Rebuttal to Jessica McBride column in Freeman

Jessica McBride has written a column in the Freeman on the New Berlin Planning Commission's reversal and rejection of MSP Development's proposal.  It is a stunningly ill-informed article.  Her standard-and of some of the opponents-seem to be that as long as there were not people saying "no (racial/ethnic group) allowed here," then it couldn't possibly have anything to do with race.  There's also the issue of disparate impact, which I'll get into later.

 She opens with a statement that the U.S. Department of Justice made the decision to investigate New Berlin without any public evidence that "New Berlin is full of a bunch of racists."  No public evidence at all. Other than the New Berlin Mayor's own words.  But let's not blame the Mayor here-there were plenty of ugly words and coded language at the public meetings and in the comment section of articles.

She then tries to equate the tax-credit development with living in poverty.

Back to New Berlin. I’ve explained the twisted logic before. Some liberals like to argue that poverty causes crime (personally, I think there is an association, although many people raised in poverty don’t become criminals). However, if a city rejects a housing project for lower income folks because they think the housing project will lead to more crime, the liberal reaction is always mock horror and cries of racism. Well, you can’t have it both ways. If poverty causes (or is associated with) crime, then a housing development for impoverished people is likely to bring crime. Logically speaking. Or, at the very least, it’s not unreasonable to worry that it might.

How many times does this have to be said?  "Workforce Housing" is designed for working people.  While any poverty is a cause for concern, advocates usually are most concerned about census tracts with concentrated poverty of over 40% of residents living in poverty.  As I noted in a previous post:

As Brookings scholar Edward G. Goetz explains, concentrated poverty ‘‘produces a range of social problems whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts. . . . Something about the extreme concentration of disadvantage begets even more community and individual dysfunction.’ "

This is hardly what you would find in a 80-unit building of working people in a relatively affluent city.  And if Ms. McBride had bothered to read this blog on Friday, she'd find that consultants for Shorewood Hills found that the number of police, fire and EMS calls would be no higher than the village's current rate per housing unit.

Then she writes "Residents also felt the project wasn’t a proper use for the City Center. Earlier plans for City Center were to turn it into an upper scale area for retail and some housing – maybe luxury condos."  She neglects to mention that a) the original plans makes no mention of high-end developments, b) that there already are luxury condos at City Center-that are being rented as apartments because of a lack of sales, and c)  the City Center is struggling to keep businesses.

She writes:

Again, if this is the standard – if rejecting lower-income housing triggers a federal investigation – then I suppose cities should just give up on such zoning laws altogether. I am being sarcastic. Of course, they shouldn’t. Cities should have every right to determine how their downtowns are zoned. Residents should have every right to demand careful, considered development and they have every right to decide they’d rather turn their downtown into Delafield than West Allis. Not that there’s anything wrong with West Allis.

Ms. McBride does not seem to understand that zoning is not the issue.  The lot is zoned multi-family.  The MSP proposal was multi-family.  The proposal initially passed through until the Planning Commission abruptly reversed itself after angry people start making calls. The proposal met all zoning requirements, and was rejected on thin grounds without giving the developer an opportunity to respond at the meeting. So, yes, the federal government should at least take a look.

Not content with slamming West Allis, she goes after Milwaukee:

Wait a minute – in Milwaukee, hasn’t the downtown’s resurgence been tied to highend condo developments? Maybe the federal government should investigate the city of Milwaukee for having the temerity to not build a low-income housing project in the middle of the downtown.

You mean something like this one?  Or City Hall Square and Majestic Milwaukee Loft Apartments, to name two? 

She also employs circular logic, decrying the wasted effort in the U.S. Department of Justice investigating New Berlin, and states "If the feds have such additional evidence to show the investigation was warranted, they should produce it. Otherwise, use our tax dollars elsewhere."  Perhaps Ms. McBride could explain the process in which evidence routinely appears without an investigation?  (The federal letter is here.)

Finally, Ms. McBride does not seem to be aware of the concept of disparate impact.  Essentially, this says that any action that impacts one group more than any other can be considered discriminatory, even if that was not the intent.  For instance, suppose a large bank sets a policy of not making home loans under $100,000 in order to increase their profit margin.  This is seemingly neutral, but it would impact low-income households that are more likely to buy homes under $100,00.  Because minority households are disproportionately low-income, the net effect is discriminatory.

When Congress established the Fair Housing Act (FHA), they recognized that combating all but the most blatant discriminationary practice would be difficult.

...the FHA's sponsors recognized that residential segregation stemmed in part from ostensibly neutral private and public practices, and they sought to undo the effects of those practices. This, along with the recognition that intentional discrimination would often be difficult to prove, confirms Congress‟s goal of outlawing housing practices that disproportionately harm minorities without a legitimate justification. (pg. 12) 

In my opinion, the Department of Justice should also be looking at the impact on people with disabilities since tax-credit and subsidized housing are often the only housing that has accessibility standards that are far beyond the minimum of the Fair Housing Act requirements for multi-family housing.  New Berlin does not have any tax-credit or subsidized buildings that are not targeted at older adults, which leaves non-elderly persons with disabilities with few options for accessible housing.