The City of Madison passes an inclusionary zoning ordinance. Over four years later, six marketplace units have been sold. The prediction was for about 1000-1200 units. Developers have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and some won't build in Madison until the ordinance sunsets in January, 2009. Buyers won't buy the units that have been built. The City has spent thousands of dollars and endless staff hours on the program.

A county supervisor decides to help stop one of our Members from building two homes on Lake Wingra. He drafts an ordinance with no real study on its potential effects. It is estimated that it might impact a few hundred other lots in the County. The number grows to 900, then 2,000 and then about 20,000 lots. The proposed ordinance fails, but supporters bring it to the Board of Adjustments. They use an obscure statute to go around elected officials and impose sweeping restrictions on thousands of shoreland zone property owners.

Some Dane County planners prepare a document calling for new, highly restrictive zoning regulations for shoreland zone properties, not only in the towns, but also in the villages and cities. Incomplete estimates suggest that over 47,000 lots will now be non-conforming. They offer property owners the alternative of performing mitigative measures that will be highly expensive, even if they are possible.

What do these things have in common? They are examples of ordinances and potential ordinances developed without concern for their financial impacts. Most of us are familiar with environmental impact statements. They are conducted to assess the impact of a project on the environment. But how often are there economic impact statements? How often do our elected officials understand that new regulations may impose stiff burdens and hardships on families and communities? A new law or regulation may provide some benefit, but the benefit may not come close to equaling the costs.

A law that imposes new regulatory burdens can deflate property values. Buyers may be unwilling to purchase properties if they know they have to obtain expensive variances to maintain or improve their properties. They may walk away from properties with onerous restrictions on how they can reasonably use and enjoy their property. They have baulked at purchasing inclusionary housing units that carry numerous restrictions and require equity sharing. Such laws hurt our tax base, making it more difficult to raise revenues for important programs.

When I was an alderman, a mayor and then a county supervisor, I had to be educated by REALTORS® on the potential impacts of my ideas and those of other elected officials. I was fortunate I listened. As REALTORS®, it is important that you educate your representatives on the effects of legislation on their own constituents.

In the next few months, we will be calling on you to contact your alders, mayors and County supervisors on a series of very important pieces of legislation. Take some time to contact them and give your perspective. They will appreciate it and you and your clients will benefit.

Next month, we¹ll get back to the CARPC (Capitol Area Regional Plan Commission) discussion.