Madison residents love to tout their progressive city. Folks in my neighborhood — University Hill Farms, on the west side — are no different. Our yards are dotted with signs that have become a ubiquitous signal of inclusive thinking: “No matter where you’re from, we’re glad you’re our neighbor.” My neighbors and I know that Madison suffers from stark economic and racial divides. We know that climate change is an existential threat. We know that there is an enormous amount of work required to achieve equal rights for every part of our society including women, the queer community and the poor.
That’s why I’m saddened by the debate that has developed around transit-oriented development zoning in our neighborhood. I fear that the vocal members of the area are putting the worst of progressive NIMBY-ism on full display.
First, let’s talk about transit-oriented development.
It’s good policy. Madison is already beginning to suffer from the problems of larger cities that didn’t adopt solid transit and development plans. Anyone driving through the isthmus or on the Beltline can attest to worsening congestion problems. A short trip out of town reveals the environmental destruction caused by paving over farmland and prairie to build more suburban sprawl. The problems that plague car-centric cities make our community less livable, less safe, less healthy.
In conjunction with bus rapid transit, TOD encourages higher-density infill development. The proposed ordinance creates overlay districts to modify zoning near transit corridors. TOD allows for larger and higher buildings, including multi-family housing. Encouraging development inside the city discourages destructive development outside the city. People can live closer to work, drive less, and remain closer to our schools, parks, libraries and community centers.
TOD also aims to increase housing availability. Madison suffers from an affordable housing shortage. Because of high demand, too many young families are priced out of home ownership (and increasingly, rentals). They are being forced out of town, and inventory in Madison must increase to meet this demand.
Housing availability is a key reason that TOD is an equity issue. If TOD (along with additional policy solutions) can enable marginalized, lower-income folks in Madison to remain within our community instead of being pushed to the edges, that’s a win for everyone.
The University Hill Farms neighborhood on Madison’s near west side.
Now, let’s return to Hill Farms.
Our neighborhood association — or rather, a handful of its leaders — have been recently vocal in their opposition to Madison’s TOD zoning proposal, which is on the agenda of tonight's city council meeting. Their stated reasons are varied, but nearly all revolve around preserving our current “single-family housing” zoning. Many have expressed concerns that unnamed developers will tear down houses and replace them with duplexes or higher-density developments.
Let’s be clear about what this sentiment represents: reactionary protectionism of the status quo. In other words, NIMBYism.
Single-family zoning originated in the early 1900s to exclude minorities from white neighborhoods. After a Supreme Court ruling in 1917 prohibited explicit race-based zoning, exclusion by class-based discrimination took hold. The outcome after more than a century of enforcement is racial segregation combined with wealth concentration in predominantly white neighborhoods.
According to one analysis, 75 percent of the residential land in Madison is zoned for single-family, detached structures.
Hill Farms is a neighborhood with this exclusionary zoning. It is a wealthy neighborhood dominated by single-family homes, and it has been set up to remain dominated by those who can afford to live here. We have restrictions written into our deeds that prohibit anything but single-family housing; our deeds also require us to submit any proposed building to a neighborhood architectural review committee for approval. These restrictions remain in place, no matter what zoning is implemented. We must ask, why are people so concerned?
You can see the exclusion in our discourse, too. Residents in our neighborhood who live in high-density apartment buildings are not permitted as voting members of our association. Boundaries have been drawn so that voting privileges are restricted mainly to those who live in the detached housing. Neighbors who live in rental housing in the neighborhood share that they feel looked down upon by home-owning peers.
Our alderperson, Bill Tishler, also seems to have fallen prey to the NIMBYs. When he was appointed to the District 11 vacancy last year (he is now running unopposed for the seat), Tishler said that "constructing sustainable and affordable housing for low-income residents so everyone has the opportunity to choose to live closer to the city center" was one of the most important issues for our district. Now, after outcry from the Hill Farms homeowners, he’s saying that implementing TOD in Hill Farms wouldn’t encourage the “kind of high-density housing we need.” Convenient.
At the time of this writing, a search of Madison’s real estate inventory shows only 14 listings under $200,000, and all are at the edges of the city. This week Paul Fanlund writes in the Cap Times that young homeowners might consider outlying suburbs in order to avoid Madison’s zoning changes. In truth, young homeowners are probably more concerned about finding an affordable house, rather than zoning that they like.
To be sure, we’ll hear all sorts of arguments from the NIMBY folks:
“We didn’t have time to process this” is a song as old as time; in fact, Tishler brought the proposed policy to the Hill Farms Neighborhood Association’s attention in August. The city has a TOD website with regular updates.
“TOD doesn’t matter because we have deed restrictions.” Then why fight it so loudly?
“TOD isn’t going to fix the problems of housing inventory and affordability in the city.” Correct, TOD alone won’t fix the problems. But it is one part of a constellation of policies that can set us in the right direction.
I believe my neighbors have good intentions. To them — and to the Common Council — I say this: Intent matters, but impact matters more. Hill Farms and other wealthy neighborhoods in Madison have disproportionately benefited from exclusionary zoning, and now we have a chance to right those wrongs while encouraging sustainable development within Madison. For progressives, that should seem like a win-win.
Dr. Wes Marner is a homeowner in the University Hill Farms neighborhood and has lived in Madison for 15 years. Professionally, he works in the community to encourage equitable access to science education.
