WSJ (Realtors): Give it a Rest. Or open your eyes and look at the facts.

Inclusionary Zoning will only work if we work on it together. After the vote on Tuesday night, apparently Phil Salkin from the Realtors said that they would stand behind the ordinance now and wanted to make it work. (I'm not sure I believe them, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.) And, in email exchanges with another person in the leadership of the Realtors, they told me the same thing.

When we talk about cooperation, I'm not sure what that means, but I do know that it means that they will market the units in good faith and stop trashing the program which will discourage homeowners from buying into the program. Too bad the Wisconsin State Journal can't also at least try to be gracious as well. And that the Realtors didn't send them the same message. I was a little surprised to read the Scott Milfred column (he's the editor of the editorial page) in yesterday's paper. Unfortunately, he's still spouting incorrect information likely given to him by the Realtors.

Let's take a peek at some of the things he's saying . . . .

Point A by Milfred:

I 'm tired of hearing about all the middle-class families -- the teachers, nurses, computer programmers and police officers -- who supposedly can't find affordable homes in Madison.

Have they looked?

The friendly Lake Edge Neighborhood, where I live on Madison's East Side, is filled with smaller, single-family homes. And an ever-changing variety of them are always popping up for sale.

Ok, we know there are clusters of more affordable housing on the east side. How many other neighborhoods have these same opportunities? Additionally, the whole point of Inclusionary Zoning is that we don't have clusters where only one income range of people live, but that those opportunities exist in all neighborhoods. You think they'd build his home in the new subdivisions they're building. I sure wish they would. If we could convince builders to build smaller more reasonable homes in their new neighborhoods then it wouldn't cost the city and the taxpayer so much money to make the developer whole.

Point B by Milfred:

My wife and I bought our two-bedroom bungalow, with wood floors, a remodeled kitchen, detached garage and huge backyard, for $129,000 about one-and-a-half years ago. We love the place and fit just fine here with two small children.

Using the city assessor's Web site, I also can see that my neighbors across the street bought their two-bedroom cottage home for just under $150,000 in December. And the folks a few doors down paid $132,300 for their two-bedroom bungalow and detached garage in September.

All of those prices are well below the majority of "affordable" units the city is trying to force developers to build and then sell using complicated formulas and paperwork.

Ok - IZ prices for two bedrooms homes are:
80% AMI: $156,016 (Makes $58,550 for family of 4)
70% AMI: $136,566 (Makes $51,240 for a family of 4)

Depending upon what the income levels of the people who bought these homes, and their current value, these homes may or may not have been affordable. Milfred's house is now assessed at $139,500 and would likely sell for more than that. It's not affordable to someone at 70% AMI and probably barely affordable to someone at 80% AMI.

Point C by Milfred:

And my neighborhood is hardly the only pocket of affordable homes in Madison. Friends of mine have found great starter homes around Fair Oaks Avenue and Milwaukee Street. Other spot for fixer-uppers include north of East High School and farther north toward Warner Park.

Notice, he mentions homes in a small area of the East side and a few on the Northside. Our city is growing and shouldn't we be providing started home opportunities in all areas of the City. Don't we want people to live near where they work to cut down on traffic congestion and because its better for the environment? Don't we want starter homes in the periphery of the City?

Point D by Milfred/Realtors:

In fact, according to the Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin, more than 700 homes and condos are for sale for less than $185,000 in the city. A family of four with a household income of 80 percent the Dane County median -- about $58,000 -- could afford any of them.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The data spouted by the Realtors was bunk. Lisa Subeck did a great job of giving us the data and I'm hoping she can find a way to show you the data on this site, but here's a preview.

When she looked, she found 139 single family homes currently available in the income range.
1 - one bedroom
26 -two bedrooms
90 - three bedrooms
22 - four bedrooms

19 or 14% on the Westside
120 or 86% on the Eastside

She also found 183 condos that were currently available if you assume their condo fee is $150. (She had to make this assumption as the information is not available.)
21 - one bedroom
156 -two bedrooms
23 - three bedrooms
2 - four bedrooms

73 or 40% on the Westside
110 or 60% on the Eastside

This leaves a grand total of:
23 - one bedroom
182 -two bedrooms
113 - three bedrooms
24 - four bedrooms

92 or 29% on the Westside
230 or 71% on the Eastside

But that only adds up to 322 units. That's a far cry from the realtors claims of 700. You might wonder why . . . and I can tell you. First, they weren't looking at the bedroom size and instead just used houses under $185,000 regardless of the number of bedrooms.. Second, they didn't consider the condo fee which is part of the housing costs under the ordinance.

Add on the lack of reserve in the condo conversions, which I also hope Lisa Subeck can explain, and there are likely even fewer homes available.

Point E by Milfred:

Here is how easy it was for my family to find an affordable home:

We called a real estate agent. She showed us five homes on a Saturday that fit most of our preferences and price range. My wife and I agreed we could have enjoyed living in three of the five. The next week we made an offer on the best one. A month later, we moved in.

Our home is near the bike path and is four miles from Downtown. That means even the automotively- challenged could live here.

So where is the big problem that City Hall must so desperately try to fix?

The city last week revised its "inclusionary zoning" law to make it easy for developers to stomach and more attractive for home buyers. But the law, called "IZ" for short, is still unnecessary and could actually make market-rate homes more expensive. Many IZ units also require city subsidies to make them work.

Anyone who has bought a home knows it is not just that easy.

Additionally, the changes to the inclusionary zoning ordinance make it so that the builders and developers should have no costs to pass on to the market rate homes. They are being compensated for their lost revenue, so if they are jacking up the prices of the market-rate units, its because that's what they think they can get for them, not because of IZ.

Point F by Milfred:

At a city meeting last week, a social worker who lives on Williamson Street suggested that she and others would have had "no opportunity to buy a house in the city of Madison if not for inclusionary zoning."

Translation: She would have had no opportunity to buy a new condo in a hip neighborhood just blocks from the Capitol if not for the city-subsidized and convoluted IZ law.

But she could have purchased a home in my neighborhood.

Again, Milfred ignores the facts above and does not consider family size and other factors that go into determining affordability.

Point G by Milfred/Realtors:

This debate isn't about poor people trying to find housing. IZ units -- some of which are selling for $217,000 -- are specifically intended to help the middle class.

First, I'm not sure what his definition of "poor" is, but I don't think anyone ever claimed this is about "poor" people. On the rental end, it reaches people at 50% AMI, but that doesn't help the most needy in the community. Check here (click on income level on the left hand side ) for income levels to see for yourself who the program targets.

As for these $217,000 homes, those were only possible for people at 80% AMI buying a 4 bedroom home when the interest rates were great. Not the case any more. Here's the prices IZ homes should be sold at during this quarter.

Point H by Milfred/Realtors:

The IZ law also ignores the many successful and existing housing programs at the local and state levels that help first-time home buyers with down payments, low-interest loans and repairs. My wife and I got a low- interest home loan with $10,000 for repairs from a state program.

This is a last minute talking point brought out by the realtors. They claimed there were 150 programs out there. I'd love to see that list. I know I bought my home with a WHEDA loan, but it only worked for me because I lived in a "target area" and I suspect that many programs have similar restrictions. Many of these programs are for veterans or elderly or disabled folks.

Point I by Milfred:

The real struggle for middle-class, first-time home buyers in Madison is making a choice. They can buy a smaller, older home in the city like I did. Or, for the same money, they can buy a bigger, newer home in a small town beyond the suburbs.

I chose Door No. 1 to avoid the time and cost of commuting and to be near the lakes, nightlife and culture of Madison.

Go ahead and make a different choice if you want. But don't ask city taxpayers for a handout because you can't afford a fancy Downtown condo as your first home.

Wow. So, fight for the 23 one bedroom or 182 two bedrooms that likely need years of work done to them or move out of town. Is that how we want to treat our workers in this City? For a paper that is all about economic development, shouldn't they care that workers have affordable places to live? I guess they want to save the "handouts" for businesses instead.

You think we're going to have to put up with this kind of twisted-facts-sour-grapes kind of bashing of the IZ program for the next two and a half years by the Wisconsin State Journal? (and others?) Cuz if we are, its going to be harder to get people to buy the homes . . . perhaps, that's what they want.