MADISON SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECTThe City’s Response to Homelessness

Dayna Sarver

Spring 2015

University of Wisconsin-Madison

1 Table of Contents2 List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3 Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6 Causes of Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6.1 Homelessness Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6.2 Homeless Minimum Wage Earners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6.3 Underemployment and Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

6.4 Historical and Systemic Issues Leading to Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7 Homelessness in Madison and Dane County, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

8 Madison Supportive Housing Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

8.1 Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

8.2 Public Engagement Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

8.3 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8.4 Context: Neighborhood Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix A – Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appendix B – Madison Supportive Housing Project Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2

2 List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1. Census Tract 26.01 (CT 26.01) 4

Figure 2. Zip Codes 53704, 53714, 53703 with CT 26.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 3. Nested Geographies: Dane County, Madison, Zip Codes and Census Tract

26.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 4. Number of Single Men Seeking Shelter in Dane County 2000-2012 . . . . . . .10

Figure 5. Floor plan of studio apartment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Figure 6. Artist renderings of ariel view of MSHD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 7. Artist renderings of view from Rethke Ave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Figure 8. Artist renderings of view from northwest corner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Chart 1: Annual Percentage Change in Population by Geographic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Chart 2: Proportion of Educational Achievement and Geographic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 9: Percentage Of Households Below Poverty Level In The Last 12 Months By Geographical Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Chart 3: Annual Percentage Change in Owner Occupied Housing by Geography . . . . . 17

Chart 4: Annual Percentage Change In Renter Occupied Housing By Geography . . . . . 17

Table 1. Area Median Income for Madison, WI by Household Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2. 2013 Poverty Threshold by Household Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 3. Homeless Single Men Served in Dane County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 4. WHEDA Scoring Criteria and point valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 5: Wisconsin Federally Designated Qualified Census Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 10. Site Layout Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 11. Floor Plans – First Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 12. Floor Plans – Second, Third and Fourth Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 13. Artist renderings of Elevations with Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3

4

Left: Census Tract 26.01

(CT 26.01) in Carpenter-

Hawthorne-Ridgeway-

Sycamore-Truax

Neighborhood. Lower left

corner starts at the

intersection of East

Washington and

Marquette. The Gold Star

indicates location of

Madison Supportive

Housing Development.

3 MapsFigure 1. Census Tract 26.01 (CT 26.01)

Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online

Left: Zip Codes 53704,

53714 surround Census

Tract 26.01, and those

that live within those zip

codes may find

employment

opportunities in 53703.

Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online

Figure 2. Zip Codes 53704, 53714, 53703 with CT

26.01

Above: Outline of Dane county, city of Madison (shaded grey) and the three neighboring

zip codes nested within the city.

5

Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online

Figure 3. Nested Geographies: Dane County, Madison, Zip Codes and Census Tract 26.01

4 Executive Summary

Homelessness is an ancient issue

nested within poverty. Neither issue is

restricted by geography or density of

population, however, the need for

growing entry level work, access to

mass transportation and the need for

social services often concentrates

poverty and homelessness in urban

areas. The urban poor face many

obstacles in obtaining and maintaining

their housing status such as racial

employment and income disparities,

and for many, employment is not a way

out of homelessness.

The facts:

■ There are “over 1800 homeless

students in the county’s school

districts.” (Paulsen, 2014)

■ According to the report, Race to

Equity, in 2011 black children were

13.7 times more likely to be living in

poverty in Dane County than their

white counterparts. (WCCF, pg. 8)

■ In 2012, 79-percent (79%) of those

seeking shelter declared

themselves as non-white.

■ Mayor Soglin and the Common

Council have since approved the

budget for 250 units of supportive

housing throughout the city of

Madison in five phases.

MSHD is the result of the city

implementing planning

recommendations and responding to the

needs of our city’s most vulnerable

citizens. It began with listening to the

neighborhoods and thoughtfully

collaborating with service providers and

end users to develop an implementable

plan to remediate the problem. The

development appears to be mutually

beneficial to the end users as well as the

neighborhood. The plan for the site fits

within the context of the neighborhood

and the neighborhood is likely to benefit

from the community amenities available.

I believe the combination of mass

transportation, entry level jobs in the

area, social services provided on-site,

and the design of the development

within the context of the neighborhood

makes this project a recipe for success.

6

Above: I chose this photo, because I rarely

acknowledge the men I pass by on the street.

This sign made me think about how many

thousands of people walk by them without

acknowledgment. Retrieved from

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-

texas/article/Texas-man-travels-country-to-buy-

homeless-signs-5637910.php

5 Introduction

In February 2014, I started working at

the UW-Extension office on Langdon St.

As I walked from Old Music Hall down

State St., men would greet me at each

intersection asking me to buy the most

recent edition of “Street Pulse,”

Madison’s homeless cooperative

newspaper. During the milder months

they would frequently congregate

between The Towers and the Potbelly

Sandwich Shop. Why does

homelessness exist in a city like

Madison, which I perceived as wealthy,

productive, educated, and progressive?

In the following report, I briefly share

what I learned about twentieth and

twenty-first century urban poverty in the

United States and the obstacles those in

poverty have in obtaining and

maintaining their housing status. I then

focus on how the city of Madison (city)

has responded to the needs of our

homeless population within the larger

context of the neighborhood and the city

through a collaborative planning process

that involved private planning

consultants, Urban Assets and non-profit

developer, Heartland Housing. The city

has approved a supportive housing

complex with 60 studio apartments,

Madison Supportive Housing

Development (MSHD) to be built on

Madison’s near east side. I interviewed

Jimmy Camacho, planning intern, and

Emma Schumann, assistant planner,

from Urban Assets about how they

engaged the public during the planning

process, what was learned, and how the

neighborhood’s concerns were

mitigated. I also interviewed Heather

Stouder, City of Madison Planner, and

Matt Wachter, Housing Initiatives

Specialist for the City of Madison

Community Development Authority about

the site selection process, funding, and

plans for future developments on

Madison’s west side. Finally, I looked at

the zoning code for the site, the urban

design requirements and guidelines, as

well as the neighborhood context to

evaluate the relationship between the

end users and the neighborhood.

6 Causes of

Homelessness

At some point in human history, people

recognized that there are those that

have more than they need and those

that need more than they have.

Homelessness is nested within the

ancient issue of poverty and neither are

restricted by geography or density of

population. While there are rural,

suburban, and urban poor, I am

particularly interested in the obstacles

the urban poor face in obtaining and

maintaining their housing status. For

example, severely cost-burdened

households spend fifty percent or more

on housing costs. For these households,

a temporary set-back such as an

automobile repair or unexpected medical

bill may also cause a temporary period of

homelessness. Homelessness,

therefore, may be a temporary or chronic

issue for some people. (NCH, Fact

Sheets)

7

6.1 Homelessness Defined

Critical to the definition of homelessness

is the instability of an individual’s living

arrangements. Section 330 of the

Public Health Service Act defines a

homeless individual as “an individual

who lacks housing (without regard to

whether the individual is a member of a

family), including an individual whose

primary residence during the night is a

supervised public or private facility (e.g.,

shelters) that provides temporary living

accommodations, and an individual who

is a resident in transitional housing.”

Any individual without permanent

housing or someone who finds

temporary shelter in an abandoned

building, automobile, shelter or mission,

meets this definition. Those that have

been released from criminal or health

institutions and have not secured a

permanent, stable living situation may

also be considered homeless.

(HRSA/Bureau of Primary Health Care)

6.2 Homeless Minimum Wage Earners

For many, employment is not a way out of homelessness. “Housing is out of reach for many workers. In order to afford a one- to two-bedroom fair market rent apartment, more than the minimum wage is required in every state. In some cases, a minimum-wage worker would have to work 87 hours each week to afford a two-bedroom apartment at 30% of his or her income. Homeless shelters have a significant amount of full-time wage earners.” (NCH, Fact Sheet #4).

A study done in 2005 by the US Conference of Mayors found that 15-percent (15%) of the homeless in

the sampled cities were employed. The

US Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) has defined housing

as affordable if the rent is less than or

equal to 30-percent of the budget for a

household with greater than or equal to

60-percent an area median income. A

single-mom with two kids working full-

time at a minimum wage job can earn at

most $15,080 per year, or $1,160 a

month. For the city of Madison, the area

median income for a family of three is

$72,800 annually, therefore an

affordable rent payment would have to

be at or below $1092 per month. For

our single full-time minimum wage

provider, there would be only $68

remaining in the monthly budget for

food, clothing, and daycare. The result

may be period of temporary

8

Homeless man on the street with his best friend.

While this photo was not taken in Madison, this is

not an unfamiliar scene. Two of the men I walk

past have their own pets. Some people, including

myself, will give them scraps or donate dog food.

http://www.exposingtruth.com/criminalizing-

homelessness/

homelessness. (See Appendix A, Table 1)

6.3 Underemployment and

Unemployment

Underemployment measures

“individuals who are unemployed, but

also involuntary part-timers and those

who want to work but have been

discouraged by their lack of success.”

Involuntary job loss has also increased in

recent years. Workers find it difficult to

find new employment and the jobs they

do find pay on average about 13% less

than the jobs they lost. More than

twenty-five percent (25%) of those who

had employer provided benefits, such as

healthcare, do not receive these benefits

from their new employer (Mishel,

Bernstein, and Schmitt, 1999).

6.4 Historical and Systemic

Issues Leading to

Homelessness

The need for growing entry level work,

access to mass transportation and the

need for social services often

concentrates poverty in urban areas.

Racial employment and income

disparities, which have a lengthy history,

also play a significant part in the

problem of urban homelessness.

Federal Housing Authority loan policies

in the 1950s racially segregated many

metropolitan neighborhoods. (Fishman,

pg. 16) Particularly for blacks, this led to

poorly underwritten loans, increased

foreclosures, abandonment, and the

suburban flight of their wealthier white

neighbors.

Later, when the US economy transitioned

from manufacturing to service industries,

employment opportunities left downtown

areas of major metros and relocated in

suburban areas. Those left behind in the

urban core lacked the skills required by

the service industry and access to

transportation to the suburbs resulting in

increased underemployment and

unemployment. These legacies have

had a lasting impact on the development

and composition of cities today. The

following section looks at the current

housing need in the city of Madison, who

would be served by future developments

and where the first phase of

development will be located.

9

How fair is “fair housing?” It is difficult, but not

impossible to prove housing discrimination even

today, due to the length of time and expense it

takes to set up an experiment to test accused

landlords. Image provided by fsohc.org and

retrieved from Salem News, Jan. 16, 2008.

http://www.salem-

news.com/articles/january162008/housing_discr

imination_study_011608.php

7 Homelessness in

Madison and Dane

County, WI

In 2013, the City of Madison hired Matt

Wachter, Housing Initiatives Specialist

for the Community Development

Authority, to examine the housing trends

in Madison and Dane County, analyze

the gaps between supply and demand,

and identify the best practices used

across the country for addressing the

homeless housing need. Matt identified

three housing markets in Madison: low-

income, market-rate, and student

housing. The market-rate housing has

not been able to keep pace with the

overall growth of the city. Vacancy rates

have been historically low and demand

has increased keeping market rate rents

high.

The facts:

■ There are “over 1800 homeless

students in the county’s school

districts.” (Paulsen, 2014)

■ Since 2001, more than 1,800 single

men seek shelter on average per

year. Of those 1,800, more than

260 are turned away.

■ Of the 700 single women seeking

shelter per year on average since

2001, nearly one-third are turned

away.

The city decided that the greatest need

was for homeless individuals with

disabilities, mental illness, alcohol and

drug abuse (AODA), that consume a

disproportionate amount of social

services. A report done in 2008 by

United Way found that “for the most

frequent homeless users of services in

Madison (detox, police, emergency room,

etc.) it cost over $50,000 per person per

year.” (Wachter, 2014)

These services are expensive and taxing

on the system. By providing a hub of

services by a single service provider, the

theory is that the clients will be more

efficiently served and the system will be

relieved from the burden. Mayor Soglin

and the Common Council then approved

the budget for 100 units of supportive

housing.

10

Source: 2012 Annual Report on Homeless Served

in Dane County. Retrieved from:

http://www.cityofmadison.com/cdbg/documents/

2012AnnualReportFinalwebsite.pdf

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Number of Single Men turned away

Number of Single Men sheltered

Figure 4. Number of Single Men

Seeking Shelter in Dane County

2000-2012

8 Madison Supportive Housing Development

8.1 Milestones

2001 - Neighborhood Goals

The Carpenter-Hawthorne-Ridgeway-

Sycamore-Truax neighborhood straddles

either side of East Washington. It is

bounded by Commercial Ave. (south),

Anderson St. (north), Mendota St. (east)

and Starkweather Creek (west). In

2001, members of neighborhood

identified the most challenging issues

facing their community. These included:

■ Increase access to Hawthorne

Elementary School for community

purposes and better utilize space for

neighborhood recreational activities.

■ Improve the appearance and

function of East Washington Avenue.

■ Identify potential future land uses

and development concepts for

underutilized redevelopment sites.

■ Develop pedestrian and bicycle

networks that improve safety and

connections to frequently traveled

locations.

2008 – East Washington Ave. Capital

Gateway Corridor Plan

■ The city of Madison hired Vandewalle

and Associates to develop the East

Washington Avenue Capitol Gateway

Corridor Plan. The Steering

Committee selected four core

principles:

■ Protect and enhance the iconic view

of the capital.

■ Respect and strengthen existing

neighborhoods.

■ Firmly establish the corridor as an

employment center supported by

transit.

■ Create an inviting, vibrant boulevard

along East Washington Avenue.

2009 – Zoning Code

The zoning code §28.067 was rewritten

and includes land use defined as

Commercial Corridor – Transitional

Districts (CC-T) that stretches down East

Washington on either side of the street.

The general purpose of mixed use and

commercial districts is “to provide a

range of district types, from the small

neighborhood center to regional-level

retail centers, while fostering high-

quality building and site design and

pedestrian, bicycle and transit as well as

automobile circulation.” (City of

Madison, 2009) The city has since

adopted and implemented elements of

the Capital Gateway plan including

renovations to major intersections,

11

Below: Carpenter-Ridgeway Neighborhood sign

off of East Washington. MSHD will be located

within the Carpenter-Ridgeway neighborhood

which is in the CT 26.01. This census tract has

been identified as an area that would benefit

from low-income housing tax credits.

additional street-scape, crosswalks and

bike lanes to enhance bicycle and

pedestrian safety. These action items

have helped meet the aesthetic and

safety goals of the neighborhood.

2013 – Request for Proposals

■ City hires Matt Wachter to research

national best practices for

remediating homelessness in urban

areas and requested proposals for

supportive housing development on

Rethke Ave. Heartland Housing won

the bid.

2014 - Funding

The “lynch pin” to developing supportive

housing units is how the project is

financed. This determines how the

property is managed and maintained. A

variety of housing models were

proposed, but the city settled on a new

construction, urban infill model that

uses a variety of government funding

including ownership, section 8 subsidy

and low income housing tax credits.

The city owned two parcels on Rethke

Ave., in the Carpenter-Hawthrone-

Ridgeway-Sycamore-Truax

neighborhood, which is also in CT

26.01. These parcels meet the

Wisconsin Housing and Economic

Development Authority (WHEDA) and

the city’s criteria of being within

targeted census tracts, high WalkScore,

and close to mass transit. It is also in

an area with entry level employment

growth. (See Table 4.) WHEDA

awarded $5.4 million dollars in low-

income housing tax credits to be sold by

May 1st, 2015 to corporate entities.

12

Left: Posted

Public Hearing

Sign on 707

Rethke Ave.

Photo provided by

author.

2015 - Construction

Construction of 60 studio unit complex

scheduled to begin.

2016 – Move-in

Madison Supportive Housing

Development scheduled to be

completed.

8.2 Public Engagement Process The city encouraged HH to conduct a

robust public engagement process due

the nature of the project. HH developed

a relationship with UA, a consultant

planning firm in Madison, because they

already knew the area, who the

stakeholders are, and have developed a

niche for public engagement. The public

involvement process UA has utilized has

been key to the plans adoption and

acceptance in the neighborhood. Post

card notices were sent through the

alderman’s mailing list and UA also sent

email blasts. Between January and

August 2014, there were four public

meetings with Alderman David Ahrens

and the community to address the

concerns that the neighborhood had

with who would be served by the

development. They were particularly

concerned about the proximity of

the development to the church,

childcare and preschool centers. Due to

the nature of the rental agreements,

potential residents will be screened

based on their criminal records. There

will also be quarterly meetings between

residents and staff with the

neighborhood residents and the

neighborhood association to address

any concerns or issues that arise with

the operation of the facility or conduct of

the residents.

UA also invited end users and service

providers to participate in a series of

focus groups and workshops which

included design charrettes to develop

programming and design. Neighbors

desired a facility that would become a

community asset and resolved to using

the housing hub for improved

neighborhood services. At the end user

workshop, 25 homeless or previously

homeless individuals were invited to

walk around a full sized floor plan UA

had taped to the floor and provide

feedback to specific questions such as

“what makes a home?” and “If you are

previously homeless, what fears or

challenges did you face when you moved

into permanent housing?” Heartland

learned the following key lessons:

Accommodate a variety of life stages

and abilities

Offer cooking classes, arts/crafts room,

urban agriculture, bike storage,

meditation/”quiet” room

Focus on safety and security

Develop strong noise, smoking, and

visitor policies

Have resident serve as a representative

in neighborhood association

13

Part of the process of developing supportive

housing is meeting with the people who will

eventually be using the facility to understand what

elements make a structure “home.” Design

charettes are one method of facilitating this

discussion. Photo provided by Heartland Housing.

8.3 DesignMSHD complies with the purpose of the

CC-T district, helps meet the goals for

the neighborhood and follows the urban

design requirements and guidelines set

by the city. (See appendix for detailed

design requirements.) It utilizes vacant

parcels in the neighborhood and will

relieve some of the pressure to utilize

Hawthorne Elementary School for

community purposes. It will also be an

aesthetic upgrade to the current site,

and the resources available to the

community will be an asset.

It will have a lobby with twenty-four hour

reception services, break room and

kitchenette, nine single occupancy

rooms, fitness room, bug room,

community kitchen, community meeting

room, office, library, business center,

and shared laundry facilities on the first

floor. Floors two through four will have

seventeen single occupancy rooms and

trash receptacles. A roof top garden

between the first and second floors,

14

landscaped exterior, a garden area,

eleven standard and two handicapped

parking stalls are also planned for the

site. The housing hub will also have on-

site social services provided by

Heartland. The office, library and

community meeting room on the first

floor will utilized as private counseling

rooms between residents and service

providers. These services may include

job training and placement services, as

well as other social services. Building

materials include three colors of 6”

cement board lap siding, fiber glass

windows, yellow cement board panels,

flat shingle style metal wall panels, and

stainless steel cable guardrail. (See

Appendix A: Site and Floor Plan for more

details.)

Left: Approximately 350 sq. ft. studio apartment

design with full-sized kitchen and private

bathroom.

Figure 6. Artist renderings of ariel view

of MSHD.

Figure 7. Artist renderings of view from

Rethke Ave.

Figure 8. Artist renderings of view from

northwest corner.

Figure 5. Floor plan of studio apartment.

Source: Heartland Housing Alliance

Source: Heartland Housing Alliance

Source: Heartland Housing Alliance

Source: Heartland Housing Alliance

8.4 Context: Neighborhood

Demographics

The site is in the Carpenter-Hawthorne-

Ridgeway-Sycamore-Truax neighborhood.

To the immediate north is LSM

Chiropractic clinic and an industrial

trucking repair company is to the

immediate south. A hotel is directly

across the street to the west and a

residential neighborhood sits to the

immediate east. There is a mixture of

multifamily and single-family detached

housing in the neighborhood. Three

blocks north of the site is a church, and

small business service providers.

Gardener’s Bakery is approximately a ten

to fifteen minute walk from the site and

the closest grocery store is an

approximate five minute bus ride.

Total Population. From 2000-2010,

Census Tract 26.01 (CT 26.01) and its

surrounding areas experienced

population growth, however, not at the

same rates. From 2010-2014, CT 26.01

was the only geographic area in the

nested region to experience population

decline.

Educational Attainment. Compared to

Dane County, the city of Madison, and

the three zip codes (53703, 53704,

53714), a higher proportion of the

population in CT 26.01 have not

received a high school diploma (or high

school equivalent). In fact, residents in

Dane county are nearly three times as

likely to have achieved a bachelor’s

degree or higher than residents in CT

26.01.

15

-0.40%

0.00%

0.40%

0.80%

1.20%

1.60%

2000-2010 2010-2014

CHART 1: ANNUAL PERCENTAGE

CHANGE IN POPULATION BY

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online, Population

Summary

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

CT 26.01

Zip Codes

Dane Co.

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area (31540)

CHART 2: PROPORTION OF

EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT AND

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online, Market Profile

Employment and Income. Within a half-

mile radius of the MSHD are a total of

296 military personnel. The Wisconsin

Department of Corrections and The

Division of Community Corrections

employ a combined total of 569

employees. There are at least two major

employers in the area. Gardner Bakery,

a division of Earthgrains, is one of the

largest employers and is on East

Washington Avenue. They have doubled

the number of full-time employees since

2001. The second largest employer,

CleanPower boasts 400 employees,

according to an ESRI report. The city

should continue to support the growth

of these businesses and advocate on

behalf of the residents in MSHD for job-

training experience at these locations.

Race and Ethnicity. According to the

report, Race to Equity, Black children

were 13.7 times more likely to be living

in poverty in Dane County than their

white counterparts in 2011. (WCCF, pg.

8) In 2012, 79-percent of those

seeking shelter declared themselves as

non-white. With the exception of the

population that identifies themselves as

Asian alone, CT 26.01 has a

disproportionate minority population

compared to the surrounding area.

Blacks comprised 10.1 percent and

Asians comprise 4.0 percent compared

to 7.2 percent and 8.1 percent city-

wide. Persons of Hispanic origin

comprise 16.5 percent compared to 7.7

percent of Madison on the whole. This

neighborhood is already more racially

diverse than the surrounding area. It

may be prove to be beneficial to the

individuals being sheltered to integrate

within the context of the diverse

neighborhood.

16

Poverty. Peer pressure to conform to

norms of the neighborhood also

increases in neighborhoods of isolated

poverty and may be counter to

mainstream culture. Between 2008 and

2012, the surrounding three zip codes

and the city of Madison had higher

proportions of households whose

income level was below the poverty level

in the last twelve months. The benefit of

having the MSHD in this census tract is

that it has relatively lower rates of

poverty. The individuals served by this

development will therefore have access

to social capital that they might

otherwise not have had in other parts of

the city.

FIGURE 9: PERCENTAGE OF

HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY

LEVEL IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS BY

GEOGRAPHICAL AREA

CT 26.01 13.50%

3 Zip Code 21.90%

Madison 17.30%

Dane County 11.80%

Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online

Housing Tenure. From 2000-2010, the

housing tenure in CT 26.01 declined in

ownership while renter occupancy

increased. Conversely, in the city of

Madison, Dane County and the Madison

Metropolitan Statistical Area increased

ownership and decreased rental

occupancy. In this context, the

development won’t stand out like the

Pruit-Igoe towers did in the single-family

detatched two-story neighborhood of St.

Louis and will hopefully be positively

integrated within the community.

10 Conclusion

The need for growing entry level work,

access to mass transportation and the need

for social services often concentrates

poverty in urban areas. The urban poor

17

-0.50% 0.00% 0.50%

Census Tract

Zip Codes

County

CBSA

2010-2014 2000-2010

CHART 4: ANNUAL PERCENTAGE

CHANGE IN RENTER OCCUPIED

HOUSING BY GEOGRAPHY

Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online

-0.80% -0.60% -0.40% -0.20% 0.00% 0.20%

Census Tract

Zip Codes

County

CBSA

2010-2014 2000-2010

CHART 3: ANNUAL PERCENTAGE

CHANGE IN OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING

BY GEOGRAPHY

Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online

face many obstacles in obtaining and

maintaining their housing status and

for many, employment is not a way out

of poverty. For single individuals that

do secure employment, a minimum

wage job may not be enough to secure

housing.

In Dane County, there are “over 1800

homeless students in the county’s

school districts.” According to the

report, Race to Equity, black children

were 13.7 times more likely to be living

in poverty in Dane County than their

white counterparts in 2011. (WCCF,

pg. 8) In 2012, 79-percent (79%) of

those seeking shelter declared

themselves as non-white. Mayor

Soglin and the Common Council have

since approved the budget for a total

of 250 units of supportive housing

throughout the city of Madison in five

separate phases. The development on

Rethke Ave. is Phase I. There is also a

proposal for a development of a

second phase on Tree Lane.

MSHD is the result of the city

implementing planning

recommendations and responding to

the needs of our city’s most vulnerable

citizens. It began with listening to the

neighborhoods, thoughtfully

collaborating with service providers

and the end users to develop an

implementable plan to remediate the

problem. The development appears to

be mutually beneficial to the end users

as well as the neighborhood. The plan

for the site fits within the context of the

neighborhood and the neighborhood is

likely to benefit from the community

amenities available. It is, however, a

conditional use of the zoning code, so

if there are any issues with how the

building is used or maintained, the city

can take it back to the Common

Council. I believe that the odds of

success are favorable in light of the

combination of access to mass

transportation to entry level jobs in the

area, social services provided on-site,

and the design of the development

within the context of the neighborhood.

References

(1999). NIMBY: A Primer for Lawyers

and Advocates. Chicago, IL. American

Bar Association.

Been, Vicki. (1994). Locally Undesirable

Land Uses in Minority Neighborhoods:

Disproportionate Siting or Market

Dynamics? The Yale Law Journal. Vol.

103, No. (April, 1994) pp. 1383-1422

Corburn, J. (2009). Toward the Healthy

City: People, Places, and the Politics of

Urban Planning. Cambridge, Mass. MIT

Press. Pgs. 83-128

Crane, R., & Manville, M. (2008). People

or Place? Revisiting the Who Versus the

Where of Urban Development. Land

Lines, 20(3), 2-7.

City of Madison. (2009). ## Commercial

and Mixed Use Districts. Retrieved

from:

http://www.cityofmadison.com/neighbo

rhoods/zoningrewrite/documents/com

merciamuldistricts.pdf

Curly, Alexandra M. (2005). Theories of

Urban Poverty and Implications for

Public Housing Policy. Journal of

Sociology and Social Welfare. Vol. 32,

Number 2. Pg. 97

Erickson, David J. (2009). The Housing

Policy Revolution: Networks and

Neighborhoods. Washington, D.C. Urban

Institute Press. Pg. 35-102

Freudenburg, William R. (1986). Social

Impact Assessment. Annual Review of

Sociology. Vol. 12. Pg. 451-478

Galster, G. C. (2004). The effects of

affordable and multifamily housing on

market values of nearby homes. Growth

management and affordable housing:

Do they conflict, 176-201.

Gleeson, B.J. and P.A. Memon. (1994).

The NIMBY Syndrome and Community

Care Facilities: A Research Agenda for

Planning. Planning Practice and

Research. Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 105-119.

Julian the Apostate. (361-363) Letter to

Arsacius.

LaGro, James A. Jr. (2013) Site Analysis:

Informing Context-Sensitive and

Sustainable Site Planning and Design.

3rd Ed. Hoboken, N.J. John Wiley &

Sons. Pg. 31-60

Lee, Chang-Moo, Dennis P. Culhane and

Susan M. Wachter. (1999). The

Differential Impacts of Federally

Assisted Housing Programs on Nearby

Property Values: A Philadelphia Case

Study. Housing Policy Debate, Volume

10, Issue 2, 1999, pages 75-93.

Massey, D.S. and N.R. Denton. (1993).

American Apartheid: Segregation and

the Making of the Underclass.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

18

Morales, Alfonso. (2014) Interaction

and Values Lecture. Working Draft.

National Coalition for the Homeless

(NCH). (2007). Employment and

Homelessness. Fact Sheet #4.

National Coalition for the Homeless

(NCH). (2007). Who is Homeless? Fact

Sheet #4.

National Health Care for the Homeless

Council.

https://www.nhchc.org/faq/official-

definition-homelessness/

Olinger, Mark A. et al. (2001).

Carpenter-Hawthorne-Ridgeway-

Sycamore-Truax Neighborhood Plan.

Retrieved from:

http://www.cityofmadison.com/planning

/ndp/carpenter.pdf

Paulsen, Kurt. (2014). Dane County

Housing Needs Assessment.

Department of Urban and Regional

Planning. University of Wisconsin-

Madison.

Schneider, Pat. (2014, January 12).

Homeless Housing Needs to Benefit, Not

Burden Neighborhood, Says Madison

Alder. The Cap Times. Retrieved from:

http://tinyurl.com/aldermandaveahrens

interview

Schneider, Pat. (2014, May 5).

Permanent Housing for Homeless wins

$5.4 million in Low-income Tax Credits.

The Cap Times. Retrieved from:

http://tinyurl.com/LIHTCaward

Siemens, Jeremy James. (2008). The

Head, the Heart, the Hands: Gregory of

Nazianzus and Emperor Julian on the

Importance of Piety, Purity and

Philanthropy in Shaping the Empire.

University of St. Michaels College.

Canada.

Soglin, Paul. (2012). 2012 Annual

Report on Homeless Served in Dane

County: An Analysis of the Population

Served by Dane County Shelter,

Transitional and Supportive Permanent

Housing and Service Agencies. City of

Madison. Retrieved from:

http://www.cityofmadison.com/cdbg/do

cuments/2012AnnualReportFinalwebsit

e.pdf

Stouder, Heather et al. (2014).

Planning Division Staff Report. (Legistar

File ID number: 35639). Retrieved

from:

http://www.cityofmadison.com/planning

/projects/conditional/documents/3563

9StaffComments.pdf

The United States Conference of

Mayors. (2005). A Status Report on

Hunger and Homelessness in American

Cities: A 24-City Survey.

Vandewalle & Associates. (2008). East

Washington Gateway Corridor Plan.

Retrieved from:

http://www.cityofmadison.com/planning

/pdf/capitol_gateway_corridor_plan.pdf

Wilson, W.J. (1987). The Truly

Disadvantaged. Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press.

19

Appendix A - Tables

Household

Size

2014 Area

Median

Income

(100%

Median)

90%

Median

"Low and Moderate Income" (or "LMI")

Individuals or households whose income does not exceed 80% of

area median income.

80%

Median*

70%

Median

60%

Median

50%

Median*

40%

Median

30%

Median*

1 person $56,600 $50,940 $44,750 $39,620 $33,960 $28,300 $22,640 $17,000

2 persons $64,700 $58,230 $51,150 $45,290 $38,820 $32,350 $25,880 $19,400

3 persons $72,800 $65,520 $57,550 $50,960 $43,680 $36,400 $29,120 $21,850

4 persons $80,800 $72,720 $63,900 $56,560 $48,480 $40,400 $32,320 $24,250

5 persons $87,300 $78,570 $69,050 $61,110 $52,380 $43,650 $34,920 $26,200

6 persons $93,800 $84,420 $74,150 $65,660 $56,280 $46,900 $37,520 $28,150

7 persons $100,200 $90,180 $79,250 $70,140 $60,120 $50,100 $40,080 $30,100

8 persons $106,700 $96,030 $84,350 $74,690 $64,020 $53,350 $42,680 $32,050

* The 30%, 50%, and 80% figures are taken from HUD tables. The do not necessarily represent the precise mathematical

percentage of the median income base of 100%. The additional percentage figures are provided for your convenience and are

locally derived by the formula from the 50% figure.

Above income limits are effective for CBDG as of 12/18/13, and for HOME as of 5/1/14.

20

Retrieved from http://www.cityofmadison.com/cdbg/docs/income_limits.htm

Table 1. Area Median Income for Madison, WI by Household Size

21

Poverty Thresholds for 2013 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years

Size of family unitWeighted

average

thresholds

Related children under 18 years

None One Two Three Four Five Six SevenEight or

more

One person (unrelated

individual).................... 11,888

Under 65 years......... 12,119 12,119

65 years and over..... 11,173 11,173

Two people ................. 15,142

Householder under

65 years ...................... 15,679 15,600 16,057

Householder 65

years and over ............ 14,095 14,081 15,996

Three people ............. 18,552 18,222 18,751 18,769

Four people ............... 23,834 24,028 24,421 23,624 23,707

Five people ................ 28,265 28,977 29,398 28,498 27,801 27,376

Six people .................. 31,925 33,329 33,461 32,771 32,110 31,128 30,545

Seven people ….......... 36,384 38,349 38,588 37,763 37,187 36,115 34,865 33,493

Eight people ............... 40,484 42,890 43,269 42,490 41,807 40,839 39,610 38,331 38,006

Nine people or more 48,065 51,594 51,844 51,154 50,575 49,625 48,317 47,134 46,842 45,037

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 2. 2013 Poverty Threshold by Household Size

Table 3. Homeless Single Men Served in Dane County

22

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sheltered 1,087 1,016 939 1,520 1,343 1,129 1,481 1,558 1,300 1,310 1,235 1,257 1,362

Turned away 281 265 408 406 332 375 280 194 0 128 195 135 428

Total 1,368 1,281 1,347 1,926 1,675 1,504 1,761 1,752 1,300 1,438 1,430 1,392 1,790

Percent Sheltered 79% 79% 70% 79% 80% 75% 84% 89% 100% 91% 86% 90% 76%

Percent Turned

Away21% 21% 30% 21% 20% 25% 16% 11% 0% 9% 14% 10% 24%

Number that slept

in uninhabitable

place prior to

shelter

65 266 200 191 79 97 256 230 148 186 350 397 476

Homeless episode

< 1 month37% 49% 51% 59% 50% 18% 45% 78% 86% 86% 76% 5% 27%

Homeless episode

1-6 months13% 23% 29% 25% 29% 17% 19% 11% 7% 10% 18% 24% 37%

Homeless episode

> 6 months49% 15% 12% 12% 14% 8% 22% 10% 7% 3% 2% 68% 30%

Homeless episode

unknown1% 13% 8% 4% 7% 57% 15% 2% 0% 0% 3% 3% 6%

These measures were collected by volunteers, staff, and individuals willing to self-report their status within

our area shelter, transitional and permanent housing system. These figures do not reflect the number of

individuals that have not sought shelter, living in hotels, or doubling up with others. (Soglin, 2012)

Table 4. WHEDA Scoring Criteria and point valuation

23

Unless otherwise noted, for scattered site developments, two-thirds of the sites must meet

the scoring category criteria to receive points.

Scoring Categories 2014 Points

1. Lower-Income Areas 5

2. Energy Efficiency and Sustainability 48

3. Community Notification and Support 8

4. Mixed-Income Incentive 15

5. Serves Large Families 18

6. Serves Lowest-Income Residents 80

7. Supportive Housing 35

8. Elderly Assisted Living- RCACs 18

9. Rehab/Neighborhood Stabilization 40

10. Universal Design 23

11. Financial Participation 25

12. Ownership Characteristics 6

13. Eventual Resident Ownership 3

14. Development Team 50

Source: WHEDA sample application retrieved from:

http://www.wheda.com/uploadedFiles/Website/LIHTC/Allocating/14SampleAp.pdf

24

Table 5: Wisconsin Federally Designated Qualified Census Tracts

25

Appendix B – Madison Supportive Housing Project Site Plan

Figure 10. Site Layout Plan

Source: City of Madison, Planning Department

26

Figure 11. Floor Plans – First Floor

27

Figure 12. Floor Plans – Second, Third and Fourth Floor

28

Figure 13. Artist renderings of Elevations with Materials