Sunday, July 14, 2013

The Consent of the Governed


What if you lived in this neighborhood - Knickerbocker Street in Madison, looking southeast toward Monroe Street (photo by Michelle Stocker of The Capital Times) - and a real estate developer wanted - and got - a zoning variance to drop a huge 4-story 21-unit apartment building smack dab into the neighborhood? What would you do?

To me, this story is not all about knocking down a gas station and the house next to it to build a 29-thousand square foot apartment building.

It’s about government, in one form or another, not listening to the people.  Knowing better.  Throwing around terms like “urban infill” and “conditional zoning variance”, and quite literally bulldozing, without consent, the will of the people who live in the neighborhood.

If you’re not familiar with the ongoing battle between the neighbors on Knickerbocker Street and the city Plan Commission, you can read Paul Fanlund’s column about it in the Cap Times here, and Mike Ivey’s article on the vote here.  Taylor Harvey wrote a story about the battle for Isthmus, which you can read here.

Some have said the Knickerbocker Street neighbors are NIMBY’s.  But we’re talking about a private commercial development here, not some thing necessary for the good of the community at large, like a power substation, bus transfer point, fire station, or municipal services building.  We’re talking about a real estate developer who wants to build a structure that’s so out of character with the neighborhood, so exceeds the limits of the Monroe Street Commercial District Plan, that it needs a special exemption to the plan.

The developer has publicly admitted he can’t build the apartment building according to the established standard and make a profit.  So he wants to exceed the standard not by a little bit, but by 16%.  He says he can’t make money with a 25-thousand square foot building; it’s got to be 29 thousand square feet for him to make money.  Which means it has to exceed the established height and size standards.

So the developer can make money.

One might think that the Plan Commission, upon taking up the issue, would regard the neighborhood association’s 11-2 vote against the building as a clear sign that the vast majority of people who live there are opposed to the project – not a 7-6 vote, or even 9-4, but 11-2 – and the Commission would tell the developer to look elsewhere.  But last week Monday, the commission ignored the formally expressed will of the neighbors and voted 7-1 to approve the project.

So the developer can make money.

Don’t be misled by arguments that the neighborhood needs such a huge apartment building, or that its design will not further impact the traffic problems that already exist on Monroe Street, or that this project will enhance the community in some way.  It won’t create jobs.  It's not a municipal necessity. It's not the grand design of some famous architect. It’s a damn apartment building, nothing more.  And a big one, at that, and one the neighbors – and the city plan for the neighborhood – clearly say shouldn’t be built there.

I have no problem at all with a real estate developer making money on an apartment building.  But go make your money where your project meets existing rules, and where the neighbors are not completely opposed to it. I do have a problem understanding why the Plan Commission doesn't get this.

A bit of perspective: there was a time, not too long ago, that Madison had a reputation as a place where nothing new got built. Brick and mortar projects went to Madison to die.  Madison couldn’t build a convention center, and nitpicked John Q. Hammons' plan to death, so he built his convention center in Middleton, right along the border with Madison, to thumb his nose at the bureaucrats.  Rather than fight the battles with Madison, Judy Faulkner built her Epic Systems empire in Verona.

Now, the pendulum seems to have swung the other way.  Zoning codes were softened a few years ago, and the role of the neighborhood’s input was diminished, with an eye toward sending the message that Madison has changed and is not confrontational to real estate developers.

But again, this is not a Frank Lloyd Wright design; it’s not a project that will create hundreds of new, good-paying jobs; it’s not a structure vital to community infrastructure: it’s an apartment building. The neighbors’ last resort is to appeal the Plan Commission’s decision to the entire City Council.

Look at it this way, if you will: suppose you live in an established neighborhood of largely single-family homes, a mature tree-lined neighborhood where people actually walk to work, where children play in yards, where you know your neighbor’s names and their kids’ names.  Now, drop a huge 21-unit apartment building into the neighborhood, and ask yourself in how many ways its presence would change the quality of life in that neighborhood.

In this case, one of the neighbors most directly affected, since the project will be literally next door to his Madison home, is Pulitzer Prize winning author David Maraniss.  He and his neighbors have appealed  the decision to the full City Council.  I spoke with him Saturday morning about his concerns, and after our conversation he sent me a copy of his letter to the Plan Commission.  This is his concluding paragraph:

“The largest question of all is how developments like this change Madison. I go back again to the delicate balance. If done at the appropriate scale, with solid neighborhood participation, they will help Madison grow and prosper. If done with no regard to neighborhoods, just in the name of development and growth, exceeding building standards out of economic necessity, then they very well could provoke a series of unintended consequences, slowly denigrating, bit by bit, the very neighborhoods that provide the most to the city’s tax base and keep the schools alive and bubbling with curious and wondrous children.”

I cannot write nearly as eloquently as David Maraniss, but I can completely understand why he’s fighting for his neighborhood. To me, his neighborhood battle against an unwanted real estate development also illustrates another quintessentially American quality: we have expressed a belief, since we formally declared it in the summer of 1776, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.


I’m expecting the City Council, which is tentatively scheduled to hear the appeal on August 6th, to LISTEN to Maraniss and his neighbors, as they speak their truth to power.

21 comments:

  1. Thank you, Sarah. I'm with your dad 100% on this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good catch, Tim.

    While not disputing your main point, I should ask if your are opposed to the idea that a developer should "make money," b/c that phrase dominates the first half of your essay.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good catch on your part, too, Dad29. Of course I'm not opposed to the developer making money. But, in my defense, the developer said the only reason he wanted a variance was because he couldn't make money by following the "rules" set up for the Monroe Street area. He didn't make the case that the project had great import for the housing situation in Madison, nor the aesthetic benefits of his project, or any other reason than it wouldn't be profitable at 25K SqFt. He should make his money where the zoning laws/ordinances don't have to be altered for him to make money. There are plenty of neighborhoods in Madtown which not only need a nice, new 21-unit apartment building, but would welcome such a structure. Go make your money there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent piece, Tim. And good clarification about the profit aspect. Yes, developers need to make a profit, no argument there. But if they can't do so within the zoning code, then yes, they should build somewhere else, or consider an alternative concept. Remember, we're talking about a development on a one-block residential street with 20 kids that is grossly out of scale with the surrounding homes. We also have a much more permissive new zoning code designed specifically to make life easier for developers. So if a developer can't meet this new code, should the City make it even easier at the expense of a neighborhood? The 4,000 SF overage isn't negligible in the context of a traditional neighborhood; it is roughly the equivalent of two homes. If the SF is so inconsequential, why not leave it to the developer to adapt the project?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not having a dog in this fight, I'd be curious to know why a development only 4KSF smaller is "acceptable" in the area.

    And, for that matter, what the specific "rules" are which generate the need for 4KSF more building.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To answer your first question, it's simply because 25KSF is the upper limit allowed by the (new, and presumably carefully thought-out) Monroe Street Zoning Plan.

    I'm not sure how to answer your second question; simply that the developer said he can't make any money at 25KSF, so he petitioned for a variance to allow him to build an additional (fourth) story onto the original 25KSF plan and add a number of balconies on the north side of the building, presumably to allow him to charge higher rent.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While reading this, I was reminded of the building that recently went up next to Mallatt's further down on Monroe St. I guess I don't understand why someone just can't build a nice apartment building anymore without the lower level "shops," etc. A short way down Monroe St. from Knickerbocker are some apartment buildings that have been there a long time. (I'm 80 and walked by them on my way to Dudgeon School so long ago.) Are builings like those, with grass front yards, so out of style that you have to build right up to the sidewalk? Oh, I forgot, such a pleasing building probably wouldn't make enough of a profit to be viable, but I bet it won't look as good in 80 years either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome to "The New Urbanism", old-timer. I think it's ugly as hell. I like good, long, 25-foot or more setbacks, but that's not what the urbanistas are in favor of. Claim it's a waste of land. If you look around other neighborhoods, you'll see this stuff. The addition on the south end of Hilldale Mall...hardware store right tight up against the sidewalk. New strip mall on Park Street with Dunkin' Donuts...right up on the sidewalk. It's everywhere.
      I don't know the economics of it, but this "mixed use" crap....shops below, apartments above....has been going on for a long time.

      I always figured that if an apartment building was needed in a neighborhood, you could build one that would be profitable on its own, without dedicating the ground floor to beauty parlors and curio shops.

      Delete
  8. Developers tend to have a strong sense of entitlement. They will acquire a bit of land they know won't accommodate the project they want, then will bluster and thunder and bully the municipality into bowing to their "rights" and acceding to their demands.

    It is not as if this involved bad planning or error by a hapless landowner, or bureaucratic rules gone FUBAR. No, it is a calculation, a deliberate strategy - which usually works.

    And what of the neighbors? To developers they are nuisances. They'll get used to the monstrous carbuncle. Just suck it up.

    Me? I stand, of course, with good people of Knickerbocker Street.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With a name like Knickerbocker, nothing less would be expected. :)

      Delete
  9. I have to respectfully disagree with you on this, Tim.

    We live in a democratic republic, not a true democracy. If we voted on every single thing that came down the pike we would never get anything done.

    Elected representatives are paid to run the show - if the people in this neighborhood are so against the way that these easments are being granted, there is always the next election to vote them out. In fact, it will be telling during the next election cycle if they rally to boot their council members, or let it slide.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan, what happens when the elected representatives don't follow the rules? This is a perfect case of that. They set the rules by approving the zoning plan for Monroe Street. The Knickerbocker Street residents would have had no choice, IF the developer had followed the rules. But the elected representatives and the developer elected NOT to follow the rules.

    Now, the Knickerbocker Street residents are asking all the elected representatives - the whole city council - to decide. Whatever the decision, they live with it.

    If the project is allowed, then voting the elected representative out in the next cycle is meaningless. I agree we can't make every policy decision by referendum, but again, my thesis in this post: this is an apartment building - not something vital in any way to the good of the community. Follow the rules and everything's OK. This development is all about one developer making a bunch of money by bullying the elected representatives.

    Go build your ugly box somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But the elected representatives and the developer elected NOT to follow the rules." This is not correct. They changed the rules. Big difference.

      And thusly, if the residents are not happy about this change in what they thought were some hard and fast rules, they can campaign to vote them out next time.

      I agree with you that once the permits are pulled and construction has begun that it doesn't matter as far as the apartment building goes. What is done is done. But there can be consequences. That is my point. If the residents of this district re-elect their representatives, then that will show that they really didn't care that much after all.

      Delete
  11. The Monroe Street Development Plan was written with the approval of the residents. If a plan is to be tossed the first time a developer cries "can't make money", what good are the plans? Or, for that matter, the people who wrote the plans?

    Two things should happen: the variance should not be allowed without a complete re-write of the plan; and, the alder should be summarily voted out in the next election.

    BTW, it's nice to have a rational discussion and difference of opinion with someone who doesn't resort to hyperbole and name-calling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed on the non name calling. It is called conversing like adults and it doesn't happen as often as it should.

      I am with you that the variance should not be allowed - but they didn't do anything illegal (unless they took bribes - could have happened) so it is what it is.

      I will bet you a beer that the people responsible for this, if they run for another term, will be re-elected. People have very short memories.

      Delete
  12. Won't take your bet, Dan - this is exactly why so many dweebs have long "careers" in politics. No one votes them out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, perhaps someday I can buy you a beer anyway for all the entertainment you provided me in the "golden age" of radio during the Chris Krok show.

      Delete
    2. Ha! Krok Talks Rolls On.....in Dallas, where he's right at home.

      Delete
    3. Hard to believe he hasn't worn out his welcome in every market by now.

      Delete