OPINION & EDITORIAL
Both sides now: Inclusionary zoning creates controversy for Madison
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Joelle Parks:
- Affirmative action has no place at collegiate level (April 13, 2006)
- Local media expedite petty politics (November 29, 2006)
- Campus safety needs high priority (November 21, 2005)
- Obese must admit own fault (April 20, 2006)
- Board of Regents' new disciplinary policy overdue, welcome (December 13, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Exclusionary zoning (February 24, 2005)
- Zoned out (November 16, 2006)
- Soglin's liberal record speaks for itself (March 10, 2003)
- Madison history to be torn down (March 4, 2005)
- Both sides now: Inclusionary zoning creates controversy for Madison (November 3, 2005)
by Joelle Parks
Thursday, November 3, 2005
There are a lot of things in this world that people wish could happen. Some wish for world peace, others for inclusionary zoning in Madison. In both scenarios, the results are not easily obtained. Inclusionary Zoning in Madison is a promising idea, but the law needs extensive repair and is at risk for total annihilation.
At first glance, the law is a good idea and may appear realistic. It was designed to offer a full range of housing choices for people of all income levels. By doing so, Madison would promote diverse and thriving neighborhoods, schools and communities in all areas of the city. It also claims that this housing change will endorse "the recruitment and retention of local businesses and their workforce, which are essential to the economic welfare of the city."
True, local businesses and the workforce are essential to Madison, but lower-income housing will not assist them. There is already lower cost housing here, it is not necessary for builders to waste plots of valuable land to build a smaller scale model of their original intention. Builders realize this and are looking to build in cities neighboring Madison for a greater profit. Kent Disch, government affairs director of the Madison Area Builders Association, supports this claim and said, "At this point, I think IZ is irreparably broken. There are just too many problems."
Earlier this week, Ald. Jed Sanborn, District 1, proposed to repeal Madison's new law that makes developers include lower-cost housing in projects, since, "The costs to the city greatly outweigh any benefits." His proposal to repeal this law is because the law is not living up to its true intent to help lower income people. All it is being productive at is just wasting taxpayers' money. He said, "I think we can accomplish a heck of a lot more by trying to empower individuals who are low-income."
There are many other problems with the law, homeowner equity being just one of those being addressed. Mayor Dave Cieselwicz and Ald. Brenda Konkel, District 2, were the first to rebuke Jed's request. They admit that the policy has some flaws, but are certain that after further consideration the policy could work.
This law was passed in January 2004 and went into action the following month. Three months short of the legislation hitting two years, little progress has been made. Inclusionary Zoning requires builders allow 15 percent lower cost units in neighborhood that also have price limitations.
For example, a two-bedroom unit for a three-person family will be sold for $168,795 or less. The problem is, since the units of IZ must be sold to a family making less than 80 percent of the country median income, the average yearly salary must range from $35,000 to $55,000 per year adjusted accordingly to the size of the household.
Planning Director Brad Murphy cited statistics for the first 18 months as 359 IZ units among 2,366 total units approved around in 24 projects. These numbers may seem promising, but only six of the 50 units on the market right now have been bid on and none of them are currently inhabited.
Sanborn related these statistics to the fact that these units deter people from buying them since the owner cannot retain more than half the appreciated value of the home and will experience aggravations to make improvements or refinance their homes. The city has already spent a large amount of tax incremental financing and will continue to do so to maintain these units without occupancy.
Although the Inclusionary Zoning Proposal is what society needs, utopia is far from our reach. Maybe with a lot of provisions and a boost in lower income families' interest in this particular type of accommodation in a different Madison community, it is possible. But maybe Jed Sanborn is right and IZ should be tabled for now to save taxpayers' dollars in order to assist lower income people and give them the opportunity to utilize it in for factors other than housing in more prominent areas.
Joelle Parks (jparks@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism.
Anonymous (November 3, 2005 @ 10:35am):
I cannot believe that there are no other intelligent conservatives on this campus that could replace this chick. Someone that can make a coherent argument? Someone that can make a coherent sentence? Come on Herald
Anonymous (November 3, 2005 @ 7:12pm):
Nice job dropping key terms in there to make it almost sound like you know what you're talking about; sadly, none of it really makes sense. What the hell are you talking about with builders wasting plots of land to build smaller scall models... IZ does exactly the opposite of this by allowing developers to exceed underlying density and build MORE units on existing land. Just walking around downtown, it's pretty obvious developers aren't exactly jumping ship from Madison - and hell, the ordinance hasn't even been in place long enough for any relevant evidence to emerge which could possibly substantiate these doomsday claims.
And nice job dropping TIF in the mix without any relevance to whatever it was you were trying to mangle in the first place.
Sara Gittings (November 4, 2005 @ 3:30pm):
World peace and the supposed "utopia" needed to support inclusionary zoning are not the same thing. If you're holding the success of IZ in Madison to the same standard as achieving world peace, I guess there's nothing to talk about. But supposing that you aren't as daft as you seem, even looking at the facts you present yourself defeat your elementary arguments. You admit the appearance of success, which, to me, hints at the possibility of continued success. Ms Sanger was completely right to point out precedent in DC showing how well IZ has, and can be implemented when looked at over time. Seems to me like your real issue with lower income folks daring to have the oppurtunity to live next to you and your privileged fellow conservatives has nothing to do with the specifics of the IZ law. Maybe the less privileged having a legitimate chance to get ahead, showing up in your neighborhood someday is what scares you.
At the end of your article, you argued that somehow the socio-economically disadvantaged would be helped by taking away a provision that allocates to them small, yet affordable lots of permanent residence. How, exactly? How will being unable to live in decent homes, next to good schools, without the availibility of good jobs that provide a standard of living benefit them? For your next article, instead of tossing off a poorly written attempt at feigned journalism, I challenge you to take the Route 4 bus south to the "projects" of affordable housing, and ask residents what will improve their lives--a better neighborhood and economic mobility or a clueless white girl telling them what's best for them in accordance with her privileged political philosophy.
Anonymous (November 7, 2005 @ 6:34pm):
The author of this article doesn't have a clue what it's like not to be able to afford housing. She should go back to her dorm room and think about how to promote world piece.
