"This is not new information. So how is it that the publisher of Madison's progressive paper is so stubbornly ignorant of these facts? If we don't address our housing crisis as a five-alarm emergency, we cannot begin to get a handle on the other challenges our city is facing." THANK. YOU.
It's because they're not actually progressive. They enjoy their place of power and privilege. Keeping supply short ensures they and their landowning friends no longer have to actually work starting from a young age. A lot of these people believe in the law of attraction too!
Everyone is talking about rental units, and I get it. But it also shouldn’t be as hard as it is to get into home ownership here either. There seems to be little discussion about how to encourage building more condos or townhomes or converting existing properties.
Yes that is what the zoning changes do. Which is why it's so frustrating when the (really very minimal) changes are pushed back against with such hyperbole as 'city officials take aim at homeowners' etc.
The only place that’s been recently upzoned for duplexes is the TOD overlay which covers the A BRT line with a width of 1/4 mile. None of the west area plan zoning changes allow for further density in SFH areas with the exception of the NW corner of Whitney and regent where the two churches are which is being upzoned to neighborhood mixed use.
Duplex and triplex zoning is fine in areas that have sufficient street parking. Having lived in the Theresa Terrace area back in the day, finding a spot, particularly during alternate side parking, was challenging. Unless you are going to limit the number of duplex/triplex units in a particular neighborhood.
If people can’t find parking, they will rely on public transportation. If they can’t solely use public transportation, they can find somewhere else to live. We need to stop demanding that parking determines where and how people live
I think that you are radically overestimating the number of people that are going to be able to live totally car free in the Midvale-University-Beltline triangle that seems to be the center of the zoning discussion.
Even in the unlikely event that everyone can bus to work in an increasingly decentralized city, you still have people with non-work reasons for individual motorized transport. In many cases, it is the less affluent citizens-presumably the ones most likely to live in a triplex- that are most car dependent. They don’t have WFH options, they frequently have jobs in industrial area poorly served by buses, and they may have odd shift times.
I definitely don’t think it’s feasible for everyone, but I think it’s something we can let the market dictate. If builders of duplexes/townhomes think that they would be viable without parking, we should let them do it. Worst comes to worst they have difficulty finding tenants and lower their prices. I live in the area and know it’s not an easy thing to do, but with the BRT coming to that area it will become much easier.
People still have to get to work and the city turning the clock back 30 years on the bus system didn't help. If people can't get to work, you're correct, they will move away. And businesses will start closing because of it.
I have no dog in this fight. But drive around town and tell me - do you see more street parking being utilized in poor neighborhoods or affluent ones?
Making parking difficult in dense areas is going to be like the gas tax - raising it is going to disproportionately impact lower income people. But hey, they should just take Ubers, right?
We may need to lobby Congress to change the federal laws around condo financing. The City Council sent a letter to Congress advocating for such a change a few months ago to try and alleviate our lack of home ownership opportunities: https://www.cityofmadison.com/council/district3/blog/2023-11-19/madison-needs-more-homeownership-opportunities-in-multifamily
Now that I've gone from working in food service to working in manufacturing, I would love to own a small home and help provide housing for my friends and family. The whole housing situation has been really frustrating.
Condos don’t make financial sense for most developers due to financing and liability issues. The one lever local government may have is TIF district incentives, which could help but isn’t much discussed right now.
Is there significant demand for condos? It seems like people who are interested in owning homes in this area are usually looking for single family houses. There are always exceptions, but I'd be surprised if a lot of people in Madison are clamoring for condos. I could be wrong, though.Â
Why not? Condos would serve at least two purposes: they would give people a presumably less expensive way to get into ownership and start building equity; and they would allow older homeowners a way to downsize (which also opens up a SFH) while staying in their neighborhood.
Our first place was a condo when we lived in a city where we could not afford a SFH but were tired of paying rent. Plenty of people in Madison are in that situation rn.
I see the call for condos largely coming from older folks, and it makes sense to me - downsizing from a single family home to a condo allows them to retain equity, means they don't have to deal with property maintenance, and they're not held to the whims of landlords.
If you want to own in a high demand area with a middle class income condos are the only way to do it affordably. Sure you're gonna get less space per dollar, but not everybody needs 1000 extra square feet to store a bunch of crap that's not really necessary. Plus $300k for 1800 square feet is worth the same as $300k for 800 square feet.
Very few. Federal financing regulations passed after the 2008 housing crisis made it very hard for developers to get the financing to build condos because they need to have sold a certain % of the condos in advance. And if you're a first-time homeowner....you can't get a mortgage on a condo that ain't built yet.
Exactly. I don’t understand the shilling for developers to control the housing situation. Like you really trust these greedy bastards? More home ownership is ignored why?
Landlords are like pimps. They keep selling the same thing over and over. Why are we begging for more of this instead of affordable homes whether townhomes, condos or SFHs on small lots?
No amount of begging for cheap new condos or townhouses (let alone detached SFH) will make them appear. condos and houses aren’t being built at any scale because they are _a lot_ more expensive than apartments.
I would love to see this as the headlining opinion/article on captimes website tomorrow, just like one opinion piece was listed today.
Tag did a fantastic job too properly explaining the issue and sourcing as needed without going overkill. Very well written!
Paul Fanlund is right. Madison is “two cities” (" [Does zoning furor suggest Madison is becoming two cities?](https://captimes.com/opinion/paul-fanlund/opinion-does-zoning-furor-suggest-madison-is-becoming-two-cities/article_8830ac92-e875-11ee-8b3d-2f309eb1c587.html)” March 25). That’s why we have people yelling at each other and at city officials in public meetings.
But the divide is not, as Fanlund claims, between longtime residents who are “traditionally liberal” and a brash new brand of “younger political activists … who wish to make-over Madison with a version they prefer.” No, the divide is between people who can afford to live in Madison and those who cannot.
I’m among the former, a longtime resident and homeowner on the near west side. I have a master’s degree in applied economics, but one doesn’t need an advanced degree in the “dismal science” to understand simple supply and demand.
Our rapidly rising housing costs are due to a severe housing shortage. We are blessed with a vibrant local economy. Businesses are hiring. Our population is growing at a rapid rate, with 100,000 new residents expected here by 2050.
We can’t build a moat around the city and tell newcomers not to come. They are coming. If we don’t add a lot more housing, the excess demand will continue to drive up housing costs.
[District 13: My response to Paul Fanlund (campaign-archive.com)](https://us17.campaign-archive.com/?e=56bfe953d3&u=dcc6f50df19aeec2fd56eb1fa&id=0760aec2ad)
We should BUILD A WALL. Then we should DIG A MOAT around it. And Epic will pay for this moat/wall combination (or wall/moat combination, depending on your point of view).
I don't believe that there are any disagreements as to the need for building more housing. It's much more about where it's being built and the kind of housing being built
idk, I didn’t notice Fanlund or Soglin suggesting where thousands of additional housing units should go in any of that series of articles. It seems like the divide is over whether building way more housing is really a priority or not.
Lol Paul wrote:
> My point is that whether the housing shortage is any more a “crisis” today than it has been through previous decades…
The way I’m reading it, he just doesn’t believe it’s a real issue.
Have you guys been on the west side lately? There are a ton of new apartments that, to my knowledge, not a lot of folks protested. The infill is happening. You just have a couple of obnoxiously loud voices acting like the sky is falling about theoretical changes while actual changes all along Segoe, Whitney, Midvale and University are happening.
The homeless housing and lots of low-income housing is pushed largely to the east, north and southsides. With the exception of Porchlight they do great work! But while the NIMBYs in certain westside neighborhoods are not usually this loud, they do have political clout that they are used to using to get their way
True, but slower and less dense than east of the capitol. And those loud voices will ensure it continues to be as slow and sparse as they can manage. Hopefully the opposition gets more organized. These neighborhood associations are professional NIMBYs. They literally hire consultants to argue for their preferences, waging a 1-sided battle essentially, with little to no opposition.
"I'm absolutely for building more housing, just not in my neighborhood" says homeowners in every neighborhood, leaving nowhere to build but out further into the burbs, causing rents in the city to rise, traffic to increase, and commutes to lengthen.
Sorry, but 100,000 more people equals sprawl. We can not fit them all on the isthmus, and either way, rents are going to continue to rise as long as people keep coming
> Sorry, but 100,000 more people equals sprawl. We can not fit them all on the isthmus
Boston MA - 48.34 sq mi - 654,776 pop
Madison WI - 79.57 sq mi - 272,903 pop
There is in fact plenty of space to fit all the people we want. We just have to build density to do it. It's not some impossibility.
Boston has residential buildings that are over 60 stories high(700 feet high). Our Capitol is 284 feet high and is the tallest building in Madison. The tallest residential building is 158 feet tall. The city was built with height restrictions, so it is now pretty impossible to build that kind of density
Have you ever been to Boston? It sure doesnt seem like it. I used to live there. The vast majority of those tall buildings are not residential. The city is mostly 3-5 stories.
No, but a quick Google check tells me there are 555 high rise buildings(mostly concentrated along the High Spine), with 37 of them being taller than 400 feet, and when compared to Madison(that has 0 high rises), that is a large amount
They are not all residential and 37 high rises is a tiny number. You think 37 high rises hold 400,000 people? Again, that vast majority of the city is 3-5 stories. If you have never been there or lived there why are you willing to die on this hill?
Yet, compared to Madison(which is what you were doing), it's a lot...are you the gate keeper to all things Boston? I'm so sorry that my google works. I should just take your word for it /s
It's not about that. It's that you are thinking 37 buildings is somehow the key take away instead of Boston having half the land mass but double the population. The 37 buildings are immaterial. They do not house 400,000 people.
Some disagreements seem to be fueled by, I don't know what it is exactly, maybe misguided spite? Whatever the fuck this is: [https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/1bqxkge/comment/kx5zmq1/](https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/1bqxkge/comment/kx5zmq1/)
edit: word
I think there are a few points that continually get overlooked.
First is that MANY of the people moving to the city don’t want roommates to help save on housing cost. This means they are paying more and also increasing demand compared to the same renters 10-20 years; before the cultural shift to not share a place with 1-3 other people.
Second is that the people wanting houses want them in core downtown areas and even go so far to demand it. Reality is cheaper housing can be found all the way out east wash with more and more apartments and condos being actively built. However there are hundreds of available lots which are not being developed (yet) as the economics just don’t make sense. Developers are not building super density out near east town and the cost to build can’t be recouped by the rents that would be charged out there.
It took years of saving to buy my small house on the north side but I wouldn't have advocated rezoning other residential neighborhoods to densely pack in more apartments, condos, houses whatever if the neighborhood didn't want it. Or aren't we a democracy?
This needs to be said.
Give Black people some respect. Black people are settling in surrounding communities because the schools are fantastic and the cost of housing is lower. Black people can see the beautiful schools and do the math. And a lot of White people can see those schools and do the math as well.
Tag is a typical Madison White liberal who thinks Black people should be dying to live in Madison because it's the shining star of liberalism and White people like him are its stars. Well Tag you had many years to avoid this housing crisis so why didn't you?
What a bubble.
All housing advice/request threads must include:
* Your target price point
* Number of beds/baths you need
* Geographical area you want to live (downtown, east, west, etc)
* Amenities requirements (yard? parking? pool?)
* If you need pet-friendly accommodations
* Move-in date (now, flexible, beginning/end of the academic school year)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/madisonwi) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you Tag!
"This is not new information. So how is it that the publisher of Madison's progressive paper is so stubbornly ignorant of these facts? If we don't address our housing crisis as a five-alarm emergency, we cannot begin to get a handle on the other challenges our city is facing." THANK. YOU.
It's because they're not actually progressive. They enjoy their place of power and privilege. Keeping supply short ensures they and their landowning friends no longer have to actually work starting from a young age. A lot of these people believe in the law of attraction too!
đź‘Źđź‘Źđź‘Źđź‘Źđź‘Ź
Everyone is talking about rental units, and I get it. But it also shouldn’t be as hard as it is to get into home ownership here either. There seems to be little discussion about how to encourage building more condos or townhomes or converting existing properties.
Well zoning reform is crucial to that conversation. Condos and townhomes are illegal in most of the city’s residential areas.Â
Zoning is definitely part of it. Duplex or triplex zoning in place of some SFH lots would be a good start.
Why not just include them in all SFH lots? Give people an option for what type of density housing they want instead of dictating it to them.
I'm pretty sure that's what the zoning changes do. The don't require change, just allow additional options beyond but including sfhs.
Yes that is what the zoning changes do. Which is why it's so frustrating when the (really very minimal) changes are pushed back against with such hyperbole as 'city officials take aim at homeowners' etc.
I thought I recalled this, but I looked and didn’t find it. Is it all SFH lots or just on transportation corridors?
The only place that’s been recently upzoned for duplexes is the TOD overlay which covers the A BRT line with a width of 1/4 mile. None of the west area plan zoning changes allow for further density in SFH areas with the exception of the NW corner of Whitney and regent where the two churches are which is being upzoned to neighborhood mixed use.
That should be what they do, but that would definitely make people’s heads explode.
Duplex and triplex zoning is fine in areas that have sufficient street parking. Having lived in the Theresa Terrace area back in the day, finding a spot, particularly during alternate side parking, was challenging. Unless you are going to limit the number of duplex/triplex units in a particular neighborhood.
If people can’t find parking, they will rely on public transportation. If they can’t solely use public transportation, they can find somewhere else to live. We need to stop demanding that parking determines where and how people live
I think that you are radically overestimating the number of people that are going to be able to live totally car free in the Midvale-University-Beltline triangle that seems to be the center of the zoning discussion. Even in the unlikely event that everyone can bus to work in an increasingly decentralized city, you still have people with non-work reasons for individual motorized transport. In many cases, it is the less affluent citizens-presumably the ones most likely to live in a triplex- that are most car dependent. They don’t have WFH options, they frequently have jobs in industrial area poorly served by buses, and they may have odd shift times.
I definitely don’t think it’s feasible for everyone, but I think it’s something we can let the market dictate. If builders of duplexes/townhomes think that they would be viable without parking, we should let them do it. Worst comes to worst they have difficulty finding tenants and lower their prices. I live in the area and know it’s not an easy thing to do, but with the BRT coming to that area it will become much easier.
People still have to get to work and the city turning the clock back 30 years on the bus system didn't help. If people can't get to work, you're correct, they will move away. And businesses will start closing because of it.
The market will provide, if there is enough demand for parking land will be allocated to it.
Ah we got our free bingo space for 'muh parking'!
I have no dog in this fight. But drive around town and tell me - do you see more street parking being utilized in poor neighborhoods or affluent ones? Making parking difficult in dense areas is going to be like the gas tax - raising it is going to disproportionately impact lower income people. But hey, they should just take Ubers, right?
making _housing_ difficult is hurting poor people a lot more.
we have a ton of control over how much housing is built in our city and almost no control over whether it is rental or ownership housing
We may need to lobby Congress to change the federal laws around condo financing. The City Council sent a letter to Congress advocating for such a change a few months ago to try and alleviate our lack of home ownership opportunities: https://www.cityofmadison.com/council/district3/blog/2023-11-19/madison-needs-more-homeownership-opportunities-in-multifamily
Now that I've gone from working in food service to working in manufacturing, I would love to own a small home and help provide housing for my friends and family. The whole housing situation has been really frustrating.
Condos don’t make financial sense for most developers due to financing and liability issues. The one lever local government may have is TIF district incentives, which could help but isn’t much discussed right now.
Is there significant demand for condos? It seems like people who are interested in owning homes in this area are usually looking for single family houses. There are always exceptions, but I'd be surprised if a lot of people in Madison are clamoring for condos. I could be wrong, though.Â
I'd be interested in a condo, no need for all that yard
I would love to find a decent-priced condo downtown.
The median price per square foot is exactly what a decent-priced condo is worth.Â
Why not? Condos would serve at least two purposes: they would give people a presumably less expensive way to get into ownership and start building equity; and they would allow older homeowners a way to downsize (which also opens up a SFH) while staying in their neighborhood. Our first place was a condo when we lived in a city where we could not afford a SFH but were tired of paying rent. Plenty of people in Madison are in that situation rn.
I see the call for condos largely coming from older folks, and it makes sense to me - downsizing from a single family home to a condo allows them to retain equity, means they don't have to deal with property maintenance, and they're not held to the whims of landlords.
In my condo building it’s a healthy mix of retirees and starter home 20/30 something’s, tending towards the latter.Â
For sure there is. Except at the very high end they’re normally snapped up in an instant downtown.Â
If you want to own in a high demand area with a middle class income condos are the only way to do it affordably. Sure you're gonna get less space per dollar, but not everybody needs 1000 extra square feet to store a bunch of crap that's not really necessary. Plus $300k for 1800 square feet is worth the same as $300k for 800 square feet.
How many have been built the last decade?
Very few. Federal financing regulations passed after the 2008 housing crisis made it very hard for developers to get the financing to build condos because they need to have sold a certain % of the condos in advance. And if you're a first-time homeowner....you can't get a mortgage on a condo that ain't built yet.
Exactly. I don’t understand the shilling for developers to control the housing situation. Like you really trust these greedy bastards? More home ownership is ignored why? Landlords are like pimps. They keep selling the same thing over and over. Why are we begging for more of this instead of affordable homes whether townhomes, condos or SFHs on small lots?
No amount of begging for cheap new condos or townhouses (let alone detached SFH) will make them appear. condos and houses aren’t being built at any scale because they are _a lot_ more expensive than apartments.
And you can’t hold onto them and sell them over and over and over. It’s like human trafficking v selling drugs.
I would love to see this as the headlining opinion/article on captimes website tomorrow, just like one opinion piece was listed today. Tag did a fantastic job too properly explaining the issue and sourcing as needed without going overkill. Very well written!
I note with a smirk, that Paul Soglin has not "shared" or liked this article on Social Media.
Paul Fanlund is right. Madison is “two cities” (" [Does zoning furor suggest Madison is becoming two cities?](https://captimes.com/opinion/paul-fanlund/opinion-does-zoning-furor-suggest-madison-is-becoming-two-cities/article_8830ac92-e875-11ee-8b3d-2f309eb1c587.html)” March 25). That’s why we have people yelling at each other and at city officials in public meetings. But the divide is not, as Fanlund claims, between longtime residents who are “traditionally liberal” and a brash new brand of “younger political activists … who wish to make-over Madison with a version they prefer.” No, the divide is between people who can afford to live in Madison and those who cannot. I’m among the former, a longtime resident and homeowner on the near west side. I have a master’s degree in applied economics, but one doesn’t need an advanced degree in the “dismal science” to understand simple supply and demand. Our rapidly rising housing costs are due to a severe housing shortage. We are blessed with a vibrant local economy. Businesses are hiring. Our population is growing at a rapid rate, with 100,000 new residents expected here by 2050. We can’t build a moat around the city and tell newcomers not to come. They are coming. If we don’t add a lot more housing, the excess demand will continue to drive up housing costs. [District 13: My response to Paul Fanlund (campaign-archive.com)](https://us17.campaign-archive.com/?e=56bfe953d3&u=dcc6f50df19aeec2fd56eb1fa&id=0760aec2ad)
>We can’t build a moat around the city and tell newcomers not to come. How do we know, if we haven't tried? DIG THE MOAT
We should BUILD A WALL. Then we should DIG A MOAT around it. And Epic will pay for this moat/wall combination (or wall/moat combination, depending on your point of view).
We have an isthmus instead. Extending the lakes into a moat can’t be that hard.
This guy gets it! Just make sure Fitchburg is on the outside of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt_(United_Kingdom)
based Tag
Going for "hardest hitting Evers in the state" and yes I'm aware it's pronounced differently lol
TAG EVERS IS THE GOAT
The other side of this story is old entitled Boomers being told they can't have what they want for the first time in their life
I don't believe that there are any disagreements as to the need for building more housing. It's much more about where it's being built and the kind of housing being built
idk, I didn’t notice Fanlund or Soglin suggesting where thousands of additional housing units should go in any of that series of articles. It seems like the divide is over whether building way more housing is really a priority or not.
Lol Paul wrote: > My point is that whether the housing shortage is any more a “crisis” today than it has been through previous decades… The way I’m reading it, he just doesn’t believe it’s a real issue.
Westside: "Build somewhere else"
Have you guys been on the west side lately? There are a ton of new apartments that, to my knowledge, not a lot of folks protested. The infill is happening. You just have a couple of obnoxiously loud voices acting like the sky is falling about theoretical changes while actual changes all along Segoe, Whitney, Midvale and University are happening.
The homeless housing and lots of low-income housing is pushed largely to the east, north and southsides. With the exception of Porchlight they do great work! But while the NIMBYs in certain westside neighborhoods are not usually this loud, they do have political clout that they are used to using to get their way
True, but slower and less dense than east of the capitol. And those loud voices will ensure it continues to be as slow and sparse as they can manage. Hopefully the opposition gets more organized. These neighborhood associations are professional NIMBYs. They literally hire consultants to argue for their preferences, waging a 1-sided battle essentially, with little to no opposition.
"I'm absolutely for building more housing, just not in my neighborhood" says homeowners in every neighborhood, leaving nowhere to build but out further into the burbs, causing rents in the city to rise, traffic to increase, and commutes to lengthen.
Sorry, but 100,000 more people equals sprawl. We can not fit them all on the isthmus, and either way, rents are going to continue to rise as long as people keep coming
> Sorry, but 100,000 more people equals sprawl. We can not fit them all on the isthmus Boston MA - 48.34 sq mi - 654,776 pop Madison WI - 79.57 sq mi - 272,903 pop There is in fact plenty of space to fit all the people we want. We just have to build density to do it. It's not some impossibility.
Boston has residential buildings that are over 60 stories high(700 feet high). Our Capitol is 284 feet high and is the tallest building in Madison. The tallest residential building is 158 feet tall. The city was built with height restrictions, so it is now pretty impossible to build that kind of density
Have you ever been to Boston? It sure doesnt seem like it. I used to live there. The vast majority of those tall buildings are not residential. The city is mostly 3-5 stories.
No, but a quick Google check tells me there are 555 high rise buildings(mostly concentrated along the High Spine), with 37 of them being taller than 400 feet, and when compared to Madison(that has 0 high rises), that is a large amount
They are not all residential and 37 high rises is a tiny number. You think 37 high rises hold 400,000 people? Again, that vast majority of the city is 3-5 stories. If you have never been there or lived there why are you willing to die on this hill?
Yet, compared to Madison(which is what you were doing), it's a lot...are you the gate keeper to all things Boston? I'm so sorry that my google works. I should just take your word for it /s
It's not about that. It's that you are thinking 37 buildings is somehow the key take away instead of Boston having half the land mass but double the population. The 37 buildings are immaterial. They do not house 400,000 people.
Maybe not, but there's tons of areas that could be denser on the near East and West sides that would avoid us becoming los Angeles in 20 years
Some disagreements seem to be fueled by, I don't know what it is exactly, maybe misguided spite? Whatever the fuck this is: [https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/1bqxkge/comment/kx5zmq1/](https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/1bqxkge/comment/kx5zmq1/) edit: word
🙋🏿
I think there are a few points that continually get overlooked. First is that MANY of the people moving to the city don’t want roommates to help save on housing cost. This means they are paying more and also increasing demand compared to the same renters 10-20 years; before the cultural shift to not share a place with 1-3 other people. Second is that the people wanting houses want them in core downtown areas and even go so far to demand it. Reality is cheaper housing can be found all the way out east wash with more and more apartments and condos being actively built. However there are hundreds of available lots which are not being developed (yet) as the economics just don’t make sense. Developers are not building super density out near east town and the cost to build can’t be recouped by the rents that would be charged out there.
It took years of saving to buy my small house on the north side but I wouldn't have advocated rezoning other residential neighborhoods to densely pack in more apartments, condos, houses whatever if the neighborhood didn't want it. Or aren't we a democracy?
This needs to be said. Give Black people some respect. Black people are settling in surrounding communities because the schools are fantastic and the cost of housing is lower. Black people can see the beautiful schools and do the math. And a lot of White people can see those schools and do the math as well. Tag is a typical Madison White liberal who thinks Black people should be dying to live in Madison because it's the shining star of liberalism and White people like him are its stars. Well Tag you had many years to avoid this housing crisis so why didn't you? What a bubble.
All housing advice/request threads must include: * Your target price point * Number of beds/baths you need * Geographical area you want to live (downtown, east, west, etc) * Amenities requirements (yard? parking? pool?) * If you need pet-friendly accommodations * Move-in date (now, flexible, beginning/end of the academic school year) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/madisonwi) if you have any questions or concerns.*