I give you credit, Ben, for going through that lengthy meeting and summarizing it for us. Unfortunately you examined this strictly from an economics angle and left out so much else. 1) Impact on real people. People are reluctantly selling their homes right now because they don't want to live in the shadow of such a behemoth. They don't care that "there's no research" showing they will suffer. They are suffering already. 2) You didn't quote from any of the neighbors' comments, many of which made persuasive arguments about the massive scale of the building on an extremely small lot (which is in DRB purview but wasn't and won't be considered), as well as other factors that should have been considered but weren't. 3) You don't question the assumption of our city staff (and Mayor and many Alders) that we have no choice due to fiscal restraints imposed by the State but to essentially let developers write their own tickets, and that therefore (without saying it) implying that they're NIMBY's. That's an assumption someone should be forced to prove. 4) You are also ignoring the process being followed, the pressure being applied by unelected officials in City Hall, the way the City Attorney and other officials have acted on behalf of the developer, and the way regulatory bodies are failing to do their jobs, as BoZA found here. You are right about one thing though - the fix is in. And, I would add, the die is cast for how future public opposition will be dealt with. Despite p. 18 of their own manual saying that formal hearings are required for contested matters, the City Atty. has just informed the neighbors' group attorney that his presence won't be needed at the session and that no new information will be considered and no public comment at all. We don't have to wait for democracy to die in the next election, it already seems to have in Wauwatosa.
Thanks. I did try to acknowledge (1) and (2) near the end when I talked about how people probably didn’t actually care so much about the market value of their property and maybe there was a more persuasive argument for the DRB and Board of Zoning Appeals that should have really emphasized the terrible aesthetics of a SFH next to a 28-story tower independent of any property value impacts.
I think the residents definitely talked about the aesthetics but it often got connected with decreased property values and the lawyers also seemed to put a lot of emphasis on this aspect. And I worry that the DRB is now so anchored to this consideration of property values that as long as there's a persuasive argument that property values won't be affected, that the DRB will feel they've done their job.
Re: (3) and (4) these are much deeper and more fascinating issues that don't come through when watching a public meeting, but it's definitely something I'm trying to understand better.
I give you credit, Ben, for going through that lengthy meeting and summarizing it for us. Unfortunately you examined this strictly from an economics angle and left out so much else. 1) Impact on real people. People are reluctantly selling their homes right now because they don't want to live in the shadow of such a behemoth. They don't care that "there's no research" showing they will suffer. They are suffering already. 2) You didn't quote from any of the neighbors' comments, many of which made persuasive arguments about the massive scale of the building on an extremely small lot (which is in DRB purview but wasn't and won't be considered), as well as other factors that should have been considered but weren't. 3) You don't question the assumption of our city staff (and Mayor and many Alders) that we have no choice due to fiscal restraints imposed by the State but to essentially let developers write their own tickets, and that therefore (without saying it) implying that they're NIMBY's. That's an assumption someone should be forced to prove. 4) You are also ignoring the process being followed, the pressure being applied by unelected officials in City Hall, the way the City Attorney and other officials have acted on behalf of the developer, and the way regulatory bodies are failing to do their jobs, as BoZA found here. You are right about one thing though - the fix is in. And, I would add, the die is cast for how future public opposition will be dealt with. Despite p. 18 of their own manual saying that formal hearings are required for contested matters, the City Atty. has just informed the neighbors' group attorney that his presence won't be needed at the session and that no new information will be considered and no public comment at all. We don't have to wait for democracy to die in the next election, it already seems to have in Wauwatosa.
Thanks. I did try to acknowledge (1) and (2) near the end when I talked about how people probably didn’t actually care so much about the market value of their property and maybe there was a more persuasive argument for the DRB and Board of Zoning Appeals that should have really emphasized the terrible aesthetics of a SFH next to a 28-story tower independent of any property value impacts.
I think the residents definitely talked about the aesthetics but it often got connected with decreased property values and the lawyers also seemed to put a lot of emphasis on this aspect. And I worry that the DRB is now so anchored to this consideration of property values that as long as there's a persuasive argument that property values won't be affected, that the DRB will feel they've done their job.
Re: (3) and (4) these are much deeper and more fascinating issues that don't come through when watching a public meeting, but it's definitely something I'm trying to understand better.
👍