What if builders and developers no longer felt compelled to install electrical, heating, plumbing or septic systems in new houses or buildings? Would they get away with it?

Of course not, you say. There’d be a public outcry, the government would step in, throw together a raft of new regulations, and everything would be back to normal.

So tell me why, when the government mandates something, it’s always a bad thing? Local developers seem to think so, and here’s the reason why.

According to the Wisconsin State Journal, nearly everyone who testified at the City of Madison Housing Committee’s public hearing Oct. 1 came out in support of inclusionary zoning (IZ). IZ is a regulatory regime under which developers are either encouraged or compelled to set aside a certain percentage of a new (or refurbished) housing development for affordable housing (i.e., within the means of a low- to moderate-income household), in return for a given set of incentives.

The goal of IZ is to spread and increase the availability of affordable housing throughout the city, leading to mixed-income neighborhoods rather than dense, isolated centers of low-income housing.

Four city-ordinance proposals for IZ are currently before the Common Council. Not all of them require developers to set aside the requisite percentage of affordable housing — some are just incentive packages.

Let’s not kid ourselves here, folks. If developers aren’t compelled by a government mandate to engage in IZ, they aren’t going to do it at all.

First, some background: after the IZ policy proposals started floating in December 2001, the city attorney offered an opinion that state law disallowed any IZ policies applying to rental units that were, in effect, rent control. In response, three proposals were drafted that promoted affordable housing without fixing prices by compelling developers to reserve a certain portion of their projects for below-market-rate housing. The strongest, Mayor Cieslewicz’s own, strictly mandates the participation of developers in IZ.

In response, a group of private developers have come together under the banner of “Smart Growth Madison,” an organization calling for a strictly voluntary policy proposal. “Smart Growth” advocates (in other words, developers) are demanding deregulation and “financial assistance” from the city for offering affordable housing.

Developers’ and realtors’ associations’ arguments against IZ all seem to be threats to pick up and leave should an aggressive IZ regime be enacted. At the Oct. 1 hearing, “Smart Growth Madison” representative Delores Nelson said that “There are a couple sides to the equation — the human side and the financial side … I would encourage the committee not to rush forward.”

A representative from the Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin referred to IZ as a policy that requires high-income homeowners and renters to “subsidize” low-income households. “You don’t want to skew new constructors away from Madison — developers can go elsewhere,” she said.

The developers assume that lower-income housing automatically means reduced profit. This is not necessarily the case. Lower-price lots are, of course, smaller and can therefore be sold in greater numbers in proportion to higher-priced lots. By looking at what they would stand to lose by way of profits per unit among high-end lots, they have overlooked that a greater lot density could conceivably prevent them from making a loss.

The “Smart Growth” consortium is so worried about loss that it recommends that designated affordable housing in an IZ project remain so only for 10 to 15 years, rather than the 99 years recommended in Cieslewicz’s proposal. This means that owners of the so-called affordable housing would be building equity at the cost of true affordable housing, which should remain affordable for as long as is possible. If “affordable housing” is allowed to go unaffordable after a short time, Madison will see little in terms of a rise in mixed-income neighborhoods throughout the city.

If Madison were a truly mixed-income community (and IZ would only be a first step toward that eventuality), we would be able to alleviate many of the problems associated with high-density, low-income housing developments, including unstable neighborhoods, insufficient representation in city politics and city services, and unfair districting and zoning practices.

The spread of mixed-income neighborhoods would give greater representation in city government to communities previously marginalized in dense low-income neighborhoods, as more and more officials and representatives are forced to respond to the new concerns being voiced in a variety of Madison neighborhoods. It should come as no surprise that this would also translate into greater representation for Madison’s communities of color.

Cieslewicz’s proposal isn’t perfect — the “affordability” level it stipulates may not be all that affordable for some, and it doesn’t require enough in the way of family-accommodating multiple-bedroom units. Still, it’s far better than “Smart Growth.” The developers have demonstrated that they’re unwilling to really promote affordable housing if they’re not being forced to.

So let’s force them.

Rob Hunter ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in philosophy and political science.