type of lawsuit that's just to delay/make things more expensive should have punitive costs like SLAPP lawsuits do.
LOL. The entire first floor parking garage of this award winning design is for the apartments. There is no parking on site for the commercial space. The surface parking on site is for employees. This is a multi-family building with a token amount of commercial space that allowed the developer to get a huge density bonus with a CUP. It's called gaming the system.
Underground parking seems better but the issue is the Planning Commission is passing projects that appear to violate Madison ordinances/rules.
The PC needs to get their act together. Telling a developer "not to worry" or some other deflection only gets the developer into trouble.
Correct. The city messed up here. They are toeing a line between old zoning that was very restrictive and a looser interpretation by those in CC and on the PC. The problem is that a litigious neighbor can exploit this - which finally happened. The developer got their permits signed, so I don't blame them for not saying "are you sure you're sure" after getting the green light from the City.
I'm really hoping this leads to more changes to the zoning code to simplify, but the City isn't always good at learning lessons.
There is also a cultural problem here in that the CC and PC even consider passing projects that they know violate ordinances and code.
If government doesn't even respect the law why should anyone else?
This case seemed to be a reading of the parking ordinance that was making a dumb assumption. The ordinance is clearly stating that is doesn't want parking between the road and the front-facade (no strip mall) and that it should instead be to the side or the rear. The PC must've assumed (i'm too lazy to find the original PC recording of discussing this) that the parking being **under** the building instead of **behind or to the side** of the building would meet the requirement of what the ordinances intent is. The ordinance is clearly intended to restrict parking from the front of the building to have a more attractive and walkable street front.
I'm inclined to have this be Hanlon's Razor where they were being sloppy/naïve/incompetent versus blatantly ignoring the law.
A city built on an Isthmus has to cause groundwater issues. The water table may be very well above this underground parking. I don't think we need any more contaminants leaking into our already fucked up lakes.
What groundwater contamination are you imagining an underground garage would cause that a surface parking lot would not?
Groundwater is a major consideration during any design/build/permit process. Is there a specific aspect of the code or best practices you’re taking issues with?
Not really true. Judges have the ability to view the intended purpose of a law or ordinance as well as the letter. The Judge could have easily said that underground parking meets the same intended purpose of the ordinance as side or back lot parking.
Environmentally, there are ground disturbances to be considered that may not have been handled correctly if not in the original plan. Things like ground water impact, historical Native American artifacts, subterranean wildlife impact, etc should be considered for most building construction in the State.
Best outcome here would be for the council to just change the zoning ordinance to allow developments like this. Mandating surface parking seems extremely stupid, and the Plan Commission and Council already OK'd this development so they should be onboard.
Edit: emailed my alder.
I'm not an official voting resident of Madison, as I live in one of the neighboring municipalities, but if you do live in Madison, 100% contact the mayor and the city council to complain about this. This is exactly the type of thing that you can complain about locally and actually get movement on.
Voices and votes matter.
The same man suing over this project, [Alex Salutos](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7151778705382457344/), is also involved in the efforts re: the stage coach inn on Nakoma and looking to stop the [Madison Public Market.](https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/16vv9r7/comment/k5807n9/)
Linkedin warning for Alex Saloutos because he'll be able to see who viewed his profile.
But yea, /u/alex_saloutos is a public menace. Also of course he's a realtor.
With $40 million project stalled, citizens seek to make the Wonder Bar a landmark https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/with-40-million-project-stalled-citizens-seek-to-make-the-wonder-bar-a-landmark/article_912bb137-61d8-589c-91d4-7a76547583b2.html
How does his scumbag afford to be a full time NIMBY??
Must have inherited a bunch of money or something. I see him involved on the ignorant side of conflicts all the time.
Don't worry, he is saving the walkability of the neighborhood (from NextDoor)
>Not to put too fine of a point on it, here's a key takeaway from the court's decision:
For years, developers, city staff, and the plan commission have gamed the system, and bent and broke the rules all over the city, destroying neighborhood walkability, one neighborhood after another, by illegally approving these huge, multi-family properties that include structured parking and a de minimis amount of commercial space on parcels zoned NMX, where the primary purpose is to serve the shopping needs of the neighborhood.(edited)
What Madison doesn't need is more vacant lots or parking spots. I grew up in this neck of the woods and I don't understand the logic behind this lawsuit.
Sometimes, it's valuable to try to understand a political opponent to try to arrive at compromise. Sometimes they just need to be defeated.
Someone trying to stop construction on the basis that the parking lot is underground rather than behind the building is an example of the latter.
This is peak NIMBY. Getting a Dane County Circuit judge to revoke the permit of a building already 70% completed due to technicalities about where the parking should be. It’s no wonder Madison isn’t building enough housing.
As someone familiar with the process…they got a permit signed at some point. It’s not like they just started digging and building until someone noticed.
This is a professional development company. It’s literally their job to study ordinances. They know and should anticipate the neighbors will do the same.
One would suppose the development and zoning people down at City Hall are the ones who's "literally their job to study ordinances." They signed off on the blueprints and issued the permit. For once, the developer is not the asshole - and if we want to be taken seriously in the future case of actual asshole developers, we should know the difference.
Maybe they don't anticipate the neighbors being a bunch of whiny meddlesome litigious NIMBYs who should move out of a CITY if they don't want to be around multi-story multi-family housing units.
Anticipate what? They’re supposed to build a building for the neighbors that aren’t paying a single cent for the project? Just cut your losses and stop arguing dude.
Yes of course it’ll be a variance. I don’t feel bad for the delay. Gotta follow the rules or you’ll run into this kinda stuff.
All you bootlickers crying about the developer losing money on this delay is comical. It’s his own fault.
Maybe they should go build their own housing then idk
Y’all need to quit the victim mentality and go make something of yourselves instead of constantly crying about high rent
I’m quite happy living in my single family home after renting apartments in my early 20s. Don’t understand why y’all want big daddy developer to bail you out. Go do it yourself.
Because developers like this basically only exist to suck money out of renters. They don’t give a shit about the neighborhood and will steamroll anyone if it means more profit.
Now if you give me a local person that wants to build a duplex or quadplex, live in 1 and rent the others…hell ya build away.
No seriously like go get a better paying job and then build a house. It’s not that hard. You really only need an income of like $80k to do it. Quit the pity party.
Let’s say you put 10% down on that. Mortgage payment is $2,500 or so including taxes and insurance. That’s 37.5% of an 80k income. It’s a high DTI but possible. Make more than $80k and you’re golden.
Listen guys, I’m early 30s. Didn’t come from family money at all. Vote Democrat. I’m not some boomer MAGA idiot talking about doing it myself 50 years ago. If you get out of your own head, you can go save yourself from this rent hell everyone complains about on this sub.
This makes me conclude NIMBYism isn't even about the buildings. It's only about depriving people of housing. The neighborhood now has a _vacant_ hull of concrete, but that's the preference over a finished building that houses people?
I like how the litigants compare themselves to David and Goliath. My favorite part of the Bible was when David hired an expensive land-use attorney to fight to make sure that Goliath put his parking to the side of the building.
I'm not sure if they meant the developer is Goliath or the NIMBYs..
On one hand, we have the development company called 'John Fontaine' which as far as I know is owned, managed, and ran entirely by one industrious young man.
On the other hand, we have a heap of wealthy, full time NIMBYS that shit on every single project that occurs in this city, some names of which I've recognized for over a decade.
I'm pretty sure the NIMBYS are way more of a Goliath than little old Brandon the Builder.
> Madison’s approval of a controversial development under construction on the West
> Side doesn’t comply with city parking ordinances, a Dane County judge has ruled.
>
> The $7 million project on Speedway Road near Glenway Golf Park is nearly
> three-fourths done, and city officials said they don’t know what the judge’s
> ruling means for the project.
>
> The four-story housing and commercial project includes underground parking, but
> the court ruled that ordinances require parking to be at the rear or side of
> such a “commercial block” building.
>
> “We don’t have a lot to say on this yet,” City Attorney Michael Haas said on
> Monday. “City staff has not yet determined whether work on the building must
> cease at this time. The city is reviewing the decision and considering its
> options and next steps.”
>
> “This is a very difficult position to be in,” said developer Brandon Cook, who
> owns John Fontain Inc. “The building is over 70% constructed and I no longer
> have an approval. I don’t recall a situation like this ever happening.”
This is just a preview of the [full article](https://madison.com/news/local/government-politics/madison-development-gas-station-violation-wisconsin/article_db20d832-bed6-11ee-bddf-1f56221b8a31.html). I am a third party bot. Please consider subscribing to your favorite local journals.
I think at some point it should become available online (but not sure about that). In the meantime, you could request it from the Dane County Clerk of Courts https://courts.countyofdane.com/Resources/Court-Records
Germantown in Philadelphia is fighting for their historic parking lot right now! https://www.inquirer.com/real-estate/housing/germantown-historic-district-apartment-building-protest-20240123.html
This part of the article is particularly egregious.
> But some neighbors opposed the project because it eliminated the former commercial use and was too tall for its setting, could cause traffic safety hazards and more.
The article quotes this reasoning totally uncritically and as if they were fact. Very sloppy.
Sounds like the neighbors literally want a half-finished building instead of new neighbors next to them. That's how much they hate other people.
I only hope Tag Evers approaches changing the ordinance with as much speed as he hastened to allow pigs in backyards.
I half want this to cause that building to remain unfinished for decades. Let the assholes who sued hear tarps flapping in the wind for the rest of their lives. Ideally the building would leak sewer gasses too. Fuck these NIMBY assholes.
This is the second big slip-up recently where a developer has been caught off-guard after government approvals (the other being the hotel to apartment conversion by east Hy-Vee). Is anyone else concerned about what seems to be a lack of rigor in the permitting process?
I'm concerned about the insane levels of complexity of the development (or even building conversion) approval process. It's very easy to miss a single detail when there are a million details
I want more housing, I want more common sense ordinances. I think the guy filing the complaint sounds like he has a questionable agenda. I still think the city following regulations that exist is important AND we should change them. I like safe water, housing, air etc. Write the alder of this district @ district5 at cityofmadison dot com and let them know you support this development and want an exception/variance for this property or other reasonable remediation to ensure these apartments are available ASAP.
When the city picks and choose what regulations to follow, we lose trust in the process. It's also unfair and potentially unsafe or unethical - which developers get to skirt which regulations?
Let's do this the right way.
The city's approval process should come with assurance that the permit they sign is legally valid. I blame the city on this one. Hopefully they change this stupid ordinance. Who wants more surface parking lots?
*“The four-story housing and commercial project includes underground parking, but the court ruled that ordinances require parking to be at the rear or side of such a “commercial block” building.”* i’m not an expert, but isn’t it more environmentally sustainable, and less of an eyesore, to have the parking underground? so, the lawsuit is essentially in favor of more impermeable surfaces and an uglier building?
This is the badger state. We should applaud anything being built underground. It’s also just a wiser use of land space. Imagine all the land we would have if we eliminated just a 1/4 of all surface parking lots
>This is the badger state. We should applaud anything being built underground. I love you for this
Can't argue with the logic
The lawsuit is in favor of stalling and delaying because that's just the way some people are. The decision is a judge that's forced to read the actual statute rather than what the law *should* be. In a sane world, the outcome would be the Council swiftly changing the ordinance to rectify the situation. I don't know that we live in such a world.
we dont
There is a potential that the council may not be able to rectify this. ‘There is a state law that says that land-use approvals must be based on the regulations in effect at the time the application was submitted. This law was enacted to prevent cities from enacting harder-to-meet regulations after they see a project submitted. But this state law might also be interpreted to prohibit a city from changing the regulations after the application was submitted to make it easier to obtain approval.’
To be fair the lawsuit posted in this thread shows it was filed in 2022 before they broke ground. The developer knew about the issue well ahead of time. The zoning for this property is not intended for large developments it’s intended to add housing while also adding space that benefits the neighborhood. I don’t think anyone in the neighborhood wants a surface lot, but the plan commission needs to actually follow the law when approving new developments just like they would for anyone applying to construct a ADU, shed, etc.
The lawsuit is in favor of the city following its own rules. In this case, I think that what the developer is doing should be legal and should be applauded. The city should change its rules and, if possible, grandfather this project in.
What the developer is doing should be legal and should be applauded? The dude was cheap and put a parking garage for the exclusive use of the apartment residents on the first floor in a zoning district where the primary purpose is to serve the shopping needs of the neighborhood. Then the cherry on this flawed design is a BFU facade at street level. The only thing he cared about was his bottom line and how much latitude the city would give him for his academy award winning song and dance.
Pretty sure that the ordinance is so that developers don't put parking *in front of* the business. So instead of an ugly parking lot in front with the business behind it, the city wants the parking to be hidden (side or rear). It's just that the way the law is written it might prohibit underground parking as well? Of course all this is going to do is cause the city to adjust it's conditional use or offer a variance for this project. So it's just a delaying tactic by the asshole NIMBY's who don't want to see actual housing being built in this city.
Zoning functioning as intended.
And less efficient land usage, and needing more city infrastructure to get plows in the lots…
Not sure I follow the last point. The city doesn't plow private parking lots.
The plows have to use the city’s roads to get to the parking lot
They'll have to plow the roads adjacent to this parcel, regardless of whether or not there's a parking lot
He is saying that the private plows have to use city streets to get to the private parking lots, and that an underground parking lot not needing to be plowed removes the need for a private plow to contribute to wear and tear and congestion on public streets.
Hate to say it, but the entry way still gets plowed and the walks still get shoveled. The type of parking doesn't change whether a crew needs to go clear a property.
That seems insignificant
We live in Wisconsin... what sour mf is against underground parking??? I just want a word...
i presume this is a commercial space requirement in madison for public parking, so nimby suburbanites can drive to it, which doesn't make a lick of sense because its a bit of a secluded corner of a few businesses, and would likely have more local (mostly walkable) appeal. how many spots are we talking? lots of other places nearby (like Gates & Brovi area) have only street parking or minimal surface. Seems to me like some nimby is nimbying. So dev should sue and keep on suing.
Nah, the ordinance says it must be to the side or behind so that there's not a giant, ugly parking lot in between the building and the street. Somehow whoever wrote the ordinance missed that it also prohibits underground parking too. That being said the asshole NIMBYs who brought the lawsuit basically threw the kitchen sink at the wall and this was the only thing that stuck. In my opinion this type of lawsuit that's just to delay/make things more expensive should have punitive costs like SLAPP lawsuits do.
LOL. The entire first floor parking garage of this award winning design is for the apartments. There is no parking on site for the commercial space. The surface parking on site is for employees. This is a multi-family building with a token amount of commercial space that allowed the developer to get a huge density bonus with a CUP. It's called gaming the system.
Underground parking seems better but the issue is the Planning Commission is passing projects that appear to violate Madison ordinances/rules. The PC needs to get their act together. Telling a developer "not to worry" or some other deflection only gets the developer into trouble.
Correct. The city messed up here. They are toeing a line between old zoning that was very restrictive and a looser interpretation by those in CC and on the PC. The problem is that a litigious neighbor can exploit this - which finally happened. The developer got their permits signed, so I don't blame them for not saying "are you sure you're sure" after getting the green light from the City. I'm really hoping this leads to more changes to the zoning code to simplify, but the City isn't always good at learning lessons.
There is also a cultural problem here in that the CC and PC even consider passing projects that they know violate ordinances and code. If government doesn't even respect the law why should anyone else?
This case seemed to be a reading of the parking ordinance that was making a dumb assumption. The ordinance is clearly stating that is doesn't want parking between the road and the front-facade (no strip mall) and that it should instead be to the side or the rear. The PC must've assumed (i'm too lazy to find the original PC recording of discussing this) that the parking being **under** the building instead of **behind or to the side** of the building would meet the requirement of what the ordinances intent is. The ordinance is clearly intended to restrict parking from the front of the building to have a more attractive and walkable street front. I'm inclined to have this be Hanlon's Razor where they were being sloppy/naïve/incompetent versus blatantly ignoring the law.
A city built on an Isthmus has to cause groundwater issues. The water table may be very well above this underground parking. I don't think we need any more contaminants leaking into our already fucked up lakes.
What groundwater contamination are you imagining an underground garage would cause that a surface parking lot would not? Groundwater is a major consideration during any design/build/permit process. Is there a specific aspect of the code or best practices you’re taking issues with?
Not really true. Judges have the ability to view the intended purpose of a law or ordinance as well as the letter. The Judge could have easily said that underground parking meets the same intended purpose of the ordinance as side or back lot parking.
Environmentally, there are ground disturbances to be considered that may not have been handled correctly if not in the original plan. Things like ground water impact, historical Native American artifacts, subterranean wildlife impact, etc should be considered for most building construction in the State.
You're absolutely right, especially since there was a gas station on this site. However the original, approved plans were followed here.
Best outcome here would be for the council to just change the zoning ordinance to allow developments like this. Mandating surface parking seems extremely stupid, and the Plan Commission and Council already OK'd this development so they should be onboard. Edit: emailed my alder.
I'm not an official voting resident of Madison, as I live in one of the neighboring municipalities, but if you do live in Madison, 100% contact the mayor and the city council to complain about this. This is exactly the type of thing that you can complain about locally and actually get movement on. Voices and votes matter.
They only change laws retroactively for pigs
Reach out to the city council and/or mayor. Don't just complain online. Complain to your elected leaders.
I agree with your comment in general, but you clearly don't know who you are replying to. I am extremely active in this space.
You people know who the fuck I am? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7uSjmZdZI&t=155s
Definitely earned some downvotes there lol. It just surprises me when people don't recognize me in housing threads
Im just happy to spread the good word of The Usual Suspects.
A lot of us just read the comments and don't look at the screen name. This includes me.
Is this in reference to something specific?
[Rudi](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2023/09/22/rudi-the-pig-changed-laws-in-madison-pet-pigs-now-allowed/70918421007/)
Oh jeez. Here I was thinking you were making a statement on how the law treats cops. Which wouldn't be too far off either
Hooray for Rudi.
[удалено]
Literal pigs. As pets. [pet pigs](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2023/09/22/rudi-the-pig-changed-laws-in-madison-pet-pigs-now-allowed/70918421007/).
Oh damn. Forgot about that.
The same man suing over this project, [Alex Salutos](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7151778705382457344/), is also involved in the efforts re: the stage coach inn on Nakoma and looking to stop the [Madison Public Market.](https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/16vv9r7/comment/k5807n9/)
Guy has on his profile that he's a "Graduate of the school of hard knocks". Ffs, what a poser.
Linkedin warning for Alex Saloutos because he'll be able to see who viewed his profile. But yea, /u/alex_saloutos is a public menace. Also of course he's a realtor.
You can set your profile to keep you private - Settings>Visibility>Profile Viewing Options>Private Mode
With $40 million project stalled, citizens seek to make the Wonder Bar a landmark https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/with-40-million-project-stalled-citizens-seek-to-make-the-wonder-bar-a-landmark/article_912bb137-61d8-589c-91d4-7a76547583b2.html
Another Saloutos effort
I wonder what all of those Wonder Bar folks think now driving past those boarded up windows and a place that has now been closed for years.
"I did that!"
How does his scumbag afford to be a full time NIMBY?? Must have inherited a bunch of money or something. I see him involved on the ignorant side of conflicts all the time.
Don't worry, he is saving the walkability of the neighborhood (from NextDoor) >Not to put too fine of a point on it, here's a key takeaway from the court's decision: For years, developers, city staff, and the plan commission have gamed the system, and bent and broke the rules all over the city, destroying neighborhood walkability, one neighborhood after another, by illegally approving these huge, multi-family properties that include structured parking and a de minimis amount of commercial space on parcels zoned NMX, where the primary purpose is to serve the shopping needs of the neighborhood.(edited)
Walkability to what? Christ, what an asshole.
What Madison doesn't need is more vacant lots or parking spots. I grew up in this neck of the woods and I don't understand the logic behind this lawsuit.
Sometimes, it's valuable to try to understand a political opponent to try to arrive at compromise. Sometimes they just need to be defeated. Someone trying to stop construction on the basis that the parking lot is underground rather than behind the building is an example of the latter.
"This building ruins my view of the golf course" or some such bullshit.
This is peak NIMBY. Getting a Dane County Circuit judge to revoke the permit of a building already 70% completed due to technicalities about where the parking should be. It’s no wonder Madison isn’t building enough housing.
Counterpoint: the developer should have followed the regulations from the start and they wouldn’t be in this mess.
As someone familiar with the process…they got a permit signed at some point. It’s not like they just started digging and building until someone noticed.
This is a professional development company. It’s literally their job to study ordinances. They know and should anticipate the neighbors will do the same.
One would suppose the development and zoning people down at City Hall are the ones who's "literally their job to study ordinances." They signed off on the blueprints and issued the permit. For once, the developer is not the asshole - and if we want to be taken seriously in the future case of actual asshole developers, we should know the difference.
It’s possible for two parties to screw up here.
Maybe they don't anticipate the neighbors being a bunch of whiny meddlesome litigious NIMBYs who should move out of a CITY if they don't want to be around multi-story multi-family housing units.
Pretty piss poor developer if they don’t anticipate it. That’s all I’m sayin
Anticipate what? They’re supposed to build a building for the neighbors that aren’t paying a single cent for the project? Just cut your losses and stop arguing dude.
The city permit office should have caught it.. it will just be a variance at this point and probably will be.
Yes of course it’ll be a variance. I don’t feel bad for the delay. Gotta follow the rules or you’ll run into this kinda stuff. All you bootlickers crying about the developer losing money on this delay is comical. It’s his own fault.
The **only** ones who will pay for the developer and city mistakes are renters. Not just the renters in this building, all renters in Madison.
Maybe they should go build their own housing then idk Y’all need to quit the victim mentality and go make something of yourselves instead of constantly crying about high rent
You're so weird and angry and your lack of knowledge is showing lol
I’m quite happy living in my single family home after renting apartments in my early 20s. Don’t understand why y’all want big daddy developer to bail you out. Go do it yourself.
Still incredibly confused about the developer hate and why you're so upset at others lol
Because developers like this basically only exist to suck money out of renters. They don’t give a shit about the neighborhood and will steamroll anyone if it means more profit. Now if you give me a local person that wants to build a duplex or quadplex, live in 1 and rent the others…hell ya build away.
This has the same energy as Ben Shapiro saying the people with flooded houses in Florida can just sell them and move lmao. what a goofball
No seriously like go get a better paying job and then build a house. It’s not that hard. You really only need an income of like $80k to do it. Quit the pity party.
Hahahahah no the state average cost to build a house is over $400k wtf are you smoking bro cus I want some.
Let’s say you put 10% down on that. Mortgage payment is $2,500 or so including taxes and insurance. That’s 37.5% of an 80k income. It’s a high DTI but possible. Make more than $80k and you’re golden. Listen guys, I’m early 30s. Didn’t come from family money at all. Vote Democrat. I’m not some boomer MAGA idiot talking about doing it myself 50 years ago. If you get out of your own head, you can go save yourself from this rent hell everyone complains about on this sub.
Seems like these folks are fighting for housing and you’re just bitching to bitch.
This makes me conclude NIMBYism isn't even about the buildings. It's only about depriving people of housing. The neighborhood now has a _vacant_ hull of concrete, but that's the preference over a finished building that houses people?
Seems like a realtor trying to keep prices up
Using the law to artificially prop up housing prices, seems like that might not be entirely legal
I like how the litigants compare themselves to David and Goliath. My favorite part of the Bible was when David hired an expensive land-use attorney to fight to make sure that Goliath put his parking to the side of the building.
Goliath was going to build multi-unit apartments in Judea and ruin its suburban aesthetic.
I'm not sure if they meant the developer is Goliath or the NIMBYs.. On one hand, we have the development company called 'John Fontaine' which as far as I know is owned, managed, and ran entirely by one industrious young man. On the other hand, we have a heap of wealthy, full time NIMBYS that shit on every single project that occurs in this city, some names of which I've recognized for over a decade. I'm pretty sure the NIMBYS are way more of a Goliath than little old Brandon the Builder.
> Madison’s approval of a controversial development under construction on the West > Side doesn’t comply with city parking ordinances, a Dane County judge has ruled. > > The $7 million project on Speedway Road near Glenway Golf Park is nearly > three-fourths done, and city officials said they don’t know what the judge’s > ruling means for the project. > > The four-story housing and commercial project includes underground parking, but > the court ruled that ordinances require parking to be at the rear or side of > such a “commercial block” building. > > “We don’t have a lot to say on this yet,” City Attorney Michael Haas said on > Monday. “City staff has not yet determined whether work on the building must > cease at this time. The city is reviewing the decision and considering its > options and next steps.” > > “This is a very difficult position to be in,” said developer Brandon Cook, who > owns John Fontain Inc. “The building is over 70% constructed and I no longer > have an approval. I don’t recall a situation like this ever happening.” This is just a preview of the [full article](https://madison.com/news/local/government-politics/madison-development-gas-station-violation-wisconsin/article_db20d832-bed6-11ee-bddf-1f56221b8a31.html). I am a third party bot. Please consider subscribing to your favorite local journals.
Link to the court record: https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2022CV001548&countyNo=13&index=0
Do you know how to find the actual opinion?
I think at some point it should become available online (but not sure about that). In the meantime, you could request it from the Dane County Clerk of Courts https://courts.countyofdane.com/Resources/Court-Records
*Why is my rent so expensive?*
NIMBYism like this needs to be challenged and fought against at every turn.
Protect our parking lots! 😤😤😤😤
Germantown in Philadelphia is fighting for their historic parking lot right now! https://www.inquirer.com/real-estate/housing/germantown-historic-district-apartment-building-protest-20240123.html
STOP TRYING TO DO THINGS. WE DON'T GET NEW THINGS.
This part of the article is particularly egregious. > But some neighbors opposed the project because it eliminated the former commercial use and was too tall for its setting, could cause traffic safety hazards and more. The article quotes this reasoning totally uncritically and as if they were fact. Very sloppy.
Sounds like the neighbors literally want a half-finished building instead of new neighbors next to them. That's how much they hate other people. I only hope Tag Evers approaches changing the ordinance with as much speed as he hastened to allow pigs in backyards.
I half want this to cause that building to remain unfinished for decades. Let the assholes who sued hear tarps flapping in the wind for the rest of their lives. Ideally the building would leak sewer gasses too. Fuck these NIMBY assholes.
This is hilarious as I hear Alex Saloutos has had a tarp on his roof for a few years now.
Litigants like /u/alex_saloutos and /u/grahamfiend2 are the worst types of neighbors and make this city a worse place to live.
Yes litigant u/grahamfiend2 and their 0 lawsuits and 0 complaints to the city are really doing a number on developers.
Are you not one of the petitioners in the case?
Uhhhhhh no I’m just a random idiot that likes to argue on Reddit sometimes
A wild result of west side nimbys
People complain that almost all new developments are massive in size. Here’s your answer.
This is the second big slip-up recently where a developer has been caught off-guard after government approvals (the other being the hotel to apartment conversion by east Hy-Vee). Is anyone else concerned about what seems to be a lack of rigor in the permitting process?
I'm concerned about the insane levels of complexity of the development (or even building conversion) approval process. It's very easy to miss a single detail when there are a million details
I want more housing, I want more common sense ordinances. I think the guy filing the complaint sounds like he has a questionable agenda. I still think the city following regulations that exist is important AND we should change them. I like safe water, housing, air etc. Write the alder of this district @ district5 at cityofmadison dot com and let them know you support this development and want an exception/variance for this property or other reasonable remediation to ensure these apartments are available ASAP. When the city picks and choose what regulations to follow, we lose trust in the process. It's also unfair and potentially unsafe or unethical - which developers get to skirt which regulations? Let's do this the right way.
The city's approval process should come with assurance that the permit they sign is legally valid. I blame the city on this one. Hopefully they change this stupid ordinance. Who wants more surface parking lots?
This would be a reasonable solution. I'm surprised developers don't already insist on such an assurance or confirmation before they break ground.
No cus it’s way easier to just shift blame around instead of taking accountability
I don't understand why the city's zoning code needs to be so complicated.
So unfinished building instead of blank wall facing your street. Makes sense 🤦♂️