New research investigates the cost of housing in the Milwaukee metro

The Lubar Center's latest research project takes a careful look at how housing affordability has changed in the Milwaukee metro in the early 2020s. Our article, "Can a typical worker still buy a house in the Milwaukee metro? Increasingly, no," was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on October 9, 2024. Journal Sentinel business reporter Genevieve Redsten also contributed an article to the series, "Homeownership is less attainable in the Milwaukee area. Why new construction hasn't been part of the solution." Our research uncovered much more than could fit in a single story. We have shared additional resources in this web report. It includes more methodological details about our calculations and statistics for individual municipalities in the four-county Milwaukee area. Previously, we've written about how the subprime mortgage crisis and the end of the residency requirement contributed to plummeting owner-occupancy rates in the City of Milwaukee. Home values fell to very low levels in Milwaukee, while rents remained relatively elevated. Consequently, home-ownership was far more cost effective than renting for many families. Meanwhile, rents--particularly in poor neighborhoods--were quite profitable. This profitable potential eventually brought Milwaukee (and similar rust belt cities) to the attention of private equity-backed corporate landlords in the late 2010s and early 2020s. Those same years saw owner occupancy finally begin to recover in Milwaukee. Owner-occupancy grew slightly in 2019, the first year-over-year increase since 2005. These circumstances combined to foster fierce competition between would-be homeowners and out-of-state investors, particularly in majority Black neighborhoods on the city's north side. Since 2022, the market has cooled off. Home prices are still sky high, and increased interest rates have driven the monthly cost required to buy a house even higher. But high interest rates have also changes the calculus of corporate investors. All three of the large private equity backed firms operating in Milwaukee's rental market have stopped buying and started selling in the past two years. For the first time since the subprime mortgage crisis began, the net number of homes owned by an out-of-state landlord actually declined in the City of Milwaukee during 2023, and that slight decline continued into the beginning of 2024 as well. Net levels of owner-occupancy continued to grow in 2023 and 2024, albeit at a much slower pace than the preceding several years. It's no wonder why the market has cooled. Owner-occupancy is far less attainable for many workers, as our latest article discusses in detail. Also, the cost-benefit analysis of owning a home versus renting has shifted. In 2020, we calculated that a typical single family home was cheaper to own than rent, even when factoring in the same kinds of maintenance cost assumptions used by professional property managers. That is no longer true in 2024. Here is an even simpler comparison. This graph shows the average monthly rent in Milwaukee in blue and the monthly payment needed to buy the average house in red. Before 2018, the PITI (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance) needed to buy the average Milwaukee house was…

Continue ReadingNew research investigates the cost of housing in the Milwaukee metro

Will Wisconsin Chart Its Own Course on Environmental Issues?

In a series of recent cases, the United States Supreme Court has sharply restricted the power of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to effectively exercise jurisdiction over natural resources within the states. These include West Virginia v. EPA (endorsing the “major questions doctrine” and restricting EPA’s power to require cleaner energy generation without clear congressional authorization); Sackett v. EPA (limiting the scope of EPA’s authority over “waters of the United States,” and eliminating federal authority over many wetlands); Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overruling the Chevron doctrine of deferring to agency interpretations of law in most circumstances); SEC v. Jarkesy (holding that agencies may not employ in-house tribunals, in lieu of jury trials, when seeking civil penalties); and Corner Post v. Board of Governors, FRS (pausing the statute of limitations to challenge agency regulations until the plaintiff suffers injury). The shift away from federal power elevates the role states can play in charting a course on environmental issues. The Sackett Court emphasized that states, not the EPA, hold the “primary responsibilities and rights . . . to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution” and “to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources.” Some evidence supports the idea that states will be eager to fill gaps in federal regulation of the environment and corresponding enforcement activities. Wisconsin, for example, has a rich history of water law. All the way back in 1853, the Wisconsin Supreme Court endorsed the principle that “if [a] stream is navigable in fact, the public have the right to use it for the purposes of navigation, and the right of the owner [of abutting land] is subject to the public easement.” Jones v. Pettibone, 2 Wis. 308 (1853). In the 20th century, the state became a national leader in conservation and was at the vanguard of the development of the public trust doctrine. Even in the 21st century, Wisconsin authorities have sometimes stepped in to protect the state’s natural resources when federal jurisdiction receded. In 2001, for example, the Supreme Court invalidated the “migratory bird rule,” under which federal agencies had exercised jurisdiction over pollutant discharges into certain isolated intrastate waters. The decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, removed a sizeable percentage of wetlands from federal protection. The Wisconsin Legislature acted almost instantly, taking only a few months to enable state control over such discharges by creating a new category of “nonfederal wetlands.” The state law expressly addressed the Supreme Court’s decision. By its terms, it applies when discharges into wetlands are determined “not to be subject to regulation under [the federal Clean Water Act] due to the decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . or any subsequent interpretations of that decision by a federal agency or by a federal district or federal appellate court that applies to wetlands located in this state.” Wis. Stat. 281.36(1m)(a)1 (as created by 2001 Wisconsin Act…

Continue ReadingWill Wisconsin Chart Its Own Course on Environmental Issues?

The Face of the Case: Obergefell Tells How He Became Part of Legal History

James Obergefell grew up in a blue collar, Catholic family in Sandusky, Ohio, got an undergraduate degree from the University of Cincinnati, and became a high school teacher. “I was deep in the closet,” he said as he told his story during a program Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2024, in the Lubar Center at Marquette Law School. He came out in the early 1990s while he was in graduate school and met John Arthur. Within a short time, they considered themselves married. Legally, they were not – at the time, same sex marriage was not legal anywhere in the United States. But beginning in the mid -990s, they decided they wanted “marriage and everything that came with it,” as Obergefell put it. Obergefell told Derek Mosley. executive director of the Law School’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education, who moderated the conversation before a capacity audience of more than 200. how the legal landscape began to change, including a US Supreme Court decision in 2013 that struck down a federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act. During the same period, Arthur’s health declined sharply after being he was diagnosed with ALS in 2012. After the Supreme Court decision, Obergefell and Arthur decided to get married. Because Arthur’s health was so precarious, they needed to act quickly. And because legalities involving marriage varied across the country, they ended up taking a medical ambulance flight to the Baltimore/Washington airport in Maryland, where they could have a ceremony without ever getting off the airplane. Three months later, Arthur died. What emerged from their marriage was a court case focused on whether Obergefell was the surviving spouse legally. And that case was joined with similar cases that ended up before the US Supreme Court, resulting in the landmark decision of Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 which made same sex marriage legal throughout the United States. Obergefell recounted the events of the day the Supreme Court decision was issued. “I burst into tears” in the courtroom, he said. “For the first time in my life as an out gay man, I felt like an equal American,” he said. The audience applauded when he said that.    Obergefell’s name became a big part of American legal history. And Obergefell himself moved from being a person of no prominence and no notable involvement as an activist into a continuing spotlight. It made him, as Mosley put it at the Law School program, “the face of the case,” someone who continues to be an advocate for rights of many kinds and someone who tells his personal story openly and with impact. Obergefell said he has realized how “stories matter -- stories can change hearts and minds.” “Going through something like this has a profound impact,” Obergefell told the audience. “It changes you.” Obergefell said he is still motivated by anger over things he sees as wrong and the need to advocate for the rights of people facing many different situations. He also has less…

Continue ReadingThe Face of the Case: Obergefell Tells How He Became Part of Legal History