Why are there “No-Rezoning” Yard Signs on Old Sauk Road?

The Issue

Those driving, biking, or walking down Old Sauk Road between Gammon and Old Middleton, unavoidably notice a string of bright red yard signs on both sides of the street declaring “No Rezoning”. The signs have been posted by an organized group of local residents who are opposed to a demolition and building permit application from Stone House Development. Stone House proposes to remove the ancient barn and several residences on the property between 6610 and 6706 Old Sauk and build a 3-story, 138-unit, market-rate apartment building.

Madison’s Process for Considering the Stone House Permit Application

Stone House has applied to the City for a permit to demolish the existing buildings (Legislative #82950), rezone the property from SR-C1 and SR-C3 to TR-U2 (Legislative #82972) and approve the associated certified survey map (Legislative #82979). Interested persons can use the above legislative numbers or the property address in the search function at www.cityofmadison.com to see maps, the permit applications, and accumulated public comments.

The permit applications are currently being reviewed by multiple departments with relevant expertise, such as stormwater management. The applications are tentatively scheduled to appear on the Planning Commission’s June 10 agenda, and, if approved, to appear on the Common Council’s June 18 agenda. It is not unusual for the Plan Commission or the Common Council to refer the applications back to relevant departments, boards, commissions, or committees for further review before taking final action.

Focus of this Blog

The Old Sauk project is one of many permit applications. I think it deserves some attention because the issues and passions involved have erupted in the past and will continue to arise not only with regard to specific projects but also with regard to the Madison’s land use decision-making as it methodically crafts area plans such as the currently gestating West Area Plan and Northeast Area Plan.

What I’m going to try to do is describe the competing goals and concerns as dispassionately as possible, recognizing that I’m human and beset by my own infrastructure of prejudices, preconceptions, and ignorance. That objective weighing of positive and negative impacts is something that the Plan Commission and Common Council (I am a member of both) will strive for as we make decisions that are the right thing for all of Madison.

We need to dig deep to get to the heart of this matter. I’m going to briefly torture you with a tortured analogy for which I hope you can forgive me. I have found the act of mucking out a barn to be regenerative. For those of you who are not familiar with the term, “mucking out” a barn refers to shoveling the accumulated livestock manure and bedding into a manure spreader or pile outside the barn and getting down to the concrete or packed earth floor. I can tell you from personal experience that the task is hard labor, and the conclusion is immensely satisfying, albeit leaving one unpopular in polite company for some time. In my life in business and nonprofit voluntarism I have found that problem solving often benefits from mucking out all of the fecal camouflage and getting down to the real issues.

What are the fundamental issues? My thinking on the choice at hand is bookended by an NPR news segment and one of the more memorable emails I’ve received from opponents of the project.

1. On April 23, NPR addressed the estimated shortage of 4 to 7 million homes in the US. Mary Louise Kelly interviewed Alex Horowitz, director of Pew’s Housing Policy Initiative. When Kelly asked what was driving the shortage, Horowitz replied: “So restrictive zoning is the primary culprit. It’s made it hard to build homes in the areas where there are jobs.”
2. I’ve received many emails about the project, some in support, but most opposed. One message was particularly poignant, and I’ll paraphrase: “We’re old and we’ll soon be dead or moved to a nursing home. Can’t you wait until we’re gone?”

Developer and Proponent Motivation

The developer’s motivations are obvious. Most residential development in Madison and Dane County is accomplished by private, for-profit ventures. Stone House has a long history in the city and is known for at least modifying plans somewhat in response to neighborhood interaction. They can be counted upon to chart a course that maximizes profit within the boundaries of applicable laws. Since the Stone House business model is to hold the assets they develop for extended periods, they are more motivated than the develop-and-flee ventures to focus on durable specifications, energy efficiency, and ease of maintenance.

I anticipate that the Plan Commission and Common Council will hear from at least two groups  of engaged individuals and organized advocacy entities. One group will focus on the Old Sauk project as part of a broader solution to accelerate the construction of new housing to address Madison’s widely acknowledged housing shortage, which is a driving force behind rapidly rising prices and rents. Supporting re-development within the beltline to higher density and where demand seems to be the highest, has generated more housing faster than the slow process of extending utilities and infrastructure to undeveloped land beyond the beltline. The process by which particular properties emerge as re-developable is unpredictable and tedious, hence the interest in maximizing every opportunity as it arises.

I expect a second group will advocate for denser development as part of the broad campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, avoid sprawl, and generally strive for a more sustainable urban future. The positions of this group are generally rooted in climate science, although some conclusions relating to specific environments may be subject to further rigorous study.

Opponent Fears and Concerns

One of the things I want to stress is that the opponents are good people in the best sense of that term. I have walked the property, met with the owner, and spoken directly with neighbors who oppose the Stone House project and corresponded with many others. Those who are still economically active make massive contributions to Madison’s vibrant economy. Many of those who are retired are the voluntary backbone of many Madison non-profits. They are not racists, notwithstanding that some out of ignorance use phrases that are widely recognized as racist. Their opposition is heartfelt. They pay the heavy property tax burden which supports the services Madison loves and immigrants find so enticing.

Residents point out that they have long expected the property to be developed but would prefer a more modest scale. Please see my April 25 blog: “Why is the Middle Missing”. In that blog I explored the economic reasons why that kind of development has become so rare.

Opponents are concerned about the stormwater and traffic impacts of building 138 new dwelling units in the neighborhood. These are matters that are now being considered by various departments. Madison wants infrastructure to match the growth our city is experiencing. After the flood event of 2018, Madison strengthened its stormwater management requirements for new developments. The Stone House project will need to satisfy those requirements. It would be nice, if the developer designed to even higher standards than the law requires, but Madison can’t enforce that.

A common theme in opponent comments is that the scale of the project – a single 138-unit structure of three stories, fits poorly with the neighboring one and two-story single-family dwellings. I suspect that most people would find a 10-story high-rise next to a one-story dwelling aesthetically jarring. It becomes a little more subjective in this instance, given the number of Madison neighborhoods where single-family homes are juxtaposed with 3-story apartments. Do long-term property owners develop a more finely tuned sense of architectural aesthetics? To what extent is this objection, so typical of other zoning fights, a cover for more basic concerns? I have no idea. One mission of the Plan Commission is to preserve the nuances of the environment that make Madison so desirable and special.

The vast majority of opponent comments appear to be about a fear of loss of home value driven by the deeper fear of the kind of people who would live in the Stone House project.

Fear of reduced home valuation seems to be a Madison tradition erupting with every new proposed development yet almost never actually occurring. It’s a basic human fear. As was famously said two millennia ago: “For those who pile up their treasure on earth, that is where their heart will be.”

In basic economics, why would a project like that proposed result in declining property values? Property values respond fairly directly to the classic demand-supply formulation. Will homeowners flee the neighborhood out of their distaste for the impact of the project, possibly combined with a decline in the number of interested potential buyers unwilling to buy a home near such a project? It’s difficult to look at climbing assessments across the city, many of which include neighborhoods with a mix of large rental developments and single-family homes and conclude that there is such a relationship. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been an academically rigorous study that accurately measures such a relationship. In part, this kind of fear depends on a certain level of mistrust among neighbors – that some will bolt out of fear rather than harbor some optimism about the future of the neighborhood.

I sense that we are getting to the floor of the barn. Underneath it all is just simple human fear of the “other”, in this case, renters. This is not to say that it is an illegitimate discomfort, even though raising this question may in itself cause discomfort. On a fundamental level, on the floor of the barn, is it in Madison’s best interest to preserve one or more neighborhoods where the propertied class is comfortably isolated from renters and all of their real and imagined odious characteristics?

This promises to be an interesting exercise in democracy.