More apartments = higher water consumption and less water conservation. Not good for those of us living outside the Great Lakes basin.
More apartments = higher property taxes for single family home owners. Higher taxes means lower property values.
Lower property values = increased crime.
Increased crime = a community unable to attract new single family home owners.
What happened the housing mix recommendation?

Right on Steve! Let's see how the Plan Commission votes on this one!

I also agree. Too much density for this project. I believe it will take a gift of money to the mayor and council person's to approve this.

Steve Edlund’s comments are unsubstantiated and bigoted – showing intolerance and prejudice about a class of people. It’s not surprising that Victoria Hekkers also supports this narrow view.

Steve Edlund, however, is a current member of the Waukesha School Board.

Just out of curiosity, is Edlund speaking for the School District of Waukesha or for himself?

And what would the US Justice Department think about this?

Edlund did not say he was not speaking as a member of School Board, so we don’t know exactly where his comments are coming from.

Furthermore, if the City of Waukesha wants to stop population density in a fair and equitable manner then they have to stop all population increases, period.

As it stands, the comments above are discriminatory and the School District and City may be setting themselves up for a federal lawsuit.

Dan,

Where did race, bigotry and discrimination become involved in this? There was no mention of any of these issues at all. Unless of course you are the one assuming that only minorities live in these apartment complexes. Then I would ask, who is the real racist and bigot?

Steve Edlund was stating a fact for a city already stretching our water needs. The trickle down effect has happened over and over again. There was nothing bigoted or racist in his comments. This city has been screaming about our water issue and finding ways to increase tax revenue. You don't get either solved with this kind of building. The plans to bring in mix housing are being undermined and it will come from those with a vested interest in filling their coffers not from the city's residence.

Steve Edlund did not say that he is against all population increases period, therefore his comments are targeting a class of people and bigoted.

Also the housing mix study recommendation which Edlund referenced was put together by Joan Francoeur, who comes off as stuck up and probably didn’t not want those people in her backyard, and was put together before the recession and housing crash.

The people reading the Patch have probably themselves lived in an apartment, or have their loved ones - family or friends that live in apartments. Doesn’t everyone deserve quality housing?

"Janet", I would ask you to please tell me exactly what comment I made that referenced "a class of people" that leads you to slander me as a "bigot".

Federal laws prohibit housing discrimination.

A "bigot" would choose not to live in our community and wonderful city full of diversity and culture.

The diversity and culture are exactly why I choose to live in the City of Waukesha.

Already, the PC thugs come out to decry anyone who disagrees with stretching the city's water resources further and can potentially devalue property for those who live nearby as "bigots", just as we expect them any time the existing citizens don't roll over for anything that benefits the underclass.

I'm sorry, but unless you, Dan, want to guarantee that my property values that have already sunk won't be affected further, that crime won't increase, that my water bills won't go up as we push things further, then I don't buy into your PC bullying.

That's right, you're the same kind of bully your ilk whines about. You view things that if I'm not looking out for someone else moreso than myself, it's inherently wrong, which is silly and childish. And, you resort to inferences of bigotry, name-calling, and essentially trying to slander anyone who doesn't agree with you even when logical arguments are put out.

I'm willing to bet you're either someone who will profit from these projects, or, you live far enough away from them to where you won't be directly affected as some of us will be who live right by these spots that have been pitched for developement. It's easy to say "I don't care, it won't affect me and it will help someone else", but that's stupidly myopic, and shows your personal bias and your own bigotry toward those who don't agree with you.

It's little reason this city is taking a turn for the worse these days.

I don't know enough of the details about this project to comment on the specifics yet. However, other smaller scale projects have been ppd nearby, + have been denied, for really silly reasons, so I hope some equality in the decision making process will prevail here. Or if the Plan Comm approves this, that they reconsider approving other similar smaller scale projects nearby. That being said, in general, newer projects can be developed as sustainable thereby putting less stress on our resources (I didn't say none, I said less; being realisitic, we will not stop (re)development, if not residential, it will be commercial or industrial on that corner - it's been for sale at one time or another for at least 50 years or so), and the fact that there is a mix of two BR, one BR + efficiency units ppd in this particular project, with underground parking, garages, + a clubhouse generally speaks to a nicer development, + I would think the project would be a good fit for that area (you are NOT going to get a developer to build $350K+ houses on that corner), especially given the detailed level of review the Plan Comm usually gives most projects that come b4 them. continued....