Dirk, if the City makes this go through subject to new rules (e.g., parking required), there is no way that they can do that without being sued and losing. This was a huge screw-up by the City, long before Hales took office. The City failed to enforce its own code, issued permits, and now needs to correct the error. The sole issue that was remanded, if I've read everything correctly, was the entrance location, which could have been remedied fairly easily and would NOT have been subject to further public review. So, now the issue seems to be that the City didn't know it's own code again, and promised review when review isn't warranted.

None of these issues has anything to do with the neighbor's base complaint, by the way: scale and no parking.
Sweet! This means even more time spent staring at yellow-wrapped partial construction! Thanks, neighborhood activists! Do you think we can keep this project partially built ... forever? Oh, a guy can dream!
Can we just tear this down and rebuild Weird Bar?
As much as I hate these no-parking apartments, this seems like a mistake. They thought he'd have to get a new permit, then they figured out he could revise his current one, so he did.

I understand why the neighborhood is pissed, but I think it is futile. Setting up a lawsuit and a eyesore on that site for the foreseeable future.
I should add that Hales is falling into the Sam Adams "I can please everyone" trap.
What a bunch of wimps. "I think it is futile." Well, we'll see. Plopping 100+ new residents in a neighborhood without adding any parking is just wrong.
I agree TM. I'm just considering the actual technical merits of this case. The city looks like a chicken with its head cut off.

If there was a process set up for revising a permit, and the developer followed it, then those are the rules.

At this point we just need to require one spot per every two units (at least) and stop these disasters in the future. But for the ones under construction, humpty dumpty is already broken and not much we can do about it.
What a cluster. Do these neighbors realize that if they get what they want -- mandatory parking minimums for this building, and future buildings -- it won't keep their neighborhood streets from being full of cars? The owner has no obligation to bundle the parking to the rental rate. It's highly likely that the parking spaces will cost extra. Just as we've seen all over the city, many tenants will simply avoid this cost and park on the street. They're perfectly happy to ruin the mayberry dreams of nimby homeowners in pursuit of urbanism and more beer money. Hope you like looking at VWs and Volvos that aren't yours!
I think this clearly showing that we need to build more parking garages.
btw, that's Starbuck's (Battlestar Gallactica) dad. Katee Sackoff. irrelevant trivia.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.