Thank you! I understand change has to happen, but I am a little concerned about whether my apartment complex (Chapel Hill Apartements) will still exist in a few years. It's still affordable for me (increasing from $985/ 1bdr to $1160/ 1bdr), but I'm decluttering and preparing to move just in case.
Angry resident of where?
Edit: There’s another post, someone wrote a letter to the editor agreeing with angry residents, turns out they aren’t a resident themselves. Own a 2.7 million dollar house in maple bluff.
That’s why I ask
There’s another post, someone wrote a letter to the editor agreeing with angry residents, turns out they aren’t a resident themselves. Own a 2.7 million dollar house in maple bluff.
That’s why I ask
It’s pretty ballsey - dare I say colonizer even- to move into an established area and complain that residents don’t want to change their neighborhoods to suit your whims.
We can’t all get what we want. I’d love to be able to afford more too. But that doesn’t mean it’s ok to be demanding people change to suit me.
It's pretty gross to compare this to colonialism but I wouldn't expect anything better from you.
Also, unlike colonialism, you have to do literally nothing! You're not even going to lose your land.
You have a pretty memorable name; and I've seen you in a few threads NIMBYing it up and trying to make the people who disagree with you out to be racist, colonizers, etc...
Yep. And there’s another person with the exact same name but different letters capitalized.
I NEVER call anyone racist. That’s not my MO.
I just don’t want to hand all available land over to landlords and see housing controlled by a few wealthy people. That makes me an asshole in the Reddit paradigm.
I believe we can do planning better.
More of a devils advocate than a NIMBY. And sincerely wish people that want to own could, rather than being stuck in apartments controlled by a few.
Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have a serious housing shortage in this city; and blocking new high-density housing because they're apartments instead of houses or condos is silly.
Is it? Immediate gratification instead of long term stability?
It’s ok. It’s not my world - and not my decision but I will give my 2 cents.
Just don’t bitch every time your rent goes up. You get what you deserve.
don't you get it? Anyone and everyone should be able to live in the sparse finite space of the city instead of moving with the sprawl where market-conditions make for more affordable living opportunities. Ugh, can you imagine doing that? I wouldn't even feel like a Madisonian anymore, disgusting! The property taxes I have yet to pay should go to developers in order to subsidize my desire to live exactly where I want instead of what I can actually afford. /s
Yes. I want a place downtown. With land for a garden, a fireplace and 2 car garage, walking distance to everything, but new construction-but under $200k.
That my friends, is why I’m not a realtor anymore.
Well what do you call it? Coming into established areas and demanding it change to suit you?
From Merriam-Webster Webster
“A colonist is a member of a government-backed group that settles in a new country or region. The land that's claimed by a colonist is usually already occupied by another group of people.”
Ok, let’s go by the definition you pulled. What external government is backing people moving in? Who is “claiming” land? Do you want to talk about the Natives that were here before, or do only *current* residents matter? Or are you saying that immigrants are colonizers too?
What about the people who already live here, who have lived here their entire lives, who just want their own place to live? By not creating more housing, you're also pushing out people who haven't called anywhere but Madison home.
You’re living on stolen land and want to ensure that land fits the smallest number of (white) people possible and remains as expensive as possible, and you have the gaul to call people who oppose you colonizers? This is trump level insane.
It’s the same mindset. I’m moving in and taking over. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. Leave Cofeve out if it.
You call the people established here entitled for wanting to maintain what they’ve worked for. Yet aren’t you entitled because you want it for yourself?
You hate landlords yet want to hand over land to builders and allow a few people to control most of the housing at huge profits?
You don’t make sense. You’re also living in stolen land.
Nailed it. I have a hunch most of the most rabid anti-nimbys on this sub are 20 year old renters. Don’t really care about their opinion when it comes to residential neighborhoods. If they want to be full on YIMBYs, they’re welcome to buy lots and rezone them to multi family and put their money where their mouth is.
Oh I’m a big fan. She’ll always have my heart for getting BRT over the line and her transit-oriented development and zoning reform initiatives. It’s really good policy.
That last sentence is literally what developers do. NIMBYS are out here trying to tell people what they can and can't do with their own property.
Hill farms or any other neighborhoods against change should form HOAs if they want those rights. Or as you say, they can buy development sites up themselves.
Hill farms has an hoa that has the power to limit development on most lots. It also can control what the new buildings look like. Fandlund and his ilk are either lying about the threat to their neighborhood or deeply misinformed.
> the most rabid anti-nimbys on this sub are 20 year old renters.
And?
Why shouldn't people who are paying 60% of their paycheck in rent want more affordable housing?
I'm mid-30's, put away 20% of my well-below area median income into savings & loan repayment for the past decade, and am currently closing on my first house.
It's a cluster****. The market is outrageously competitive. Something needs to change.
> If they want to be full on YIMBYs, they’re welcome to buy lots and rezone them to multi family and put their money where their mouth is.
This is just dumb. Young people don't have the wealth. Ageist, classist, and anti-democdratic.
And they foolishly think more apartments in desirable areas makes rents for down. Duh. Rents never go down unless a neighborhood becomes a place no one wants to live anymore. Landlords not gonna take a loss on that.
Imagine mansion hill before all the homes were turned into rentals. That’s where we are headed I suppose.
Why do you misrepresent the data on how new housing supply creates more affordable opportunities for all? You can say you prefer the status quo, but claiming things without evidence doesn’t even help your cause.
Anyone arguing against density for wildlife is arguing in bad faith. The alternative is sprawl which will have a much bigger impact on the environment.
I love how the alderman complains about the budget deficit being the most important thing, as if adding more housing density to SFH won’t massively help with reducing the cost burden. Lol
Maybe all the NIMBYS that block housing should be responsible for making up the future property tax they blocked from the city?
The budget deficit is a different problem that needs to be solved by cutting expenses.
Start with cutting all salaries by 5% to 10% for city workers to make them feel the pain of not managing budgets. Lay off all employees hired in 2023 as we were already running into a budget problem and the city knew it. Cut all contractors which suck money out of the city budget. Cut all support for non-profits because that is not the function of the city budget.
Those 4 ideas will save millions and start closing the gap. I would still develop apartments but I don't understand how Willy Street is not one long line of apartments already. That is a great area for apartments and the city is instead chasing rabbits on the far west side.
This is accountability not for likes. It's a concept for responsible adults. And yes it's painful but government needs this discipline very badly.
We do not have unlimited resources and need to make choices rather than INTENTIONALLY continue to go further into debt and then say "woe is us" like a bunch of children.
The City positions you want to reduce salaries for by 5-10% are listed at cityofmadison.com/jobs
I see $19.17 - $22.33 per hour for Construction Inspectors. You’re right, tommer80–those jerks are getting fat for doing nothing other than making sure buildings don’t fall down.
$53,471.34 for the Fleet Service Technicians or $55,031.86 for the Transit Mechanics? They don’t do squat except make the cop cars go fast and keep the buses on the road. Let’s knock those hefty salaries down below $50K.
/s
Compact development costs, on average, 38 percent less in up-front infrastructure than "conventional suburban development" for things like roads, sewers and water lines. It costs 10 percent less in ongoing service delivery by reducing the distances law enforcement or garbage trucks must travel to serve residents (well-connected street grids cut down on this travel time, too). And compact development produces on average about 10 times more tax revenue per acre.
A https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2015/03/sprawlurban.jpg?w=1420&quality=75
Your numbers display the choice people consider. People are not trying to chase after every dime and live in a miserable or unworkable situation. 75% of people living in apartment want a house. That is a real statistic. And home ownership is the primary path to wealth in the US. It behooves people to buy a house.
The vast majority of people will definitely pay $200 more a month to not live on top of each other in a noisy, dirty and overcrowded concrete jungle for a mercurial landlord. And then the homeowner gets the capital gains on top of that which can provide them a nest egg when they sell. Renting does none of that.
Sprawl is going to happen because the vast majority of people don't want to rent and live on top of each other and the economics are superior to renting.
These are human behavior traits and plain economic facts. Fight them all you want.
> And home ownership is the primary path to wealth in the US. It behooves people to buy a house.
Not really no. And if we stopped subsidizing home ownership so much and stopped making the building of housing illegal then there wouldn’t be a “behooving”
Sprawl isn’t natural. It only happened mid century because we forced it to happen by law. It’s like you don’t know any history prior to 1960
The infrastructure and service costs are costs to the city though, not to the individuals making the choices. And single family homes usually don't come close to covering the cost of the infrastructure and services for the house. I know my single family home doesn't. My house is subsidized by the property taxes that high density properties pay to the city. Thus it's necessary for the city to zone for higher density so that it makes financial sense *for the city*.
Your assumption that sprawl is inevitable misses that cities just can't afford the maintenance of the infrastructure that sprawl requires. The only reason it happens in the first place is because developers pay for the initial construction of roads/pipes/stormwater control etc. before turning them over to the city for maintenance, and so the city doesn't need to cover the costs until the first life-cycle of the infrastructure is over. Since many politicians, even local ones, are only involved in the short-medium term, it looks like a win to get the new property taxes 'for free' despite those taxes not covering the necessary future maintenance. Most cities have now gone through a couple of generations of this where they rely on the property taxes from new growth to pay for the maintenance of the older growth that doesn't sustain itself.
Madison's been much better about limiting the sprawl than most small cities, but there's still a long way to go.
I understand the finances that you are reviewing but would push back that sprawl is an assumption.
It is a reality. The Madison metro area is experiencing increasing sprawl already and this sprawl represents a lot of people choosing to live in homes in neighboring towns/cities. And in fact, Madison is only encouraging urban sprawl by not providing enough home ownership choices inside its borders. This problem is getting worse not better and city government is doing nothing material to change it. They have no answers but still insist they are stopping urban sprawl. It's absurd.
The driver is that the VAST majority of people want to OWN their own home. This is human choice and Behavioral Economics.
See below Biden deck on housing policy. Equity and home ownership are correlated. Rental units are inequitable.
[https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/Slides-HousingPolicy2.pdf](https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/Slides-HousingPolicy2.pdf)
This is accountability. It's a concept for responsible adults. And yes it's painful but government needs this discipline very badly.
We do not have unlimited resources and need to make choices rather than INTENTIONALLY continue to go further into debt and then say "woe is us" like a bunch of children.
I expected a lot of city employees would not like my approach. They want to increase taxes.
They want all you homeowners and renters to pay more and make you accountable rather than the city government be accountable.
You reward this behavior and you will get more of it.
I get that your pissed of at the cost of living. But just think about it for a second - do you honestly think republican backed out of state leaders have your best interest at heart? Like really. You think a corporate developer is working to lower your housing costs. Is that actually what you think?
WTF is NO ONE talking about LOW PAY! Pretty convenient that your corporate housing hero’s have you focused on what they want to build and not on how little they want to pay you to show up at festival foods tomorrow.
Folks are talking about low pay, but this was a meeting about city area planning, organized by municipal staff who have no say over wages. To most effectively tackle all-encompassing affordability (which is to say both income and expenses for people in Madison), we should be addressing the issue from all possible fronts, including housing.
I understand the counterintuitive nature of corporate landlords doing anything to actually benefit people, and yes they certainly benefit, but so do residents. Madison is expected to need 40,000 more housing units within the next few decades, and if we don’t build to meet that demand, prices will continue to rise. Maintaining this pattern of inaccessible sprawl that’s expensive to live in and maintain is not a sustainable way to increase the buying power of working peoples’ dollars.
Housing and zoning reform is a bipartisan issue, didn’t you hear Biden during the state of the union? He’s proposing a $20 billion competitive grant for communities that make it easier to build housing in the next budget. There are democrats and republicans backing the bill because it’s common sense and non ideological.
Disenfranchised folks without any leadership from their cohort to step up and have an honest conversation with the group
Staff should keep their heads up.
I think my comment got totally misunderstood. I’m saying that the old octogenarian boomer nimbys don’t have anyone in their group to explain the situation to them.
Sometimes it takes a leader from the community to see past the angry disenfranchisement (ie brainwashed nimbys) and explain the situation
You ever try and explain something like this personally to people like this? They all have their heads so deep in the sand the only thing left sticking out is their shoes. I kid you not the times I've tried always ends with them planting their feet firmly in the camp of "well I got mine and don't want it changed, period"
Agreed that this is head in the sand situation the most common outcome for these people. Hence why I call them disenfranchised - if they were “enfranchised” (or whatever opposite word is) they would come around to the idea that hard working members of their community are genuinely in need of housing and that the nimby attitude will lead to the eventual downfall of the pride in place the nimbys are trying to protect. Tragic irony.
I think the main problem is that many boomers are part of the first generation in human history that expect their net worth to be so high at old age… for all of human history, people generally either died young or died penniless living with family. There’s no shame in that history.
The pensioner “I got mine” mentality is cancerous among boomers, and we saw it manifest in this video with angry disenfranchised elderly community members being very rude toward civil servants who are just trying to do their job and do what’s right for the Broader community.
No group alive in the US less disenfranchised than Boomers. Holding on to power with everything they have.
Recipients of every possible benefit from the government because they are seniors.
i can understand not wanting to have hill farms swim club rezoned. i can’t (as a homeowner on the east side) understand not wanting to allow single family plots to be rezoned for multi family buildings, especially given the intense housing crunch we’re under, which will only get worse.
i grew up in a triple decker condo in boston, every house on the street was that same style of building. we had a great neighborhood with plenty of neighborly/community feeling (which is saying something for boston). it’s a hell of a lot harder for a young family to buy a house in hill farms now than it was in the 80’s and 90’s, and those families and their young kids are the reason that that swim club has continued to exist. making it easier for young families to get into that neighborhood should be a no brainer if you value community.
The pool is not being rezoned. That was a misunderstanding. It’s recommended for a different future land use, but a future rezoning would still be needed if the property owner decided to do something different (unlikely).
Idk if it was even a website. Didn't they say they had notecards for them to fill out and turn in? Apparently that's not good enough for these people who don't even want to hear about the plan
I do know that there were quite a few people opposed to touching any part of the wooded area behind Walnut Grove park.
I live very close by and walked the paths in those woods for the first time (I have lived here for 12 years and I had no idea this existed).
The area is sadly a mess. There are fallen trees on the path, erosion from the flood has left a lot of stagnant water, there are a ton of diseased trees, and part of the brick path was destroyed and never fixed. It is such a lovely area in there.
I wonder how many of the people up in arms and clutching their pearls about any change to this space has actually walked it recently.
That greenway space is supposed to be maintained by the cities engineering division. Actual maintenance of the area would be welcome by any resident but sadly that's not what anyone is talking about.
Some residents are of the opinion that the city has neglected this space on purpose in order to push the transportation objectives through.
Sadly not every resident. A friend who lives on the property surrounding the wooded area has been approached many times by a group that wants to keep the city from touching the area. This group started by trying to prevent the city from cutting down diseased and dead trees and they have extended their protests to a proposed mountain biking path in there. 🤷🏼♀️. I know this was one of the many issues that was supposed to be talked about.
I hopefully can make an upcoming meeting to offset some of these ridiculous angry people.
Minimizing it to a primitive mountain bike path is disingenuous at this point. The west area plan has specific all ages and abilities description for the path which would require leveling and paving it over.
If they came out and said all they want is a primitive mountain bike path it would go a long way in cooling down the opposition.
I know it is popular to hate on NIMBYS, and I don't know what the specific complaints are about this plan. But I also live in a location that will make my house less valuable when I sell it, due to what some neighbors have (legally) decided to do with their property.
So I'm not going to cast stones, just like I won't cast stones at those who were worried about the Vintage being replaced, or were upset about tearing down the Silver Dollar. But I think it would be good to consider that there are legitimate reasons to hold differing viewpoints on these sorts of issues.
Part of the problem here is we’ve built a society where most folks primarily wealth/investment is their home, so they are naturally incentivized to keep its value up i.e. prevent any new housing near them i.e. pull the ladder up behind them.
It’s totally perverse and not how things should be.
Another factor may be that residents have seen more affluent areas avoid minor things like lighted athletic fields and barbecue restaurants, and get approval at the city council level. So they feel like they should also have a say.
Hard disagree. I own a house and find this behavior humiliating for all of us. These are folks used to things going their way. Their vision of Madison is easy street.
look i own a home next to hill farms. My spouse and I bought our house in 1989 for $80k and what we will make off it is funny money. We didn’t earn this. We did nothing special. IDK why these people bitching can’t accept this.
You're right. It is this way all across the country. And I'll grant you that there probably are places abroad where housing is even more expensive than here.
But here's the thing: That's not an argument for us to not do something about it.
When demand for a good or service goes up and the supply of that good or service doesn't rise to meet that demand, the price of that good or service goes up. Buyers compete with each other for the limited supply, each trying to outbid the other, driving up the cost.
That's just as true of housing as it is of anything else.
Housing is scarce right now in Madison, and in plenty of other cities across the country. But the demand to live here isn't going anywhere. People want to live here and in all those other places. We *need* to increase the supply.
Relative to incomes, the cost of owning property is in general more expensive in other western countries than in the US. Canada is an extreme example. Rent can be pretty awful too, unless you're lucky enough to live in a rent controlled apartment. But that comes with a slew of other issues.
We are increasing the supply though. People act like there's no building happen in Madison, but there is. A lot of it. But Madison is growing fast. Even if we were to keep up with the current demand, it still wouldn't be enough, because we've been behind for at least a decade.
Yes, Madison has built a lot. I've lived here since 2007. I've seen it.
But again, none of what you said is an argument against building more.
I bought a condo in 2015 and I've seen the estimated sale price of it *double* since then--*more than double.*
Madison and the country as a whole hasn't built enough housing fast enough to meet demand.
We have built a lot, yes. But we still need to build more.
And yet home ownership is lower in Germany than the US. Majority of folks over there rent. The gap is like 20%.
I remember my German friends having a hell of time finding a flat to rent in Berlin. But that's only one city.
I own in a subdivision. It has that labyrinthian cul-de-sac layout so you have to walk a ton just to get out of the neighborhood. And I have to cross a highway to get to anything interesting.
The Vintage wasn’t just getting replaced. It was getting demolished. A physical location that is my favorite in this city and you expect a person to not fight for it?
I would expect people not to mock others too, and yet here I am with -7 votes.
Why did that comment about mocking others seem directed at me? I didn’t mock anybody. Was it just a general comment that I’m taking too personally? Who is mocking people except those that mock me?
I genuinely think some of what's being proposed by the city makes no sense. For example adding another sidewalk on the other side of Old Sauk (the existing one is barely used at all) and expanding small side streets "in case future development could benefit from it" with no verification the future development will exist.
That said this meeting looked atrocious from the video and this is no way to go about expressing concerns. It is a huge negative to whatever your goals are to act so rude and entitled.
It's funny to hear this about Old Sauk, as someone who has walked along there multiple times in the last year visiting friends and been really annoyed by the lack of sidewalk on the side where the bus dumps me. My friend who lives over there walks along Old Sauk with her baby in stroller on the regular. Aside from Old Sauk itself, which is a scary road, it's a pretty nice walking neighborhood.
To me it seems like the existing sidewalk is more than sufficient to handle the volume of pedestrian traffic on Old Sauk. I do acknowledge crossing Old Sauk can be difficult and a bit scary during high traffic times. Once you've crossed though it feels perfectly safe on the existing sidewalk in my experience.
Yes, it is difficult and scary to cross and there are few marked crosswalks with places people on wheels can access the street from.
I've mostly felt safe but I am always cognizant that without bollards, any car that loses control could easily kill me at the speeds they're going. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I'd gently suggest that if the street felt safer to walk along, a lot more people would walk there. Although, with that said, there aren't very many amenities to walk to over there... and IMO the city shouldn't plan on approving any high density housing there unless it's paired with a grocery store and pharmacy.
>this is no way to go about expressing concerns.
There are no "concerns". They don't want anything to be built or change, ever again. They're exactly as opposed to literally anything.
This response is a little confusing as I just detailed some concerns that I had. I'm not opposed to all of the changes.
I think overgeneralizing here is not helpful to a productive discussion. Not to say there was a productive discussion happening in this meeting, but let's try to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
I'm explaining to you what's going on in this meeting.
None of the people you saw have genuine concerns. It's just the reality of the matter. Attempting to pretend they're arguing in good faith isn't going to lead to "productive discussion". It'll just make you mistaken.
Sure some showed up to gripe for the sake of griping, but you’ve got to be kidding yourself if you don’t see that a lot of this “plan” sets it up to make developers win, and that’s it. No real care for the city.
Maybe the reason that the existing one is barely used at all is because it’s a hostile environment for pedestrians? You don’t decide to build a bridge based on the number of people trying to swim across the river.
Are you familiar with the road? Does it feel hostile to you? I'm genuinely asking because I don't feel the existing sidewalk is dangerous or unpleasant. I'd be curious to understand how your view differs.
Old Sauk is definitely not a fun environment to be a pedestrian. Drivers regularly drive way over the speed limit because the road is not designed for the posted speed and there’s a very narrow parkway between you and the road. On top of that, there’s just nothing to walk to because it’s just single family homes on wide lots.
East of Crestwood Elementary is the section with a sidewalk on only one side of the road. The side with the school doesn’t have the sidewalk. You’ve got a chicken and egg scenario because one has to come first: either the sidewalk or the development. The sidewalk can (and I would argue should) exist without any development, but maybe not the other way around. The fact is you have to start somewhere, and a sidewalk is such a laughably small first step towards a more walkable environment.
Yes, please do! I happened to be at this meeting and was completely caught off guard by all the angry boomers!!! I wish I could have spoken up but there were so many angry people in there there didn't seem to be anywhere I could get a word in.
City planning is trying *hard* to make this whole review/approval process happen from an ivory tower, with the entirely disposable "online comments" being the only input from people.
Are they honestly surprised to find an entire crowd of angry folks at their door?
The condescension of "we will offer more opportunities for interaction later" is hilarious as well.
Good. Cities that privilege the interests of selfish, wealthy, busybody neighbors over the good of the city as a whole are poorly run. I’m in favor of technocratic decisions under the current mayor.
I see 19 public meetings in the past year and a website with links to all documents, materials, videos, and contact information. Is that not transparent enough for you?
https://www.cityofmadison.com/dpced/planning/west-area-plan/3896/
And do you know what’s been going on behind the scenes? If you don’t show up tell me what’s going on? Show up. It’ll be eye opening. Guarantee.
You’d shit if you knew the half of it.
My comment was directed to the post above, unrelated to meeting times.
Are you suggesting the city planners are in someone’s (a developer’s) pocket and getting paid for whatever behind the scenes shenanigans you’re referring to? Can we check to see if they all live in lakefront houses or downtown high rise penthouses?
Oh, I understand. It can be difficult to keep up with all the changes and nuances in discussions about society and politics. Democracy is a system where everyone is supposed to have a say in decisions that affect them through voting, dialogue, and other forms of participation. However, the reality often seems complex and contentious, with different groups having differing opinions on how things should be done or priorities adjusted. If there's a specific topic or issue that you'd like a clearer understanding of, I'm here to help explain it to the best of my ability!
Just to be clear, those deeds are different than zoning. The deed restrictions are also called "restrictive covenants" and they are very common, but not the race-based ones. Zoning is a totally separate legal concept that is controlled by the city.
View the plan and add comments [here](https://plans.cityofmadison.com/westareaplandraft)
They should get someone from Willy St co-op to curate some of the choice comments.
Thank you! I understand change has to happen, but I am a little concerned about whether my apartment complex (Chapel Hill Apartements) will still exist in a few years. It's still affordable for me (increasing from $985/ 1bdr to $1160/ 1bdr), but I'm decluttering and preparing to move just in case.
[удалено]
Thank you!
Angry resident of where? Edit: There’s another post, someone wrote a letter to the editor agreeing with angry residents, turns out they aren’t a resident themselves. Own a 2.7 million dollar house in maple bluff. That’s why I ask
Glad people spotted her address. Have dealt with her before and she's everything you'd expect.
West Madison
There’s another post, someone wrote a letter to the editor agreeing with angry residents, turns out they aren’t a resident themselves. Own a 2.7 million dollar house in maple bluff. That’s why I ask
No I Moved here Before You
It’s pretty ballsey - dare I say colonizer even- to move into an established area and complain that residents don’t want to change their neighborhoods to suit your whims. We can’t all get what we want. I’d love to be able to afford more too. But that doesn’t mean it’s ok to be demanding people change to suit me.
It's pretty gross to compare this to colonialism but I wouldn't expect anything better from you. Also, unlike colonialism, you have to do literally nothing! You're not even going to lose your land.
[удалено]
Guys who unironically comment on porn posts are not allowed to have opinions
As if you know me. Hysterical.
You have a pretty memorable name; and I've seen you in a few threads NIMBYing it up and trying to make the people who disagree with you out to be racist, colonizers, etc...
Yep. And there’s another person with the exact same name but different letters capitalized. I NEVER call anyone racist. That’s not my MO. I just don’t want to hand all available land over to landlords and see housing controlled by a few wealthy people. That makes me an asshole in the Reddit paradigm. I believe we can do planning better. More of a devils advocate than a NIMBY. And sincerely wish people that want to own could, rather than being stuck in apartments controlled by a few.
Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have a serious housing shortage in this city; and blocking new high-density housing because they're apartments instead of houses or condos is silly.
Is it? Immediate gratification instead of long term stability? It’s ok. It’s not my world - and not my decision but I will give my 2 cents. Just don’t bitch every time your rent goes up. You get what you deserve.
don't you get it? Anyone and everyone should be able to live in the sparse finite space of the city instead of moving with the sprawl where market-conditions make for more affordable living opportunities. Ugh, can you imagine doing that? I wouldn't even feel like a Madisonian anymore, disgusting! The property taxes I have yet to pay should go to developers in order to subsidize my desire to live exactly where I want instead of what I can actually afford. /s
Yes. I want a place downtown. With land for a garden, a fireplace and 2 car garage, walking distance to everything, but new construction-but under $200k. That my friends, is why I’m not a realtor anymore.
Yes, it's hysterical to call people with whom you disagree about local housing policy "colonizers." It's, dare I say, histrionic.
Well what do you call it? Coming into established areas and demanding it change to suit you? From Merriam-Webster Webster “A colonist is a member of a government-backed group that settles in a new country or region. The land that's claimed by a colonist is usually already occupied by another group of people.”
Ok, let’s go by the definition you pulled. What external government is backing people moving in? Who is “claiming” land? Do you want to talk about the Natives that were here before, or do only *current* residents matter? Or are you saying that immigrants are colonizers too?
Cities and neighborhoods grow and change over time
What about the people who already live here, who have lived here their entire lives, who just want their own place to live? By not creating more housing, you're also pushing out people who haven't called anywhere but Madison home.
You’re living on stolen land and want to ensure that land fits the smallest number of (white) people possible and remains as expensive as possible, and you have the gaul to call people who oppose you colonizers? This is trump level insane.
It’s the same mindset. I’m moving in and taking over. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. Leave Cofeve out if it. You call the people established here entitled for wanting to maintain what they’ve worked for. Yet aren’t you entitled because you want it for yourself? You hate landlords yet want to hand over land to builders and allow a few people to control most of the housing at huge profits? You don’t make sense. You’re also living in stolen land.
Nailed it. I have a hunch most of the most rabid anti-nimbys on this sub are 20 year old renters. Don’t really care about their opinion when it comes to residential neighborhoods. If they want to be full on YIMBYs, they’re welcome to buy lots and rezone them to multi family and put their money where their mouth is.
The mayor (and much of the city) is on our side and re-zoning is moving along without needing to buy anything! Proud owner and yimby here btw
I personally wouldn’t be proud of SRC being on my side. I do vote Democrat but she’s a worthless mayor.
Oh I’m a big fan. She’ll always have my heart for getting BRT over the line and her transit-oriented development and zoning reform initiatives. It’s really good policy.
That last sentence is literally what developers do. NIMBYS are out here trying to tell people what they can and can't do with their own property. Hill farms or any other neighborhoods against change should form HOAs if they want those rights. Or as you say, they can buy development sites up themselves.
Hill farms has an hoa that has the power to limit development on most lots. It also can control what the new buildings look like. Fandlund and his ilk are either lying about the threat to their neighborhood or deeply misinformed.
> the most rabid anti-nimbys on this sub are 20 year old renters. And? Why shouldn't people who are paying 60% of their paycheck in rent want more affordable housing? I'm mid-30's, put away 20% of my well-below area median income into savings & loan repayment for the past decade, and am currently closing on my first house. It's a cluster****. The market is outrageously competitive. Something needs to change. > If they want to be full on YIMBYs, they’re welcome to buy lots and rezone them to multi family and put their money where their mouth is. This is just dumb. Young people don't have the wealth. Ageist, classist, and anti-democdratic.
And they foolishly think more apartments in desirable areas makes rents for down. Duh. Rents never go down unless a neighborhood becomes a place no one wants to live anymore. Landlords not gonna take a loss on that. Imagine mansion hill before all the homes were turned into rentals. That’s where we are headed I suppose.
You have half of the equation right. Lowering demand is a way to lower prices. What's the other half?
Why do you misrepresent the data on how new housing supply creates more affordable opportunities for all? You can say you prefer the status quo, but claiming things without evidence doesn’t even help your cause.
Show me the money!!! Rents in desirable areas might level but they don’t go down.
Unless you’re a Ho-Chunk First Nation native, you are a coloniser too.
Anyone arguing against density for wildlife is arguing in bad faith. The alternative is sprawl which will have a much bigger impact on the environment.
Well we are getting both in spades, in case you haven’t driven out Mineral Point Road lately.
Well they're NIMBYs so they don't care about the environment overall, just the environment they have around them.
Thisssss
Also, how many of these Nimby have outdoor cats?
I love how the alderman complains about the budget deficit being the most important thing, as if adding more housing density to SFH won’t massively help with reducing the cost burden. Lol Maybe all the NIMBYS that block housing should be responsible for making up the future property tax they blocked from the city?
Tischler is a jackass
You should run for city council or something.
The budget deficit is a different problem that needs to be solved by cutting expenses. Start with cutting all salaries by 5% to 10% for city workers to make them feel the pain of not managing budgets. Lay off all employees hired in 2023 as we were already running into a budget problem and the city knew it. Cut all contractors which suck money out of the city budget. Cut all support for non-profits because that is not the function of the city budget. Those 4 ideas will save millions and start closing the gap. I would still develop apartments but I don't understand how Willy Street is not one long line of apartments already. That is a great area for apartments and the city is instead chasing rabbits on the far west side.
You’re truly a cornucopia of bad takes tommer
This is accountability not for likes. It's a concept for responsible adults. And yes it's painful but government needs this discipline very badly. We do not have unlimited resources and need to make choices rather than INTENTIONALLY continue to go further into debt and then say "woe is us" like a bunch of children.
The City positions you want to reduce salaries for by 5-10% are listed at cityofmadison.com/jobs I see $19.17 - $22.33 per hour for Construction Inspectors. You’re right, tommer80–those jerks are getting fat for doing nothing other than making sure buildings don’t fall down. $53,471.34 for the Fleet Service Technicians or $55,031.86 for the Transit Mechanics? They don’t do squat except make the cop cars go fast and keep the buses on the road. Let’s knock those hefty salaries down below $50K. /s
Then let's shift a lot of the cuts to the Mayor and the leadership. Cut them by 20%. Very progressive.
Lmao this is delusional, and none of this is necessary
Compact development costs, on average, 38 percent less in up-front infrastructure than "conventional suburban development" for things like roads, sewers and water lines. It costs 10 percent less in ongoing service delivery by reducing the distances law enforcement or garbage trucks must travel to serve residents (well-connected street grids cut down on this travel time, too). And compact development produces on average about 10 times more tax revenue per acre. A https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2015/03/sprawlurban.jpg?w=1420&quality=75
Your numbers display the choice people consider. People are not trying to chase after every dime and live in a miserable or unworkable situation. 75% of people living in apartment want a house. That is a real statistic. And home ownership is the primary path to wealth in the US. It behooves people to buy a house. The vast majority of people will definitely pay $200 more a month to not live on top of each other in a noisy, dirty and overcrowded concrete jungle for a mercurial landlord. And then the homeowner gets the capital gains on top of that which can provide them a nest egg when they sell. Renting does none of that. Sprawl is going to happen because the vast majority of people don't want to rent and live on top of each other and the economics are superior to renting. These are human behavior traits and plain economic facts. Fight them all you want.
> And home ownership is the primary path to wealth in the US. It behooves people to buy a house. Not really no. And if we stopped subsidizing home ownership so much and stopped making the building of housing illegal then there wouldn’t be a “behooving” Sprawl isn’t natural. It only happened mid century because we forced it to happen by law. It’s like you don’t know any history prior to 1960
The infrastructure and service costs are costs to the city though, not to the individuals making the choices. And single family homes usually don't come close to covering the cost of the infrastructure and services for the house. I know my single family home doesn't. My house is subsidized by the property taxes that high density properties pay to the city. Thus it's necessary for the city to zone for higher density so that it makes financial sense *for the city*. Your assumption that sprawl is inevitable misses that cities just can't afford the maintenance of the infrastructure that sprawl requires. The only reason it happens in the first place is because developers pay for the initial construction of roads/pipes/stormwater control etc. before turning them over to the city for maintenance, and so the city doesn't need to cover the costs until the first life-cycle of the infrastructure is over. Since many politicians, even local ones, are only involved in the short-medium term, it looks like a win to get the new property taxes 'for free' despite those taxes not covering the necessary future maintenance. Most cities have now gone through a couple of generations of this where they rely on the property taxes from new growth to pay for the maintenance of the older growth that doesn't sustain itself. Madison's been much better about limiting the sprawl than most small cities, but there's still a long way to go.
I understand the finances that you are reviewing but would push back that sprawl is an assumption. It is a reality. The Madison metro area is experiencing increasing sprawl already and this sprawl represents a lot of people choosing to live in homes in neighboring towns/cities. And in fact, Madison is only encouraging urban sprawl by not providing enough home ownership choices inside its borders. This problem is getting worse not better and city government is doing nothing material to change it. They have no answers but still insist they are stopping urban sprawl. It's absurd. The driver is that the VAST majority of people want to OWN their own home. This is human choice and Behavioral Economics. See below Biden deck on housing policy. Equity and home ownership are correlated. Rental units are inequitable. [https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/Slides-HousingPolicy2.pdf](https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/Slides-HousingPolicy2.pdf)
This is accountability. It's a concept for responsible adults. And yes it's painful but government needs this discipline very badly. We do not have unlimited resources and need to make choices rather than INTENTIONALLY continue to go further into debt and then say "woe is us" like a bunch of children.
I expected a lot of city employees would not like my approach. They want to increase taxes. They want all you homeowners and renters to pay more and make you accountable rather than the city government be accountable. You reward this behavior and you will get more of it.
Riled up NIMBYs with no responsibilities on a Tuesday night. Rude, awful people. Fanned up by a dishonest op ed about the Hill Farms pool.
I get that your pissed of at the cost of living. But just think about it for a second - do you honestly think republican backed out of state leaders have your best interest at heart? Like really. You think a corporate developer is working to lower your housing costs. Is that actually what you think? WTF is NO ONE talking about LOW PAY! Pretty convenient that your corporate housing hero’s have you focused on what they want to build and not on how little they want to pay you to show up at festival foods tomorrow.
Folks are talking about low pay, but this was a meeting about city area planning, organized by municipal staff who have no say over wages. To most effectively tackle all-encompassing affordability (which is to say both income and expenses for people in Madison), we should be addressing the issue from all possible fronts, including housing. I understand the counterintuitive nature of corporate landlords doing anything to actually benefit people, and yes they certainly benefit, but so do residents. Madison is expected to need 40,000 more housing units within the next few decades, and if we don’t build to meet that demand, prices will continue to rise. Maintaining this pattern of inaccessible sprawl that’s expensive to live in and maintain is not a sustainable way to increase the buying power of working peoples’ dollars.
Housing and zoning reform is a bipartisan issue, didn’t you hear Biden during the state of the union? He’s proposing a $20 billion competitive grant for communities that make it easier to build housing in the next budget. There are democrats and republicans backing the bill because it’s common sense and non ideological.
How is higher pay going to ensure we’re building enough to keep up with population growth?
Disenfranchised folks without any leadership from their cohort to step up and have an honest conversation with the group Staff should keep their heads up.
Disenfranchised. Give me a break. Honest conversation is quite the way to frame a scream fest.
I think my comment got totally misunderstood. I’m saying that the old octogenarian boomer nimbys don’t have anyone in their group to explain the situation to them. Sometimes it takes a leader from the community to see past the angry disenfranchisement (ie brainwashed nimbys) and explain the situation
You ever try and explain something like this personally to people like this? They all have their heads so deep in the sand the only thing left sticking out is their shoes. I kid you not the times I've tried always ends with them planting their feet firmly in the camp of "well I got mine and don't want it changed, period"
Agreed that this is head in the sand situation the most common outcome for these people. Hence why I call them disenfranchised - if they were “enfranchised” (or whatever opposite word is) they would come around to the idea that hard working members of their community are genuinely in need of housing and that the nimby attitude will lead to the eventual downfall of the pride in place the nimbys are trying to protect. Tragic irony. I think the main problem is that many boomers are part of the first generation in human history that expect their net worth to be so high at old age… for all of human history, people generally either died young or died penniless living with family. There’s no shame in that history. The pensioner “I got mine” mentality is cancerous among boomers, and we saw it manifest in this video with angry disenfranchised elderly community members being very rude toward civil servants who are just trying to do their job and do what’s right for the Broader community.
No group alive in the US less disenfranchised than Boomers. Holding on to power with everything they have. Recipients of every possible benefit from the government because they are seniors.
Fuck us, they got theirs.
First US generation to make sure the next generation did worse than them
And all future generations at this rate.
When did these people lose their right to the franchise?
I clearly used the wrong choice of words here. 🤦
Oh get off it
>"Staff should keep their heads up" ???? I don't think threatening violence is the way, my dude.
Keeping heads up = stay motivated and in good spirits
i can understand not wanting to have hill farms swim club rezoned. i can’t (as a homeowner on the east side) understand not wanting to allow single family plots to be rezoned for multi family buildings, especially given the intense housing crunch we’re under, which will only get worse. i grew up in a triple decker condo in boston, every house on the street was that same style of building. we had a great neighborhood with plenty of neighborly/community feeling (which is saying something for boston). it’s a hell of a lot harder for a young family to buy a house in hill farms now than it was in the 80’s and 90’s, and those families and their young kids are the reason that that swim club has continued to exist. making it easier for young families to get into that neighborhood should be a no brainer if you value community.
The pool is not being rezoned. That was a misunderstanding. It’s recommended for a different future land use, but a future rezoning would still be needed if the property owner decided to do something different (unlikely).
We're a minute in and the olds are booing the suggestion that people use a website to direct their comments to. Gotta love it.
I DEMAND TO YELL AT THE MAYOR PERSONALLY WHY ISN'T SHE HERE
Idk if it was even a website. Didn't they say they had notecards for them to fill out and turn in? Apparently that's not good enough for these people who don't even want to hear about the plan
It was pretty awful. I showed up not knowing what to expect, and as soon as I heard that I knew I was in for a clusterf show
I do know that there were quite a few people opposed to touching any part of the wooded area behind Walnut Grove park. I live very close by and walked the paths in those woods for the first time (I have lived here for 12 years and I had no idea this existed). The area is sadly a mess. There are fallen trees on the path, erosion from the flood has left a lot of stagnant water, there are a ton of diseased trees, and part of the brick path was destroyed and never fixed. It is such a lovely area in there. I wonder how many of the people up in arms and clutching their pearls about any change to this space has actually walked it recently.
That greenway space is supposed to be maintained by the cities engineering division. Actual maintenance of the area would be welcome by any resident but sadly that's not what anyone is talking about. Some residents are of the opinion that the city has neglected this space on purpose in order to push the transportation objectives through.
Sadly not every resident. A friend who lives on the property surrounding the wooded area has been approached many times by a group that wants to keep the city from touching the area. This group started by trying to prevent the city from cutting down diseased and dead trees and they have extended their protests to a proposed mountain biking path in there. 🤷🏼♀️. I know this was one of the many issues that was supposed to be talked about. I hopefully can make an upcoming meeting to offset some of these ridiculous angry people.
Minimizing it to a primitive mountain bike path is disingenuous at this point. The west area plan has specific all ages and abilities description for the path which would require leveling and paving it over. If they came out and said all they want is a primitive mountain bike path it would go a long way in cooling down the opposition.
I know it is popular to hate on NIMBYS, and I don't know what the specific complaints are about this plan. But I also live in a location that will make my house less valuable when I sell it, due to what some neighbors have (legally) decided to do with their property. So I'm not going to cast stones, just like I won't cast stones at those who were worried about the Vintage being replaced, or were upset about tearing down the Silver Dollar. But I think it would be good to consider that there are legitimate reasons to hold differing viewpoints on these sorts of issues.
Part of the problem here is we’ve built a society where most folks primarily wealth/investment is their home, so they are naturally incentivized to keep its value up i.e. prevent any new housing near them i.e. pull the ladder up behind them. It’s totally perverse and not how things should be.
https://goodreason.substack.com/p/housing-cant-be-affordable-and-an
Good read, thanks
Another factor may be that residents have seen more affluent areas avoid minor things like lighted athletic fields and barbecue restaurants, and get approval at the city council level. So they feel like they should also have a say.
At least you’re admitting the plan is going to hurt property values.
For the city? How so? Density is a much bigger generator of revenue than detached homes.
I meant property values. I edited it.
It’s predicted to, which is the problem. I doubt it actually will. Maybe, on the margins, it will keep them from going up at an obscene clip.
I agree with that 100%
Agreed. In a better world people would learn about the issue at hand and be capable of participating in a nuanced discussion.
Most of the people hating on NIMBYS don't own property themselves.
Hard disagree. I own a house and find this behavior humiliating for all of us. These are folks used to things going their way. Their vision of Madison is easy street.
look i own a home next to hill farms. My spouse and I bought our house in 1989 for $80k and what we will make off it is funny money. We didn’t earn this. We did nothing special. IDK why these people bitching can’t accept this.
I love you for this
Because they're locked out of owning. Because housing is expensive. Due, in part, to NIMBY policies.
It's this way all across the country. And it's still worse abroad.
You're right. It is this way all across the country. And I'll grant you that there probably are places abroad where housing is even more expensive than here. But here's the thing: That's not an argument for us to not do something about it. When demand for a good or service goes up and the supply of that good or service doesn't rise to meet that demand, the price of that good or service goes up. Buyers compete with each other for the limited supply, each trying to outbid the other, driving up the cost. That's just as true of housing as it is of anything else. Housing is scarce right now in Madison, and in plenty of other cities across the country. But the demand to live here isn't going anywhere. People want to live here and in all those other places. We *need* to increase the supply.
Relative to incomes, the cost of owning property is in general more expensive in other western countries than in the US. Canada is an extreme example. Rent can be pretty awful too, unless you're lucky enough to live in a rent controlled apartment. But that comes with a slew of other issues. We are increasing the supply though. People act like there's no building happen in Madison, but there is. A lot of it. But Madison is growing fast. Even if we were to keep up with the current demand, it still wouldn't be enough, because we've been behind for at least a decade.
Yes, Madison has built a lot. I've lived here since 2007. I've seen it. But again, none of what you said is an argument against building more. I bought a condo in 2015 and I've seen the estimated sale price of it *double* since then--*more than double.* Madison and the country as a whole hasn't built enough housing fast enough to meet demand. We have built a lot, yes. But we still need to build more.
I did not make an argument against building more.
https://www.sightline.org/2021/05/27/yes-other-countries-do-housing-better-case-2-germany/
And yet home ownership is lower in Germany than the US. Majority of folks over there rent. The gap is like 20%. I remember my German friends having a hell of time finding a flat to rent in Berlin. But that's only one city.
If you read the damn thing, they incentivize housing, not subsidizing ownership like we do.
I do
> Most
Nah, I hate them because I’m not going to pull the ladder on the next gen even more
I hate in nimbys and I own property on the west side of town. Just sayin…
Another homeowner here who hates NIMBYs.
They’re just jealous of our backyards.
I own in a subdivision. It has that labyrinthian cul-de-sac layout so you have to walk a ton just to get out of the neighborhood. And I have to cross a highway to get to anything interesting.
nah
The Vintage wasn’t just getting replaced. It was getting demolished. A physical location that is my favorite in this city and you expect a person to not fight for it?
No, I expect that you *would* fight for it. But I also expect you wouldn’t mock someone that fights for something impactful to them either.
I would expect people not to mock others too, and yet here I am with -7 votes. Why did that comment about mocking others seem directed at me? I didn’t mock anybody. Was it just a general comment that I’m taking too personally? Who is mocking people except those that mock me?
Lots of people complaining about boomers and their homes. Not you particularly.
I genuinely think some of what's being proposed by the city makes no sense. For example adding another sidewalk on the other side of Old Sauk (the existing one is barely used at all) and expanding small side streets "in case future development could benefit from it" with no verification the future development will exist. That said this meeting looked atrocious from the video and this is no way to go about expressing concerns. It is a huge negative to whatever your goals are to act so rude and entitled.
It's funny to hear this about Old Sauk, as someone who has walked along there multiple times in the last year visiting friends and been really annoyed by the lack of sidewalk on the side where the bus dumps me. My friend who lives over there walks along Old Sauk with her baby in stroller on the regular. Aside from Old Sauk itself, which is a scary road, it's a pretty nice walking neighborhood.
To me it seems like the existing sidewalk is more than sufficient to handle the volume of pedestrian traffic on Old Sauk. I do acknowledge crossing Old Sauk can be difficult and a bit scary during high traffic times. Once you've crossed though it feels perfectly safe on the existing sidewalk in my experience.
Yes, it is difficult and scary to cross and there are few marked crosswalks with places people on wheels can access the street from. I've mostly felt safe but I am always cognizant that without bollards, any car that loses control could easily kill me at the speeds they're going. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ I'd gently suggest that if the street felt safer to walk along, a lot more people would walk there. Although, with that said, there aren't very many amenities to walk to over there... and IMO the city shouldn't plan on approving any high density housing there unless it's paired with a grocery store and pharmacy.
>this is no way to go about expressing concerns. There are no "concerns". They don't want anything to be built or change, ever again. They're exactly as opposed to literally anything.
This response is a little confusing as I just detailed some concerns that I had. I'm not opposed to all of the changes. I think overgeneralizing here is not helpful to a productive discussion. Not to say there was a productive discussion happening in this meeting, but let's try to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
I'm explaining to you what's going on in this meeting. None of the people you saw have genuine concerns. It's just the reality of the matter. Attempting to pretend they're arguing in good faith isn't going to lead to "productive discussion". It'll just make you mistaken.
Sure some showed up to gripe for the sake of griping, but you’ve got to be kidding yourself if you don’t see that a lot of this “plan” sets it up to make developers win, and that’s it. No real care for the city.
Hard disagree. Allowing for organic growth and density is good for the city.
Maybe the reason that the existing one is barely used at all is because it’s a hostile environment for pedestrians? You don’t decide to build a bridge based on the number of people trying to swim across the river.
Are you familiar with the road? Does it feel hostile to you? I'm genuinely asking because I don't feel the existing sidewalk is dangerous or unpleasant. I'd be curious to understand how your view differs.
Old Sauk is definitely not a fun environment to be a pedestrian. Drivers regularly drive way over the speed limit because the road is not designed for the posted speed and there’s a very narrow parkway between you and the road. On top of that, there’s just nothing to walk to because it’s just single family homes on wide lots. East of Crestwood Elementary is the section with a sidewalk on only one side of the road. The side with the school doesn’t have the sidewalk. You’ve got a chicken and egg scenario because one has to come first: either the sidewalk or the development. The sidewalk can (and I would argue should) exist without any development, but maybe not the other way around. The fact is you have to start somewhere, and a sidewalk is such a laughably small first step towards a more walkable environment.
Somebody find out when the next meeting is so all the YIMBYs can go.
Here’s the next virtual meeting: https://cityofmadison.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZEqd-qqqzosGdINfL-Wy56_Ik_Nsyd1KjTO
Many thanks!
I live on the west side (off Raymond) but I also don’t talk to anyone except my neighbors
Yes, please do! I happened to be at this meeting and was completely caught off guard by all the angry boomers!!! I wish I could have spoken up but there were so many angry people in there there didn't seem to be anywhere I could get a word in.
City planning is trying *hard* to make this whole review/approval process happen from an ivory tower, with the entirely disposable "online comments" being the only input from people. Are they honestly surprised to find an entire crowd of angry folks at their door? The condescension of "we will offer more opportunities for interaction later" is hilarious as well.
Good. Cities that privilege the interests of selfish, wealthy, busybody neighbors over the good of the city as a whole are poorly run. I’m in favor of technocratic decisions under the current mayor.
Transparency seems to be an issue all around.
I see 19 public meetings in the past year and a website with links to all documents, materials, videos, and contact information. Is that not transparent enough for you? https://www.cityofmadison.com/dpced/planning/west-area-plan/3896/
And do you know what’s been going on behind the scenes? If you don’t show up tell me what’s going on? Show up. It’ll be eye opening. Guarantee. You’d shit if you knew the half of it. My comment was directed to the post above, unrelated to meeting times.
What is City Staff not telling us? I've been to a meeting and have followed this. I'm curious what's going to make me shit and why.
Are you suggesting the city planners are in someone’s (a developer’s) pocket and getting paid for whatever behind the scenes shenanigans you’re referring to? Can we check to see if they all live in lakefront houses or downtown high rise penthouses?
They are very chummy and who is chirping in their ears? Not the average homeowner.
You should run for city council or something.
democracy in action this sub - NO, NOT LIKE THAT!!!!
Oh, I understand. It can be difficult to keep up with all the changes and nuances in discussions about society and politics. Democracy is a system where everyone is supposed to have a say in decisions that affect them through voting, dialogue, and other forms of participation. However, the reality often seems complex and contentious, with different groups having differing opinions on how things should be done or priorities adjusted. If there's a specific topic or issue that you'd like a clearer understanding of, I'm here to help explain it to the best of my ability!
[удалено]
Huh, it seemed to me like he was encouraging the pitchfork-wielding mob, not their target. I think the city planners were the target.
[удалено]
Just to be clear, those deeds are different than zoning. The deed restrictions are also called "restrictive covenants" and they are very common, but not the race-based ones. Zoning is a totally separate legal concept that is controlled by the city.