NEWS
Condo proposal lacks IZ requirement
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Bill Norman:
- Madhatter's to find new place to call call (March 7, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Smart Growth group drops support for inclusionary zoning (November 22, 2005)
- Cieslewicz: affordable housing works in Madison (February 9, 2006)
- Committee votes to keep inclusionary zoning (December 8, 2005)
- Affordable housing to come under fire (November 2, 2005)
- Court upholds affordable housing (October 3, 2005)
Share This:
by Bill Norman
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
A proposed condominium development on Madison's East Side would not include affordable housing units, as mandated by the city's inclusionary zoning ordinance.
The project on Atwood Avenue, proposed by developer John Svuem, would instead spawn a cash payout to the city of Madison for low-income housing.
"With average house values [in the area] of $150,000, these units add diversity," Ald. Larry Palm, District 15, said. "It could be the catalyst for redevelopment; it certainly is not similar to the designs or types of buildings that are in the neighborhood."
The provisions of IZ require most developments to sell 15 percent of units below market price, to create more affordable housing in the area, but allows for exceptions to be made through negotiations with the city.
However, city officials have raised concerns of allowing such an exception.
"It's crucially important that every neighborhood comply with IZ," Ald. Austin King, District 8, said. "Looking out 30 years to the future, what will Madison look like with inclusionary zoning and without inclusionary zoning?"
King, a supporter of inclusionary zoning, said the city analyzes the proposed profit margin of the development and determines whether or not to waive IZ restrictions.
"We built in the waiver process because in some projects, inclusionary zoning is not appropriate," he said.
In cases where undervalued units would make building cost-restrictive, a cash payment to the city may be made instead.
"The buyout should be the last option on the table," King noted, emphasizing the need for more low-priced housing throughout the city.
Palm labeled the issue of city mandated low-cost housing a "conundrum" and highlighted a need for a multi-faceted approach to this issue.
"Affordable housing is such a larger beast than what IZ can work with, because there are so many reasons houses are not affordable," he said. "The city of Madison should be working to raise the level of income of the citizens."
King said neighborhoods already having numerous low-cost units are usually composed of older, undesirable buildings.
Given the neighborhood's lower property values, some are concerned with the effect this development will have on property tax assessments.
Palm noted that an increase in property taxes reflects greater land values, which he views as positive for residents.
"Last year, property values in that area went up by eight percent, whereas citywide they went up by about four percent," he added.
According to Palm, this process will have the effect of increasing the value held within real-estate investments.
The neighborhood, which is on the east shore of Lake Monona, is currently populated primarily by middle-class homes, but the condos — which would replace an abandoned parking lot — will be priced between $268,000 and $764,000 per unit.
Furthermore, constituent opinions about the project are mixed, Palm said, but he added Svuem has been cooperative in engaging the neighborhood, and has returned with several revised plans.
When asked about the appropriateness of the project in this neighborhood, resident Bill Wedeward noted other proposals in the past have included a car wash, and said he felt the condominium proposal was an "improvement" over previous land-use suggestions.
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 5:31pm):
What are Austin King's credentials that qualify him to make decisions regarding development?
Does he even own a house?
IZ will not help you! The equity sharing sucks and having your home so closley connected to the City is the opposite of what home ownership is meant to accomplish - self sufficiency.
Home ownership is an investment. Increased value is good for the home owner. People need to realize that if they purchase IZ units they will have to notify the City when they want to sell - in which case the City has 30 days to decide if they want to buy it or not. The City has 90 days from the date it gets written notice to finalize the sales transaction. What if you need to sell in a shorter time frame? Does anyone want the City this involved with their home - the last bastion for personal freedom? Also take into consideration that a person will have to live in an IZ home for ELEVEN (11) years before they can see 50% of the equity upon resale. Again...this ordinance does not help you!
King said neighborhoods already having numerous low-cost units are usually composed of older, undesirable buildings.
These sound like perfect opportunites for people to get an affordable home, put some sweat into it - treat it as an investment and make the building desirable. Wouldn't this help create healthier neighborhoods?
If these older homes aren't good enough for people looking for "affordable housing" who are these homes supposed to be sold to? Who will come in and revitalize these neighborhoods?
King doesn't get it - Palm does.
