06/26/2025
In a recent column, Paul Fanlund, publisher of The Capital Times, laments the city of Madison’s push for increased housing density as yet another overreach by elected officials “quietly” changing the rules without proper deference to longtime homeowners. It’s not his first time criticizing the city’s evolving housing policy — and not the first time he’s doing so from the vantage point of Hill Farms, one of the most historically exclusionary neighborhoods in Madison.
Framing resistance to housing reform as concern for “public trust” or “zoning protections” reflects a longstanding rhetorical tradition in Madison — one that dresses exclusion in the language of procedural integrity. These arguments are not new; they have circulated for more than a century, most often from those who benefit most from regulatory systems designed to safeguard comfort and property values while obstructing broader inclusion.
What matters most here is not simply one columnist’s view, but the lineage of thinking his columns represent — a narrative that positions neighborhood preservation as civic virtue, and treats structural exclusion as an unfortunate but immovable byproduct of planning. That narrative deserves scrutiny, not because of who says it, but because of what it enables.
In over 15 years of research into Madison’s housing and land-use policies — spanning the past 150 years — I’ve documented how single-family zoning, land covenants, and localized political influence have consistently been used to insulate certain neighborhoods from change while displacing or excluding lower-income and BIPOC communities. Hill Farms, in particular, was developed with the explicit intent to be exclusive, shaped by planners and homeowners who lobbied to keep out density, renters and diversity. That Fanlund lives there is not disqualifying — but his failure to acknowledge how that informs his perspective undermines his credibility.
Invocations of homeowners’ prior support for density — so long as it was placed elsewhere — exemplify what I refer to as spatial logics of managed inequality. This is when “collaboration” with city planners is praised when it results in multi-unit housing near, but not within, single-family enclaves. The moment that the logic of inclusion encroaches upon the protections those neighborhoods have long enjoyed, we are told the city has gone too far.
https://isthmus.com/opinion/opinion/why-madisons-housing-gatekeepers-are-getting-uncomfortable/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLKY0VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHtj4BTrIm0ksrU6DxKkiBSSLzH3teCMJ40B_nIee0UvNq75IOg80hCFctC63_aem_sDWNjYYoD8AOMT30V_f4aA
The argument that neighborhood preservation is a civic virtue treats structural exclusion as an unfortunate but immovable byproduct of planning. That narrative deserves scrutiny.
