Category: Cities

Density bonuses in transit-served locations should be available by right

September 17, 2024 / / 0 Comments

This is the original version of a public comment I planned to give to the Chicago City Council zoning committee on Tuesday, September 17, 2024. Due to an overwhelming number of commenters the amount of time allotted to each speaker was reduced from three minutes to two minutes. I edited and cut the comment on the fly.

Video recording of my comment to zoning committee.

Hello, my name is Steven Vance, I’m a South Loop renter and a member of Urban Environmentalists Illinois.

The ordinances to proactively upzone Western Avenue from Howard Street to Addison Street will be voted on today in this committee. The ordinances will rezone nearly all of the 4.5 mile stretch to B3-3 zoning, allowing multifamily housing to be built as of right without further approvals from the local alderperson or this committee. I fully support this plan. 

However, there is a technical flaw in this plan that could hinder the initiative’s goal of adding more housing, both market rate and subsidized affordable. 

To take advantage of the Connected Communities bonuses that allow even more or larger homes to be built when a property is both in a B3-3 zoning district and a transit-served location, the property owner must still obtain a Type 1 zoning map amendment. To sail smoothly, such amendments need support from the local alderperson, most of whom require community meetings before deciding to offer such support. Thus, in some circumstances, the proactive upzoning may not have one of its intended effects of cutting the tape for building new housing. 

The greatest Connected Communities ordinance bonuses, that allow for the most additional housing and family-sized homes, only kick in when 100% of the proposal’s ARO requirement is built on-site. I’m concerned that that requirement combined with the need to get a Type 1 zoning map amendment might limit the number of additional homes added as a result of the upzonings. A solution would be to amend the Connected Communities ordinance to allow the bonuses to be granted by right as long as the other, existing standards about on-site ARO units are met. 

I would like City Council members to implement more proactive upzoning initiatives across Chicago, including on arterials like Western Avenue, Milwaukee Avenue, and Broadway, as well as on less busy streets like 35th Street in McKinley Park and designated Pedestrian Streets. Yet to fully and cost-effectively realize the benefits of housing abundance from this policy lever, further tweaks are needed so housing providers can get to construction sooner. 

The proactive upzoning of Western Avenue, as well as Milwaukee Avenue, reflects real leadership on the part of the alderpersons. It will result in more and better housing for Chicagoans, more affordable units for residents who need them most, and more tax revenue for the city. I’m hopeful that with some tweaks to the density bonuses outlined here, we can establish a model for a more affordable, welcoming and prosperous city. 

A new multi-family apartment building under construction on Western Avenue.

Additional reading

Reviewing the City Council subcommittee’s sixteen revenue-raising ideas

September 16, 2024 / / 0 Comments

Mayor Johnson asked 6th Ward alderperson William Hall to solicit ideas about how to fund the City of Chicago budget. The Chicago Tribune reported on these:

The Google [Forms] survey he included asked aldermen to respond “Yes” or “No” to the following ideas, with no added descriptions: “Sales Tax on Services; Property Tax (CPI Increase); Monthly/Wireless Plan Tax; Increase in LGDF Share; Head Tax; Alcohol Tax; Checking Bag Tax; Video Gaming Tax; Grocery Tax; City Sticker Increase; Congestion Tax; Income Tax Surcharge; Package Tax; Vacant Lot Tax; Ticket Reseller Amusement Tax; Enterprise Zones.”

I’ll briefly describe each one based on my own knowledge of these taxes. Note that these are possibilities and not suggestions.

  • Sales tax on services. Chicago doesn’t have a sales tax on most services (think haircut or tax preparation). (Chicago has a tax on some services, like the “Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax” which applies to services that use cloud computing, including Netflix!)
  • Property tax increase based on inflation. Mayor Lightfoot implemented this for a few years but Mayor Johnson did not renew it.
  • Wireless plan tax. This one confuses me because Chicago already taxes monthly cellular service.
  • Increase in LGDF share. LGDF is the State of Illinois local government distributive fund and the idea here is to convince the state legislature to increase the share that that the City of Chicago receives. Some data points that I think could be in favor of increasing the city’s LGDF share: Cook County receives back only 88% of what it contributes to state taxes (Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, page 37).
  • Head tax. This is a tax employers would pay for each employee they have. Mayor Emanuel and City Council phased out the head tax in 2014.
  • Alcohol tax. Chicago applies its own liquor tax, currently starting at $0.29 per gallon of beer up to $2.68 per gallon for anything containing 20% or more ABV.
  • Checking bag tax. I presume this refers to the existing Checkout Bag Tax, which is set at 7 cents per checkout bag sold at retail stores (the store can keep 2 cents of this to help subsidize the cost of the bag).
  • Video gaming tax. This would mean legalizing video gambling and taxing it.
  • Grocery tax. Governor Pritzker and the Illinois General Assembly eliminated the 1% grocery tax starting in 2025, revenues from which are distributed to municipalities. In return, the state allowed cities to implement their own grocery tax. Richard Day opines why it would be a bad idea for Chicago to implement such a regressive tax.
  • City sticker increase. A city sticker is a fee for the privilege of being able to park a car for free across much of the city.
  • Congestion tax. This would create a fee, surcharge, or tax for the privilege of driving a personal vehicle, and for the city to recover the costs and negative impacts, into the downtown area during specified times.
  • Income tax surcharge. I’m not sure what the surcharge means but Chicago currently doesn’t have an income tax.
  • Package tax. I don’t know what this means, but Hall told the Chicago Tribune that the package tax would “look at weights and distribution of packages that move throughout the city.”
  • Vacant lot tax. This would probably act as a kind of land value tax but would probably be implemented as an additional property tax on vacant lots (I assume any parcel that the county classifies as “1-00” would be eligible for this).
  • Ticket reseller amusement tax. Another tax that already exists; presumably this would be increasing the tax paid by people buying tickets for amusements (which includes concerts – you can see a list of all of the registered amusement tax businesses).
  • Enterprise Zones. I can’t make sense of this because Enterprise Zones are an existing state incentive area; there are six in Chicago. This “give” money (in the form of state sales tax breaks on construction materials and waiving the state’s portion of the real estate transfer tax in some situations) to property owners.
A vacant lot in Bronzeville. Land value tax would fix this.

Further reading

The Civic Federation came up with their own list of possible revenue sources and indicated if they require a state statute to authorize.

Many of Chicago’s bungalows were built with basement ADUs

August 6, 2024 / / 0 Comments

It’s easy to check: is there a ground-level door on the side gangway, or at the rear?

  • Walk up and down the streets of Vittum Park and Archer Heights and you’ll see dozens of houses with gangway doors.
  • Over in Portage Park a bungalow in the 45th Ward has a door at the front corner, a couple of steps down.
Portage Park bungalow with a basement ADU entrance at the front corner

Back in 2018 I wrote about whether “lock off apartments” like these would be allowed by the Chicago zoning code. This was before I realized that so many bungalows have these; they’re so inconspicuous that they’re easy to miss.

Did you know that the city has 14 bungalow districts on the National Register of Historic Places? All but one would be severely affected by the proposed ADU expansion ordinance that would require homeowners to obtain a special use from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to permit an existing ADU so someone can legally continue living in a separate household, or to permit the build out of a new ADU. That’s because most – if not all, but I didn’t check each one – of the land is zoned RS-1 and RS-2.

Google Street View images show six selected bungalows in Archer Heights that have side doors to basements. The status of each (whether they are separate households or shared with the household on the first floor) is unknown. Legally, however, most homeowners would not be able to rent out a basement unit because of zoning code restrictions here that the ADU ordinance could change. Thank you to Danny Villalobos for finding these; Danny is a fellow member of Urban Environmentalists Illinois, which has this petition gathering support for expanding the ADU ordinance citywide.

Only the homeowners in the Falconer Bungalow Historic District in Belmont Cragin would be exempt from that requirement in the proposed ADU expansion ordinance because none of the bungalows are zoned RS-1 or RS-2.

In a recent blog post I quantified how many small-scale residential properties would be affected by the RS-1/2 “carve out”. In this post I’m discussing those same kinds of properties but in the 13 bungalow historic districts that would be affected.

A list of 13 of the 14 historic bungalow districts in Chicago and the number of small-scale residential properties that are in RS-1 and RS-2 zoning districts that would have to obtain a special use from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to have an ADU if the current version of the proposed ADU expansion ordinance would be adopted.
Alderperson Andre Vasquez explains the Western Avenue upzoning proposal at a meeting in June 2024.
Alderperson Andre Vasquez explains the Western Avenue upzoning proposal at a meeting in June 2024.

Comment to zoning committee about the proactive Western Ave upzoning

July 16, 2024 / / 0 Comments

July 16, 2024. The text here roughly matches what I said to the Chicago City Council’s committee on zoning, landmarks, and building standards.

My name is Steven Vance, and I’m a member of Urban Environmentalists Illinois, a membership-based advocacy group that supports more housing – especially affordable housing, housing near transit, and fossil fuel-free – to help deal with housing shortages and rising housing prices.

There are two ordinances for the zoning committee’s consideration today that are the start of a new wave of land use policy to increase development where it’s needed, along Western Avenue. After the completion of the Western Avenue Corridor Study two years ago, Alderpersons Hadden, Martin, and Vasquez are taking the necessary next step by codifying some of the study’s recommendations into zoning map updates. 

The study recommended that higher-density mixed-use developments be allowed and encouraged along Western Avenue, to fill in the many vacant properties and allow the corridor to develop from one primarily serving people using cars to one serving people who use all kinds of transportation modes. And in the future, to provide the density that is supportive and takes advantage of a bus rapid transit network. 

The zoning map changes mean that nearly all of Western Avenue from from Addison Street to Howard Street will have B3-3 zoning, allowing mixed use and residential buildings up to 4 and 5 stories tall, with 20-40 homes each, in a way that property owners and developers won’t need to get individual approval for each one. Developments still have to comply with the ARO. 

When all alders task themselves with approving each and every proposed development, new housing is often delayed, raising the cost of development and denying people access new affordable and accessible housing. And, as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found, segregation is perpetuated.

The proactive Western Ave upzoning is a form of housing abundance, however, since it can speed up development of new housing in neighborhoods where it’s most in demand and where there’s existing transit infrastructure and amenities. 

A secondary benefit of proactive upzoning is how it attracts new development in Chicago, because of the ease of development. New development is one of the city’s best strategies to deal with funding pensions, because new development means there are new and more taxpayers. New development eases property tax pressure on existing taxpayers. 

Please pass the two Western Ave upzoning ordinances today. I also look forward to seeing and supporting proactive upzoning ordinances, including two that have been proposed in the 35th Ward, at your next meeting. 

Additional dwelling units can help homeowners and make housing safer

July 7, 2024 / / 0 Comments

A copy of my letter to the editor, as published in the Chicago Sun-Times. I had originally submitted this as an op-ed that was twice the length but I reduced it to 375 words at their behest.

Fran Spielman’s recent article “‘Bungalow Belt’ City Council members brace for battle over ‘granny flat’ expansion” didn’t address related positive impacts likely to result from allowing “additional dwelling units” (ADUs) citywide. I want to shed light on unmentioned benefits.

Ald. Marty Quinn cited a fire in an illegal attic apartment. A safety benefit of legalizing ADUs citywide is making it easier for homeowners to legalize and renovate parts of a house that were built without a building permit.

Photo of the print version of the letter, by J.A.

When City Hall discovers an unpermitted dwelling — say, after a fire — the homeowner must spend money to remove parts that make it a home (usually the kitchen) because location-specific zoning rules prohibit it from remaining in place. What if the homeowner could spend that money making the attic or basement apartment code-compliant and continue providing a home? Allowing ADUs citywide increases safety citywide.

Another ADU benefit is that homeowners can generate income to help pay their mortgage or to facilitate multi-generational households. Council members should consider how best to implement citywide ADUs so that those benefits accrue to homeowners equitably. A debate exists over whether to allow ADUs in all residential zoning districts “by right” or to require homeowners in the city’s RS-1 and RS-2 zoning districts to get “special use” approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Getting that approval to build an ADU will create a barrier so high that many homeowners will be unable to adapt their property to fit their family’s needs. Special use applications require a $1,000 application fee, plus fees charged by attorneys and consultants (which, while not required, are essential to ensure a successful outcome).

Divergent modes of allowing ADUs — one for families in RS-1 and RS-2, and another for all other zoning districts — extend the right to the majority of property owners but not in one-fifth of the city’s land area. This could perpetuate unsafe homes and cause inequitable disparities in financial opportunities and impositions on homeowners to gain approvals that could be borne more easily by homeowners in Mount Greenwood (median income: $106,538; 83% of the population is white) than in Washington Heights (median income: $55,428; 96% of the population is Black). City Council should choose to level the playing field and allow all homeowners to benefit from the ADU expansion.

Steven Vance, South Loop