The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear a previous appeal Tuesday involving the rental portion of Madison's Inclusionary Zoning ordinance, and ruled the guidelines violate the state's rent-control laws.

Madison Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) laws previously required developers of both rent-controlled and owner-occupied housing to set aside 15 percent of their units for residents making less than 80 percent of the county's median income.

But the debate surrounding the already-controversial laws heightened when the Court of Appeals' 4th District decided in early September that the rental portion of the ordinance violates Wisconsin's rent-control laws. And since the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, IZ no longer applies to rental housing.

Ald. Brenda Konkel, District 2, a member of the Inclusionary Zoning Advisory Oversight Committee, said issues surrounding IZ have been debated between Madison's City Council and landlords since 2003. And without IZ laws providing affordable housing to residents and with a limited amount of funds, Konkel said, the Council will have difficulty taking future action.

"I'm a little skeptical what options we have because if we knew what else we could do, we would have done something by now," she added. "I think it's a disappointment — we're trying to look for a tool to help people that do all kinds of jobs in the city that we need."

According to Konkel, the new ruling on IZ will make it difficult for lower-income families to live in the city, which was the problem the laws attempted to address. She also noted the harder it is for people to find affordable housing in the downtown area, the more people will move off Madison's downtown isthmus and look for jobs elsewhere.

According to Ald. Jed Sanborn, District 1, policies at the federal, state and even city levels already ensure affordable housing. He said the court's decision will actually help renters and will prevent a housing shortage.

"The idea that IZ is the only thing out there for people to afford housing is absurd," he said in a previous interview with The Badger Herald. "In my opinion, [the decision] will have a good impact because it will allow for more housing to be available for lower rent."

But for most of the council, Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, said the decision was a "huge disappointment."

Konkel said under normal circumstances, the application of IZ to only owner-occupied housing would not be so detrimental to lower-income families, but the federal government's funding is simply not enough to guarantee housing for all families.

The federal government does provide some services to make rental properties more affordable, Verveer said, but the long waiting line for programs like "Section 8" and "Section 42" cause many in need to go overlooked.

"I do believe a majority of the City Council, and certainly the mayor, believes in IZ for apartments and not just owner-occupied housing," Verveer added. "The Supreme Court should have allowed us a chance to get into their court room and give our case for why we feel [IZ] is lawful under the state statutes."