Blog > A Victory
A Victory
[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.15″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.15″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”-54px|auto||auto||” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.15″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.15.0″ text_text_color=”#4c4c4c” text_font_size=”17px” background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” custom_margin=”28px|||||” custom_padding=”||15px|||” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”]
It is early morning, March 17th. Last night we received three variances from the City of Valparaiso Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). A victory.
Contemporary American cities and towns have laws governing development: what you can build and how you can build it. In Valpo that set of laws is called the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The UDO is a long, complex document informing the builder on a diverse array of specifications: how far the building must be from the front sidewalk, how many bushes must be planted, how many off-street parking spaces must be provided, how many people can live on a certain sized and certain zoned property, the design of the trash dumpster enclosure, and on and on.
The purpose of the UDO is to ensure orderly development. Go to a third world country and look at the chaos of tiny, winding streets and the ever-present traffic nightmare and you can begin to understand the function of a UDO. Orderly development is a good thing.
But here is also a latent function of these ordinances: control. The UDO gives an appointed panel – in this case five people – the ability to enforce some unwritten rules. What kind of town do we want? Who should live here?
For example, if a project will bring to the community high-income residents and generate substantial tax revenues for the city, there is an inclination to provide needed variances to the development rules. Let the developer squeeze in an additional building on the property even if it must violate front yard set-back rules, or there is less than specified green space.
But if the same variances are sought by a developer whose goal is affordability to accommodate low wage workers and their families, AND whose not-for-profit organization makes them exempt from property taxes, the BZA may look at the request with squinted eyes.
The biases and fundamental values of the members of the BZA, and the political leaders who appointed them, will impact the decisions of the BZA and the resultant character of the town.

Project Neighbors – Proposed Three-Unit Building (Front)
Two years ago, we were denied needed variances for this project. At the time we had designed a five- unit, apartment building. This time we proposed a three-unit building for the same property. We also informed supporters of our mission to show up at the BZA meeting to speak in favor of our request. They did. And they wrote letters of support to the City Planner.

Project Neighbors – Proposed Three-Unit Building (Back)
We won this skirmish. But if there is a war of values, and I believe there is, the war rages on.
-Paul Schreiner
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.15″ _module_preset=”default” min_height=”114px” custom_margin=”-54px|auto||auto||” custom_padding=”89px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.15″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
Categories
About Project Neighbors
Project Neighbors is a project of Neighbors Corp., an Indiana not-for-profit corporation, which is recognized as a tax exempt public charity pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Donations to public charities are tax deductible to the extent provided for in law.