I wouldn’t want to try to start following politics from scratch these days because they just don’t make any sense. Last week city officials, including Mayor Paul Soglin, stated their opposition to a proposed $30 million redevelopment for the complex of Nob Hill, an apartment compound on Madison’s south side slightly past the Beltline.

Very few people are challenging the claim that the complex could use some serious attention. Built almost 40 years ago, Nob Hill has steady maintenance issues, several instances of violent crime in surrounding areas and regular visits by the police. The proposed community redevelopment would create sports facilities like a soccer field and a half-basketball court. It would also replace a dilapidated swimming pool with a 3,600 square foot clubhouse that could be used for community functions and after school activities and add 12 multi-stall garages.

Soglin and others claim to be concerned about issues of population density. They say that they’re worried packing more low-income families closer together could aggravate trends of crime and hard drug use – which are already endemic to the area. But the city’s arguments about crime aren’t convincing.

Anecdotal evidence may suggest that more population density in a single locale means greater crime rates. But the more people there are living in a complex, the greater the likelihood there will be someone watching the area at any given time, lowering the possibility of a crime being committed in the first place. Most studies don’t show any conclusive evidence about whether crime goes up or down with increased population density. A far greater factor on crime rates is unemployment – something the city could combat by creating a regulatory environment friendlier to construction projects that bring jobs and letting housing developments such as this one proceed.

Furthermore, the plan will add 18 additional security cameras to the sides of buildings – it’s hard to argue that installing more security cameras, providing more extra-curricular resources and constructing centers for after school programs would lead to an increase in crime.

So, why is this politically confusing? The Democratic Party should be all over policies seeking to help low-income families and increasing urban population density is an undeniably resourceful way to do this. Areas with concentrated groups of citizens allow businesses to reach greater numbers of people in a smaller area, ensuring greater accessibility to goods and services for those with limited mobility. Dense neighborhoods increase individual involvement in the community by creating more local opportunities to get involved.

Democrats aren’t the only problem. The Republican Party likes to talk about the benefits of limited government and the perils of over-regulation. They have issues with supporting pro-urban housing policy when the constituencies they are attempting to court are traditional conservative suburbanites, who sometimes subscribe to stereotypes of dense, urban, minority-dominated areas. This makes it all the more difficult to form political coalitions aimed at increasing the supply of housing.

The mayor is right to try and get all he can for the community out of the developers. If that’s his intent in holding up the project, then it’s a politically savvy technique and a less dubious move from a policy perspective. But if he truly opposes the housing development for the reasons that he’s given, he needs to rethink his approach.

This is an instance where the government needs to step up by scaling down. Republicans need to get over their fear of concentrated housing, and Democrats can’t let the fact that developers make money distract them from the good that can come from these projects. Housing is not liberal policy or conservative policy; it’s public policy. It’s time we started treating it that way.

Nathaniel Olson ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science, history and psychology.