One thing I learned from inclusionary zoning is that the development community doesn’t all think alike. In fact, often, two people from the same company often don’t even think alike. Toss in the alders advocating for the developers, and is all gets . . . just twisted. Consider the opposing viewpoints I heard in less than 2 hours yesterday . . .
Density
Incentives have to be automatic, including density bonuses, because that’s what makes the project work.
AND
Density bonuses have no value.
AND
Other places give a 25% density bonus. (Implying we should give a higher density bonus)
So, do density bonuses have value or not? hmmmm . . . . Me thinks they do.
Incentives have to be administrative
These should not be political decisions.
AND
If the developer doesn’t like what the staff decides about the incentives, they can appeal to the plan commission.
Hmmmm . . . not a political decision . . . unless it benefits the developer.
Incentives have to be automatic
The incentives have to be given if they are requested, they should be guaranteed.
AND
If there is no money to give out, the city shouldn’t adjust its budget accordingly.
Ok – this one is kind of funny. And this one does get credited to an alder. They think that neighborhoods should accept the density no matter what. But the city shouldn’t provide any taxpayer dollars to support the program if the fund runs dry.
Waivers and Cost off-setting
The value of the incentives have to off-set the costs of the developer to create the affordable housing.
AND
It’s too difficult to provide the staff the information about costs to get a waiver at the time the project is getting land use approvals because the project isn’t far enough along.
OK – this is intriguing. They don’t want to provide the information for the waiver because it isn’t reliable, but . . . and someone actually said this . . . “we should just trust the developers” to provide us the information about what it costs to create the affordable housing. Hmmm . . . they admit they don’t have accurate information, but on the other hand, we should just trust them.
Staff
Everything should be automatic and administrative.
AND
We aren’t going to add any staff.
Right, cuz they can just do more with less. Obviously the person who said this hasn’t been waiting for anything from the Department of Planning and Development for months. Oh, wait, where is that Housing Affordability Reduction Plan?
Other comments:
When the original ordinance was passed I met several times with several developers. I repeatedly asked a specific group of downtown developers what incentives would work for them. They gave me nothing – except that they wanted cash, which as we established, alders are clearly resistant to providing. One of those developers that sat through those multiple meetings launched into an impassioned speech about how we (and he was staring right at me or the mayor) don’t want the incentives to mean anything. This was preceded earlier in the meeting by the lobbyists for the Realtors and Smart Growth Madison insisting that we keep the incentives and pointing out how many other ordinances had incentives. I’m not sure where this all came from, unless they were reacting to Larry wanting to take out all of the incentives except density or if something else happened at the last meeting.
At first, I was just pissed, as that group of developers was not very helpful in trying to solve problems on inclusionary zoning and I couldn’t believe he had the audacity to sit there and yell (yes, he was nearly yelling) about us being “insincere”. Then, I just wanted to laugh. Duh, the incentives are what make this ordinance legal (avoid a lawsuit over takings), of course we not only want them, we want them to work to keep the ordinance legal.
OK – I could go on, but risk getting snarkier and snarkier . . . my next post will be a more thoughtful response to some of the goals for the incentives and possible incentives I have heard.
