Shorewood Violates Wisconsin’s Public Purpose Doctrine in Proposed Parking Lot Sale

When Milwaukee builds subsidized housing on public property, it pairs development with a public benefit. In some projects, a library is incorporated into the development. In Whitefish Bay, a public parking lot was preserved beneath a publicly financed apartment complex. Milwaukee County will redevelop the Public Museum site while adding the new Wisconsin Museum of Nature and Culture. The Couture development, also located on County land, maintains a public purpose by including a first-floor transit facility.

The Village of Shorewood, however, is proposing to sell a necessary public parking lot and replace it with a 19-unit subsidized housing development owned by a private developer. The surrounding North Oakland neighborhood, home to more than 540 renters, already has a documented shortage of over 320 parking spaces according to Village data (Parking Assessment District Report, 1981).

The lot in question was originally purchased by the Village through a 20-year tax assessment levied on nearby apartments and commercial buildings. We did an inventory of parking spots and apartments during the fall of 2025 and updated the study results. The North Oakland neighborhood now has a shortage of 378 parking spots - - yes, it become worse over time. Affordable Shorewood estimates the neighborhood has more than 540 residents, based upon an inventory of 284 apartments.

Under Wisconsin’s public purpose doctrine, municipalities must ensure the public receives sufficient benefit when public land is sold to justify the loss of a valuable public resource. In this case, the proposed transaction significantly reduces a public benefit while permanently eliminating a public asset. Additionally, the sales price is well below market value. Wisconsin law prohibits municipalities from effectively gifting public assets to private parties without a commensurate public benefit.

The Village appears overly eager to meet the demands of Spoerl Commercial, the only developer responding to the Village’s request for a proposal.Critics say the process reflects multiple departures from good governance and from the Village’s own policies. Examples include:

• Sale Without Appraisal.The Village agreed to sell the parking lot without conducting an appraisal. The developer set the price without any negotiation or independent valuation.Two trustees subsequently suggested a price of $1. A proposal by one trustee to obtain an appraisal was voted down.

• Public Subsidy Exceeding Private Equity.Village policy states that public assistance should not exceed a project’s private equity. The Village is expected to contribute approximately $1.7 million in funding plus roughly $1 million in value through the below-market sale of the lot—a total of $2.7 million. The developer’s original proposal stated that “no private equity would be involved.”

• Lack of Outreach to Renters.Village criteria specify that community members should have an opportunity to comment on projects affecting them. Critics say renters were not informed despite the loss of the only public parking lot serving more than 540 residents on North Oakland Avenue.

• Impact on Local Businesses.Village development financing guidelines include fostering job creation. Local business owners have complained that eliminating the parking lot will reduce available parking for employees and customers.

• Infrastructure and Transportation Concerns.Village development goals include improving infrastructure and transportation. The project would remove a 49-space parking lot, including accessible parking, without replacing it.

• Minority Hiring Requirements.Developers receiving public funds must officially demonstrate efforts toward minority hiring and certification in multiple categories. The developer’s original proposal consisted of a brief statement describing “good faith efforts” and “targeting new hires from distressed zip codes.”

• Limited Developer Vetting.Village policy calls for evaluating developers based on track record and personnel. Only one developer was considered for the project. Publicly available information suggests the firm has one full time employee and a social media consultant, and no track record operating subsidized housing.

• Limits on Public Comment. During a 2025 Village Board meeting, residents were initially told they could not speak about the property sale during the public comment period, a decision later reversed. At a 2026 Community Development Authority meeting, residents were limited to two minutes per speaker, and CDA members laughed at some speakers.

• Alternative Site Not Pursued. A nearby lot of similar size is currently vacant and available for sale. The property owner has stated that no one from the Village has contacted them about the site.

Critics also note that approximately $1 million in public funds allocated to the housing project could instead return to the Shorewood School District. The district is currently facing financial challenges and has discussed the potential closure of a school and layoffs of teachers.

“I don’t understand how a developer could have so much influence over a Village Board, while trustees show so little regard for lower-income residents who rely on a car to get to work,” said Jay Sorensen, volunteer and advocate with Affordable Shorewood. “The reckless handling of this deal could expose the Village to future legal liability from nearby property owners and possible review by the state attorney general.Amazingly, the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority has endorsed the financing of this project and won’t discuss the loss of parking for lower income residents.”

The Shorewood Village Board is scheduled to vote on the project on March 16 at 7:30 p.m. at Shorewood Village Hall.