I read Paul Soglin’s Inclusionary Zoning – A Lesson for the Left this morning, er afternoon, when I got up. At first, I chalked it up at the same old, same old. The same Chamber of Commerce style talking points about being anti-business. My initial response was posted on thedailypage.com and included the following:
a) What’s his excuse for the failed housing policies in Madison that we have been cleaning up since he was done being mayor (Broadway-Simpson, Vera Court, Darbo-Worthington, Allied Drive, etc, etc, etc) His excuse is that it is a federal issue and we shouldn’t interfere? In case he didn’t notice, the failure of the federal government often means that the local government has to clean it up. I’m surprised he didn’t pull his stand-by out of his pocket . . . if we do this, the poor people will move here from Chicago.
b) I’m sick of these old white guys telling us younger people that we don’t understand (fill in the blank) and talking about unintended consequences. Maybe, just maybe, we’re interested in trying new things, because the old way ain’t working so well for everyone and I’m not going to sit around with the fear of “unintended consequences”. We need to be smart, try to anticipate everything that we can, and be ready to react if we got it wrong, but to sit around and do nothing because of fear is ridiculous when others in the community are suffering.
One more thing, apparently, we added 3,000 jobs in the last 12 months. I wish Soglin had used facts instead of anecdotes to make his arguments, makes it harder to refute.
Admittedly, not a measured response, and a tad bit hot-headed and it showed my frustration just a little too much. It’s been more than a few hours now since I re-read his blog and I’m actually surprised at how irresponsible his posting was because it was based on anecdotes and no facts.
First, before I get into it, let me say, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Soglin. He has dedicated many years to public service and is responsible for many good things about this City. His vision has shaped this City and will continue to do so for years but that doesn’t mean that I don’t reserve my right to disagree with the guy. (Yes, he has some personality issues, but hey, everyone does.) Disagreement, however, does not equal disrespect. Simply because I disagree with him, does not mean that I won’t listen to what he has to say. However, I don’t have to agree with him. Now that I got that out of the way, here’s some issues I have with what he had to say:
I’m glad he starts his first paragraph off with this statement:
This is not about IZ, which as part of a balanced housing program can be an effective resource to provide economic integration and raise the quality of public education.
I presume he’s seeing the goals of economic integration and a raise in the quality of public education as worthy goals. Apparently, he then concludes that we cannot have economic integration and good quality education and a good economy at the same time, despite the fact that part of what attracts people (workers and businesses) to Madison is our good quality of life. He then starts with his predictions of gloom and doom when he states:
This is about how a combination of decisions can lead to a series of events culminating in the economic decline of a city. All it takes is a few bad decisions, a lack of credibility and public officials who do not understand the externalities of their decisions. This is about unintended, but foreseen consequences.
(I’m ignoring the swipe he takes at our credibility and the part where we just don’t understand things the way he does, because of his, um, personality flaws.) Then we get the history lesson/lecture and a glowing description of his administration and not so glowing description of the Bauman and Cieslewicz administration.
Then, more gloom and doom and fear-mongering.
As we close out 2005, for the first time in the sixty years since the end of WW II, Madison’s future is bleak. I say that despite the record construction boom in what is sometimes referred to as ‘crane city.’ Keep in mind that development is staged over decades, not years. Madison will be fine for anther few years, but by 2010, serious problems will overwhelm the city’s economic capacity.
Followed by more of a history lesson and criticisms of the Bauman and Cieslewicz administration policies. Then the civics lesson and his take on the responsibility of various levels of government. Then the business community talking points:
Starting in 2003 the city of Madison enacted three new laws, all admirable, all with lofty social goals, and all reflecting the values of its residents:- The already stiff smoking ban ordinance was expanded to cover all public places including taverns.
– The city enacted a city minimum wage ordinance.
– The city enacted an IZ ordinance.While not enacted, there is also in development at one stage or another, city sick leave and health insurance proposals.
Then his prediction about what will happen, which he admits are not supported with facts, but with anecdotes:
There are specifics that are problematic with the IZ ordinance, but as a group these ordinances resulted in a sharp blow to the business community. While I am not fond of anecdotes to support an argument, I find the following occurring: – Retailers, particularly restaurants are developing in commercial areas outside of Madison in record numbers.
– Commercial tenants, who are not tied down geographically, are moving out of the city as their leases expire, costing the city jobs, contributing to sprawl, and lowering the value of property within the city.
– Real estate developers have shifted their land banking resources out of the city.
– Developers who originally acquired land to develop with the intention of annexing to Madison, are now looking at other alternatives.
– The only major developments that continue in Madison are ‘prisoners.’ These are developments where the land was already acquired or where the owner had no alternative as to where to develop. Some highlights:
- Hospital additions that could be built nowhere else.
- All of the IZ participants were already committed financially to the site.
- Developers with future plans that have no choice – for example, the owners of University Plaza that own the property; it is half vacant and they have no choice but to proceed with their plans.
And here’s where he really loses me.
He claims that retailers and restaurants that are not developing in Madison. Where are the facts and figures to support this?
He claims that commercial tenants are fleeing the city. Where are the facts that support this?
He claims we are losing jobs, but as I noted, we added 3,000 jobs in the last 12 months.
He claims real estate developers have shifted their land banking resources out of the City. I’d like to see the facts supporting this. If it is true, what other factors are making that happen? We have boundary agreements and unwilling sellers that contribute to the lack of availability of land on the periphery and the land that is available is getting more and more expensive due to the lack of supply, which also may impact decisions to purchase land in the City of Madison.
He claims that the only major development that continue in Madison are “prisoners”, citing hospitals, prior financial commitments and in-fill projects. Well . . . I’m having trouble with this one too as the facts don’t really support his claim. IZ only applied to projects with applications after February 15, 2004 and we talked about IZ for a good 2 years prior to this. Landowners had plenty of time to get their projects approved (and believe me, they did) or not get into land deals if they had such fears. And, obviously, developers are still buying land and still developing, the two new projects in my district are ones where they didn’t own the land pre-IZ. McGrath still bought the Fiore Center, after IZ. I’m sure there are many more projects, I just don’t know when they bought the land as we are usually not privy to that information.
Then, more doom and gloom predictions.
The consequences of all this will not be seen for a few more years but the impact will be devastating:
– The proportion of new housing construction in Madison as a part of Dane County housing permits will drop at an accelerated rate.
– With reduced housing opportunities, housing cost will rise as shortages worsen, but taxes will go up.
– The proportion of children in the public school system from low income families will grow at an even higher rate, resulting in lower academic results for all students.
– Middle class families with school age children will abandon the Madison Metropolitan School District by either moving or putting their children in private schools.
– The net result is a city with more poor and wealthy families
– The value of real estate in Madison will either decline or languish; in either case it means the mill rate for all owners will go up.
– A greater cost for government services will be shared by a shrinking tax base.
Now, if all of the above were to happen due to IZ that would be one powerful ordinance. I’m having trouble understanding how all of the above could happen and the source be isolated and blamed on one ordinance. I also think the handwringing is a bit pre-mature and not based in reality.
First, he claims that the proportion of new housing construction in Madison as a part of Dane county housing permits will drop at an accelerated rate. If indeed it happens, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that this is a result of inclusionary zoning. He already said, himself, that Madison is having a hard time keeping up with growth in Dane County, and has been having a hard time for years. And, as I already pointed out, availability of land and boundary agreements will effect this as well.
Next, he predicts that we will end up with reduced housing opportunities i.e. they will build less housing and it will be more expensive because the supply will not meet the demand and then taxes (mill rate) will go up because we have less of a tax base. I have a hard time believing this will happen for various reasons. From what I hear, we don’t have enough land available and if a few developers choose not to build in Madison, there are several others who would be happy to build in their place. It may also make the land cheaper if there is not so much demand for it. Plus, if the market is hot and they can sell their product at a higher price, I think they will also show interest.
Next he claims that as the housing gets more expensive we will have more low-income kids in our schools and middle-class families will flee the city or send their kids to private schools. This doesn’t ring true at all. If our housing is expensive, won’t people be moving to Sun Prairie and other places where the housing would be cheaper. Also, much of the periphery development in Madison is occurring in several different school districts as the boundaries of the school districts do not match the municipal boundaries.
Then the comment about “excuses” that pissed me off. I hope Mr. Soglin will not write off all my responses as “excuses” or discount them because I lack credibility with him.
And then, these absurd conclusions:
I have not touched on the details of Madison’s IZ ordinance. We need only remember:
– that every unit built was for a development under way before the ordinance was enacted.
– that none of the 13 completed units have been sold.
– that developers who have a choice have stopped planning housing in Madison.
– that the cost of the units come from city taxpayers
– Madison is solving a national problem with local resources (TIF is not ‘free’ money).
I think I know why he didn’t touch the details of the ordinance. He simply repeats the myths that have been repeated by the business community. Not every project that has been approved was underway before the ordinance was enacted. How does he know that none of the 13 (where’d he get that number?) completed units have not been sold? There are developers who have a choice and continue to build in Madison. Finally, TIF has only been used for IZ in one project so far – out of 24. (Monroe Commons TIF was for the parking for the store. Only Alexander’s project has TIF for IZ in it.)
