Milwaukee, other Wisconsin cities that change zoning to attract housing could get state cash
Milwaukee and other Wisconsin communities seeking to attract affordable housing by changing their zoning codes could be rewarded with grants from state taxpayers.
That's through a provision in Gov. Tony Evers' 2025-27 budget proposal.
If approved by the Legislature, the $119 billion budget would include $20 million to encourage local governments "to adopt zoning changes that reduce barriers to the development of more affordable housing options."
The Wisconsin Department of Administration would operate the program. Local governments, including tribal nations, could compete for grants by adopting one or more zoning policies.
Those are reducing minimum lot sizes and widths; reducing setback requirements to allow greater use of lots; increasing allowed lot coverages to match historic patterns; adopting a traditional neighborhood development ordinance, and allowing accessory dwelling units.
That's according to the budget legislation, Senate Bill 45.
Evers administration representatives didn't immediately respond to the Journal Sentinel's request for more information about the zoning change program.
Some of its provisions are similar to what Mayor Cavalier Johnson's administration is recommending through the Department of City Development's stalled Growing MKE proposal.
City officials are pleased to see "budget initiatives that the Department of City Development has already begun to advance through our Growing MKE plan," said Madison Goldbeck, department marketing and communications officer.
The city supports Evers' proposals and will work with the Legislature "to advance initiatives that provide more affordable housing options for our community," Goldbeck said, in a statement.
Growing MKE needs Common Council approval.
The plan's suggested zoning changes — requiring separate council approval — would lead to greater density in a city where 40% of the land is restricted to single-family homes.
Growing MKE includes encouraging development of accessory dwelling units. Those are houses or apartments that share the building lot of a larger, primary home.
Such ADUs are generally smaller and more affordable than traditional single-family homes.
Growing MKE supporters say increased density would include such "neighborhood scale" housing as duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, cottage courts and four-unit apartment buildings.
That would encourage more housing construction, including affordable units, according to the plan's supporters.
Opponents believe Growing MKE would encourage absentee investor landlords to increase their ownership of central city housing — driving up rents.
That opposition led to more public meetings to explain Growing MKE and seek input. It has yet to return to the Plan Commission before undergoing council review.
The state budget proposal from Evers, a Democrat, will undergo review by a Legislature where both chambers are controlled by Republicans.
Evers' budget would spend too much and is not realistic, according to Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.
Tom Daykin can be emailed at tdaykin@jrn.com and followed on Instagram, Bluesky, X and Facebook.This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin cities could get state cash with zoning changes for housing
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vs. California
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Under Donald Trump, the federal government is like a bad parent: never there when you need him but eager to stick his nose in your business when you don't want him to. The relationship between Trump and California has always been bad, but the past few days represent a new low. On Friday, CNN reported that the White House was seeking to cut off as much federal funding to the Golden State as possible, especially to state universities. That afternoon, protests broke out in Los Angeles as ICE agents sought to make arrests. By Saturday, Trump had announced that he was federalizing members of the National Guard and deploying them to L.A., over the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Americans have seen the National Guard called out to deal with the aftermath of riots in the past, but its involvement over the weekend represents a dramatic escalation. The National Guard was deployed to L.A. in 1992, during riots after the acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The scale of the destruction in that instance, compared with scattered violence in L.A. this weekend, helps show why Trump's order was disproportionate. (National Guard troops were also deployed in Minneapolis during protests after the murder of George Floyd, at the request of Governor Tim Walz. Trump has falsely claimed that he deployed the troops when Walz wouldn't.) In all of these recent cases, however, governors have made the call to bring out the National Guard. A president has not done so since 1965, when Lyndon Johnson took control of the Alabama National Guard from the arch-segregationist Governor George Wallace and ordered it to protect civil-rights leaders' third attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery. The situations aren't even closely analogous. Johnson acted only after local leaders had demonstrated that law enforcement would violently attack the peaceful marchers. By contrast, the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department have plenty of experience and sufficient man power to deal with protests of the weekend's size, and military forces are a riskier choice because they aren't trained as police. This morning, Newsom said he will sue the administration over the deployment. Elizabeth Goitein, a scholar at the Brennan Center for Justice who has written extensively in The Atlantic about the abuse of presidential emergency powers, told The Washington Post that Trump's order 'is completely unprecedented under any legal authority.' 'The use of the military to quell civil unrest is supposed to be an absolute last resort,' she added. Trump is doing this, as my colleague Tom Nichols writes, because he wants to provoke a confrontation with California. The president sees tough immigration enforcement as a political winner, but he also wants to use the face-off to expand the federal government's power to control states. Trump's vision is federalism as a one-way street: If states need help, they might be on their own, but if states believe that federal intervention is unnecessary or even harmful, too bad. If the president wants to shut off funds to states for nothing more than political retribution or personal animus, he believes that he can do that. (A White House spokesperson told CNN that decisions about potential cuts were not final but said that 'no taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country,' a laughably vague and overheated rationale.) If states have been struck by major disasters, however, they'd better hope they voted for Trump, or that their governors have a good relationship with him. Some of these attempts to strong-arm states are likely illegal, and will be successfully challenged in court. Others are in gray areas, and still others are plainly legal—manifestations of what I call 'total politics,' in which officials wield powers that are legal but improper or unwise. This is a marked shift from the traditional American conservative defense of states' rights. Although that argument has often been deployed to defend racist policies, such as slavery and segregation, the right has also argued for the prerogative of local people to stave off an overweaning federal government. Conservatives also tended to view Lyndon Johnson as a boogeyman, not a role model. Kristi Noem, now the secretary of Homeland Security, bristled at the idea of federalizing the National Guard just last year, when she was serving as governor of South Dakota. But Trump's entire approach is to centralize control. He has pursued Project 2025's plan to seize new powers for the executive branch and to establish right-wing Big Government, flexing the coercive capacity of the federal government over citizens' lives. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, has suggested that he wouldn't hesitate to arrest Newsom, and Trump endorsed the idea today. And Trump allies have proposed all sorts of other ways to force state governments to comply, such as cutting off Justice Department grants or FEMA assistance for states that don't sign up to enforce Trump's immigration policies, an issue where state governments do not traditionally have a role. This duress is not limited to blue states. Just last week, under pressure from the DOJ, Texas agreed to trash a 24-year-old law (signed by then-Governor Rick Perry, who later became Trump's secretary of energy) that gives in-state college tuition to some undocumented immigrants. If nothing else, the Trump era has given progressives a new appreciation for states' rights. Democrat attorneys general have become some of the most effective opponents of the Trump White House, just as Republican ones battled the Obama and Biden administrations. On Friday, Newsom mused about California withholding federal taxes. This is plainly illegal, but you can see where he's coming from: In fiscal year 2022, the state contributed $83 billion dollars more to the federal government than it received. If California is not getting disaster aid but is getting hostile deployments of federal troops, Californians might find it harder to see what's in it for them. No wonder one poll commissioned by an advocacy group earlier this year found that 61 percent of the state's residents thought California would be better off as a separate nation. Secession isn't going to happen: As journalists writing about aspiring red-state secessionists in recent years have noted, leaving the Union is unconstitutional. But the fact that these questions keep coming up is a testament to the fraying relationship between the federal government and the states. Trump's recent actions toward California show why tensions between Washington and the states are likely to get worse as long as he's president. Related: David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: An uproar at the NIH The real problem with the Democrats' ground game Where is Barack Obama? Today's News President Donald Trump's travel ban is in effect, affecting nationals from 19 countries. Israel intercepted a high-profile aid ship en route to Gaza and detained those on board, including the activist Greta Thunberg. They have been brought to the Israeli port of Ashdod, according to Israel's foreign ministry. Officials from America and China met in London for a second round of trade-truce negotiations. Dispatches The Wonder Reader: Summer is heating up. Isabel Fattal compiles stories about an invention that changed the course of human life: the AC unit. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read What's So Shocking About a Man Who Loves His Wife? By Jeremy Gordon The first time that someone called me a 'wife guy,' I wasn't sure how to react. If you are encountering this phrase for the first time and think wife guy surely must mean 'a guy who loves his wife,' you would be dead wrong. The term, which rose to popularity sometime during the first Trump administration, describes someone whose spousal affection is so ostentatious that it becomes inherently untrustworthy. 'The wife guy defines himself,' the critic Amanda Hess has written, 'through a kind of overreaction to being married.' The wife guy posts a photo of his wife to Instagram along with several emojis of a man smiling with hearts in place of his eyes. He will repeat this sort of action so many times that even his closest friends may think, Enough already. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic The Democrats have an authenticity gap. The Wyoming hospital upending the logic of private equity Helen Lewis: The Trump administration's nasty campaign against trans people Culture Break Read. These six books are great reads for anybody interested in the power of saying no. Examine. Money is ruining television, Sophie Gilbert writes. Depictions of extreme wealth are everywhere on the small screen, and, well, it's all quite boring. Play our daily crossword. P.S. My colleague Katherine J. Wu's latest wrenching dispatch from the dismantling of the federal scientific establishment was published today. Katherine writes about a letter from more than 300 National Institutes for Health officials criticizing the NIH's direction in the past few months. One official, who both signed the letter and spoke with Katherine anonymously, told her, 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state.' The official added, 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' That quote struck me because it dovetails directly with the mindset that Trump demonstrates in his dealing with the states: Parts of the federal government are most valuable to him when they can be used not to provide services to citizens, but to serve as a cudgel. — David Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill enacting nation's strictest limits on corporate health care influence signed by Gov. Kotek
A doctor works at a pharmacy. Corporate investors eyeing local health care facilities in Oregon could soon face one of the hardest markets nationwide. () Corporate investors hoping to take over local health care facilities in Oregon could soon face one of the hardest markets nationwide. Senate Bill 951, which was quietly signed into law by Gov. Tina Kotek on Monday, sets the strongest regulations on private and corporate control of medical practices in the nation, according to industry lawyers. A similar effort failed in the Legislature last year amid pushback from Republicans that prevented the bill from meeting key legislative deadlines. The governor told reporters at a news conference Monday that the bill should be a model for other states and for Congress. 'We need to make sure that our health care providers and our delivery system stays local and is controlled locally,' she said. 'That's what that bill is trying to do.' The legislation was opposed by companies such as Amazon and the statewide nonprofit Oregon Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, an industry group, where executives see private investment as vital to their business strategy. 'We universally agree that the way to protect clinics from closure and maintain the broadest patient access to outpatient care is to keep the existing, and multi-ownership models alive and well,' wrote Ryan Grimm on behalf of the association and the Portland Clinic, a private multispecialty medical group, in a March letter to lawmakers. 'In some communities, there is no hospital to swoop in to the rescue, or no hospital in a financial position to save a clinic,' he wrote. The bill does not go into effect immediately and it contains a three-year adjustment period for clinics to comply with the restrictions. Institutions such as hospitals, tribal health facilities, behavioral health programs and crisis lines are exempted. 'We're at an inflection point in this country when it comes to the corporatization of healthcare,' wrote House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, D-Tigard, in a statement May 28 following the bill's passage in the Oregon House. 'With the passage of this bill, every Oregonian will know that decisions in exam rooms are being made by doctors, not corporate executives.' The signature from Kotek deals a major victory to local providers and doctors, who sought to wrest back control over their practices in key decisions such as spending, staffing levels, physician ownership stake, and the price of services. The legislation would close what supporters say is a loophole in state law, which mandates that doctors hold at least a 51% stake in most medical practices, but which companies have taken advantage of by employing their own doctors — sometimes from out of state — and putting them down on paper as clinic owners. Then the company itself, or a hired management service, is brought in to handle payroll, accounting and other services, shifting away control and revenues from the clinic to the company, and from what was once a locally operated business. The bill limits the control such companies can have in a clinic's operations and would ban noncompete agreements used by companies to prohibit doctors from taking a job at a different practice. Support for the bill coalesced around the takeover of the Eugene-based Oregon Medical Group by the health care giant Optum, one of the nation's largest employers of physicians. The surrounding area lost dozens of doctors, leaving over 10,000 people without care, according to a Frequently Asked Question's document from Sen. Deb Patterson, D-Salem, after Optum required its doctors to sign non-compete contracts. Optum reversed course after pressure from lawmakers in May 2024. 'This bill is about preventing the kind of takeover that happened at the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene,' wrote state Rep. Lisa Fragala, D-Eugene, in a May statement. 'When we see consolidation in the healthcare market, we see three things happen: higher prices, negative effects on the quality of care and decreased access to care.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dozens of environmental groups sign letter opposing return of Utah public lands sale
People rally in opposition of Utah's lawsuit attempting to take control of federal lands at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Saturday, Jan. 11, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Organizations from around the country signed a letter on Monday urging U.S. senators not to include a controversial proposal to sell thousands of acres of federal land in Congress' budget bill. The letter comes in the wake of reports that Utah Sen. Mike Lee is considering reviving an amendment to the bill originally proposed by Rep. Celeste Maloy that would dispose of nearly 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah, and about 450,000 acres in Nevada. Lee, when asked by a Politico reporter last week if he intended to reintroduce the disposal, responded, 'I gotta go vote, but yes.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Lee's office did not respond to a request for comment on Monday, and it's unclear whether Utah's senior GOP senator is considering bringing back an exact copy of Maloy's amendment, or something different. But more than 100 organizations and nonprofits around the country are sounding the alarm, telling Senate leaders to 'heed how dramatically unpopular this idea is and reject any misguided attempt to get public lands sales back in this bill.' 'Decisions about the future of public lands should remain in public hands. Leaders in the House and Senate, extractive industry, and private developers are using the reconciliation process to sell off federal lands to pay for billionaire tax cuts. But such moves are deeply unpopular. Polling has repeatedly shown that the public — especially westerners — strongly believes in keeping public lands in public hands and, across partisan lines, rejects any efforts that would lead to the sale of these shared and cherished lands,' reads the letter, signed by Utah groups like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Conserve Southwest Utah, Save Our Canyons, Great Basin Water Network and Back Country Horsemen of Utah. Public lands sale may return to 'big, beautiful' bill with Mike Lee amendment The letter is addressed to Lee, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich, the committee's ranking member, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat. Maloy's amendment was dropped from the budget bill after it received pushback from all sides of the aisle. That includes Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, who previously said selling public lands is a line he would not cross and rallied support from a bipartisan group of lawmakers to strip the proposal from the bill. 'The public had no opportunity to participate in the process of identifying these parcels, let alone time to understand the long-term effect of selling off these public lands,' the letter reads. Maloy's proposal identified parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management to sell to Washington and Beaver counties, the Washington County Water Conservancy District and the city of St. George. The land would have been used for water infrastructure (like reservoirs and wells), an airport expansion in St. George, new and widened roads, recreation and housing. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
