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.

What's next?

Next steps on Inslusionary Zoning . . .

1. Do a Housing Needs Study
2. Form an Oversight Committee
3. Have the City do some marketing of the Inclusionary Zoning program (Alder Cnare has some good ideas and is working on a resolution)

And, of course, we still need to explore other housing programs to assist those who need housing at lower incomes.

Thank you! I'm satisfied!

As I noted last night, there are so many people to thank for helping to create and ordinance that three-quarters of the Common Council could vote for and will help ensure that the 500 units that have been approved will finally be sold. And that the 200 - 300 units per year that we expect will get into the hands of people who need this housing. Here is just the beginning of the list of people to be thanked and my apologies if I miss anyone . . .

• Tom Hirsch and the Housing Committee members, and particularly the Affordability Subcommittee

• Nan Fey and the Plan Commission members

• Jed Sanborn and those who participated in the Mayors workgroup

• City Staff, most notably Hickory Hurie and Barb Constans in the CDBG office and Brad Murphy in the Planning Unit

• Veridian Homes, David Simon and Brian Munson (Vandewalle & Assoc) this time around and Jeff Rosenberg from the last round

• The downtown Neighborhood Associations

• Affordable Housing Advocates, particularly Lisa Subeck and Marsha Rummel
  

• And yes, even the Mayor! Most particularly the mayor, and the faceless key staff on this issue.

• Countless other individuals who contributed through constructive dialog.

The media is reporting this morning that the ordinance left "no one totally satisfied" but I, for one, think all of the above people should be proud of their good work. The silly political games some council members chose to play last night are inconsequential if we have an ordinance that works and in the end, people have housing options not previously available to them. That makes me satisfied.

Thanks again to everyone who helped make this happen!!!

Plan Commission Final Changes

My best summary of the changes from last night's plan commission meeting are as follows:

Provides for the "offsets" to be off by plus or minus 5%. i.e. not 100% offsetting to account for the pragmatic realities of development.

Changes the language regarding a density bonus to ensure that all plans are taken into consideration when this section is used.

Changes the "bump out" period. Units can't bump out until after 180 days after the first market rate unit is sold and there is a model available for walkthrough (virtual would be allowed). After 180 days, the units can only bump out proportional to the number of market rate units sold. If the unit bumps out, the amount of additional income over the price of the IZ unit is split 50/50 with the City of Madison.

Removed the ability of the CDA to purchase units and rent them.

Deals with the effective date of the ordinance.

A mocked up version can be obtained from me by emailing me at brendakonkel@yahoo.com. I'm quite busy with work today, but I'll try to get it to you as soon as I can.

What is 100% off-setting?

So, people walked away from the table because some of us wisely pointed out that "100% offsetting" sounded good, but wasn't very pragmatic. The good Alder Zach Brandon promised to give us an example of what this would look like in real life . . . that never happened . . . I believe the good alder walked away from discussions as well . . .

Regardless, we've come up with a system to provide unlimited "offsets" (previously called incentives) to the developer to make sure they get all the revenue they think that they should. (Yes, I had to swallow hard on that one and I'm hoping I don't live to regret it like the compromises that we are currently correcting like the Zach Brandon Equity Model and the Zach Brandon Point System.)

The problem is . . . now that we have a system that will take a few more tweaks, what does it mean to be 100% cost-offsetting? Does the bottom line always have to equal zero? If the developer is getting $5,124.76 more in "offsets" do they give us a check? What if it is $156,789.43? Or what if it is $1,973,569.93? Does it matter what the size of the project is? Is it different for a project with 12 homes or 1200 homes? It's not any more clear now than it was last April.

More Spin or Outright Lies?

Zach Brandon is working hard to convince readers of his blog that Madison doesn't need Inclusionary Zoning because there is plenty of affordable housing available. Of course, anyone who has tried to rent or buy a home in Madison knows just how hard it is to find affordable housing.

Yesterday, Zach evaluated the average property assessments for various areas of Madison for affordability. He claims:

A look at the City Assessor's 2006 data, shows that the homes in 60 neighborhood areas are assessed below the city wide average of $239,400. More importantly, in all but 16 of them, the average is below the maximum available "affordable" Inclusionary Zoning price of $217,623.

Today, Zach took a look at the assessed value of the homes of 18 of the 20 alderpeople (2 are renters). He concludes:

Turns out 10 of the 18 homeowners on the Common Council live in houses assessed below what the city calls "affordable housing." A majority (56%) of the alders live in houses below the maximum available Inclusionary Zoning price of $217,623.

So, where does the spin come in? Zach uses the magic number of $217,623 as the affordability standard. He pulled this number from the list of available IZ units but fails to state that this is the price of a 4 bedroom home. The maximum IZ price for a 4 bedroom home is affordable to those making $67,900 or 80% of the area median income (AMI) for a family of 6. Presumably, such a family may have 2 or even 3 income earners.

The IZ ordinance defines affordability according to number of bedrooms in the unit, and the maximum sales prices are based upon the various family sizes likely to live in each such home. The real maximum sales prices for smaller Inclusionary Zoning homes (affordable to those making 80% of Area Median Income) are:
1 Bedroom - $130,038 (based on 80% of AMI for an average of 1-2 person families or $)
2 Bedroom - $156,016 (based on 80% of AMI for 3 person families)
3 Bedroom - $180,292 (based on 80% of AMI for an average of 4-5 person families)

Of course, using these real IZ prices blows up Zach's claims that affordable housing is so readily available. Based on these standards, only 6 (33%) of the 18 alders live in housing deemed affordable under Inclusionary Zoning, as opposed to the 10 (over 50%) that Zach claims. And the average property assessments by area really tell us nothing without knowing the specifics of the sizes of the homes in the area and the actual numbers of homes available above or below the affordability levels.

Before believing the claims of Zach Brandon and the real estate industry regarding the availability of affordable housing in Madison, check out the number for yourself. Zach has definitely outdone himself this time as the master of spin and lies.

Preliminary Proposed Plan Commission Changes to IZ

List of 7/6/2006 Preliminary Plan Commission Recommendations to Changing the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.

(Note: It is entirely possible that I missed something as the Plan Commission meeting ended about 7.5 hours ago and I haven't had much sleep and my notes were relatively messy, even for me!)

1. Change the current equity model. Owner earns equity based on the amount they pay toward the home. The City earns equity based on the amount it subsidizes after 5% is set-aside for the homeowner to be compensated for potential improvements made to the ordinance. This provision is retroactive to already approved projects.

2. If the developer gets a waiver
a. They can provide the off-site units in existing buildings instead of new units as long as the units are comparable in quality
b. Units provided have to be within a 1 mile radius of the new project currently and we added that they could also be within the same elementary school district area as long as the units are in the City of Madison.

3. If the City has budgeted money for inclusionary zoning homes, staff can make the determination to purchase the homes without a City Council action, allowing the City to decide to exercise the option to purchase within 30 days making the process to sell a home quicker for the seller.

4. Remove the current point system for incentives and go to a system that calculates potential revenues of the developer. Those revenues must then be offset by a list of things the developer requests from the City. The developer requests the level of offsets they believe are necessary to close the gap in revenues and this is reviewed by the City staff and ultimately the Common Council.

5. The previous list of incentives has been expanded and converted to a list of offsets and the list has been modified as follows:
a. Unlimited density bonus. The current ordinance limits this to a density bonus to 30 or 60% depending upon the type of development.
b. Unlimited reduction in minimum parking requirements. The current ordinance limits this to 25%
c. Cash subsidies are the offset that must be chosen last. The current ordinance only allows cash subsidies if you have a project that either
i. Provides units that are even more affordable than the minimum ordinance requirements
ii. Provides the units in a building that is s4 stories or more and has 75% of its parking underground
iii. Provides the units in a “small” development of 49 units or less.
d. Allows up to 20% of the project to be “IZ-free”. This is to allow units such as expensive lots with better amenities or penthouse floors or lakeview units to not have to include IZ units.
e. Allows single family developments to provide up to 75% of the units in attached housing provided that they are in buildings that are 8 units or less and if the buildings have 5 – 8 units on half of the units in a building may be IZ. Dupleses, 3 and 4 unit buildings may be all IZ units.
f. Eliminated the following from the list
i. Provision of street trees
ii. Assistance from the City in obtaining other funding
g. Reduced street widths
h. Allowing projects on the periphery to build housing in previously commercial planned areas on a case-by-case basis.
i. Other items, as requested by the developer.

6. Change in the way we calculate density bonus
a. In the downtown area the staff will consider the current zoning, neighborhood plans and existing development patterns in determining the base to calculate any density bonus
b. On the periphery where they are developing currently agriculture lands, for areas planned to be low density, the density bonus is calculated from the 75% point in the range of density. (i.e. if the area is planned to have 1 – 8 units, 75% would be 6)

7. If a developer is selling lots only and has received the offsets from the City, they cannot sell the lots for more than 25% of the value of an IZ home that should go on that lot.

8. Marketing Period – The plan commission had eliminated the ability for the developer to have units “bump out” of the IZ program for the following reasons:
a. There were too many loopholes and projects were being “marketed” and “bumping out” of the program before roads were even in some areas.
b. We wanted to avoid dictating marketing plans and the requisite tracking and auditing of the progress of those plans.
c. If we provide offsets to provide units and the units are not provided to the City, then we need to find a way to recapture the value of the offsets we provided.
Currently, this is an outstanding issue for the Plan Commission to consider

9. We need to determine an effective date for the ordinance and under which ordinance the projects that have already submitted an application should fall.

Final recommendations will be made on Monday evening after we have had a chance to do a final review of the ordinance language and see written proposals on the marketing issue.

Selling IZ: Acting in Good Faith?

I keep getting told that its not the developers that are the problem with the marketing, but I got this email from someone. This developer has less than 5 units, and this is the 2nd complaint I have heard from someone who (I think) eventually purchased a unit. It took 21 days for this other person to get their offer accepted, mostly because the developer thought that when their first marketing period was over they could sell the unit for more money and this person wouldn't qualify . . . and now this from a different client of the same developer just this morning . . .

From the beginning it has been hard. We had to have several meetings with the city and the developer to prove that we qualify for the program, we were given a letter written by the developers lawyer stating concern about allowing us to have a (various amenities), our questions have been ignored since May 14th now. I call every week and am told (a person from the development team) will get back to me, but nothing. We feel jerked around, we feel like we are being treated differently because we are IZ like somehow affordable housing is a bad thing. We are due to get financing in August and really don't have all the answers/bottom line $$.

And here I thought we have been repeatedly told, trust us, we want to sell these homes, that's how we make money. Hmmmm . . . I wonder when their marketing period ends . . . .

Inclusionary Zoning: One Week to Go . . . A Look Back

Last October 31st, just before we could get our changes introduced to the Common Council, Jed Sanborn (along with Compton, Thomas and Skidmore, later joined by Brandon and VanRooy) introduced repeal of the City of Madison's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. In November, the changes we (Mayor Dave, Konkel, King, Webber, Verveer, Olson, Benford, Gruber) had been working on since May 2005 were finally ready to be introduced. In December, the long awaited report on Inclusionary Zoning was done. In February, we made one change to help developers of the Pres House and reintroduced the rest of the proposed changes. In February the Mayor also started his Mayor's workgroup on Inclusionary Zoning. Meanwhile, the Housing Committee and Plan Commission continued working on various aspects of Inclusionary Zoning. Last Thursday (June 29) the Mayor's workgroup had a very sparcely attended meeting (Jed Sanborn, Golden, Palm, myself and the Mayor) and we approved the final report. (You might be wondering which alders have not yet been mentioned, those would be Bruer, Rosas, Cnare, Knox and Radomski, and while Cnare sits on the Plan Commission, the rest have hardly been heard from.)

There is much going on before the special council meeting on July 11th on Inclusionary Zoning. On Thursday, July 6th, the Plan Commission will have its final meeting and make its final proposals. On Monday, July 10th at noon, the Common Council will be having a special brown bag lunch to discuss Inclusionary Zoning and on July 11th, hopefully, we will vote on something.

Will that something be repeal? Up to this point Councilmembers have been reluctant to vote on repeal because they believed it was a political weapon to be held against supporters of Inclusionary Zoning so that we made "substantial changes". Interesting thing is, those same Councilmembers have failed to really articulate what it is that they are demanding so they won't continue pushing for repeal. The only thing that has been clear is that Councilmembers Brandon, Compton, Sanborn and Palm demanded that the off-sets (incentives) the City is providing be "100% cost-offsetting". Some stopped coming to meetings after those of us who have been working on the ordinance pointed out that as a practical matter, that was impossible. Of course, now that we've worked up a gap-analysis with the help of several in the community. . . I suspect they see the problem with demanding the off-sets be "100%". The only other thing I know they say is that there has to be "substantial changes". I have no idea if this list gets us there, but this is what we have:

1. Change the Equity Model
2. Get rid of the point system and do a "gap analysis" on every project
3. Get rid of the ability to "bump out" of the program after marketing for a period of time.
4. Allow IZ units for single family homes to be in attached housing units.
5. Allow for up to 20% of the project to be "IZ-free"
6. Allow for additional density in some neighborhoods on a case-by-case basis by allowing multi-family housing in previous commercial zones
7. Allow for a project specific off-set to be used.
8. Make the process quicker for the City to purchase the homes.
9. Change how the density bonus is measured.
10. Allow off-site units to be provided in existing housing instead of new housing.
11. Allow non-profits to be out of the program like Section 42 projects if they provide additional affordable housing.
12. Elimination of homeowner notification to the City when they make improvements or refinance.

Will this be "substantial" enough for those councilmembers, who knows?

One last outstanding question . . . where are the lobbying groups at:

Apartment Association - Came to a few meetings, but instead, they're busy appealing their lawsuit against the City.
Madison Area Builders Association - Took their Ball and went home.
REALTORS -Never really were sincere, made ridiculous demands, got their special process and at some point took their ball and went home . . . and then started running radio ads urging repeal.
Smart Growth Madison Inc. - Said they wanted to be part of the dialogue, then disappeared.
Downtown Madison Inc. - Will only show up to private meetings, but tried to be part of the dialogue.
Veridian - Were extremely helpful in technical assistance in helping us discuss the attached housing and "IZ-free" zones.

This next week promises to be interesting . . . will the council be able to get 11 votes for anything? Will the ordinance be repealed? Will the Mayor have to veto it? If we are stuck with our current ordinance, then what? No wonder they didn't want to fix the equity model . . . .

Realtors distort the IZ program . . .

Have you heard these ads on the radio?

When you buy a house through Madison's Inclusionary Zoning Program or IZ as its called, everything’s not included.
Like those of us making less than $50,000 a year, we're not included.
At nearly $200,000 these so called affordable homes are out of reach for me.
Also not included, the 700 homes already for sale in Madison that cost less than most of the IZ homes. IZ only applies to new homes.
And a return on an IZ home investment, that’s also not included because you’ll have to give a chunk of the appreciated value back to the City.
The funny thing about IZ is that the units are not included in most Madison neighborhoods, most IZ units are scattered on the edges of the city and in a few highrise buildings.
What does an IZ home include?
Higher home costs for the rest of us and a photo op with the mayor.
Call the mayor and your alder. Tell them you want an affordable housing program that works. Tell them to repeal IZ and replace it with a downpayment program or a program that helps people fix up existing homes.
Tell them Inclusionary is Delusionary.
Paid for by the Wisconsin Homeowners Alliance

It pained me to listen to hours of am radio talkshow crap, but I finally got a tape of the ad. The most important thing to realize is, who paid for the ads. As Lisa Subeck points out, its a front group for the realtors. Once you understand this, you can see why this is what they are advocating for. But what is much more concerning to me, is how willing they are to mislead the public. Lets dissect the ad.

Like those of us making less than $50,000 a year, we're not included.

Interesting, lets look at the facts. (Click on income limits)
These are the MAXIMUM income limits, most of them under $50,000 per year.
Remember homes are sold to people at 80% or 70% and rented to people at 60% or 50% AMI.

At nearly $200,000 these so called affordable homes are out of reach for me.

Again, lets look at those pesky facts.
Currently, only one type of home, a 4 bedroom at 80% AMI is at that nearly $200,000 range.

And a return on an IZ home investment, that’s also not included because you’ll have to give a chunk of the appreciated value back to the City.

This was one of their best talking points with the Zach Brandon model that was in the ordinance. For months, we have had a better proposal. In fact, we had the fundamentals of it last November. The council could have fixed this in the ordinance, but for political reasons, they refused to do so.

Also not included, the 700 homes already for sale in Madison that cost less than most of the IZ homes. IZ only applies to new homes.

Yes, IZ only applies to new homes. But their analysis of if these homes cost less than IZ homes is flawed. First, they don't include condo fees and many of the homes they count as affordable are condos. The cost of the condo fee is supposed to be calculated into the price of an IZ home. Second, they don't consider the bedroom size of the homes available.

The funny thing about IZ is that the units are not included in most Madison neighborhoods, most IZ units are scattered on the edges of the city and in a few highrise buildings.

There's nothing funny about this, that is how the program is set up. We are trying to make sure that we correct the mistakes made in other neighborhoods and that in all new neighborhoods, we have a broader range of housing options available to people. What's so funny about that? Over the years, as more neighborhoods get more new housing, this will change.

What does an IZ home include?
Higher home costs for the rest of us and a photo op with the mayor.

Giggle. I'll skip over the snarky "photo op" issue and go to the "higher home costs for the rest of us". The current ordinance has a waiver option that allows a developer that has a project that is not financially feasible to build off-site, provide money to the city in lieu of building the housing or reduce the number of units that they need to produce. Therefore, the costs of IZ should not be shoved off on the other homeowners as they would like you to believe. With the changes to the ordinance that are being proposed, we have made quite a bit of progress with the development community and have a proposal to essentially make sure that their profits are not reduced due to IZ.

Call the mayor and your alder. Tell them you want an affordable housing program that works. Tell them to repeal IZ and replace it with a downpayment program or a program that helps people fix up existing homes.

Ooooo, I love this one! As I've said earlier, I'll support these programs in addition to IZ and I'm waiting for a serious proposal to come forward. And . . . as I've described before we do have some of these programs in place, we could simply add more money to them come budget time.

It boils down to the same old misleading crap from the Realtors. I actually contacted two of the members of the board for the group that is running these ads. One of them got back to me and claimed that they were running the ads because "It's simply a way to get the public involved." Well, if you want to get people involved, start with the facts. Oh, and by the way, no one has called me so I'm not sure its an effective way to get people involved.