Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x3 - $10,000 matching contribution received - Match level met and exceeded - Donor will match up to $10,000 for contributions made today *** Please help these kids
Next Post: C’mon, people
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
The city of Chicago wrongly limited affordable housing by allowing City Council members to reject developments in their wards through the use of their aldermanic prerogative, federal investigators say.
Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration is being asked to enter talks for an “informal resolution” of an almost five-year civil rights investigation by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, according to a letter obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.
“The department’s investigation indicates that the city affords each of its 50 wards a local veto over proposals to build affordable housing and that many majority-white wards use the local veto to block, deter or downsize such proposals,” wrote Lon Meltesen, regional director of HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “As a result, new affordable housing is rarely, if ever, constructed in the majority-white wards that have the least affordable housing.” […]
In response to the recent concern from HUD, city lawyer John Hendricks said in a letter earlier this month that the complainants “fail to establish a violation of fair housing and civil rights laws” but that the city is “open to voluntary resolution.”
I would’ve never imagined a progressive mayor from the CTU authorizing a response like that one.
* From HUD’s letter…
The Department’s investigation indicates that the City affords each of its fifty wards a local veto over proposals to build affordable housing, and that many majority-White wards use the local veto to block, deter, or downsize such proposals. As a result, new affordable housing is rarely, if ever, constructed in the majority-White wards that already have the least affordable housing. The City acknowledges this effect of the practice, its historical use for the purpose of creating and maintaining patterns of racial segregation, and its continued use as a tool that effectuates racially motivated opposition to affordable housing. The City’s use of the local veto despite understanding its effects raises serious concerns about the City’s compliance with Title VI and Section 109.
The Department understands that the local veto over affordable housing proposals is not a law or formal policy, but a practice arising from (1) the requirement that City Council approve all such proposals,” and (2) the custom of only approving those proposals which have the affirmative support of the alderman for the ward in which the development is proposed. This investigation identified three ways in which aldermen wield the local veto to block, deter, or downsize proposals to build affordable housing:
1. The local veto allows aldermen to block or downsize affordable housing proposals in Council. This investigation identified examples of aldermen blocking projects that would have created integrative affordable housing — even where such projects are otherwise consistent with citywide plans and policies — by explicitly voting down a proposal, or by withholding their affirmative support for land use or finance approvals, resulting in the expiration or withdrawal of the proposal.
2. The local veto allows aldermen to deter or downsize affordable housing proposals before they are formally proposed to the City. Interviews with developers of affordable housing revealed that the existence of the local veto deters them from proposing projects in predominantly white wards, and this investigation identified examples of developers significantly downsizing affordable housing proposals or shelving them altogether during informal, pre-application processes through which aldermen wield the threat of the local veto to influence development.
3. Aldermen preemptively veto integrative affordable housing by downzoning. This investigation identified examples of aldermen downzoning, or applying more restrictive zoning designations, in a manner that limits opportunities for the development of affordable housing and ensures that any such proposals would be subject to the processes that give rise to the local veto. Evidence suggests that the effect — and sometimes the purpose — of such downzoning is to make the development of integrative affordable housing more costly, time consuming, or otherwise less feasible.
Consistent with the City’s own analysis of this practice, the Department’s investigation indicates that the local veto over affordable housing proposals has the following effects:
1. By limiting the availability of affordable housing, the local veto disproportionately harms Black and Hispanic households, who are far more likely than White households to need and qualify for affordable housing. These groups are already disproportionately impacted by the City’s on-going affordable housing shortage, and the further loss of affordable rental units due to the local veto is three to four times more likely to affect Black households — and two times more likely to affect Hispanic households — than White households.
2. The local veto perpetuates segregation. As noted in City planning documents, the local veto was instrumental in creating Chicago’s patterns of segregation and is a significant reason for the perpetuation of those patterns. This investigation indicates the continued use of the local veto to block affordable housing units in White areas is a key driver of segregation. For example, this investigation’s non-exhaustive review of Council decisions between 2019 and 2022 identified several hundred affordable housing units approved by the Department of Housing for construction in majority- White areas that were blocked at the request of the local alderman.
3. The local veto effectuates opposition to affordable housing based on racial animus. The continued existence of racially motivated opposition to affordable housing in majority-White areas is widely acknowledged in Chicago, yet aldermen interviewed during this investigation reported deferring to local opinion with no consideration of whether racial animus played a role. Indeed, this investigation identified several instances of opposition replete with coded racial animus informing aldermen’s decisions to veto affordable housing proposals.
The City’s prior administrations did not proffer a justification for the continued existence of this practice. Aldermen interviewed during this investigation asserted that the practice is necessary to ensure that local concerns are considered in development decisions. This investigation indicates, however, that Council routinely shows unquestioning deference to local aldermen even in the absence of any articulated local concern, and even where concerns are clearly invoked as pretext to block integrative affordable housing. In other cases, legitimate but minor local concerns were invoked to block or significantly delay integrative affordable housing proposals, even where those concerns contradicted fact-based analyses and well-considered City plans on the same topics. The practice appears to be a blunt tool that blocks and deters integrative affordable housing while going well beyond what is necessary to provide a forum for local concerns — in other words, precisely the sort of “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barrier” discussed by the Supreme Court under the Fair Housing Act in Inclusive Communities.
* Meanwhile…
An investigation by Block Club Chicago and the Illinois Answers Project has found the CHA is sitting on nearly 500 empty homes that are part of its scattered-site program — even as Chicago struggles to address housing crises on multiple fronts, from historically high rents that many families can’t afford to a surge in homelessness to a stream of migrants who need shelter.
In all, the CHA owns about 2,900 scattered-site residences dispersed through dozens of neighborhoods. But one out of every six of the homes is empty, and dozens of them have been unoccupied for years, records show.
The CHA’s neglected scattered sites can be found on every side of town. For example, on the North Side, a handsome yellow-brick apartment building in Lakeview was renovated for $1.5 million in the mid-2010s, yet the building was never completely filled. On the West Side, several multifamily buildings in North Lawndale have been vacant and boarded up for years. And in South Shore, blocks from where the Obama Presidential Center is being built, more than a third of a 51-unit apartment building is vacant. The CHA says it will soon rent out most of those South Shore apartments.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 10:54 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x3 - $10,000 matching contribution received - Match level met and exceeded - Donor will match up to $10,000 for contributions made today *** Please help these kids
Next Post: C’mon, people
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Alder veto-power is the third rail of Chicago politics.
It’s our biggest structural impediment to effective City government, and fertile ground for potential corruption.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 11:27 am
As far as I can tell, the alderman veto was designed as a money-making proposition at least a century ago. You want to do something or build something in this ward? Pay up.
No good reason to keep it but of course they will.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 11:34 am
Aldermanic prerogative can be partially scaled back by eliminating where it formally exists in ordinance or in policy. But at its core, it’s an informal practice. One alderman gets 25 others to vote with him on a zoning matter that affects only his ward on the promise he’ll return the favor in the future. That’s a form of political log-rolling that can’t be undone by the mayor signing a settlement agreement.
Comment by TNR Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 11:53 am
===That’s a form of political log-rolling that can’t be undone===
While true, they can prevent what happens before the city council votes, like those local zoning advisory councils. And they can exempt affordable housing from city council approval.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 11:59 am
Anything “other” gets targeted. The alderman and certain folks in Gladstone Park are trying to block a hookah lounge with the silliest rationales such as “close to a school” even though other places on the same block sell tobacco products.
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 12:17 pm
Seems like a place where a good communications team and good policy could have gone a long way.
Comment by Chicago Voter Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 12:17 pm
State law requires 10% of housing in a municipality to be affordable housing. Doesn’t Chicago meet those standards?
Aldermanic privilege is there for the sole reason of allowing the aldermen to respond and deal with their wards and the people who elected them. It’s local representation.
Should there be a process to override privilege concerning developments? Yes.
Should the mayor be the one to decide what goes in everyone’s ward? No.
Aldermanic privilege allows folks to give out jobs in their wards as well. The old guard used to call it streets and sans, the new guard calls it community organizations- grassroots organization against violence, receive a grant, put alderman’s people on the payroll, grassroots organization for helping immigrants, receive a grant, put alderman’s people on the payroll, grassroots organization helping workforce development, receive a grant, put alderman’s people on the payroll, grassroots organization helping with housing transitioning, receive a grant, put alderman’s people on the payroll, etc etc. rinse and repeat. This goes on in every ward throughout the city. Matter of fact some of your new aldermen, these insider government paid-for community organizations, are where they got started.
They will not get rid of Aldermanic privilege, they may adjust but they won’t get rid of it.
Comment by Frida's boss Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 12:20 pm
== State law requires 10% of housing in a municipality to be affordable housing. Doesn’t Chicago meet those standards?==
And Federal law requires Chicago to provide in a manner that isn’t discriminatory. I’m not sure Chicago has ever met that standard, despite numerous Federal lawsuits and Court Orders to do so.
Many people like to say we need to provide more fair, affordable housing. Until it’s proposed on their block. Then the nimby-ism (or other “ism”) takes control.
Comment by fs Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 12:45 pm
“Unwritten rules” are the bedrock of discrimination, abuse of power, and a hostile workplace culture — in both the private and public sector.
Comment by Sir Francis Bacon Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 12:59 pm
Am I the only one who saw the second part of this post talking about the CHA and the BCC/IAP Investigation? 500 out of 2900 homes under CHA jurisdiction are currently uninhabited! Agreed that this is has occurred under the watchful eye of several administrations -But when the overall conversation of Housing - Affordable/Available/Homeless/Migrant is such a hot topic - this should be a part of the solution
Comment by A Possible Method to the Madness Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 1:33 pm
“… (or other “ism”) … .”
BANANAs - Build Absolutly Nothing Anywhere Near Anything/Anybody.
CAVEs - Citizens Against Virtually Everything.
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 2:31 pm
>I would’ve never imagined a progressive mayor from the CTU authorizing a response like that one.
you’re assuming they authorized the response or aren’t so completely overwhelmed and understaffed that they had no idea this was happening or how to deal with it!
Comment by lolz Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 2:56 pm
I would submit that the law department and the Mayor’s office aren’t always in close communication. Not just in this administration but in previous ones as well. When that occurs what you get is what you see here - lawyers defending their client, which is their job, but which doesn’t play politically.
Comment by City of Chicago Wednesday, Nov 29, 23 @ 5:31 pm