TO: Parking Standards wrote on Jul 4, 2007 10:40 AM:
" You could not be more correct. The newly ordained Inspection/Planning Czar is behind this almost blind, reckless, direction as a City. Initially LHI was to build a parking ramp for themselves on their second piece of property. Instead we agreed to creatively finance another building and gurantee them 800 additional 'free' spaces. That move we will ultimately pay for. This move in 'relaxing' our citizens will pay for as well. Except the adjacent neighbors will pay as they standard of living will drop considerably as this quest for needed money continues. -Nestor "
Here is a scenario wrote on Jul 4, 2007 10:35 AM:
" I have built several housing units at different on campus or close to campus sites around the State. My former relative is on the Regents. I would very much like to build large rental units in Lacrosse and maximize my profits. I am limited by square footage in property to do so by parking codes. If the committee that was being formed to evaluate 'Rental Housing Standards' was pushed out by a Council Person 120 days, I would love to squeeze in a project or two with exceptionally historically different relaxed parking requirements. "
Parking Standards wrote on Jul 4, 2007 12:45 AM:
" I don't believe the parking standards could work with less than 1 car per bedroom. Odd-Even parking is in effect during a large part of the school year. Snow has never been removed from student parking lots in my neighborhood. Snow piles occupy parking spots and the city did nothing about it in 2007 when the snows came hard in Late February. Landlords complain about unauthorized cars in their lots, but feel their time is to important to wait for the Police to respond and ticket. So they do nothing and the tenants suffer. I say ticket the unauthorized vehicles and pickup the trash around your property while you are waiting for the Police to arrive. In Kirch I Trust. "
JS wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:30 PM:
" This article fits perfect with yesturday's tribune editorial on the UW-L growth and access plan. If this plan goes through we will see many more of these apartment complexes being discussed at these meetings and many new ones built. Where are these 1,000 extra students going to live? UW-L will not house them. They plan to knock down two dorms for their new academic building. All of these students are going to be pushed into neighborhoods farther from campus that are now homes to single family residences. These single family neighborhoods will be lost just like the others that have already transitioned over to student apartments near campus. The city must take a stand against this plan until UWL takes responsibility and finds ways to house these students without forcing more of them into city neighborhoods. UW-L needs to add more on-campus housing instead of demolishing it. "
We need the newer, larger, tax base now wrote on Jul 3, 2007 8:18 PM:
" We'll worry about the parking problems and congestion tomorrow. Then you wonder why they are in the public job sector? Even the 'Gunslinger/CEO' with his 'business degree is in over his head, and the big boyz are making mince meat out of him. Pray for the future Mayors and Council People. "
Truth wrote on Jul 3, 2007 8:10 PM:
" The recent codes were 1 1/2 spaces for each bedroom. The proposed conversation for the housing standards consortium was going to be 1 to 1. The housing that they apparently want to approve tonight will be 28 parking spots for 69 bedrooms less than 1/2 of the already 'relaxed 'parking code of 1 to 1. This Administration of those before have spent $1.20 and taken in $1.00. They are literally clamouring for cash. Our City leaders are willing to substantially add to a neighborhoods congestion and parking problems. We had congestion in many areas of the City when the code was 1 1/2 to 1. After lowering the requirement to less than half of 1 to 1 for the Boyz we are setting a dangerous precedent against taxpayers. City Hall is in a state of shambles. "
My dad instructed me...... wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:22 PM:
" when I required $30 to ask for $40. Think of this article and content this way, They threw two property sites up on the table. One voted down, one approved. Both were 'relaxed' parking codes. The City leaders involved appear to those just 'glancing' that they did their job since one was cut. The 'Boyz' got one housing unit passed with 'relaxed' parking. The other unit was purposely put up as a scarifice that in fact had far less chance of passing. The nieghbors will suffer because of the on street parking. You and I will ultimately pay to fix or live with these problems in the long term. That will have a direct affect on our standard of living in our City, Lacrosse. One segment at a time, due to poor planning or favors for cronies and influential? "
"15 broad areas, including parking, green space, exterior lighting and building design" wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:46 PM:
" The left hand shakes the 14 tauted wonderful requirements to protect our eyes from disheveled, ugly rental housing units. While the right hand is making deals to 'relax' parking. It the job of every entrepreneur to cut the deal best to maximize their profits and realize the best return for their money. It is also the responsibility of our elected officials to say no when they are not in our best long term interests. Parking has a great affect on profitability in regard to urban housing units. It has a great affect on the number of units that will bring in cash. Our leaders are not in place to let a few select elite people step 'over' this crucial limbo regulation bar. "
Save these historical buildings wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:29 PM:
" They truely add to the experience of driving downtown along Main Street. The other apartment building on Main built by the Gerrards is not architecturally appealing, and I hate to see another ugly box thrown up. I hope the Presevation Alliance can stand up and help save these two unique brick buildings. La Crosse has lost too much to keep tearing these unique buildings down. "
Relevent to this article, or is it? II wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:34 PM:
" Rather than allowing what I believe is eventually going to be upscale condos in the LHI buildings we have allowed to be built virtually on our very limited downtown shoreline? Step forward if anyone of our forward thinkers did so. I think not, we did not even think clearly enough to obtain a deeded green-space access at the Marriott. "
Relevent to this article, or is it? I wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:33 PM:
" We paid a reported $6.5 million for the Cargil silos. Cargil is the largest privately held Corporation in the world. A relatively short time ago the family owned business fractured and witnessed infighting from within for control. Although lets keep in mind that Lacrosse is indeed the families hometown. Which even today seems to give pride to this family reflected in a wonderful family coveted book containing history, and pictures mainly covering Lacrosse and the families history. Did any of our forward thinking intelligent City thinkers ever approach anyone like Duncan McMillan to see if they were interested in donating that land in namesake of the family for extending our riverside park and beauty. "
Nestor wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:19 AM:
" Wait for the flow chart, have patience. Projects, parking relaxing, financing recipeients, those who write those financing packages, TIF recipients, Board and Committee members in our fair City and area, Professional relationships, blood reltionships, relationships by marriage, and Political relationships. My what a tangled web we weave in our town. "
Nestor wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:09 AM:
" Now I want you all to reflect at the coupling of the Inspection/Planning Department under our new, and more powerful Czar Kirch. I stated at his ordination then , and will once more state this fellow has too much control over direction in this City, it is my opinion he flies by the seat of his pants too often, is too aggressive, and shows reckless behavior too often. Ultimately making concessions now that will leave problems that you and I will clean up with our tax money under the banner and guise of healthy growth for our City. LHI's 2nd building that was pushed by us at lightning speed instead of the original direction of their parking ramp is a prime example. "
TO: Councilman Italiano wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:50 AM:
" This is not the first project where the parking code bar has been 'relaxed', and does not appear to be the last. How soon we forget that a UWL spokesperson inkled that the proposed 100 student expansion would be pointed toward the "West" side of campus. What did you think would happen? As it was apparent to me and those I know, you and your fellow Council people remained mute when you should have voiced concern regarding that proposed expansion in regard to parking. The old parking requirement for multi unit projects were set for a reason, 28-29 spots for 69 bedrooms would not have been sufficient then or now! This is a fast moving sham once more at City Hall. "
TO: Parking Requirements wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:38 AM:
" Right on the money! It is terribly hard to follow this issue and code. The parking codes term for quite some time was, "we are relaxing parking codes" for this particular project. We have also heard outlandish statements from City leaders like, "we will 'relax' parking codes by allowing landlords to install bike racks instead". With this continual 'moving of the bar' projects and their codes become suspect as it appears they take form of favors or proof of who has influence inside City Hall. "A few here and a few there", the problem is who ultimately ends up receiving the go ahead for the "few". Also 'relaxing' of this type in parking by anyone can make life miserable for any nearby residents, under the guise that there is rhyme or reason to any of these decisions, when there is none! -Nestor "
Hmmm... wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:19 AM:
" We own and live in our house on the same block as the proposed Main Street and West Avenue complex. No one notified or asked us abot this. This is the first I've even heard of it. "
Let me get this right wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:16 AM:
" The project at West Ave and Main Street has been turned down because Councilman Italiano stated, "encroach into an area that once was single-family homes". How soon some would like to forget the rather recent Mr. D's debacle. A similar project, in almost the exact area, that the Gerrard Boyz were involved into up to their necks. We never heard these cries of foul when that project was attempted to be forced down Lotz's throat. Even when the Mayor got involved in what widley was construed as arm twisting in Gerrards behalf. Gee, now we have the newly constructed, higher powered Inspection/planning Czar. Watch this one closely people! I'll bet the excuses will have no merit, and under scrutiny will have any logic or fairness attached to them as well. "
Bliss Road wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:14 AM:
" Just stack them one after another up Bliss Road. Not far from campus. Nice view too. Don't let the city build them! This city needs more rentals. Even new buildings will look like junk in 20 years after college kids have been through them. Beer/drugs/parties...takes its toll. "
I used to live in one of those buildings and the bar time noise wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:10 AM:
" is unbelievable because it is on the path from third street to the university. Plus any busy intersection in La Crosse is going to be a problem because of all the loud Harleys and cars with those tin can mufflers tearing around. "
Funny comment wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:10 AM:
" Satory thinks the buildings have been neglected, but Addis says they are up to code and never cited by the city. Can we here from the inspection department? I think I already know the answer. I would find it hard to believe Satory is right, based on where the houses are located and how many people drive-by them each day. Nice try though! lol "
re: hmmmmmm wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:06 AM:
" I agree, two old houses vs one new complex, definitely a no-brainer. To those who think this is encroaching on the historical area, why don't you get out your checkbooks and make an offer that the Gerrards can't refuse. "
Parking Requirements wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:35 AM:
" Isn't there already a parking requirement for new structures? This would be far too less for students not living in the dorms. I doubt less then 1/2 have cars.
"Under those standards, the existing and new Main Street buildings would need just 28 parking spaces for its 69 combined bedrooms, and the Gerrards would provide 29."
"
Closet preservationist? wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:03 AM:
" I have always liked those two big brick apartment houses on the NW corner... I know they are old and would need an overhaul, but does anyone know if it is at all feasible? They are rather magnificent old buildings that could possibly be beautifully redone. Does anyone know their history? "
hmmmmm.... wrote on Jul 3, 2007 8:21 AM:
" let's see....two delapitated junky rental houses..or a new nice looking complex. no brainer. "
Onalaska wrote on Jul 3, 2007 6:55 AM:
" I hear there is a spot open on Krause Rd. "
Advertisement
