The president of Smart Growth Madison makes a compelling case for the failure of IZ in Madison, both to accomplish its goals of providing affordable housing AND driving up rents. Great opinion piece; read it.
http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/art ... ticle=5932
He kindly doesn't venture into the job security this ordinance has unwittingly provided for the ordinance's author, also the director of the Tenant Resource Center. Certainly, TRC has the same numbers illustrating the tightening rental market that's resulted from IZ.
T. Wall also doesn't go into another profound impact of the ordinance, the effect it's had on diffusing other efforts to create affordable housing. With all of the focus of fixing IZ, we no longer empanel bodies such as the Starter Home Taskforce nor design CDA programs that encourage home ownership, commonly done before the advent of IZ. When asked about what they're doing to provide affordable housing, elected officials passively point to IZ. "We've addressed that issue," they say instead of confronting its failure.
While the mayoral contest has focused on halting business unfriendly mandates, would we be better served by a discussion of what will be done to ensure a supply of affordable housing, - owner occupied AND rental - in what should be a post-IZ era? Will we continue to swallow Dave's drivel that the ordinance is not perfect while ignoring the human cost of a failed attempt to provide affordable housing? Or, can we afford to await Ray's program, likely to be unveiled sometime after he loses the election (if his failure to cultivate other issues in a timely manner can be a guide for his campaign's lethargy on yet another issue served up for him)?