Lost amid all of the election hubbub last week was an important and welcome decision from the State Supreme Court. The high court declined to hear the city of Madison's appeal in defense of the rental portion of its inclusionary zoning law, which the 4th District Court of Appeals had previously invalidated in a September decision.

By not granting the case certiorari, the court effectively sounded the death knell for one of the most burdensome and poorly devised laws ever to grace the city's municipal code. The ordinance, which required landlords to set aside 15 percent of their units in new properties for residents who earn less than 80 percent of the median county income, was enacted in 2004 and had been upheld in district court before the court of appeals struck it down.

The appeals court found the law to be a violation of Wisconsin's rent control statute. Indeed, though well-intentioned, inclusionary zoning was nothing more than rent control with a nicer name. Any long-term implementation would have resulted in housing shortages as the price ceiling discouraged landlords and developers from entering the market. Such shortages have been borne out repeatedly in cities with rent control ordinances, such as New York or San Francisco, where tenants must search far and wide to find available housing.

Among the biggest winners under the Supreme Court's decision are students. Inclusionary zoning affects all rental properties; landlords, forced to accept less than market value on their property, make up the difference by charging more for the remaining 85 percent of the units. Though some students might qualify for the artificially cheap housing, the rest would be left subsidizing the select few who are eligible by paying higher rent.

Along with the smoking ban, inclusionary zoning marked the high point of an ugly period in which the Madison City Council more than lived up to its anti-business reputation. Though the case the Supreme Court declined to hear only dealt with the rental portion of the law, we are glad to see an overdue victory for property rights and the free market.