A blog post on housing and a proposed development in District 19

Hello, District 19 Residents.

This blog is on the state of housing in Madison, my thoughts on what is needed, and some thoughts on the (not-yet) proposed Old Sauk Road multi-family development about which I have heard from nearly 350 people. (I will share this bog post with the list of registered people for the October 24th meeting related to this potential project.

Some Background:.

When I ran for this position, one of my objectives was to:  “Address Madison’s housing crisis with a combination of collaboration and homeownership.” The “collaboration” part of this objective related to authentic community engagement, and striving to make sure that the City wheels don’t treat community input as simply a box to check to say it was accomplished before proceeding with whatever plan that the people operating the wheels already have in mind. The homeownership part of this objective was related to the fact that homeownership has become completely unattainable for many Madison residents. In other campaign literature and in public comments, I have stressed the importance of building more affordable housing for families with children that is convenient to public schools.

There are two key reasons that homeownership is unaffordable for those who live or wish to live in Madison: family incomes are not compatible with the cost of living here (an issue related to employee pay) and the severe shortage of homes to purchase, particularly starter homes, in Madison. On the employee pay front, the City of Madison leadership has proposed increasing staff pay by 6% for some employees, to make pay more equitable with other employees. This is a move I whole-heartedly support. (For the record, although it didn’t pass a citywide advisory referendum , I strongly support increasing alder pay, too. For a part-time position and given the amount of work involved, I am convinced that raising pay will enable more people to consider running for city alder positions—which is good for democracy). And, Madison has one of the fastest growing tech sectors in the country, with average salaries in this sector of over 8 times the average salary for all other jobs , combined. Great news for the local economy, but with these increases in both population and average incomes fueled by tech sector growth, the tight housing market and high rental costs are widening gaps in housing affordability.

While it is absolutely true that racist and discriminatory zoning and real estate practices (which are now illegal, although still practiced in a myriad of ways), they are also currently a primary  root cause of racial disparities in wealth—wealth that can be passed on intergenerationally to make things easier for children, grandchildren, and on down the line. Wisconsin is one of the worst offenders of racial disparities in homeownership in the country . Madison is not any better, with 53% of non-Hispanic white households in homeownership and only 18% of non-Hispanic black households in homeownership, the widest gap across the race and ethnic groups measured in the American Community Survey (up from 15% in 2021, which could be the result of actual increases among Black households who lived here in 2021 and/or the result of an increased exit of lower income Black households from Madison between 2021 and 2022). (I was curious, so I looked for insight about how these rates account for racially and ethnically diverse households: see this link if you’re interested).

Ironically, lack of affordable housing, including homeownership options, affects Madison’s ability to attract individuals to fill gaps in workforce needs , including in the construction trades. Combined with the facts that (1) apartment developments are typically much more profitable for developers (some boast a greater than 50% return for investors) than building homes to purchase, (2) condo financing is not favored by banks , especially since the Great Recession, and (3) the increased cost of construction and increased borrowing rates we are witnessing along with decreased purchase power that comes with inflation that outpaces income for many individuals and households, and (4) a growing population straining the Madison housing market even further, creating tremendous pressure to build as many units as possible, Madison’s policies and practices are decidedly favor more rentals, and creating them as fast possible.

So how does this all relate to the (not yet) proposed multi-family development on Old Sauk Road? From my perspective:

1. I prefer to see more homeownership options, especially smaller (and hopefully carbon neutral) homes on smaller lots or a multi-family condo development with starter home prices. I explored this with the developer, but it is not their business model, which I understand;
2. If not homeownership options, I support apartments in that space, especially as many 3-bedroom units as possible to accommodate families with multiple children, particularly given the proximity to a public elementary, middle and high school;
3. I do not support a 4-story complex with the level of density proposed for two main reasons:
   1. Old Sauk Rd. in that area is 2 lanes, it lacks sidewalks adjacent to the property for a significant distance, this arterial road section already has heavy traffic as a cut-through to and from the UW hospital, campus and downtown, and the drop-off/pick-up situation at Crestwood Elementary is less than ideal and creates large traffic back-ups at school start and end times; and
   2. The rezoning that would be required for a 4-story building sets a precedent that I don’t want to see happen, given 3a above, the presence of one of the City’s most precious assets (Owen Conservation Park) which generates much wildlife frequently roaming across the road, and the increases in street parking that a dense complex would bring (with a one car per unit not-yet-proposed plan).
4. I do not buy arguments about reduced property values—if you own a single family home in Madison, you have almost surely seen your property value rise significantly over the last decade.  The severe lack of homeownership options in the city that won’t change for a very long time, if ever, translates into a continuing trend of increased property values. Should they decrease, it would be the result of larger economic changes, like another recession, but not because of an increased presence of multi-family rental units. We can agree to disagree, but that is my strong belief;
5. Arguments about neighborhood character are dismissed out of hand by many if not most City staff and he Common Council. “Preserving character” of a neighborhood is viewed as a racist statement and a statement of privilege. I heard some comments at the October 24th meeting that absolutely could be characterized that way. But contrary to what many city officials regularly do (pick out these types of comments and paint a broad brush over everyone objecting to a development like this), I will not unilaterally dismiss legitimate concerns about the impact of an over-sized development on this property. I personally don’t want to see this street turned, over time, into a long row of tall apartment buildings. The tree canopy is extensive, and both beautiful and necessary in the fight against climate change. Adding apartment buildings to this street is clearly fine with most of you, given the comments I’ve received, just not overbearing buildings that detract from the abundant nature on and around this section of Old Sauk Road. I get that and I agree.
6. There are legitimate stormwater management and parking concerns that must be carefully addressed, no matter what is built on that lot.

A few other things to note:

• Here is the link to the community meeting on October 24th:  https://media.cityofmadison.com/Mediasite/Channel/neighborhood_meeting/watch/ce89e18edd6543cda7c61aee3bc47bf11d 
• I am not going to demonize either the developers or residents in this debate. I do applaud the developers for not only holding but requesting a public meeting before submitting an application to the City. And I believe that they authentically wanted your input before proceeding;
• While I would love to see most of the trees preserved, this is private property and would be a private transaction. The City does not own this property now or resulting from the sale, and the City does not prevent private property owners from taking down trees on private land. The removal of trees is not something that the City, let alone I, can control. Residents who have asked me to advocate for the City to make this into a park or another type of development need to understand that this is not something the City can direct private owners or buyers to do.
• Developers must submit applications to the City, almost always for the exclusive purpose of ensuring that building codes and zoning ordinances are met. In fact, if that is the case, a vote never even comes to the Common Council. Rather, the Plan Commission approves or denies the application. I say this because as a single alder, I do not hold the kind of power some of you may assume. I can advocate for an outcome, but I can’t singularly stop any given outcome;
• What is in play is possible rezoning of this plot, which would require approval by the Common Council. The Common Council would also need to approve a Certified Survey Map, but those are always approved from what I can tell, unless there is reason to believe they are not accurate;
• I have asked City staff a lot of questions about this possible development before and after the October 24th meeting. Here are some of the answers I’ve received so far: 
  • “The proposed multi-family project at 6610-6706 Old Sauk Road is still in the formative stages (plan development, due diligence, staff and community outreach, etc.) and no applications have been filed for formal land use approvals.” As presented on October 24: “that project will need demolition permit approvals for the two single-family residences on the combined site (approved by Plan Commission; process and standards for approval in Section 28.185 of the Zoning Code); rezoning to a district that supports the scale of multi-family housing they are proposing (per 28.182; approved by Council following recommendation by Plan Commission); and conditional use approvals for the housing (per 28.183; approved by Plan Commission). There may also be a Certified Survey Map required per MGO Section 16.23, but the site may be unplatted, so there may be no existing lines to dissolve; I imagine we will learn more as the plans for the site progress. Any CSM would be approved by the Plan Commission and Common Council. Rezonings have to be considered vis a vis plan consistency, while the standards for conditional uses touch on a variety of potential impacts created by the proposed use/development. On the conditional use front, it is probably too soon to speculate on impacts with the limited information we have available.”
  • “The 6706 parcel is zoned SR-C1 (Suburban Residential–Consistent 1 District), which is a single-family zoning district, while 6610 is zoned SR-C3 (Suburban Residential–Consistent 3 District), a single- and two-family zoning district. As noted last week, the type of development being contemplated by Stone House Development would require rezoning of the property. Any rezoning would need to be consistent with adopted land use plan(s), which in this case is the 2018 Comprehensive Plan generalized future land use maps, which recommend Low-Medium Residential (LMR) land use for the site. LMR includes an “escalator” on arterial roadways to allow development to be up to 70 units an acre and allow larger buildings up to four stories in height. There was also reference to the ongoing West Area Plan, which will include specific land use recommendations for that area, which includes the subject site. Information on the West Area Plan may be found here: https://www.cityofmadison.com/dpced/planning/west-area-plan/3896/”.
  • Regarding potential solar impacts on adjacent properties, “we do not have enough information right now to judge what impacts the development may cause on your property and surrounding properties - if any. More information will be provided if the project proceeds and formal applications are made, potentially including a shadow study. Shadowing of surrounding properties may be a consideration in any conditional use approvals that would be requested for the subject parcels.”
  • “Most of the land use actions for those parcels will involve approval by the Common Council following a recommendation by the Plan Commission, be it a rezoning of one or both to any other district than the ones they are zoned now. Likewise, a subdivision or land division of one or both into additional lots in the existing or another zoning district would be approved by the Plan Commission and Common Council. However, demolitions and any conditional uses in the existing zoning (buildings over 10,000 square feet of area, for example) would only require Plan Commission approval. As for what form a subdivision of the land and in what district(s) would take, there are probably a dozen or more ways that could be done, which would be informed by a complete and accurate survey of the property, understanding the topography and utility needs, knowing what kind of buildings (size, type) someone would want to develop on the property, and other factors. Lots in the current zoning districts would need to be 60 feet wide and 8,000 square feet in area in general, but how those would array across the property would depend on how a developer would want to lay those lots out. A cul-de-sac or “eyebrow” off of OSR could mean more lots, but also would mean more expense to construct the subdivision. Give us 60 days and we can probably find some staff time and resources to sketch something up on those fronts. The maximum density in TR-U1 is 58 units per acre, and is 124 units per acre in TR-U2. If someone wanted to max out the site using the Comp Plan escalator in LMR, that would be 263 units on the 3.77-acre combined parcel. Finally, no, spot zoning is not illegal in Wisconsin.”
  • “The Comprehensive Plan states that LMR development is ‘permitted in select conditions at up to 70 DU/ac and four stories, generally along arterial roads’ – Old Sauk Road is an arterial road. For reference, the residential categories are on pg 20 of the Comp Plan PDF and there is a map of street designations on pg 158 PDF . As mentioned below, the Plan Commission may opt to lend a bit more direction to what “select conditions” means at the discussion of the Comp Plan amendment on Nov. 13th. The MR height is up to five stories and has a general density range of 20-90 units/acre in the Comprehensive Plan."
    • (Note: I will include details on the November 13th Plan Commission meeting related to the “Comp Plan amendment” meeting above in my weekly blog, usually posted Sunday evening, on upcoming meetings and events—please sign up to receive my blog or visit the District 19 blog page regularly for these updates.)

In addition to all of the above, please know that I have been meeting and talking with planning staff, as well as staff from the City of Milwaukee that have pursued efforts to attract builders of lower-cost homes to increase homeownership opportunities and have included and shared these ideas with City staff. I would love to meet with builders in this area who are willing and able to build this type of housing, so please reach out to me at district19@cityofmadison.com if you are in a position to act on this critical housing need.

I am also pleased that the proposed City operating budget includes more funding for rental assistance and for building more units that are affordable for households under (and often significantly under) the area median income (AMI). Some of this increased funding is being generated by TIF districts, some would be funded by general obligation borrowing (borrowing against future property tax dollars, which I’m not happy about given our debt service load), and the last year of large surpluses of one-time funds from the federal government. (By the way, Alder Field of District 3 writes some very informative blogs and in the interest of not duplicating these time-intensive efforts on his part, here is a link to his blog on the operating budget, which provides an overview of the Wisconsin Policy Forum’s review of the 2024 city budget. And here is a link to his housing blog from several weeks ago, which is also worth reading as an overview of the most recent Housing Snapshot Report from the City.)

As a final comment, please know that it is simply not possible for me to get back to each individual who has reached out to me. Know that I am reading and listening to every email and phone message and when good questions are sent, I am forwarding them to City staff to try to get more answers. However, at this point, I do not know what the developer in this case plans to do, and yes, I have asked following the 10/24 meeting. You will know when I know.