The Policy Formerly Known as Grow MKE Update

A lot has been going on with ”the plan formerly known as Grow MKE” besides its distracting name change to “Housing Element.” After the initial backlash to the plan, predominantly led by community organizations like Metcalfe Park Community Bridges, the creators of the plan held numerous listening sessions to gather further input across the city. After reviewing this new round of feedback, an updated version of the plan was released, and a harm analysis was also published (something that community advocates had asked for). The major resistors against the plan, like Metcalfe Park Community Bridges, have publicly acknowledged that they are content with the additional outreach done by the city and are no longer opposing the plan. Having quelled this initial opposition, the City Plan Commission approved the changes to the plan which will now go before the Common Council for approval.

So how is Housing Element different than Grow MKE? First, it serves to highlight that the bulk of the opposition to the plan was not against the plan itself, but the process of its creation. Many communities felt as though they had not been properly listened to. Aside from the name change, the plan is still relatively similar, with a few minor changes (all clearly described on this page). 

The biggest of these changes that caught our attention is more openness to regulating Airbnb and other short-term rentals. The original plan read,“Continue to monitor the impact of short-term rentals on local neighborhoods and housing markets and explore potential regulations to address negative impacts”, while the new plan’s language is, “Adopt new regulations to ensure that short-term rentals (“tourist rooming houses”) are following applicable health and safety requirements. Continue to monitor the impact of short-term rentals on local neighborhoods and housing markets and adjust regulations as needed to address negative impacts.“ Not a drastic change, but enough that the city will,hopefully, take a more active role in regulating (or at least attempt to regulate) short-term rentals. While this will not solve Milwaukee’s housing crisis, it is a valuable tool to have in our toolbox given the well-documented evidence of short-term rentals driving up prices in local housing markets.

The other noteworthy change is slightly more mixed. The original Grow MKE plan changed zoning codes to allow for construction of more duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on areas previously zoned for only single-family homes. This change has been struck from the new plan, as it was opposed by an unusual alliance. The folks at Metcalfe Park Community Bridges opposed this portion because it would be a barrier to increasing black homeownership and could potentially open the door for slumlords to acquire even more properties. Also opposing this plan were many on the Eastside who worried it would destroy the ´character of the neighborhood´ (or in other words allow poor people to live near them).

We know that one key component in making housing affordable is having variety of housing types widely available. Not everyone wants or needs to live in their own single family home. Allowing for multiple housing units on a single plot of land also allows us to create more housing stock, increasing supply and (if predatory developers are kept at bay) reducing overall prices. We need to build more than just single family homes.  While we can handwave away the classic NIMBYism of the Eastsiders, the objections by Metcalfe Park Community Bridges raise an excellent point. While the Housing Element plan does not provide the solution, hopefully someday we can devise a housing plan that not only allows for denser living but also uplifts community ownership of housing and protects against slumlords. Metcalfe Park Community Bridges already are providing a great model of how to do this by purchasing vacant homes in their neighborhood, renovating them to accommodate large, intergenerational families; and selling them to residents at an affordable price through a rent-to-own model. We need more programs like this.

While many of the critiques that Milwaukee Beagle and others have levied against the Housing Elements plan are still valid, the ultimate question is, is it more harmful to pass the plan or do nothing? Normally, a harm analysis would be one of the best ways to assess the potential negative consequences of a policy, this was one of the reasons why activists pushed for a harm analysis of the Grow MKE plan. And while there is now a harm analysis of the Housing Element plan, there is something very very suspicious about it. Nowhere in the entire document does it note WHO performed this harm analysis. Additionally, the language of the analysis and how it refers to the Housing Elements plan itself sounds like it was written from the perspective of someone who also worked on the Housing Elements plan. We also never saw the city put out any requests for proposals for someone to perform the harm analysis (which was completed incredibly quickly). 

For these reasons, based on our investigation and some off the record conversations, we believe that the harm analysis was likely written by the Housing Elements team themselves. This is not to say that the points made in the analysis are not valid, but, if true, this process is  quite unethical and in bad faith. Generally speaking, the essential purpose of a harm analysis is for an outside 3rd party to make an assessment of a policy. Performing your own harm analysis internally would be an incredible conflict of interest and would defeat the whole purpose of performing it. It is like trusting any industry to regulate itself. It just does not work. All this goes to show that while the city was willing to listen and adjust the plan based on community feedback, they are still willing to cut corners when they can.

So now we return to the original question. Taking a harm reduction approach, what is the least harmful? Leaving Milwaukee housing policy as is? Or, despite all its flaws and shortcomings, passing the Housing Elements plan? In this case, doing nothing and maintaining the status quo seems much more harmful. Even if Housing Elements passes, any new construction projects would still need to be approved by the Common Council. The Housing Elements plan just allows for the construction of a wider range of properties, but does not guarantee their approval. Any projects can still be resisted and potentially stopped before construction begins. Additionally, some of the equity and social justice language of the plan could give activists tools to push the city even further for more just housing. We lose these potential tools if we maintain the status quo. If anything can be learned from this process, the City still has to listen to us. With an organized, concentrated resistance, we can stop bad plans from passing. 

As the (potentially, but likely!) fake-harm analysis demonstrates, we still need to be vigilant in supervising the City and holding them accountable. They will cut corners and even so-called leftist or progressives on the Council might get lazy and just rubber stamp any new projects that come before them. The most important place to keep an eye on first and foremost is the Zoning, Neighborhoods,and Development Committee currently chaired by Alderman Bauman. Any development projects will have hearings in this committee first. Of course, staying up-to-date on the goings on of a City Committee is difficult, so we recommend following orgs like Metcalfe Park Community Bridges or the African American Round Table, as they were the ones who led the charge against opposing the initial, much worse Grow MKE plan. We have them to thank for this new plan. Also keep an eye on the Reclaiming Our Neighborhoods Coalition who are also working to call out slumlords and hold them accountable. 

We need to collectively and strategically keep the pressure on city officials and make sure they actually represent our interests before that of any developer hoping to exploit our housing market for profit.