The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Exclusionary zoning

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
$$FC (December 6, 2007)
In a bind (December 5, 2007)
Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)

by Badger Herald Editorial Board

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Just more than a year ago, the City of Madison enacted an inclusionary zoning ordinance mandating that all new residential buildings consisting of 10 units or more offer 15 percent of their inventories at reduced prices to those who otherwise couldn’t afford them. The guiding motivation, surely as commendable as it is philanthropic, is that Madison should not only be fully diversified but that such a zoning law would help elevate the economically disadvantaged.

Unfortunately, this ordinance — which is currently facing a legal challenge — is little more than a disguised vehicle for the strategic redistribution of wealth, a notion that worked so marvelously on the pages of Karl Marx, but that has time and again proven a miserable failure upon implementation.

In this instance, the first victims will not be the wealthy landlords or comfortably retired upper-class citizens of Madison but rather students. The value of land and buildings — as well as raw operational costs — cannot easily be molded at the City Council’s whim, and landlords will therefore be forced to hike non-inclusionary prices. With rent already high in Madison, this is not what most economically-stretched students need. The reality remains that while some students may qualify for such discounted units, the majority likely will not. That this move comes as downtown development is peaking — a trend that should lower prices across the board through laissez faire means if left unperturbed — adds only insult to economic injury for the student-tenant population.

There will also be negative implications for local developers and landlords. Inclusionary zoning disturbs an economy otherwise striving to achieve equilibrium, and the end result will surely be disadvantageous to landlords as well as students. The practical implications of this deter further development in Madison — a city otherwise enjoying a boom — and tighter bottom lines that will likely result in the aforementioned rent hikes and stingier maintenance and operation.

The lawsuit currently facing this ordinance centers around the prohibition of rent control, and we hope this point is sufficient to eliminate this zoning law. Rent control is originally an idea borne from efforts to ensure people could properly save for their retirement and not risk inflation-driven evictions once on a fixed income. The end result, however, has been 80-year-old women living alone in glorious three-floor brownstones at the heart of Manhattan for less than $150 a month. This is damning to both landlords and potential tenants, and while surely nobly-intentioned in its origin, has proven nightmarish with the growth of inflation and decline of the dollar.

Given time to run its due course, this will interfere grossly with tomorrow’s generation of students taking up residence in Madison. We have little doubt that good intentions lay behind the inclusionary zoning ordinance. But in this case, good intentions have flown out the penthouse window.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (February 24, 2005 @ 5:05am):

Since when did the Badger Herald Ed. Board start getting off on class war rhetoric? Sure makes it convenient to avoid any discussion of economically integrated neighborhoods and the resulting benefit to schools and school children.

How convenient to ignore density bonuses, cash subsidies, parking requirement reductions, additional height allowances, reduced park development fees, and an expedited review process, because obviously, the developers and city staff and policy makers who crafted this ordinance were totally just looking to shift costs onto market rate units. Riiight...

And I for one applaud the BHEB's steadfast determination to ignore all the data collected from IZ programs around the country that show no evidence of IZ-induced developer flight. Nevermind that Madison's largest home builders were at the table the entire step of the process - pesky facts can't get in the way of a Badger Herald editorial.

Let's also pretend that the past 80-some years of land use powers being exercised by governmental bodies never happened, nor could there possibly be any sort of public health, safety, and welfare issues to warrant IZ. And nope, there's absolutely no possibility that developers of rental units ever enter into any sort of voluntary negotiation with the city in the development process. Such actual critical thinking/research might contradict the Herald Ed. Board - oh the cognitive dissonance!

Long live class warfare! Down with those pinko commie landlords and developers who were at the table the whole way through the IZ drafting process! And before you ask, no, this is not Austin King. Just another concerned policy wonk here.

P.S. You guys are such idiots for trying to apply the term "exclusionary zoning" to any of what you wrote. Educate yourselves a little bit about Euclidean zoning, as well as pre-FHA HUD redlining.

Anonymous (February 24, 2005 @ 9:11am):

Last guy; you missed the fucking point. IZ is bad for students. The herald is a student paper.

Dumbass.

Anonymous (February 24, 2005 @ 9:40am):

IZ is bad for students? No it's not.

Wait, are you a bunch of rich motherfuckers living off mommy and daddy? Yeah, see, the thing is, not all of us are.

Any asshole who doesn't think more affordable housing is a good thing for students LOSES ALL CLAIM TO REPRESENT STUDENTS.

Anonymous (February 24, 2005 @ 9:44am):

What a ridiculous attempt at weighing in on the news. There is absolutely no comparison between NY's rent control law and IZ. In fact, there is no rent control here, as the rents can rise with incomes, which rise far faster than inflation.

And, wait, this law has been in effect for an entire year, and you're predicting flight to the suburbs because it'll stifle growth?? Yeah, that's really happening, and I can tell, because I'm a blind man named Mr. Magoo that can't see no cranes in the skyline.