Tag: Chicago budget

Guest post: Chicago has multiple crises that more housing could mitigate

Chicago currently faces a dire financial crisis that could leave the city with a $1.2 billion budget deficit in 2026 and a potentially higher deficit in 2027. One way the city can attempt to chip away at this deficit is by expanding access to affordable and abundant residential housing across the city. This article by Joshua Chodor focuses on the communities impacted by Chicago’s shortage of affordable residential housing, why more home choices will be needed and the potential strategies that can create housing abundance.

In his 1999 book Homeland Earth, French philosopher and sociologist Edgar Morin developed a term that would encapsulate the interconnectivity and complexity of modern crises across the world. Spurred by growing fears of global warming, resource depletion and environmental destruction leading to novel diseases, Morin defined his concerns through the term “polycrisis“. 

As Morin projected, today’s modern polycrisis is defined by the convergence of climate change, international migration and humanitarian crises, the increasing rise of authoritarian governments and misinformation driving civil and social unrest globally. To call Chicago’s myriad issues a polycrisis may diminish the word’s more complex meaning. However, when identifying Chicago’s critical issues – a budget crisis, a housing crisis, a cost of living crisis and the political target that the current presidential administration has set on the city – polycrisis emerges as a valid description of the situation.

Chicago must follow a common sense agenda that creates an abundance of housing at all price points in order to alleviate these intertwined crises.

Chicago is only now seeing positive population growth after years of decline, but the stagnant pace of development has left residents with few affordable home choices within the communities they live and work. Monthly rents are reaching new highs and continued inflation contributes to a cost of living crisis impacting everyone. Rising rents with a minimal volume of new unit development not only inhibits those seeking to move into Chicago from elsewhere, but also may price existing residents out. This cycle could potentially displace long-time Chicagoans without mitigating the severe housing shortage that currently exists. 

To make Chicago a more affordable place to live for its current and future residents – and untangle this polycrisis – the city must be laser-focused on creating housing abundance. Building more housing is directly linked to the migration of new residents into the city, specifically from political migration, climate migration and international migration

1. Political Migration

As Republican-led states legislate against LGBTQ+ rights, attack marginalized communities and dismantle abortion and women’s healthcare access, at-risk groups and individuals will increasingly seek refuge in “blue” areas that offer them the rights and dignities that they deserve everywhere. Governor J.B. Pritzker has ensured that Illinois remains safe and welcoming to those communities unfairly targeted by an arbitrary and capricious war against anything considered “woke” – a catch-all pejorative used as an insult toward those seeking social justice. Chicago – and Illinois as a whole – must show it supports individuals of all backgrounds by expanding opportunities for new housing. In addition, as some state public health services are refuting science-backed advancements in healthcare such as the removal of fluoride from drinking water, Chicago is in a prime position to benefit from a potential influx of red state transplants for reasons related to their health and welfare. 

2. Climate Migration

After years of residential growth, sun belt states face glaring climate concerns related to extreme heat and water access. Climate change is worsening storms, floods and hurricanes, and the current presidential administration has all but asserted that it does not see this as an issue. With extreme weather and the dismantling of NOAA, FEMA and other protective agencies, many areas of the country will increasingly become unlivable – at least, for those who don’t have the means to move elsewhere. Natural disasters have become more intense, potentially jeopardizing residents’ access to clean drinking water, a situation which will drive migration out of the most threatened areas. The Great Lakes region will, in all expectation, grow in population as a direct and indirect result of unstable weather in other regions. Chicagoland will be a primary destination as one of the largest markets that can sustain a sizable population influx. Without additional housing, the climate-based migration of wealthier families and individuals could price out existing marginalized communities from their homes; Chicago must be ready for this increase of potential new residents.

3. International & Humanitarian Migration

When discussing the topic of immigration, the conversation inevitably focuses on the southern border and the law enforcement actions which target and demonize those attempting to legally migrate into the country. A clear example of this is in Texas, where razor wire has been installed on floating buoys to dissuade migration, an inhumane strategy that has led to an increase in drowning-related deaths. Some states actively dehumanize immigrants through legislation meant to instill fear in already vulnerable communities. The consequences of this crisis in Illinois magnify a noticeable difference between policies in Chicagoland compared to the rest of the state. While Chicago has strengthened its “sanctuary” protections over recent months, more than a dozen Illinois counties enacted “non-sanctuary” laws or regulations designed to antagonize immigrant communities. It is clear why international migrants, if given the opportunity, would go to a place that offers them more protection compared to the cruelty that other locations seem to enjoy inflicting. This problem will remain pervasive and, until states no longer enact dehumanizing and cruel immigration-related laws, the Chicagoland region must create more affordable and safe housing options for vulnerable immigrant communities.

Chicago must prioritize expanding its housing supply and residential development in the city and surrounding areas in order to not only mitigate existing financial concerns, but also proactively prepare for an influx of new residents. Policies, both implicit (aldermanic prerogative) and explicit (segregationist zoning codes) have created a set of individual yet interconnected crises that have stymied housing growth, worsening Chicago’s budget shortfall while maintaining racial and ethnic divisions through the denial of critical new affordable housing options. This uncertainty will continue to leave residents – both current and prospective – stuck with fewer affordable and viable housing options. 

Chicago must address its intertwined issues holistically, as its current piecemeal approach has severely hindered the city’s ability to be a desirable and affordable place to call home. In a future post, I will identify short- and long-term actions and suggest solutions toward alleviating Chicago’s housing shortage, such as expanding the city’s accessory dwelling units (ADU) ordinance, allowing 4-flats by right, relieving parking mandates, and enacting a land value tax, among other ideas. 

Fortunately, a number of volunteer organizations are focusing on addressing Chicago’s housing shortage, such as Abundant Housing Illinois and Strong Towns Chicago. That these groups have grown drastically in size over the past year is a clear sign that city residents will no longer sit back and wait for City Hall to unravel the threads of Chicago’s polycrisis.  

Josh Chodor is a master’s student in the University of Illinois Chicago’s Urban Planning and Policy program as well as a member of Abundant Housing Illinois and Strong Towns Chicago.

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

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.