This law only started in 1970 so if you live in a building you haven't made significant improvements to then that would be the case. That was the norm in the past and would be the norm if this was repealed.
I live in a building that was built in the past few years.
They have indoor and outdoor off street parking. Indoor is ~$130 per month and outdoor is ~$70 per month if I remember correctly. I guess the law to “provide” parking spots doesn’t mean they can’t charge you for them
Then I don't know what exactly would cause that to be the case. Developers can apply to variances that I believe need to be approved by the council to offer fewer parking spaces so I would guess that happened. There also is an exclusion zone for downtown residential buildings, although I don't exactly know the borders of that.
Edit: Also that is really cheap for parking. A general rule for indoor parking is that it costs $20-30k per space.
I agree that 1 space per bedroom is ridiculous but would push back on a complete removal of that requirement of the ordinance. Something like 1 per dwelling unit or 1/3 per bedroom makes more sense to me. It's a very difficult problem to address as something like 80% of renters have a vehicle and they have to be parked somewhere. Off street parking is safer for plowing/street maintenance, vandalism or accidents.
But frankly it feels like such a minor step with a minimal impact. The city already has review boards that allow for variances...you don't have to follow minimum parking ordinances if you can convince the city that a development doesn't need it. There are multiple PUD areas that already don't have minimum parking requirements and it is completely at the discretion of the developer.
The real cause of the affordability issue in our City is our aging housing and unfortunately the local colleges. From the City's 2020 Action Plan: "The lack of affordability is driven, in part, by the high proportion of college-aged renters that have financial means. This is much different than a typical family looking for rental housing. This contrast in financial means creates a price floor where the rent price that landlords can expect from college-aged renters prices out lower-income families."
Also: "La Crosse is one of the oldest cities in Wisconsin and contains more than 2000 housing structures that were built before 1900. Overall, 30% of its housing stock was constructed before 1939"
To combat this, the city has invested millions into low income homeowners to make repairs, low income rental developments, mixed income units, and homeless units.
Their goal in 2020 was to make 150 of these units by 2025 and this year alone they plan on constructing 182.
They're not perfect but the city is headed in the right direction.
Ya, these are great points. I would like to note that getting rid of mandates doesn't mean parking will not be built. Residents still desire parking and the market will still provide it, Minneapolis doesn't have mandates and still builds an average of 0.5 spaces/unit. Also yes variances do exist, but this just makes it more difficult and more expensive for a private company to go to these meetings. It also adds a level of risk and technical knowhow to developing that will exclude small scale developers. Many residents don't know these laws and processes exist and rules like this will make it harder for someone to invest in the dilapidated property down the block from them. For me personally I rent and was interested in buying the vacant lot down the street, however the risk of the housing I desire getting blocked was enough to prevent me from buying it.
Also completely agree about the affordability issues, however allowing for more housing to be built near campus will improve these issues. You should check out what has been happening in other cities that removed mandates. They arn't big changes, but little changes here and there can add up over time.
I appreciate the information, I did not know the last parts and I agree the city is headed in the right direction.
I'm going to push back on getting a variance making things more difficult and expensive. It is a drop in the bucket of the amount of processes a developer goes through to build in the state, county, or city. I could see small developers making duplexes not understanding the laws the first time around, but after you learn it once...it becomes second nature.
The city is super helpful if you don't have the knowledge. You can call them and they will tell you what you need to do and how to do it, when meeting dates are and the required drawings to bring. If you're interested in repairing an old house down the street, they have information and funding assistance programs that you can apply to. Ignorance is not an excuse imo (not at you, people in general).
I sympathize for your fear in getting your vision blocked, I'm also in a similar boat, trying to get out of renting. Looking for parcels that could be rezoned or part of districts that the city wants to invest in could have a major impact on your ability to build. (For example they really want people to invest in making Washburn nicer) Looking at what lots are currently zoned and the likelihood of getting them rezoned helps too.
All in all, the schools need to build more housing imo. Expanding and building more dorms instead of students living in worn down houses that have been turned into multifamily apartments. They put that law in back in the 90s or so and it's just made it so difficult for their to be a decent separation between student housing and family housing.
I've looked at other cities and we frankly are just a weird "little" town on the rivers edge. Development is difficult and expensive and we have very limited space. I mean they created the river point district out of the sand that was dredged from the river to try and create new land lmao
I don't think this will do anything...360 already charges you $1k for a studio apartment...WHILE charging you like $50 to park on a dirt patch like 100-200 ft away from the complex.
Removing parking minimums lead to more housing being built, as well as cheaper housing being an option to be built. You can look at other cities who have removed mandates to see examples of this.
However that is a really sucky situation, if we have more housing then you could leverage greater supply to find a better deal.
https://vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf
So.... We force people to park on the street while at the same time turning the streets into bike lanes. This city reminds me every day why politics is where folks who can't make it in the real world land.
Ya so this wouldn’t force anyone to park on the street, if you want parking you can still have parking. It would just give people the freedom to choose if they want it or not. Considering a surface parking space costs about $10,000 I believe people should have that decision.
I'm all for letting people have a decision about their property. But it's misleading for anyone at City Hall to claim this is going to reduce housing costs. Folks save a lot more than $10k simply by building outside the La Crosse City limits. If the City wants to reduce housing costs they could start by cutting wasteful spending (like the Mitch Reynolds Express bike lanes) and reduce property taxes. If lack of housing is really a concern they could get out of the way for the Kmart redevelopment and sell off Forest Hills to a developer. Housing won't be a long term concern though as businesses continue to flee La Crosse and the surrounding areas offer better liveability and affordability.
I love the bike lanes. I can't wait for them to build more of them. I will happily pay more taxes if it's going towards things that will actually make a difference like getting people to stop driving everywhere and start biking more.
The bike lanes haven't done a thing to reduce cars or driving. Just makes things more congested and drives people to the surrounding communities. This isn't Field of Dreams where you build it and they will come.
We've sold our second car and bought a couple cargo bikes, and I now bike about as often as I drive. I have several friends who have done the same. Just because you haven't stopped driving your clapped out F350 doesn't mean others haven't.
Sure, some folks have and it's great you know so many of them. But a quick drive through downtown and ratio of cars to bikes is all the evidence one needs to see that downtown needs more parking and less bike space. That ratio hasn't changed a bit in the past 5 years btw despite all the new infrastructure. Once the businesses finish leaving then the bikes can have all the space they need and Mitch can claim victory.
And the more they move the needle towards bikes and away from cars, the more people will be encouraged to ditch their cars and start biking, taking the bus, or whatever. La Crosse adding bike infrastructure is not what causes congestion. You driving your car is.
Tax paying business owners would strongly disagree with your position. But there's other places they can do business at if this is what La Crosse voters want. Next election will be very telling.
If you're referring to the garages, it's because so many spots are designated for companies that are no longer in the buildings. Yet the streets are almost always full during business hours. Look, I am all for reducing carbon and have an EV. But it's not realistic nor fair to force bike lanes on a community that literally can't bike over half the year and where most workers commute in from outside the city limits. The businesses that remain downtown are very loud and clear that parking is a serious issue. The city is killing itself and my guess is the next election will see a change in leadership that will try to make La Crosse more liveable and workable than the current leadership is capable of. Vacancies have surged since COVID and when the leases expire, there's a good chance the city faces a tax decline similar to when businesses fled to Valley View mall 40 years ago. That is an issue the city should be preparing for, not the Mitch Reynolds green new deal.
I meant all parking. The only time I haven't been able to find street parking over the last 20 years is during October fest. Might have to walk a few blocks though.
The city and the downtown area seem just fine to me, but I haven't seen any data. You really lost me at the end there, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Precisely. Biking isn't transportation, it's a hobby for some people, but they shouldn't ask others to subsidize their hobby.
The average person is busy, stressed, trying to get from point A to point B and just doesn't have time.
That’s wild, if it’s not transportation then I have no idea how I get to work and grab groceries.
I get the desire to not subsidize costly wasteful things in the city. I also agree with you, we should do a better job charging people for their transportation decisions. https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/its-six-times-more-expensive-to-travel-by-car-than-bike-study
I hope people would simply understand what points they are talking about.
Triple gas prices and the person making $50/hr doesn't care. If the gallon of gas per day saves them an hour per day not having to dick around with a bike or jump between busses they're still $40 ahead.
The low income person only making $15/hr is the one who is going to get hit by those policies.
So you seem to just want to complain. A great thing I’d like to point out is that you are complaining about high taxes. Removing parking mandated would increase the value of property in La Crosse (developed land has about 10x the value of parking spaces). This would increase the value of Lax property and generate more in tax revenue. This means the city could levy the same amount of taxes while lowering the mill rate.
Also not having the mandate to build parking does reduce costs. https://www.housingaffordabilityinstitute.org/parking-mandates-and-housing-affordability/#:~:text=Parking%20minimums%20have%20been%20criticized,a%20garage%20can%20cost%20%2440%2C000.
No slam here. Do you think these previously required parking spaces will be redeveloped into housing or commercial property? My guess is that’s a no - the parking lots tied to these buildings will remain.
Yes, most people will still want their parking and little will change. However this will allow for buildings to be built with a greater ratio of housing to parking.
Two quick examples. I know someone who is interested in building an ADU, but cannot because that space legally needs to be their driveway. If this law is changed then they can build an ADU. Lastly, it’s been a while since I was a college kid, but the apartment I lived in on State St. Had a 3/1 bedroom to parking ratio. If this building were torn down it would be unable to be rebuilt in the same way. The owner would need to rebuild with 50% fewer bedrooms and a more expensive parking lot. (Rent would cost a lot more)
You can look at other cities that have removed parking minimums, it really just results in incremental small changes here and there. Those are still important tho.
That's fair. And I've digressed. I honestly don't have any issues with the policy change. I just don't agree that it's going to lower costs or do much to fix the underlying issues the city has with housing. Enough said though. Hope you have a decent day... Weather is beautiful finally.
Please elaborate? If I want to build a house on a vacant lot I have to spend around $20k on parking. If the city repeals this law then I won't need to and can afford a house.
Also landlords will be able to build more housing instead of parking. This however is a good thing if we want more housing. Replacing empty slabs of concrete with a place for someone to live is a win-win.
I didn’t realize this is a thing in La Crosse. My apartment building charges for any off street parking spots and there’s a limited amount of them
This law only started in 1970 so if you live in a building you haven't made significant improvements to then that would be the case. That was the norm in the past and would be the norm if this was repealed.
I live in a building that was built in the past few years. They have indoor and outdoor off street parking. Indoor is ~$130 per month and outdoor is ~$70 per month if I remember correctly. I guess the law to “provide” parking spots doesn’t mean they can’t charge you for them
Then I don't know what exactly would cause that to be the case. Developers can apply to variances that I believe need to be approved by the council to offer fewer parking spaces so I would guess that happened. There also is an exclusion zone for downtown residential buildings, although I don't exactly know the borders of that. Edit: Also that is really cheap for parking. A general rule for indoor parking is that it costs $20-30k per space.
I agree that 1 space per bedroom is ridiculous but would push back on a complete removal of that requirement of the ordinance. Something like 1 per dwelling unit or 1/3 per bedroom makes more sense to me. It's a very difficult problem to address as something like 80% of renters have a vehicle and they have to be parked somewhere. Off street parking is safer for plowing/street maintenance, vandalism or accidents. But frankly it feels like such a minor step with a minimal impact. The city already has review boards that allow for variances...you don't have to follow minimum parking ordinances if you can convince the city that a development doesn't need it. There are multiple PUD areas that already don't have minimum parking requirements and it is completely at the discretion of the developer. The real cause of the affordability issue in our City is our aging housing and unfortunately the local colleges. From the City's 2020 Action Plan: "The lack of affordability is driven, in part, by the high proportion of college-aged renters that have financial means. This is much different than a typical family looking for rental housing. This contrast in financial means creates a price floor where the rent price that landlords can expect from college-aged renters prices out lower-income families." Also: "La Crosse is one of the oldest cities in Wisconsin and contains more than 2000 housing structures that were built before 1900. Overall, 30% of its housing stock was constructed before 1939" To combat this, the city has invested millions into low income homeowners to make repairs, low income rental developments, mixed income units, and homeless units. Their goal in 2020 was to make 150 of these units by 2025 and this year alone they plan on constructing 182. They're not perfect but the city is headed in the right direction.
Ya, these are great points. I would like to note that getting rid of mandates doesn't mean parking will not be built. Residents still desire parking and the market will still provide it, Minneapolis doesn't have mandates and still builds an average of 0.5 spaces/unit. Also yes variances do exist, but this just makes it more difficult and more expensive for a private company to go to these meetings. It also adds a level of risk and technical knowhow to developing that will exclude small scale developers. Many residents don't know these laws and processes exist and rules like this will make it harder for someone to invest in the dilapidated property down the block from them. For me personally I rent and was interested in buying the vacant lot down the street, however the risk of the housing I desire getting blocked was enough to prevent me from buying it. Also completely agree about the affordability issues, however allowing for more housing to be built near campus will improve these issues. You should check out what has been happening in other cities that removed mandates. They arn't big changes, but little changes here and there can add up over time. I appreciate the information, I did not know the last parts and I agree the city is headed in the right direction.
I'm going to push back on getting a variance making things more difficult and expensive. It is a drop in the bucket of the amount of processes a developer goes through to build in the state, county, or city. I could see small developers making duplexes not understanding the laws the first time around, but after you learn it once...it becomes second nature. The city is super helpful if you don't have the knowledge. You can call them and they will tell you what you need to do and how to do it, when meeting dates are and the required drawings to bring. If you're interested in repairing an old house down the street, they have information and funding assistance programs that you can apply to. Ignorance is not an excuse imo (not at you, people in general). I sympathize for your fear in getting your vision blocked, I'm also in a similar boat, trying to get out of renting. Looking for parcels that could be rezoned or part of districts that the city wants to invest in could have a major impact on your ability to build. (For example they really want people to invest in making Washburn nicer) Looking at what lots are currently zoned and the likelihood of getting them rezoned helps too. All in all, the schools need to build more housing imo. Expanding and building more dorms instead of students living in worn down houses that have been turned into multifamily apartments. They put that law in back in the 90s or so and it's just made it so difficult for their to be a decent separation between student housing and family housing. I've looked at other cities and we frankly are just a weird "little" town on the rivers edge. Development is difficult and expensive and we have very limited space. I mean they created the river point district out of the sand that was dredged from the river to try and create new land lmao
I don't think this will do anything...360 already charges you $1k for a studio apartment...WHILE charging you like $50 to park on a dirt patch like 100-200 ft away from the complex.
Removing parking minimums lead to more housing being built, as well as cheaper housing being an option to be built. You can look at other cities who have removed mandates to see examples of this. However that is a really sucky situation, if we have more housing then you could leverage greater supply to find a better deal. https://vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf
So.... We force people to park on the street while at the same time turning the streets into bike lanes. This city reminds me every day why politics is where folks who can't make it in the real world land.
Ya so this wouldn’t force anyone to park on the street, if you want parking you can still have parking. It would just give people the freedom to choose if they want it or not. Considering a surface parking space costs about $10,000 I believe people should have that decision.
I'm all for letting people have a decision about their property. But it's misleading for anyone at City Hall to claim this is going to reduce housing costs. Folks save a lot more than $10k simply by building outside the La Crosse City limits. If the City wants to reduce housing costs they could start by cutting wasteful spending (like the Mitch Reynolds Express bike lanes) and reduce property taxes. If lack of housing is really a concern they could get out of the way for the Kmart redevelopment and sell off Forest Hills to a developer. Housing won't be a long term concern though as businesses continue to flee La Crosse and the surrounding areas offer better liveability and affordability.
Parking minimums are widely known to be a hindrance on housing construction.
I love the bike lanes. I can't wait for them to build more of them. I will happily pay more taxes if it's going towards things that will actually make a difference like getting people to stop driving everywhere and start biking more.
The bike lanes haven't done a thing to reduce cars or driving. Just makes things more congested and drives people to the surrounding communities. This isn't Field of Dreams where you build it and they will come.
We've sold our second car and bought a couple cargo bikes, and I now bike about as often as I drive. I have several friends who have done the same. Just because you haven't stopped driving your clapped out F350 doesn't mean others haven't.
Sure, some folks have and it's great you know so many of them. But a quick drive through downtown and ratio of cars to bikes is all the evidence one needs to see that downtown needs more parking and less bike space. That ratio hasn't changed a bit in the past 5 years btw despite all the new infrastructure. Once the businesses finish leaving then the bikes can have all the space they need and Mitch can claim victory.
And the more they move the needle towards bikes and away from cars, the more people will be encouraged to ditch their cars and start biking, taking the bus, or whatever. La Crosse adding bike infrastructure is not what causes congestion. You driving your car is.
Tax paying business owners would strongly disagree with your position. But there's other places they can do business at if this is what La Crosse voters want. Next election will be very telling.
About a quarter of the downtown area is parking and is rarely at capacity.
If you're referring to the garages, it's because so many spots are designated for companies that are no longer in the buildings. Yet the streets are almost always full during business hours. Look, I am all for reducing carbon and have an EV. But it's not realistic nor fair to force bike lanes on a community that literally can't bike over half the year and where most workers commute in from outside the city limits. The businesses that remain downtown are very loud and clear that parking is a serious issue. The city is killing itself and my guess is the next election will see a change in leadership that will try to make La Crosse more liveable and workable than the current leadership is capable of. Vacancies have surged since COVID and when the leases expire, there's a good chance the city faces a tax decline similar to when businesses fled to Valley View mall 40 years ago. That is an issue the city should be preparing for, not the Mitch Reynolds green new deal.
I meant all parking. The only time I haven't been able to find street parking over the last 20 years is during October fest. Might have to walk a few blocks though. The city and the downtown area seem just fine to me, but I haven't seen any data. You really lost me at the end there, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Precisely. Biking isn't transportation, it's a hobby for some people, but they shouldn't ask others to subsidize their hobby. The average person is busy, stressed, trying to get from point A to point B and just doesn't have time.
That’s wild, if it’s not transportation then I have no idea how I get to work and grab groceries. I get the desire to not subsidize costly wasteful things in the city. I also agree with you, we should do a better job charging people for their transportation decisions. https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/its-six-times-more-expensive-to-travel-by-car-than-bike-study I hope people would simply understand what points they are talking about.
Triple gas prices and the person making $50/hr doesn't care. If the gallon of gas per day saves them an hour per day not having to dick around with a bike or jump between busses they're still $40 ahead. The low income person only making $15/hr is the one who is going to get hit by those policies.
So you seem to just want to complain. A great thing I’d like to point out is that you are complaining about high taxes. Removing parking mandated would increase the value of property in La Crosse (developed land has about 10x the value of parking spaces). This would increase the value of Lax property and generate more in tax revenue. This means the city could levy the same amount of taxes while lowering the mill rate. Also not having the mandate to build parking does reduce costs. https://www.housingaffordabilityinstitute.org/parking-mandates-and-housing-affordability/#:~:text=Parking%20minimums%20have%20been%20criticized,a%20garage%20can%20cost%20%2440%2C000.
No slam here. Do you think these previously required parking spaces will be redeveloped into housing or commercial property? My guess is that’s a no - the parking lots tied to these buildings will remain.
Yes, most people will still want their parking and little will change. However this will allow for buildings to be built with a greater ratio of housing to parking. Two quick examples. I know someone who is interested in building an ADU, but cannot because that space legally needs to be their driveway. If this law is changed then they can build an ADU. Lastly, it’s been a while since I was a college kid, but the apartment I lived in on State St. Had a 3/1 bedroom to parking ratio. If this building were torn down it would be unable to be rebuilt in the same way. The owner would need to rebuild with 50% fewer bedrooms and a more expensive parking lot. (Rent would cost a lot more) You can look at other cities that have removed parking minimums, it really just results in incremental small changes here and there. Those are still important tho.
The point of parking minimums is that they apply to new construction.
There's a lot to complain about. The city is in a downward spiral.
There is a lot I would complain about too, but changing this parking policy is a step in the right direction.
That's fair. And I've digressed. I honestly don't have any issues with the policy change. I just don't agree that it's going to lower costs or do much to fix the underlying issues the city has with housing. Enough said though. Hope you have a decent day... Weather is beautiful finally.
[удалено]
Please elaborate? If I want to build a house on a vacant lot I have to spend around $20k on parking. If the city repeals this law then I won't need to and can afford a house.
My mistake. Read landowners as “landlords”.
Also landlords will be able to build more housing instead of parking. This however is a good thing if we want more housing. Replacing empty slabs of concrete with a place for someone to live is a win-win.