A day after Mayor Dave Cieslewicz announced efforts to advance affordable housing, some say they are still concerned with the law's effectiveness.

Some city officials and project developers believe the inclusionary zoning ordinance, passed in 2004, inhibits the city's housing market. The ordinance requires new housing and rental developments to set aside 15 percent of their units. These units are then rented or sold to residents who make less than 80 percent of the Dane County median income.

"The purpose of IZ … is to provide for a mix of income, and I think that's really critical for our future," Marianne Morton, executive director for Common Wealth Development, said.

But the law has come under heavy fire in the past two years, and in an e-mail obtained by the Badger Herald, local property manager Steve Brown, of Steve Brown Apartments, allegedly attacked the ordinance.

"Proponents of the ordinance and city officials charged with interpreting and enforcing [the ordinance] don't have a clue as to the negative economic impact of the ordinance on the housing industry, nor do they seem to care," Brown allegedly wrote in an e-mail.

Steve Brown did not return calls as of press time.

Nancy Jensen, executive director for the Apartment Association of South Central Wisconsin, also shares Brown's sentiments.

Jensen said the city has shown no documentation that proves evidence of the need for affordable rental housing.

"I think that this ordinance is fatally flawed for rental housing," she said. "There's nothing that you can do to change the rental side because there's no demand."

Jensen said the city budget has two affordable housing funds: one totaling $3 million and the other — specifically created for the IZ ordinance — totaling approximately $500,000.

"We're sitting on $3.5 million when it could be distributed in a more direct program … they could reach more people than pouring 3 to 5 million into one development project," Jensen said. "We should be talking about using the funding that we have and assisting more people directly."

Ald. Jed Sanborn, District 1, who said he wanted the law repealed, has strengthened these arguments. However, he said this is "politically unlikely," but he would like to work on improving the ordinance.

"The side effects and the costs associated with this ordinance still outweigh the benefits," Sanborn said.

In regard to Cieslewicz's creation of an ad hoc committee for modifying the ordinance, Sanborn, a member of the committee, said he will work to "make it better."

But Brown said the flaws are beyond saving.

"The IZ ordinance is an unmitigated disaster and the more tinkering done to it, the worse it will be," he allegedly said in the e-mail. "Nothing can be accomplished spending time and energy trying to make this thing work."

According to Sanborn, the most glaring criticism of the ordinance is the equity model, which regulates the amount of money earned after a homeowner sells the unit later on.

Equity usually increases as the value of the property increases, but Jensen said an apartment complex built specifically for IZ will not have as high a resale value.

"That means there's less interest in buying," Jensen said. "And then a developer goes, 'Whoa, I don't want to build this.'"

Jensen also noted the sale of the six Livingston Condominium IZ units was "misleading," because the non-profit Common Wealth Development actually bought and sold all the units through their organization.

"[Cieslewicz's comments were] implying that these were bought directly … the new owners that are buying them don't have to own and comply with the IZ ordinance," she said. "There's essentially a filter when the non-profit buys it because they fall under what the non-profit organization wants."

But Morton said the city allowed the organization to use its own equity model because it was "more simple."

"The home buyer gets 50 percent of the increased value of the property, and Common Wealth would get the other half of it," Morton noted. "We use that to keep the unit affordable."

But according to Brown's e-mail, the city should find other ways to spend the allocated funding set aside for affordable housing.

"Why not cooperate with United Way in its housing sector study, find out where public dollars can most effectively be spent to meet the greatest public need?" Brown allegedly asked. "That discussion never happened."