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 6^th, to LISTEN to Maraniss and his neighbors, as they speak their truth to power.