Hmmm...let me see...currently a baron landscape property not generating any property tax revenue, no jobs, and not asthetically pleasing. Alternative - support an entreprenerial business idea and investment which will result in jobs, property tax revenue, and a new building with thriving businesses which will need customer parking. If this is a tough decision for you, then I'm sorry you have bigger troubles.

Electronic signs should not be allowed in residential areas, but I bet they will let them.

"Those 45 spaces will go a long way to relieving the terrible shortage of parking downtown. Why, a month or two back I was only able to count 250 empty spaces within two blocks of One Parker Place at 2pm on a weekday! It's an urgent crisis indeed."

Shortage- the ONLY time I saw a shortage is when thousands of people attended rock around the block. People cannot handle walking a couple blocks. Even been to Chicago where it is a couple blocks just to get OUT of the parking garage??? To bad if you cannot park in front of the building. If you park in the ramp the WHOLE downtown is within walking distance. Park there and walk- you may lose a few LBs. I am so tired of hearing there is no place to park. If you go to the big box store or the mall I don't hear you complain when you have to park in the back 40. Same distance as down town if you have to park two stores down. Lazy Janesville. Maybe the entitlement they should just bring the product to your door for free so you don't need to get your lazy arse of the couch???!!!

Oh how I love the restrictive covenants of my snooty neighborhood association.

Churches should not be exempt from the laws. Nobody in their right mind wants a bright, ugly sign blasting light into their house windows at night.

I'm talking to you St. Williams!!!!

Signs are ugly. As a frequent visitor to Europe, I wish everyone could see, as I have what beautiful countrysides and even cities look like without ugly large, blaring billboards spoiling the view.

Those 45 spaces will go a long way to relieving the terrible shortage of parking downtown. Why, a month or two back I was only able to count 250 empty spaces within two blocks of One Parker Place at 2pm on a weekday! It's an urgent crisis indeed.
.
As to the river ramp, the city is under the assumption that it is past its lifetime (concrete generally has a lifetime of about 50 years, and this is pushing 60 and counting) and will eventually deteriorate beyond repair, at which time they have a concern that the state DNR might not allow it to be replaced.
.
Ideally, by the time that happens, Janesville will be moving back toward sustainability with more options for public transportation downtown and less need for all those wasteful parking spaces. Sprawl on the outskirts is bad enough, but when you have sprawl downtown it really does impact how efficient the urban core can be.

I think these are the same Tea Party carnival barkers that irresponsibly tore down a historic building because it was included in the proposed overlay district and also claimed they were promised parking spots from the former city manager? It only figures the people who bash goverment now want to freeload on my dime. The city owes $35,000 on the land to repay block grants. Now these rubes offer a $1 for land that taxpayers will be stuck paying for? Call your favorite council member and tell them "no way!"

Those red, digital signs are the devil! I live next to a church that plays messages 24 hours a day on one of those digital things. We had to buy both blinds and special light blocking curtains to try to cut down that bright, shining, flickering, never-ending light. It is the most horrible, annoying thing invented. I pray the City will not allow those digital signs into residential areas. I would not wish on anyone what we have gone through since that thing turned on.

They own the land they tore down the building on. They want to purchase the empty lot next door to that land from the city. At least thats whats I get from the sentance "Terry Donaldson, Norm Weitzel and Fred Fox recently tore down a building next to the city lot, opening up space to the west."

I thought "the men" owned the land that they tore down the building to sell the land for parking.
Are they speaking about the parking over the bridge that they owe money on. Poorly written as usual.

"The proposed change would require signs to be at least 500 feet from residences and to face the adjoining street."

So what residencial area would be 500 feet from a house???? So a large park can have a sign? A house couldn't have a sign unless you owned the 3 lots around it.

Agreed, carlp... who ARE these people running the city? Did they pass first grade math? Wow...
What did I miss here?

"a request by the owners of One Parker Place to buy the vacant lot at the corner of Court Street and Parker Drive for $1"

"The city owes about $35,000 for the land to repay federal block grants."

So the city, and as a result the citizens of Janesville, should take a $35,000 loss on the property? How does this make sense? If they want the land let them pay $35,000 for it.

Why would the parking deck over the rock have to go?????????????????????