Whitewater’s Housing Task Force produced a set of eight recommendations for the Whitewater Common Council. These recommendations were part of the discussion on May 6th. They would require necessary Council action or city planning and drafting.
1. Whitewater and the Community Development Authority should establish a first time buyers’ program to encourage single family home ownership in the community.
2. Whitewater should encourage neighborhood associations.
3. Whitewater should amend the existing municipal ordinance on re-inspections.
4. Whitewater should establish a chronic nuisance ordinance like the one in Janesville.
5. Whitewater should amend a current ordinance regarding award of attorney’s fees.
6. Amendment to an existing ordinance in order to support better the quiet enjoyment of property.
7. Establishing a rental registration data (not involving names of individual renters but landlords) on the basis of public safety, etc.
8. Consideration of additional neighborhood services staff.
My remarks are not directed at any of these eight points specifically, but are more general.
In presenting the recommendations, the City Manager noted that Whitewater may have one of the lowest percentages of single-family housing in the state. That’s possible – we are somewhere in the mid 30s as a percentage, where Wisconsin’s and America’s averages are over 60%.
Benefits of Home Ownership. There’s little debate in America about the benefit of owning one’s home. Even in places where homeownership has historically been lower than America, people quickly see the benefits of owning their own home when it becomes possible.
The idea of owner occupied home-ownership as an advantage for most is undoubted.
Whitewater’s Circumstances. There are some peculiarities to Whitewater that make increasing the percentage of owner-occupied units challenging.
I believe that we have the largest campus to city ratio of the thirteen public, four year colleges in the UW system. As far as I can tell, there is no other city in Wisconsin whose UW campus is so large a fraction of the city.
There is, by fractional amount, simply less of the non-campus Whitewater population than in other campus cities. Or, to put it another way, our campus is just bigger by percentage than other cities’ campuses (and more than some care to admit).
Perhaps there are private Wisconsin colleges that are a greater fraction of their home city’s size than our university is, but I do not know of one. Of the thirteen, four-year universities in the UW system, seven are twenty percent or less of their home city’s population (Eau Claire, Green Bay, La Crosse, Madison, Milwaukee, Oshkosh, Parkside, Superior). One is between twenty and fifty percent (Stevens Point), and three are apparently over fifty percent (Stout, Platteville, Whitewater).
That’s a significant campus presence that presents demand for rental housing. The demand for rental housing might decline if (1) there were more on-campus housing, or (2) more students commuted. It’s unlikely that either will happen. If anything, new developments on campus may make residence (rather than commuting) more attractive for a few students.
The large number of rental units means that absolute increases in the number of single family home will not easily register a percentage increase in overall owner-occupied units. The existing balance shows far more rental units.
Incentives to encourage single family homes by reclaiming rental properties will face opposing pressures from campus changes that may make renting more attractive to students.
I am not sure how many incentives will be enough to spur single family construction, but reductions in fees for single family home construction, or their elimination, may be one component to spur additional construction here.
Merely rearranging the proportion of existing single family and rental units would prove a Herculean task, where the campus is so relatively large. Reclamation will prove, I am convinced, less fruitful than efforts to spur new construction.
Enforcement of Zoning. Whitewater, for better or worse, is close to an underground market in rental housing. Those who disapprove – some very strongly – of rental housing near the campus see this as a sign to increase enforcement and regulation of existing zoning regulations.
I would contend, as I have, that concern with zoning regulation, and a focus on reduction or elimination of many construction fees, might spur owner-occupied growth, albeit perhaps not so close to the university.
An underground market seems an odd situation for America – black markets are more common in poorly functioning, heavily regulated economies. We have black markets here, too, of course, but not so many as other places.
What to do? Try to enforce rental housing away, or reduce restrictions to permit additional private development of owner-occupied units? (I see the concern that reducing restrictions may transform near-campus areas, even if the overall stock of owner–occupied units would increase elsewhere in the city.)
It is, however, extremely difficult, to enforce a change in the overall percentages of single family homes and rental units solely from existing units.
(It’s far different from enforcing for noise, etc. When I mention reductions in regulation, I’m referring here to reductions in zoning more than nuisance enforcement.)
If it were easy, there would be no underground market now. Even societies far more controlling than anything in America struggle to prevent underground markets from operating (or tacitly allow them because of the benefits from their greater efficiencies).
There is only a limited gain to be had from trying to enforce zoning ordinances, though, to change the overall housing mix in a city where the campus is so large a part of the city, and thus where rental units so predominate.
Ultimately, growth of single family units apart from a reallocation of the type of existing units will be the only practical course.