- Public Accountability • Civic Literacy • Common-Sense Conversations
Vol. 2, Issue No. 25 June 15, 2026 – (1753 words – an eight-minute read)
JANESVILLE’S ZONING REWRITE PART I* (plus Backyard Camels and the Myth of Affordable Housing)
*PART TWO IS NEXT WEEK WHERE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES ARE REVIEWED.
The Changes You Can See: Housing, Redevelopment, and a Different Vision for Growth
(Janesville WI) –Most people never read a zoning ordinance. In fact, most people don’t think about zoning at all until a subdivision appears behind their neighborhood, a business proposes a new location, or a development controversy lands on the front page.
Yet zoning quietly shapes every aspect of community life. It determines where homes can be built, what businesses can operate where, how neighborhoods evolve, and what a city may look like twenty years from now.
That is why Janesville’s proposed zoning code rewrite deserves far more public attention than it has received so far.
This is not simply a housekeeping exercise. It is not merely a reorganization of old regulations into a more modern format.
The draft represents a significant shift in how the city approaches growth, redevelopment, housing, and land-use decision-making.
Whether one views that shift as positive or concerning depends on what they believe zoning should accomplish.
AT THE HEART OF THE DEBATE:
“The question is not whether the draft modernizes the code. It clearly does. The question is what values are being advanced through that modernization.”
A Code Written for a Different Era
Janesville’s current zoning ordinance traces its roots to planning concepts that became popular decades ago.
Those concepts emphasized separating land uses:
- Homes here.
- Businesses there.
- Industry somewhere else.
The system provided predictability, but it was not especially flexible.
The proposed rewrite reflects a newer planning philosophy.
Rather than focusing primarily on separation, the draft emphasizes:
- flexibility,
- housing diversity,
- redevelopment,
- adaptive reuse,
- administrative efficiency.
In simple terms, the new code is designed to make it easier to build things.
Supporters argue that is exactly what Janesville needs.
Critics may ask whether making development easier could also reduce neighborhood influence over future growth.
Both are reasonable questions.
______________________________________________________________________________
More Housing Types Than Ever Before
Perhaps the most visible change involves housing.
The draft creates clear pathways for housing types that either did not previously exist in the code or were difficult to develop.
Among them are:
- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
- Cottage Housing
- Tiny Home Developments
- Mixed Residential Projects
- Adaptive Reuse Housing
Planners often call these options “missing middle housing.”
These are housing forms that fall somewhere between a traditional single-family home and a large apartment complex.
Supporters see these options as tools to address affordability and expand housing supply.
Others may wonder how these new forms fit within established neighborhoods.
The debate is likely to continue throughout the review process.
PONDER THIS FOR A MOMENT:
“The draft clearly favors increasing housing options. Whether residents view that as opportunity or concern may depend on where they live and what they value most.”
Redevelopment Gets a Boost
The draft also appears designed to make redevelopment easier.
Older commercial buildings, vacant industrial properties, and underused sites often struggle under traditional zoning rules.
The proposed code creates more flexibility for:
- adaptive reuse,
- infill development,
- redevelopment projects,
- conversions of existing structures.
In many communities, planners increasingly view redevelopment as preferable to outward expansion.
Rather than extending infrastructure farther into undeveloped areas, redevelopment focuses on making better use of land already served by roads, utilities, and public services.
The Janesville draft appears to embrace that approach.
Mixed-Use Development Moves Into the Mainstream
Another notable shift is the treatment of mixed-use development.
Traditionally, zoning often separated residential and commercial uses.
The proposed code is more comfortable blending them together.
Buildings that contain housing, retail, office, and service uses may become easier to develop under the new framework.
That approach mirrors trends seen in many downtown revitalization efforts throughout the Midwest.
Data Centers Enter the Conversation
One entirely new feature is the inclusion of data centers as a defined land use.
When the existing ordinance was written, data centers were not a major planning issue.
Today they are among the fastest-growing forms of industrial development in the country.
The draft recognizes them as a distinct use and requires utility-capacity verification before permits are issued.
However, compared with some communities that have adopted extensive data-center regulations, Janesville’s proposed standards appear limited.
Questions regarding water consumption, noise, backup generators, infrastructure impacts, and decommissioning requirements remain topics that residents may wish to explore further during the public review process.
Looking Beyond the Headlines
Housing, redevelopment, and data centers will generate most of the public discussion.
Yet one of the most significant changes in the draft may not involve any particular land use at all.
Instead, it involves who makes decisions, how quickly those decisions are made, and how much opportunity the public has to participate.
That question will be the focus of Part II.
Because while the visible changes may shape what gets built, the procedural changes may shape who gets to influence those decisions in the first place.
The Camel, the Needle, the Head Scratcher of the Week – Editorial Commentary
The Good Book tells us that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Judging by modern zoning codes, however, the camel may have an easier time obtaining approval than a homeowner who wants four chickens and a beehive.
Consider the proposed zoning code. A “Major Utility Installation” is defined as a facility that may have a “moderate to high impact on neighboring property.” This category includes sewage treatment plants, electric substations, water towers, electric transmission lines of 110kV or greater, and pipeline pumping stations. The supplemental standards for such facilities are surprisingly brief. If the installation includes a building and is located in a residential district, the building must simply be “compatible with residential buildings in regard to design and exterior materials.”
That’s it.
A facility carrying high-voltage electricity across the landscape, processing sewage, or serving regional infrastructure needs may be judged on whether the building looks nice.
Meanwhile, I would like four chickens.
Not four hundred. Four.
I would also like one beehive—a small wooden box occupied by nature’s most hardworking pollinators.
Yet somehow these humble ambitions often trigger a maze of permits, setbacks, operational standards, neighbor notifications, and regulatory scrutiny suggesting I have applied to construct an industrial complex.
A structure designed to support transmission lines, substations, or utility operations can potentially have a “moderate to high impact on neighboring property” and still navigate the approval process with remarkable efficiency. But a homeowner seeking fresh eggs and a little backyard pollination may find himself threading a camel through the eye of a needle.
That is the new philosophy of land use planning: if it hums, buzzes, pumps, transmits, processes, or towers over the neighborhood, it is infrastructure. If it clucks, lays eggs, and pollinates flowers, it is a matter requiring serious governmental contemplation.
Truly, we live in miraculous times. RH Gruber, Publisher/Editor
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Letter to the Editor:
Affordable Housing or Affordable Narrative?
To the Editor: Housing prices have jumped through the roof all over this County. The only more expensive place is Madison. What gives? Why can’t we solve these issues? Is there anything you know of Mr. Wizard about a magic bullet or two coming out of city hall?
Want a straight answer, Phil from Janesville
Hi Phil. Great question for a wizard, We will take it on anyway.
New title? Mr. Wizard? Last week I was Mr. Skeptic and the week before Mr. Mudslinger. This editor does wear a number of different hats.
Back to your letter, Few phrases have become as politically powerful—and as difficult to question—as “affordable housing.”
Across Wisconsin and much of the nation, proposals for zoning changes, higher-density developments, housing trust funds, tax incentives, and public subsidies are frequently justified with the same argument: we have an affordable housing crisis, and we must build more housing to solve it.
But what if the conversation is asking the wrong question?
Or more accurately, what if “affordability” has become a catch-all explanation for a much more complex set of community planning challenges?
A common theory behind many housing initiatives is the idea of housing mobility, sometimes called the “filtering” effect. The theory suggests that when new, higher-priced housing is built, wealthier residents move into those units, freeing up older housing for middle-income residents. In turn, middle-income households vacate older homes that become available to lower-income residents. Eventually, affordability improves throughout the market.
It sounds logical.
The problem is that reality does not always cooperate with theory.
In many communities, newly constructed housing enters the market at prices well beyond the reach of average workers. A $350,000 starter home, a $500,000 townhouse, or a luxury apartment renting for $2,000 per month does little to help a family struggling to find housing at half those costs. The promised movement through housing classes often occurs slowly, if at all, and may take decades before any meaningful affordability benefit appears.
That does not mean new housing is unnecessary. Communities need housing options at all price points. The question is whether building more market-rate housing should automatically be equated with solving affordability.
There is another issue often overlooked in these discussions.
Many local housing initiatives are less about affordability and more about growth management.
Communities want workforce housing. Employers want workers. Developers want flexibility. Local governments want tax base growth. Housing advocates want greater housing choice. All are legitimate goals, but they are not necessarily the same thing as affordability.
Similarly, housing trust funds and development subsidies deserve closer examination. When local governments provide incentives, fee waivers, tax increment financing, or officially supported housing funds, taxpayers should ask whether these investments are producing housing that would not otherwise be built—or merely improving the economics of projects already planned.
The real debate may not be whether Janesville needs more housing. It certainly does.
The debate is whether the community is using the term “affordable housing” as a shorthand for a much broader conversation about growth, land use, zoning policy, economic development, and the kind of city residents want to become.
Affordable housing is an important goal.
“Good policy begins with candor about the problem. If this community cannot even convene a serious housing conversation, it has no business pretending it is ready to solve housing affordability. A deliberative democracy approach would require the city to do the harder work first: bring the public into a real process of defining the problem, testing assumptions, and weighing trade-offs. If we cannot agree on the problem, we should stop pretending we have agreed on the solution.”
RH Gruber, Editor/Publisher
Community Spotlight: Havana Coffee
If you are looking for a place to reflect on your civic journey—or just fuel up before a council meeting—stop by Havana Coffee at 1250 Milton Avenue. It is a true Janesville gem, where espresso meets engagement.
Nowlan Law Firm and Attorney Tim Lindau
We also extend our thanks to Attorney Tim Lindau and the Nowlan Law Firm for their support of civic education and democratic renewal. We value Tim’s encouragement—and his belief in the power of our mission.
We extend special thanks to the John and Lynn Westphal Family and the Mark and Lori Warren family. Along with John and Lynn, Mark and Lori are deeply committed to this community and its future. Their support for the Rock County Civics Academy and our programs strengthens the outlook for a better Rock County community.
Together, with partners like Havana, Nowlan Law, the John and Lynn Westphal family, and the Mark and Lori Warren family, we are building a culture of engagement that honors both tradition and transformation.
HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING: Where ideas meet action—and citizens shape the future.
What if transparency was the norm, not the exception?
What if civic engagement became Rock County’s defining strength?
Every movement begins when someone decides “now is the time.” That someone could be you.
A CALL TO LEADERSHIP
Leadership isn’t about ego—it’s about service.
It’s showing up, listening deeply, and acting with purpose.
Three ways to begin:
• Volunteer with a civic group
• Serve on a local board or commission
• Run for public office and lead the change.
“If not you, who? If not now, when?” — Hillel the Elder
📚 SUBSCRIBE FOR INSIGHT
Your weekly dispatch from Wisconsin’s heartland to America’s horizon.
Every Friday, Hypothetically Speaking explores the intersection of policy, people, and possibility—inviting dialogue and celebrating civic courage.
Subscribe on Substack → Search Rock County Civics Academy
📰 substack.com | Keywords: Rock County Civics Academy
🌐 ENGAGED: Civic engagement is always within reach: 📍 rockcountycivicsacademy.org
📘 Facebook | 📺 YouTube | 📰 Substack.
FINAL THOUGHT: Democracy is a skill—one that strengthens with practice.
Stay curious. Stay engaged. Stay connected.
Because the next chapter of Rock County’s story is being written—right now.
©2026 Rock County Civics Academy Produced in partnership with the Rock County Civics Academy to promote open dialogue, ethical leadership, and civic participation across Wisconsin’s heartland. Publisher/Editor: RH Gruber, Correspondents: Paul Murphy, DuWayne Severson, All Illustrations by B. S. MacInkwell, unless otherwise noted. Published by CSI of Wisconsin, Inc. P. O. Box 8082, Janesville WI 53547-8082
No responses yet