A CITY FRAGMENTED HOW RACE, POWER, AND ALDERMANIC PREROGATIVE SHAPE ’S NEIGHBORHOODS Acknowledgements

This report was created by the Chicago Kate Walz, Senior Director of Litigation Area Fair Housing Alliance in partnership & Director of Housing Justice; Nolan with Sargent Shriver National Center on Downey, Law Intern; Ivan Parfenoff and Poverty Law. Nivedita Sriram, Americorps VISTAs.

The Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance This report would not have been (CAFHA) is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit possible without the generous support consortium of fair housing and advocacy of Albert C. Hanna. Mr. Hanna has spent organizations, government agencies, and nearly 50 years advocating for fair and municipalities. CAFHA works to combat affordable housing in Chicago. Using housing discrimination and promote the knowledge he gained through his integrated communities of opportunity position as former Senior Vice President through education, advocacy, and of Draper and Kramer and related senior collaborative action. CAFHA report positions in Chicago’s commercial real contributors: Patricia Fron, Executive estate and mortgage industries, Mr. Director; Asia Bowman and Kate Spear, Hanna has repeatedly litigated against Policy & Advocacy Interns. the City of Chicago at his personal cost for what he characterizes as racially and The Sargent Shriver National Center economically discriminatory land-use on Poverty Law (Shriver Center) is a policies. Research support was provided non-partisan, 501(c)(3) organization by Albert C. Hanna and Lauren Bean providing national leadership in Buitta, Principal of Stele Consulting and advancing laws and policies that consultant to Albert C. Hanna. Research, secure justice to improve the lives and design, and graphics assistance was opportunities of people living in poverty. provided by Okrent Kisiel Associates, The Shriver Center’s Housing Justice Inc. Okrent Kisiel report contributors: Program works to protect housing rights George V. Kisiel, AIA, AICP, President, and expand housing opportunities Jason Jarrett, Senior Associate, Andrew for individuals and families with low Volz, Analyst, and Sharon Maloy, Graphic income. Shriver report contributors: Designer.

2 Executive Summary

The City of Chicago, through the policy framework. The findings demonstrate of aldermanic prerogative, which gives that the City of Chicago has neglected to aldermen virtually unchecked control fulfill its civil rights obligations by failing over their wards, allows housing and to ensure more equitable family affordable community development decision-making housing opportunities and balance the to be hindered by political influence power dynamics involved in community and opposition to neighborhood racial planning.1 The 1969 decision in the civil change. In predominantly white areas rights case, Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing this is substantiated in the erection of Authority, illuminated the fact that the barriers to affordable housing and has City of Chicago had an intentional and resulted in significant impediments to deliberate policy to control where public place-based racial equity. The consequence housing was sited in the city, resulting of aldermanic prerogative has been in concentrations of public housing decades of missed opportunities to in predominately black, low-income develop affordable housing in areas neighborhoods. Now, almost 50 years later, lacking a sufficient supply. The impact the city has continued to allow aldermen of that loss is felt by all racial and ethnic to control where affordable housing is groups in need of affordable housing, but sited and as a result, maintain the city’s disproportionately by black and Latinx rigid patterns of racial segregation. families. Any attempt the city may make to This report is the first of its kind to advance affordable housing is destined explicitly identify the current mechanics for inadequacy unless and until the and quantify the impacts of aldermanic structural barriers imposed by aldermanic prerogative within a civil rights legal prerogative are dismantled.

3 SNAPSHOT OF FINDINGS

At the most fundamental level, hostile to affordable housing become aldermen have the ability to shape off-limits to developers by baking neighborhoods through the control exorbitant financial risk into the of zoning. Zoning powers entitle development proposal process. Finally, aldermen the discretion to determine aldermen can employ parliamentary allowable land-uses and development and extra-parliamentary powers to within their wards. Aldermen delay development deals, ensuring therefore have the authority to dictate that unwanted affordable housing will acceptable housing type and density, not be introduced or voted on before controlling the amount and type of city council. housing units directly, impacting housing pricing and rent rates The unwritten code of aldermanic indirectly, and ultimately the type of prerogative has resulted in the households that may reside within the reduction of land area available ward. Although the city has attempted for multifamily development—just to encourage inclusionary zoning—by 20% of the city’s land (including the binding affordable unit requirements downtown central business district) to certain market rate developments is currently zoned for multi-family through the Affordable Requirements housing—and the concentration of Ordinance—aldermanic prerogative family affordable housing outside ensures that hyper-local controls can of predominantly white and low- circumvent the citywide mandate. poverty areas. Aldermanic prerogative therefore creates geographic Aldermen also control access to city boundaries, limiting where low- funds and city-owned lots within their income families, and predominantly wards, effectively making or breaking black and Latinx households, can live affordable housing deals. Wards in the City of Chicago. TOOLS OF ALDERMANIC PREROGATIVE Employed to Block Affordable Housing and Preserve Neighborhood Racial Demographics

• Unfettered Zoning Power • Evading the Affordable • Access to City Funds Requirements Ordinance • Control of City-Owned Lots • Use of Parliamentary and Extra-Parliamentary Power

4 The Effects of Aldermanic Prerogative

ZONING low poverty areas. Over half (59%) of all units were constructed in just 5 wards, while the Chicago’s 14 wards with majority white aldermen of more than half (27 or 54% of populations have aggressively used downzoning total) of Chicago’s wards did not accept even a and landmarking to reduce multifamily single unit. As depicted in the chart, Chicago’s development: these wards disproportionately white population and it’s subsidized housing account for 55% of the area downzoned or developments are concentrated in entirely landmarked between 1970 to 2016, or roughly opposite wards. double the proportion expected if all Aldermen used the tool equally. As depicted in the chart, Conversely, over the same time period, about Chicago’s white population and downzoned or 6,900 units of new construction senior affordable landmarked properties are concentrated in the housing were approved, more than double the same wards. multifamily new construction count. And only 11 wards excluded new construction senior Cumulative Percentage of White Population and affordable housing projects, an opt-out rate Downzoning/Landmarking by Ward less than half that of the new construction

100% multifamily housing.

After multiple FOIA requests and interviews with 75% developers, there is no evidence of an affordable housing project receiving funds without a letter 50% of aldermanic support, as the letter of support is a central requirement of the city’s approval Cumulative Percentage Cumulative 25% process. Despite owning and controlling over 56 acres 0% Wards (Ascending Rank White Population) of land in majority white, low poverty areas as Downzoned or Landmarked Area White Population of the latest inventory publishing in 2017, no city-owned parcel of land in these areas has been 75% of the city’s current multifamily zoned land used to build a single affordable dwelling unit.

is located outside of majority white wards and Cumulative Percentage of White Population and 98% of new, affordable multifamily housing New Construction Family Housing by Ward is constructed here. Conversely, 25% of the city’s multifamily zoned land is located in 100% predominantly white wards while just 2% of new affordable multifamily housing is constructed in 75% these areas. CONTROL OF CITY RESOURCES 50% Cumulative Percentage Cumulative Over the last 25 years, the city-approved loans 25% for 3,394 subsidized units of multifamily housing

in new construction projects, 90% (3,052 units) 0% Wards (Ascending Rank White Population) were sited outside of predominantly white, New Construction Family Housing Units White Population

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Prerogative as Policy: Local Politics, Subsidized Housing, and Segregation 7

A Stout Fight: Historic Control of Susidized Housing Development 13

No Place Here: Current Patterns of Subsidized Housing Development 18

Sidestepping the Law: Tools of Aldermanic Prerogative 22

Planning Against Prerogative: Towards a Less Segregated Chicago 67

Appendix A: Methodology

Appendix B: Ward-by-Ward Zoning Advisory Councils and Development Process

6 Prerogative as Policy: Local Politics, Subsidized Housing, and Segregation

The City of Chicago is composed of 50 and the city’s administration that each wards, and the interests of each ward alderman has the power to decide what are represented by an elected alderman. happens within their ward.3 While this In theory, the distribution of aldermen semblance of power is not the result among 50 wards is intended to create legislatively granted authority, it is equal representation among the city’s rarely violated. almost 3 million residents. However, the Not only has policy decisions that shape Chicago’s the notion “I often liken the City of communities—those that determine who of “wards gets to live where and what community as fiefdoms” Chicago [to] a feudal amenities residents will have access been observed system, where the mayor to—are muddied by the dynamics of by political power, manifested through aldermanic analysts, is sort of a de facto king, prerogative, that pit ward against ward aldermen and snuff out cohesive efforts to further themselves And each alderman is the common good.2 recognize, benefit from, the lord — I guess, lady, Through aldermanic prerogative, the and publicly for female aldermen — of City of Chicago has tacitly established acknowledge “mini fiefdoms” held together by the this power. their individual fiefdom.” simple understanding among aldermen Alderman of the —Alderman Joe Moore, 49th Ward, Aldermanic Prerogative: described 49th Ward (2013) also referred to as Chicago’s aldermanic privilege, is political system the power of Chicago on a WBEZ “Curious City” episode: “I often liken the City of Chicago [to] a City Council members to feudal system, where the mayor is sort of maintain control over their a de facto king, and each alderman is the wards, primarily by initiating lord — I guess, lady, for female aldermen or blocking City Council or — of their individual fiefdom.”4 These city government actions “fiefdoms,” in turn, are plagued by an undercurrent of political influence concerning their own wards. concentrated among those who have This power, although not the their alderman’s ear—notably those with result of legislatively granted money, power, and election clout—that authority, is overwhelmingly force aldermen to either capitulate to assented to among the city’s the demands of their most powerful aldermen, the Mayor’s office, constituents or face ouster. Low-income Chicagoans, on the other hand, have and the Department of little say in the decisions that impact Planning and Development. where and how they live in this city. Aldermanic prerogative necessitates

7 8 implicitly biased fears of neighborhood Chicago’s most racial change, and of black former predominant racial/ethnic public housing residents in particular. groups (white, black, The consequences impact low- and moderate-income families of all racial Latinx) each make up and ethnic backgrounds, most acutely about one third of the city’s black and Latinx households, by erecting population5. Of Chicago’s 50 barriers to affordable rental housing, and wards, 18 (36%) are majority to the greatest extent, family affordable black, 14 (28%) are majority housing. white, and 14 (28%) are majority Latinx6 . Great Migration: The movement of African the continuation of the status quo, Americans from the South as aldermen rely on the preservation to the urban North from of neighborhood dynamics and 1916-1970. The result demographics to secure their political longevity. Powerful and predominantly was the demographic white neighborhood interest groups, in transformation of Northern turn, have relied on aldermen to assist in cities like Chicago. Chicago the preservation of neighborhood racial attracted slightly more than makeup. This is historically rooted in a 500,000 African Americans, desire to explicitly restrict black access to white neighborhoods.8 During the Great growing the city’s population Migration, white communities devised from 2% of the total outright barriers to stave off black population to 33% by 1970.7 integration.9 With the enactment of the Federal Fair Housing Act in 1968, many of these direct practices were outlawed.10 However, over the years, racially-based The result is the perpetuation of racial housing discrimination has manifested in segregation and the concentration of ever more insidious fashions. poverty, which fuels vast inequities in community investments and access Present day proxies for racial to opportunity for Chicago residents. discrimination are often most powerful Although this is unfortunately common when aimed at populations with the throughout the country, what makes least political capital, namely those in Chicago’s (and the Midwest’s generally) need of affordable housing. Although segregation unique, is its durational affordable housing is needed at varying potency and the resulting racial income levels and by all racial and ethnic inequities that are manifested in every groups, to many Chicagoans the face of facet of life for Chicago’s residents.11 affordable housing is black, and those in Chicago is, by consequence, an need of affordable housing have become incontrovertibly fragmented city, where: racial stereotypes. Affordable housing and the discussions that stem from • public investments and amenities are it—from property values and density, concentrated in select neighborhoods to parking and schools—have become while others have been devalued and dog whistles evoking both explicitly and divested;

9 • exclusionary policies ensure that predominantly white and low- Fair Housing Act (FHA): poverty areas remain difficult to The Fair Housing Act of access for low- and moderate- income 1968, as amended, prohibits households, and virtually impossible to access if those households are also discrimination in the sale, black or Latinx; rental, and financing of • and where low- income individuals housing based on race, of all racial backgrounds have color, religion, sex, national diluted power in shaping the housing origin, familial status, or decisions that determine where they disability in connection can live in the city. with the sale and rental of In turn, Chicago’s white, black, and housing and other private Latinx residents live, to a significant real estate transactions.13 degree, in separate neighborhoods and When it was passed in 1968, face distinct life outcomes.17 By the city’s it was declared the “policy own admission to the U.S. Department of the ” to of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Chicago is now, and has been for provide “for fair housing” more than 50 years, a “highly segregated within the limits imposed city,” with whites segregated on the by the Constitution.14 The North, Northwest, Southwest and far FHA bans both intentionally South Sides, blacks almost exclusively racially discriminatory on the West and South Sides, and conduct and those practices that have a disparate impact or disproportionately In Chicago, 93% of families discriminatory effect with children at or below on protected classes.15 the poverty line are Ultimately, the statute’s families of color. goal is to bring about Black and Latinx families are “open, integrated residential disproportionately affected: housing patterns and to 37% of black and 23% of prevent the increase of Latinx families with children segregation.”16 were at or below poverty line, compared with just 7% of white families with Latinx populations in clearly identifiable children in 2017. Families clusters on the North, Northwest, of color below the poverty Southwest and far South Sides. Except line are most likely to have for the expansion of Latinx households, worst case housing needs, these color lines have remained virtually unchanged since the 1980 Census.18 including facing severe Black-white segregation remains the rent burdens and severely starkest in Chicago, and among the 10 inadequate housing.12 most segregated large cities, Chicago’s black-white segregation

10 11 is the most severe, even among the developers to advocates and NIMBYs)— city’s most affluent households: “Black the tone and tenor of which is unique to householdsearning over $100,000 each ward—compelling many aldermen are just as likely as black households to do not what is best for the city or even their ward but what will least damage their reputation with powerful groups and their chances of reelection. The NIMBY: is an acronym for result is a culture where aldermen in “Not In My Backyard.” The predominantly white and low-poverty term, coined in the 1980s, areas erect barriers to family affordable is used to describe citizens housing to preserve the status quo; aldermen in wards that have faced that oppose proposed real chronic disinvestment are obliged to estate developments in their take more than an equitable share of neighborhood or town.19 affordable housing because, if it is not built in their wards, it will not be built at all, and there exists a demonstrated need among their constituents; and aldermen earning less than $25,000 annually to in gentrifying areas have diminished be segregated from whites.”20 The city power to stave off the market forces is well aware of this segregation and creating an increasingly unaffordable the ways in which it drives inequities housing landscape. in access to opportunities like jobs, community services, commercial and Aldermanic prerogative emerges within other neighborhood amenities, and high public discourse every few years as performing schools.21 the possible linchpin of a range of Chicago issues from political corruption Chicago’s enduring residential racial to inequities in city services.24 Its and economic segregation has produced encumbrance on affordable housing harmful collateral consequences for development is the most recent to garner all.22 Everything from homicide rates attention.25 Yet it remains ingrained to educational and economic inequity in the very fabric of the city—part could be alleviated by addressing and parcel of Chicago’s vestiges of segregation.23 However, Chicago’s machine politics. Within a civil rights political machine ignores what is good legal framework, however, aldermanic for all to advance what is good for the prerogative is for the first time exposed few. When making the decisions at the as a present-day conservator of racial core of shaping Chicago neighborhoods, segregation and the reason for Chicago’s aldermanic prerogative forces aldermen dwindling supply of family affordable to navigate a clamor of interests (from housing.

12 A Stout Fight: Historic Control of Subsidized Housing Development

EARLY EFFORTS BY THE CITY policy would maintain residential TO CONTROL THE SITING OF segregation.28 After World War II, CHA, AFFORDABLE HOUSING like housing authorities throughout the country, was tasked with finding The City Council’s control and influence housing for returning veterans. In over the siting of affordable housing order to expedite the construction, has been central to the city’s operation Chicago Mayor Kelly directed housing since the 1930s, beginning with construction on plots already owned decisions made over where public by city departments even though most housing would be sited. In spite of of the city-owned land was in white aldermanic prerogative being exposed neighborhoods. nearly 50 years ago, it remains the While the central mechanism wielded to maintain CHA had to “By putting up a residential segregation. house veterans proportionately, project in every When Chicago Housing Authority’s the (CHA) first executive secretary, Neighborhood section of Chicago Elizabeth Wood, was appointed in 1939, Composition they could infiltrate she set out to champion the construction Rule made of racially-integrated public housing it incredibly Negroes.” across Chicago. But both the federal difficult to government and Chicago aldermen house black –Alderman John fiercely opposed her efforts.27 First, in veterans in the 1939, the federal government imposed available areas. Duffy, 19th Ward the Neighborhood Composition Rule, As a result, (1946) 26 which required the racial composition in 1946, the of public housing projects reflect the CHA defied the racial composition of the surrounding Neighborhood Composition Rule and neighborhoods, meaning that national developed a list of 22 sites for new veteran housing, mostly in white areas.

White residents, concerned that racially integrated public housing would be “the end of their neighborhoods,” compelled their aldermen to oppose the siting. Alderman John Duffy accused the CHA and Wood of stirring up unrest in Chicago. “By putting up a project in every section of Chicago they could infiltrate Negroes,” Duffy said, which would “stir up trouble and keep the pot boiling – never let it stop.”29 In response, Elizabeth Wood, the first director of the the CHA kept the smaller projects Chicago Housing Authority. (Chicago Housing entirely white, limiting black residents to Authority Photo Archives) 13 only the largest of projects. Even then, and the CHA refusing to back down, the CHA screened black potential tenants Mayor Martin Kennelly authorized the heavily, and capped the black residential aldermen to work directly with the CHA population at 10% of the total residential to devise a plan. John Duffy and William population per building. Lancaster used the opportunity to develop what came to be known as the In 1947, when CHA tried to institute Duffy-Lancaster compromise, which sited integrated housing in Fernwood Park 10,500 units of public housing on either Homes on the far South Side, local land within impoverished black areas or alderman Reginald DuBois said that vacant land just outside of these areas.32 “[w]e all want to protect our homes, When the plan went to the national and the people of this community will Public Housing Administration (PHA)33 30 put up a stout fight.” DuBois went so for approval, PHA raised few objections far as to join the leaders of a violent despite obvious weaknesses, and the city backlash that met the new black tenants was permitted to advance its segregated as they attempted to integrate. DuBois housing plan. The plan was approved by introduced a resolution to the City the City Council in August 1950.34 Council, declaring that the CHA insisted on using housing strategies that were After the ousting of Wood as executive singular from the opinions of both other secretary in 1954, the power of the local agencies and “a great majority” of CHA to operate Chicago residents.31 independently of the City “We all want to In 1948, out of fear that impending Council eroded federal legislation would lead to quickly. Wood’s protect our homes, integrated public housing in white successor, neighborhoods, the City Council General William and the people of this pressured the legislature to Kean, decided community will put bestow the City Council with powers that the City to approve or disapprove sites selected Council’s up a stout fight.” by the CHA. The next year, Congress involvement enacted the Housing Act of 1949, which was integral –Alderman focused heavily on urban renewal as to exacting well as new public housing construction, the location Reginald DuBois, with federal money set aside to construct of future 9th Ward (1947) more than 800,000 new units of public projects. Kean housing across the U.S. The same day saw the CHA’s that the legislation was enacted, the involvement as purely “economic and CHA submitted a proposal to the City developmental,” and felt only aldermen Council that 40,000 integrated units could fully evaluate “various other sited all over the city be built in the factors” that might affect project siting.35 next six years. The debate in the City He outlined a new site-selection process Council over where to site the first that provided aldermanic clearance seven buildings, with 10,000 units of authority, without which the site would housing, went on for days. The aldermen be withdrawn from consideration. The approved two of the sites located near aldermen and their constituents would existing public housing in predominantly now have a significant role in deciding if black neighborhoods, and rejected public housing would be situated in their the rest. With the aldermen staunchly wards. against integration of public housing,

14 Mayor Richard J. Daley-appointee Alvin Rose succeeded Kean to the executive director role, and under his leadership, cooperation between the CHA and aldermen in the siting of public housing developments only increased. While Kean was brought in to weaken CHA racial integration practices, under Rose’s leadership, there would no longer be any attempts to integrate.36 Aldermen were contacted before the CHA even considered a site, so they could gauge community reaction. If the community Elizabeth Wood seated at her desk at the Chi- and the alderman objected to a proposed cago Housing Authority. () site, it had, according to Rose, “no with PHA’s regulations, and tenant chance of getting through.”37 selection reflected CHA applicants’ indicated location preferences. McGuire DOROTHY GAUTREAUX also suggested that there was no federal ET AL. V. CHICAGO violation of civil rights law because HOUSING AUTHORITY it was Chicago aldermen who were standing in the way of integration. She Through the 1950s and 1960s, the CHA wrote that “[we] are also advised that built more than 20,000 units of family sites other than public housing, nearly all situated in in the south black communities. This segregation was or west side, “We are also advised largely due to the power wielded by the if proposed that sites other than City Council. Aldermen with primarily for regular white constituents dismissed proposals family housing, in the south or west for public housing in their wards, while invariably side, if proposed for black City Council leadership would encounter push through proposals for public sufficient regular family housing, housing in their wards, recognizing objection in their constituents’ need for affordable the Council to invariably encounter housing.38 preclude Council sufficient objection in approval.”40 After the passage of the Civil Rights the Council to preclude Act in 1964, a collective of 53 black These policies Council approval.” neighborhood organizations, called the and practices led West Side Federation, wrote a letter in to the nation’s –Letter from the Public August 1965 to the U.S. Department first major pub- of Housing and Urban Development lic housing de- Housing Administration (HUD). The West Side Federation asked segregation law- to the West Side HUD to disapprove of the CHA’s newest suit – Gautreaux proposal for nine more developments, et al. v. Chicago Federation (1965) citing the CHA’s “pervasive pattern” Housing Author- of segregation.39 In response, Marie ity. Judge Richard Austin, who issued McGuire, Commissioner of the Public the first judgment order in Gautreaux in Housing Administration, said that the 1969, marveled that more than 99% of CHA’s site selection process was in line CHA family units could be deeply

15 segregated, with black tenants in black neighborhoods, “without the persistent A companion lawsuit was 43 application of a deliberate policy.” filed at the same time, Gautreaux et al. v. Romney As part of the judgment order, the CHA was both required to provide options, (1966), which alleged that like scattered site housing, for public by providing funds to the housing residents to relocate out of CHA, HUD was also respon- segregated, high-poverty neighborhoods, sible for Chicago’s segregat- and severely limit the construction of ed public housing. Since the new public housing in majority-black neighborhoods.44 Following further findings in the case against litigation, the CHA was ordered by the HUD were dependent on the court to ignore the Illinois statute that results of the case against required aldermanic approval of sited CHA, judgment in this case 45 public housing. The City Council, was stayed until that time. However, after the CHA was found responsible, Judge Gautreaux: In 1966, Austin dismissed the claims Gautreaux et al. v. Chicago against HUD. The plaintiffs Housing Authority was the appealed successfully to nation’s first major public have HUD held responsible housing desegregation alongside CHA.42 lawsuit. Dorothy Gautreaux was an Altgeld Gardens resident, and lead plaintiff stripped of the ability to informally in the case that ultimately pre-veto individual sites, chose to found the Chicago Housing instead exercise their statutory veto Authority to have engaged power46 by refusing to hold mandatory 47 in racially discriminatory approval hearings for sites. The CHA, housing practices by believing that any public housing they sought to build would be shot down concentrating public by a recalcitrant City Council, did not housing in predominantly submit any proposals or build any public black neighborhoods. Since housing between 1969 and 1974.48 this time, the Chicago Judge Austin took the formal veto power Housing Authority has away from Chicago aldermen in 1974, theoretically placing the power to site been prohibited from housing in the hands of CHA, instead of concentrating public the City Council.49 housing. These restrictions catalyzed mobility programs Even so, in 1987, after only a few and continue to govern thousand units were built over the nine years following the judge’s order to where public housing can be ignore City Council’s statutory veto, the built in Chicago today.41 court appointed a receiver to oversee scattered site construction in Chicago.

16 The sites that were constructed, even are virtually as segregated as their public under receivership, were located housing counterparts. The discrimination primarily in black or Latinx wards, and against voucher holders, rooted in were nowhere near enough to house anti-black and stereotypes about everyone in need of affordable housing.50 public housing residents, predicates opposition to all affordable housing HOUSING CHOICE and impacts low- and moderate-income VOUCHERS households of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, most notably black and The creation of the tenant-based Section Latinx households. 8 program in 1974, which ultimately became the Housing Choice “Section 8” Voucher program, created the first “Affordable Housing opportunity to potentially eliminate local government veto powers over the is a dirty word in siting of public housing.51 The hope that the voucher program would move many communities tenants to integrated communities has not been realized. In spite of in Chicago, it’s too laws banning voucher discrimination, much tied to CHA and voucher holders, especially black voucher holders, experience rampant section 8.” discrimination in the housing market. This discrimination is especially – Local Housing persistent in white communities in Chicago.52 As a result, voucher holders Developer (2018)

17 No Place Here: Current Patterns of Subsidized Housing Development

Predominately white communities, fear- community development funds, a ing neighborhood racial change, often significant portion of which are to engage in aggressive NIMBY tactics to address the affordable housing needs of block family affordable housing deals. low- to moderate-income households. These tactics include publicly fram- For fiscal year 2017, Chicago received ing objections as concerns over school $101,423,429 in federal Community overcrowding, lowering property values, and community safety. In the face of this “We understand that for far too pressure, aldermen – whether they per- sonally agree with the community’s view long, aldermen on the North and or not - capitulate to these demands and prevent affordable housing projects from Northwest sides have done far too moving forward. little to open our communities to Yet local governments that advance the low-income and minority families… racial animus of private citizens in their decision-making do so at their peril. Chicago’s history of racism has In examining whether the actions of a left a legacy of exclusion we must governmental body were motivated by racial animus, statements made by pri- respond to today.” vate citizens and decision makers during the sequence of events leading up to the —Alderman Pawar, Alderman denial of housing are highly relevant.53 References to community changes as Mell, Alderman Taliaferro, a result of the inclusion of affordable housing, such as fear that a community Alderman Osterman, Alderman will become “a ghetto” or the residential Arena, Alderman Moreno, and character or shared values of the com- munity will change, or that there will Alderman Ramirez-Rosa be an increase in blight or crime and/ in a letter to City Council or a decrease in property values have all been found to be camouflaged racial expressions.54 A local government does Development Block Grant (CDBG), not avoid liability by claiming that it was Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), Home simply acquiescing to a desire of their Investment Partnership Act (HOME), constituents.55 Indeed, a decision made and Housing Opportunities for Persons in the context of strong, discriminatory with AIDS (HOPWA) program funds. opposition becomes tainted with discrim- As a condition of receipt of these funds, inatory intent even if the decision-mak- Chicago certifies annually to compliance ers personally have no strong views on with federal civil rights laws, including the matter.56 the duty to affirmatively further fair housing. This obligation requires the The City of Chicago is a longtime City of Chicago to take meaningful recipient of federal housing and actions, beyond simply combating

18 discrimination, to address disparities in participating jurisdiction is prohibited housing needs and access to opportunity, from placing a project in an area of and to create “balanced and integrated minority or poverty concentration unless living patterns.”58 The AFFH certification “sufficient and comparable opportunities is Chicago’s promise that it will analyze exist” outside of concentrated areas or segregation and disparities in access to one of several conditions of overriding opportunity, take appropriate actions to address the factors that contribute to segregation, and maintain records reflecting the analysis and action steps taken.59

For new construction projects using HOME funds, additional analysis of each project according to the Site and Neighborhood Standards is required to ensure that each project will not further segregation.60 Under this analysis, the

Alderman Walter Burnett, who is noted by many developers to be one of the few Affirmatively Further Northside aldermen open to affordable housing developments. (Logan Jaffe/WBEZ) Fair Housing (AFFH): The key Fair Housing Act need are met. The conditions for placing provision,57 which obligates housing in areas of minority and poverty grantees of federal housing concentration may not be repeatedly dollars to “affirmatively fur- used “if the use of this standard in recent years has had the effect of circumventing ther fair housing,” commonly the obligation to provide housing referred to as the “AFFH choice.”61 The analysis requires the obligation.” AFFH requires participating jurisdiction to identify the grantees, in addition to racial and ethnic makeup of the area, addressing discrimination, justify the placement of the project, and to consider the marginal effect of the to take proactive measures project’s placement on the opportunities to identify patterns of seg- offered by the participating jurisdiction’s regation, assess underlying housing inventory. contributors to segregation, and take action to rectify the Aldermanic prerogative is one of the key vehicles for the infiltration of public and private policies, racial animus into Chicago’s decision- programs, or actions that making over new rental housing, perpetuate segregation. putting Chicago at odds with its civil Grantees are expected to rights obligations. Through interviews utilize U.S. Department of with affordable housing developers, advocates, and city officials, it is evident Housing and Urban Devel- that “unwritten rules” of aldermanic opment grant programs to prerogative dictate where rental housing further such obligations. is built in Chicago. As a result, most affordable housing developers, at least

19 those savvy about Chicago politics, will the proposal, Mayor Emanuel replied: not bother to propose developments “….we always scrutinize any develop- in wards where aldermen or powerful ment that requires or more accurately local stakeholders are known to oppose seeks public assistance tax dollars. I am affordable housing. Because aldermen going to let my planning staffers know have certain tools at their disposal of your views and you can keep them to block developments completely or informed. I know these are tough times substantially influence the number and and issues. Really believe that leaning type of affordable units, developers focus in on the community-driven process we their efforts on a few wards friendly to discussed can move forward from man- affordable housing.62 aging an issue to practically tackling the challenge. Here to help. Hang in there.”63 However, this power is not equalized. As evident in the case studies that fol- The aggregate effect is the reduction low, despite overwhelming deference of land area available for multifamily to aldermanic prerogative, the Mayor’s development— just 20% of the city’s office and the Department of Planning land (including the downtown central and Development, in instances in which business district) is currently zoned aldermanic prerogative is deployed to for multi-family housing—and the advance affordable housing, often ig- concentration of family affordable nore, and at times actively work against, housing outside of predominantly white that prerogative. For example, the Chica- and low-poverty areas.64 Since 1970, go Sun Times recently obtained private the developable density of over 5,000 emails to and from Mayor Rahm Emanu- acres has been reduced by downzoning el though a Freedom of Information Act or landmarking. In affluent lakefront request and found that the Mayor corre- communities, downzonings from R-7 sponded with Northwest Side residents to R-5 or RT-4/RM-4.5 were common, regarding a proposal to build affordable reducing the estimated maximum housing in the Jefferson Park community. units allowed on a typical double lot This development proposal (highlighted from 43 to 15 or 6 units respectively in a case study to follow) was supported (ignoring parking requirements and th by the local 45 ward alderman John other limitations). This places undue Arena, yet faced substantial opposition geographic limitations on housing for from community groups. In response low-income, and predominantly black to complaints from area residents about and Latinx households.

Mayor Emanuel discussing the public input process for the Jefferson Park affordable housing development proposal. (Chicago Tribune) 20 THE TOOLS OF multifamily housing is constructed here. ALDERMANIC PREROGATIVE: Conversely, 25% of the city’s multifamily zoned land is located in predominantly Unfettered Zoning Power white wards while just 2% of new afford- Evading the Affordable able multifamily housing is constructed Requirements Ordinance in these areas. Access to City Funds Access to City Funds: Control of City-Owned Lots Over the last 25 years, the city approved Use of Parliamentary and loans for 3,394 subsidized units of Extra-Parliamentary Power multifamily housing in new construction projects, 90% (3,052 units) were sited THE EFFECTS OF outside of predominantly white, low ALDERMANIC PREROGATIVE: poverty areas. Over half (59%) of all units were constructed in just 5 wards, Zoning: while the aldermen of more than half The 14 current wards with majority (27 or 54% of total) of Chicago’s wards white populations have aggressively did not accept even a single multifamily used downzonings, comprising 55% of unit. all downzonings since 1970. Conversely, over the same time period, The average majority white ward has re- about 6,900 units of new construction duced the potential for housing develop- senior affordable housing were ap- ment by downzoning or landmarking .46 proved, more than double the multifam- square feet of space for every remaining ily new construction count. And only 11 foot of multifamily zoned land in their wards excluded new construction senior wards today. Comparatively, wards with- affordable housing projects, an opt out out a majority white population have rate less than half that of the new con- downzoned or landmarked .09 square struction multifamily housing. feet of space for every remaining foot of multifamily zoned land present in their TIF is actively used by 48 of 50 wards. wards today. 34 wards have used TIF for housing targeted to some population group, but Since 1970, predominantly white, only 16 wards have used TIF for non- low-poverty areas have had a rapid CHA family housing units. decrease in rental affordability, or units of any size affordable to households at After multiple FOIA requests and in- 60% of the Chicago median household terviews with developers, there is no income. In low-poverty census tracts evidence of an affordable housing where downzoning and landmarking project receiving funds without a letter have been used, affordable units as a of aldermanic support, as the letter of proportion of the rental housing stock support is a central requirement of the has declined by an average of 46%. city’s approval process.

Comparatively, less affluent census tracts Control of City-Owned Lots that have not downzoned or landmarked Despite owning and controlling over significant areas have had, on average, 56 acres of land in majority white, low only a 3% decline in affordability. poverty areas as of the latest inventory 75% of the city’s current multifamily publishing in 2017, no city-owned parcel zoned land is located outside of majority of land in these areas has been used to white wards and 96% of new, affordable build a single affordable dwelling unit.

21 SIDESTEPPING THE LAW: TOOLS OF ALDERMANIC PREROGATIVE

1) UNFETTERED ZONING POWER “Alderman Solis greatly respects

The cornerstone of aldermanic his colleagues and the fact that prerogative is the power to control they have been chosen by the zoning, as this allows or limits density. Limiting or reducing density on a voters to represent them. On single site has the effect of eliminating the financial feasibility of a particular matters of zoning changes, the affordable housing proposal on that site. Limiting or reducing density over a has always larger area artificially limits the supply given great deference to the of dwelling units, inflating both housing and land costs in a neighborhood and Alderman of the ward where a eliminating the financial feasibility of 65 affordable housing on a broader basis. change is requested.” The city has delegated this vast power to aldermen and provides virtually no —Thomas Brown, Spokesperson check on its use. Aldermen, either on for Alderman and Zoning their own or through a ward committee process, ultimately decide the fate of Committee Chair Danny Solis, residential and commercial development by utilizing multiple levers to control 25th Ward (2018) zoning. Although there is a small tide rising to challenge the common wards or those with predominantly narrative, the use of these levers has white pockets and heavily concentrate traditionally served to keep affordable it in predominantly black and/or Latinx housing out of predominantly white areas.67

Aldermanic manipulation of zoning, “Zoning is their specifically downzoning, to limit the density of housing, is used extensively prerogative. They are despite significant consequences elected by local residents to market rate rents. Downzoning undermines future development and in regards to the quality ensures that developers will need to go through individual ward protocol to of life they provide in secure higher zoning before projects may each ward.” be pursued. — Mayor Richard M. Such restrictions on land-use in predominantly white and low-poverty 66 Daley (2008).” areas correspond to declining rental affordability.

22 Chicago’s affordability is declining, especially in the majority white North Side. 23 Zoning Advisory Councils and the disproportionate use of ZACs, the same Development Proposal Process practices are seen within wards outside One of the most powerful tools used to of the North and Northwest side that influence zoning and development is the contain pockets of white neighborhoods. use of constituent committees to decide For example, Alderman O’Shea’s 19th or advise on most residential zoning ward on the Southwest Side has an matters in the ward. These committees active ZAC and a history of attempting to are intended to inform and consult with prevent new, “high density” residential their respective aldermen on community development in those areas within his processes ranging from rezoning to ward that are sanitation. Ten wards, a majority of predominantly “It’s not a perfect tool, which (eight) are on the North or white, such Northwest side, have established formal as Mount but it gives me cover.” Zoning Advisory Councils (ZAC) and Greenwood.69 aldermen within these wards rely on the — Alderman Rey Colon, ZAC as the primary informer on issues ZACs are formed relating to residential and commercial and populated in discussing his development (see Appendix B for a through various zoning advisory listing of ward ZACs). processes. Many aldermen ap- council (2008)68 When looking on a granular level at point community the demographics of wards with ZACs, members who it is apparent that ZACs are often used they perceive as possessing specialized not just to preserve the demographic knowledge of urban planning, using makeup of a single ward, but also as their own discretion to determine who a means of preserving predominantly can and should have access to and influ- white populations within wards as well. ence over decision-making within their This type of demographic preservation ward.70 In some cases, the balance of transcends geographic trends. Despite professional expertise is tipped in favor the North and Northwest Side’s of those who may benefit from commer

The June 1, 2016 meeting of the 41st Ward Zoning Advisory Committee on the 5150 N. Northwest Highway proposal. (Heather Cherone/DNAinfo)

24 cial and/or upscale housing development cial developers. Processes range from (such as commercial real estate develop- alerting all residents within 1,000 feet ers and realtors) over affordable housing of the proposed site at the developer’s development.71 ZACs use this power to expense, respecting architectural heri- not only block zoning change requests tage, holding public hearings in conjunc- but to impact the overall character and tion with the respective neighborhood nature of a development. For example, associations, and/or obtaining certifica- ZACs, as a pre-condition of receiving tion through the Chicago Green Homes their approval, will often require a devel- Program.73 While many development oper to reduce the number of affordable requirements housing units in a project, reduce the are necessary “Every alderman has size of units so they are not available to components of families with children, or even require a construction their own local process the developer to change their proposal to site, such as a include for sale units rather than rental pledge to cease – some have internal units.72 This is especially true in wards construction on the North and Northwest sides of the at 8pm, many committees, some have city. present signifi- external committees, cant and costly Nine additional wards, six of which are obstacles.74 some make the on the North or Northwest sides, in lieu of establishing official ZACs, call on These require- decision on their own. resident advisors or neighborhood asso- ments and ciations within their wards to coalesce accompanying They all have their own into a type of ad hoc ZAC when needed. financial in- unique process that you Regardless of whether ZACs are formal vestment often or more ad hoc, they possess tremen- have the effect have to work with.” dous power in their abilities to influence of deterring aldermen, and in many instances make developers from —Housing Developer final decisions related to affordable attempting to (2018) housing development, effectively shut- develop afford- ting down proposals before the City’s able housing in Department of Planning and Develop- certain wards entirely. In other cases, ment’s own required consideration of a developers may spend significant time proposal. and money on completing one or more of these tasks, only to have their propos- An additional and related hurdle to the al rejected at the whim of an alderman development of affordable housing, most or their ZAC. notably on the North and Northwest sides, is the ward-level development A common element of the development proposal processes, most often included processes is the formal or informal re- as an additional and preliminary supple- quirement to hold a community meeting ment to the Department of Planning and before the developer receives aldermanic Development’s own required proposal support. Community meetings, although process. Often developed by the ZACs intended to inform and elicit transparent and aldermanic offices, these processes feedback, are often hijacked by a vocal set forth a maze of varied ward-by-ward minority fearful of neighborhood change requirements and subsequent cost-bur- and invite early and discriminatory op- dens placed on residential and commer- position to a project. In neighborhoods

25 A resident speaks out against the proposal regarding 5150 N. Northwest Highway on February 9, 2017 at a public meeting in Jefferson Park. (Alex Nitkin/DNAinfo) characterized by predominantly white black and/or Latinx wards with a ZAC, populations, these community meetings whether informal or formal, have on av- have become sounding boards for ex- erage 320% more affordable units in the pressions of NIMBYism and fear-monger- ward than their majority white counter- ing and can instigate significant conflict parts. Therefore, between residents, aldermen, ZACs, and ZACs in predom- developers. In many instances, such fear- inantly black “We would have a based opposition is expressed in virtual and/or Latinx spaces as well, such as EveryBlock or wards function public meeting and if Facebook, where aldermen are known to differently than participate.75 those in white the alderman felt it was wards, with too hot of an issue, Equivalent ward-level discretion over predominantly development does not exist to the same white ward ZACs they would pull their extent in the city’s South and West Sides, blocking afford- with some exceptions related to the in- able housing and support.” tentional preservation of affordability in predominantly areas that are resisting gentrification or black and/or Lat- —Housing Developer the aforementioned concerted effort to inx ward ZACs 76 (2018) preserve predominantly white pockets. facilitating the While 62% of majority white wards have development of a ZAC, 31% of majority black and/or affordable housing. Latinx wards have a ZAC. Predominantly

26 Aldermen predominately use ZACs to prevent housing development in their wards. 27 The Process Of Securing Affordable Housing Financing In Chicago

STEP ONE The developer identifies the site and confers with the local alderman about the potential project. The developer also pursues non-city financing.

STEP TWO The developer prepares the initial application to DPD for multi-family financing. If the developer does not have aldermanic support, it is unlikely the developer will pursue the project due to considerable upfront financial costs. The DPD Multi- family finance application also requires a letter of aldermanic support. Without it, DPD will not accept the project for further review.

STEP THREE A complete application will be assigned to a DPD Development Officer. The developer drafts an executive summary of the project. The application and executive summary are sent to the DPD Internal Loan Committee for review. If the Loan Committee recommends approval, DPD and the City’s law department draft a loan ordinance and submit it to the City Council Committee on Finance.

STEP FOUR The Finance Committee can indefinitely defer the consideration of the loan ordinance, effectively preventing a decision on it. If the Finance Committee recommends a vote on the ordinance it moves to the full City Council for consideration.

STEP FIVE Due to the policy of aldermanic prerogative, 49 members of the City Council will defer to the decision of the local alderman about the project and vote in accordance with their wishes, effectively creating a single voter system on multi-family applications for affordable housing.

STEP SIX If the City Council approves the financing proposal, materials are sent to the City Law Department to prepare for closing. For the first time, the City considers whether or not the project meet the Site and Neighborhood Standards. Even if the project does not meet these standards, approval of the project at this juncture is virtually guaranteed.

28 Case Study: The Oliphant Development

The proposed Oliphant development in Edison Park serves as an example of aldermanic zoning power through the ZAC. Edison Park is a predominately white (89% white, 7% Latinx, and 1% black with a total population of 11,150) , single family home community on the North Side of Chicago represented by Alderman “It is a beautiful building, and within the 41st ward. Home to many but it has no place in

employees of the City of Chicago, Edison Park 77 enjoys quality schools and a touted “small town” Edison Park.” feel.78 In 2016, developer Troy Realty proposed to —Edison Park Resident construct a 44-unit ornate Italian Renaissance- styled residential and commercial development (2016) at 6655 N. Oliphant in Edison Park. Troy Realty sought a zoning change from the city. Per city protocol and practice, the developer was to secure that zoning change from Alderman Napolitano. Alderman Napolitano, in turn, referred the request to his Zoning Advisory Committee and vowed to uphold whatever decision the ZAC made.79

Troy Realty’s Proposal, designed by Funke Architects, for the four-story development at 6655 N. Oliphant in Chicago. (Troy Realty/Funke Architects) 29 Case Study: The Oliphant Development On May 26, 2016, Alderman accused his political opponents Napolitano sent an email of further inciting opposition to to constituents announcing the development by claiming a Zoning Advisory Council the project would create 127 meeting to discuss the Oliphant residential units which would project, which expressly be rented to Housing Choice identified the proposal as “Section 8” voucher holders. creating rental units (the initial proposal was for all of the In response to this opposition, residential units to be rental). the developer agreed to reduce As a condition of compliance the number of units from 44 with the 2007 Affordable to 30 and build condominium Requirements Ordinance triggered by the zoning change, the developer was to set aside four units as affordable and rent them at no more than 60% of the area median rent.80

On June 1, 2016, the Zoning Advisory Committee met to discuss the project at a local park facility. The developer opted-out of attending this meeting as it had become apparent that the presence of groups opposed to this development would dominate Alderman the meeting. As a result of the rather than rental units. Under Anthony Napolitano (Brian Jackson/ backlash, Napolitano urged the the ARO, the developer would Chicago Sun-Times) developer to consider building still be required to sell three condominiums rather than condominium units at 60% of rental housing “in an attempt to the market price. Instead, the win the community’s support.”81 developer agreed to sell one When more than 500 people condominium unit at 60% of showed up to object to the its market price and contribute proposal, the ZAC had to move a $250,000 in-lieu-of fee to the the meeting to the field house’s city’s affordable housing fund. gym. Alderman Napolitano Nevertheless, community

30 Case Study: The Oliphant Development opposition continued to here, so I want people who are grow, with residents claiming living the same way as me.”84 the proposed project would Finally, in January 2017, the burden overcrowded schools, ZAC voted against the mixed- and create traffic and parking use development’s zoning challenges, even though more change request. One of the than 150 parking spaces would stated reasons for opposing be provided and the bulk of the the development was the 30 units would be one and two- concern over “newcomers into bedroom apartments. 82 the tight knit neighborhood.”85 Napolitano accepted ZAC’s In two of the later public decision, effectively killing the ZAC meetings regarding the proposal.86 development, the power of ward residents to move their In defending the process, alderman becomes abundantly Napolitano said, “[p]eople clear. At the October 6, 2016 cherish where they live, and meeting, Napolitano promised they want to safeguard it … ward residents that he would They have every right to do that, not allow the project to be built and I’ll protect their right to do over their objections. “If the that, as long as I’m representing community does not want it, I them.”87 “You have a lot of do not want it,” he said. “I would people here who work for the never do that to you.”83 city, and when they come back home, they want it to be their At the subsequent ZAC sanctuary,” Napolitano said. meeting on November 10, “People are paying a lot to live 2016, the majority of the 65 in this neighborhood exactly as attendees came to voice their it is, and they don’t necessarily opposition to the project. One want to see it filled with multi- resident said that she was unit rental buildings.”88 “paying massive taxes to live

31 Case Study: The GALEWOOD PROJECT

A market rate rental project proposed apartments and for the far West Side neighborhood of affordable housing Galewood suffered a similar fate to the would bring to Oliphant. While Galewood is a diverse Galewood.93 One neighborhood, it has a larger white Galewood resident commented that “[w] population than the predominately black e have so many strange people walking community area surrounding it (Austin). in the area already. You’re talking about Galewood is 50% black, 24% Latinx, more buildings, more strange people and 23% white, compared to the Austin walking around.” Another resident area being 82% black, 16% Latinx, and voiced similar concerns saying that “I 5% white.89 Home to many employees don’t care if you charge $1,800. There of the City of Chicago, including many are certain people you want to live here, fire and police employees, Galewood and certain people that you don’t.”94 enjoys quality schools and a community Responding to online rumors about where “everyone knows each other.”90 who would live at the development, In September 2017, Noah Properties Taliaferro assured residents that proposed to construct an 80-unit, three- the project would not be eligible for building luxury apartment complex on Housing Choice Vouchers. Although 6600-6700 W. North Avenue that would Taliaferro voiced support for the project be composed of two-bedroom units, and argued that additional housing most of which would be leased for on North Avenue would improve foot $1,800 a month — 10% of which would traffic to North Avenue businesses, he be affordable under the Affordable made clear the community’s view of the Requirements Ordinance.91 project mattered greatly. “Community input,” Taliaferro said. “That’s going to Before approving the proposal, weigh whether we pursue it.”95 Alderman (29th Ward) sent the plan to a vote before On October 25, 2017, Taliaferro Taliaferro’s ZAC, the 29th Ward North announced he would not support the Avenue Business Development development. “After multiple community Committee. Like most other ZACs, the meetings, the committee vote, and North Avenue Business Development listening to the residents of Galewood, Committee members are appointed by I will not support the proposed project,” Taliaferro.92 Alderman Taliaferro also wrote Taliaferro in a letter posted to held no less than four public meetings the 29th Ward Facebook page.96 This on the proposed development. In the announcement effectively killed the meetings, residents expressed concern project. about the type of residents that rental

32 Case Study: The CENTRAL PROJECT Portage Park is one of four opposition to the development neighborhoods located within on EveryBlock, citing concerns the 36th ward on the far related to increased crime, Northwest Side of the city. declining property values, While the 36th ward is 67% density, increased traffic, and Latinx, 26% white, 4% black, parking shortages.100 Other and 3% Asian,97 comments made derogatory Portage Park is the only plurality white neighborhood within the ward with 49% white, 43% Latinx, and 1% black, and a total population of 64,523. Considered part of the bungalow belt, the ward is represented by Alderman .

In January 2016, Full Circles Communities proposed the development of a $17 million, 55-unit affordable housing complex, called the Central, A Jan 26, 2016 community meeting on a 55-unit affordable housing for veterans in Portage Park.98 proposal at 3655 N. Central Avenue ended with Alderman Gilbert Villegas committing not to move forward with the project. The lot for the proposed (Brian Nadig/ Nadig Newspapers) development had sat vacant for more than 10 years. and discriminatory statements about the development’s As part of development potential residents. “I have over process requirements for 15 years of law enforcement the ward, Alderman Villegas experience and working in low- requested that the Full Circle income areas and high-income developers hold a community areas. I Have worked in high meeting prior to Full Circle income areas in Lincoln park receiving city permits or which have low income housing applying for state low-income apartments, marshalfield housing tax credits.99 Prior gardens and Cabrini green, but to the meeting, Portage Park are responsible for 90 percent of community members voiced robberies, shootings and drug

33 Case Study: The CENTRAL PROJECT transactions which occur daily. This idea human element” of the project due to is a disaster and we are all in big trouble the housing resources it would bring to if it comes. We all need to unite and families looking for assistance.106 come together and oppose this plan. As taxpayers, homeowners and residents The meeting ended with Alderman who care about our neighborhoods we Villegas pulling the plug on the project: need to stand up to this new alderman “I’ve heard nothing but ‘you don’t want and let him know it is Not in our interest this,’” Villegas told the crowd. “I don’t to put our families in danger.”(sic)101 think we’re going to move forward with this.”107 Just a few hours after Another commenter asked “[a]re the community meeting, Villegas Muslim refugees in the plan to settle in officially announced that he would not the building? Mosque is at Narragansett be supporting the proposal. Villegas and Belmont. Our political leaders, indicated that the overwhelming Obama, Durbin, Quigley and the Mayor negative response from community are supporting the efforts to bring them members drove his decision: “The over by plane loads.”102 response from the community tonight was overwhelming. I have decided not More than 500 residents showed up to support the proposed development to the January 26, 2016 community at 3655 W. Central Ave. I hope to see meeting.103 A second meeting had to new options in the near future.”108 The be scheduled to accommodate the following year, Full Circle Communities residents who were denied access due proposed the same project at 5150 to overcrowding concerns.104 Many Northwest Highway in Jefferson Park. in attendance expressed concerns that the project would attract crime In June 2017, Alderman Villegas to the area. “They’ll come in and treat announced that Anthem Memory Care 105 this place like crap,” one woman said. was planning on developing a three- Other residents wanted to limit the story, 66-bed assisted living facility prospective tenants to seniors and in Portage Park. At a community veterans, noting that children may meeting, where the proposal was engage in criminal activity. Alderman met with praise, developer Bernard th , whose 38 ward Edelman promised that he would th borders the 36 ward, also attended not build any affordable housing, the meeting. Sposato said that acknowledging that the community some of the crime concerns were had made its opposition clear during overstated. “I’m sick and tired of people the Full Circle development process: saying it’s a crime-ridden neighborhood,” “I wouldn’t insult the neighborhood by Sposato said. “You do not live in an even thinking like that.”109 unsafe community.” Full Circle staff urged the audience to think about “the

34 Downzoning & Landmarking redevelop existing properties by reducing By reducing density through or eliminating “zoning headroom” or downzoning, aldermen increase the the difference between the amount power they have to block affordable of development (floor area/number housing development by preemptively of dwelling units) that exists on a reducing the likelihood of higher density particular property and what is allowed proposals and ensuring proposals that do by the zoning district in which it is come through will trigger ward specific located. By reducing zoning headroom, approval processes, such as Zoning properties that may have been targets Advisory Council approval. for redevelopment, with a potential for an affordable By reducing allowable density, housing housing supply is constricted, raising not component, “If I know what is best only housing cost – particularly rents are in effect for my community, – but land value as well, much to eliminated. the detriment of affordable housing who are they to tell me development. Downzoning also Aldermen have 110 eliminates the potential incentive to used their land- otherwise?” use powers to downzone large —Quoted from Downzoning: swathes of land, Alderman Beale in rezoning to a more often under restrictive classification with pressure from response to questions respect to either floor area local community about aldermanic ratio (F.A.R.) or minimum group who opposed lot area per dwelling unit developments downzoning (2018) (M.L.A.) which limits the (affordable or amount of floor area and otherwise). In areas where development number of dwelling units pressure exists, areas suitable for allowed on a site. multifamily development are frequently downzoned to reduce the allowable floor area and number of dwelling units Landmarking: permitted in an attempt to prevent or as defined by the Chicago limit new construction. Again, this power Landmarks Ordinance is not equalized. Downzoning to advance is to preserve and future affordable housing opportunities protect historically and is not always offered the same support architecturally significant from the city as downzoning with the intention to block it. buildings and districts. Landmarking limits Additional restrictions on the densities by ensuring development potential in an area can that designated property be enacted through the application of landmark districts. Although originated cannot be demolished with the motivation to preserve historic or significantly altered structures, the Chicago Landmarks without permission of the Ordinance has been used to promote Landmarks Commission. racial and economic segregation. Historically, aldermen have expressed

35 concern that landmarking has not had project, the 2017, 44 unit Independence the intended results and has become Library Project in the 45th ward. 1% of another form of downzoning, used by the total new, affordable multifamily neighborhood associations to control units have been constructed in these development.111 During the Landmarks wards, despite containing 25% of the Commission’s hearing in October 1976, present multifamily zoned land of the Alderman of 5th ward city. commented, “there is a danger of indiscriminate use of the Landmarks Lincoln Park alone accounts for 18% Ordinance as a substitute for rezoning. of the residential downzonings in We have been considering hodge podge the city since 1970, and has seen a proposals.”112 corresponding 25% loss of its population since 1960. Rent in the community Once a landmark designation has area is remarkably high and increasing been made, it is virtually impossible to as the remaining duplex housing develop affordable units. Any alteration stock is redeveloped into luxury single or modification of designated landmarks family homes, which remain as the or properties in landmark districts must only viable development type in the be approved by the city’s Commission community area, as this type of housing on Chicago Landmarks through a does not require zoning approval from process that can require permit fees, the alderman. The few multifamily public hearings, and appeals to the City developments that have occurred Council.113 Designated landmarks are have face protracted legal battles from also subject to additional building code community opponents, regardless of restrictions and limitations not imposed affordable housing components. on non-landmark buildings or districts. Lincoln Park and Lake View have Lastly, landmarking can substantially experienced a concurrent decline in the limit the availability of affordable availability of rental housing and the housing by inhibiting the modification or affordability of the remaining rental development of residential properties.114 units. Since 1970, the community areas have lost 25% of their rental housing As politically controlled and localized stock and the percentage of affordable land-use tools, downzoning and units of any size has decline from nearly landmarking have been applied more 50% to an estimated 12%.115 forcefully in predominantly white, low-poverty areas and have shaped Comparatively, since 1970 wards these wards over time, altering future with a majority black and/or Latinx development potential. Since 1970, population have downzoned 0.09 the average majority white ward has square feet of space for every remaining downzoned or landmarked 0.46 square foot of multifamily zoning present in feet of space for every remaining foot their wards today. These aldermen do of multifamily zoning in their wards exercise their zoning powers, but at a today, significantly reducing the supply rate nearly five times slower than their of housing and erecting barriers to counterparts in majority white wards. housing development. Excluding the These 35 wards account for just under 46th ward previously represented by 30% of total downzoning’s in the city. affordable housing supporter, Alderman 96% of new, affordable multifamily , the 13 other majority units are constructed in these wards, white wards account for 48% of the disproportionately high compared to the total downzoning’s in the city and only 75% of the multifamily zoned land area a single new construction multifamily they comprise.

36 Downzoning and landmarking are overwhelming used in the affluent, north lakefront wards. 37 Case Study 8601 W. Bryn Mawr

After the fallout from the Higgins Road project, Alderman Napolitano used downzoning to limit future rental housing in his ward, specifically in the O’Hare community area that is 73% white, 9% Latinx, and 2% black with a total population of 12,902. In a letter to his constituents, Napolitano said that in response to “high-density” developments that “do not have the best interests of our neighborhood in mind” he had downzoned another planned development. “Working with the [DPD], I discovered another Planned Development in this area that needed to be addressed.” Napolitano had found that PD#347, located at 8601 W. Bryn Mawr Avenue, originally designated a “Commercial Only” Planned Development, had been amended in 2013 to allow for the development of 397 residential units. Napolitano assured his constituents that he had introduced an ordinance to “My priority as your revert this PD back to its original commercial only status: Alderman is to always advocate for your interests above all else.” –Alderman Napolitano, 41st Ward (2018)

38 Case Study: Milwaukee Avenue

Anthony Joel Quezada, staffer of Alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, addressing a community meeting regarding the rezoning of Milwaukee Avenue on October 30, 2017. (Mina Bloom/DNAinfo)

While the City Council deferred to Working in concert with community Alderman Napolitano’s aldermanic groups and affordable housing prerogative to downzone 8601 N. Bryn advocates, Alderman Ramirez- Mawr in order to block affordable Rosa has often utilized downzoning housing, Alderman Carlos Ramirez- to curb gentrification. Like most Rosa, when attempting to downzone aldermen on the Northside of Chicago, to promote affordable housing was Alderman Ramirez-Rosa engages granted no such deference. Alderman in a community-driven process for Rosa represents Chicago’s 35th Ward, zoning. Ramirez-Rosa requires that all which is located in the Northwest Side meetings on zoning be public and that of Chicago and in a rapidly gentrifying anyone who attends the meeting have community, including one of the city’s the opportunity to vote, with votes fastest gentrifying neighborhoods, weighted depending on how close the Logan Square. The ward is 69% Latinx, voter lives to the proposed project. 20% white, 5% black, and 5% Asian, while Logan Square is 45% white, In August 2017, in an effort to stem 45% Latinx, and 5% black, with a total the tide of up-zoning and high-density population of 74,606.116 development, a coalition of community

39 CASE STUDY: MILWAUKEE AVENUE organizations called on Alderman interrupted Ramirez-Rosa to note Ramirez-Rosa to rezone Milwaukee that he was “born and raised in Avenue from Central Park to Kimball this community. I’ve seen 10,000 so that high-density buildings would working class families – Latinos, have to undergo public scrutiny.117 too – move out of this community.”120 The downzoning would trigger the The committee voted to move the ARO and ensure a process for future downzoning forward, with 39 voting in zoning proposals that would support support and 8 opposed.121 affordable housing. In October 2017, Alderman Ramirez-Rosa introduced But the downzoning proposal never the rezoning proposals to the City moved forward. Zoning Chairman Council.118 On October 30,, 2017, Solis indefinitely deferred the matter in Alderman Ramirez-Rosa held a the Zoning Committee, citing concerns community meeting for feedback on from the city’s Law Department. In the downzoning proposals.119 The spite of multiple requests by Alderman meeting was emotionally charged, Ramirez-Rosa for an explanation, Solis and attendees debated the impacts has not responded. of gentrification. One attendee

2) EVADING AFFORDABLE encouraged to pay the in-lieu fees rather REQUIREMENTS than construct units on site. Additionally ORDINANCE aldermen control all zoning activity within their ward boundaries and have Chicago’s Affordable Requirements the power to alter the allowable density Ordinance (ARO) mandates an of development or even permitted uses affordable housing component for all on any particular parcel of land within projects that require rezoning, use of those boundaries. The city’s ARO is city-owned lots, or that receive city triggered by rezonings that, for the most financial assistance. Along with having part, increase density. Aldermen may de facto veto power over ARO triggers impede affordable development within through the exercise of aldermanic their wards by simply refusing to support prerogative, aldermen also have zoning changes that would trigger discretion over the manner in which the the ARO, or by preemptively reducing requirements of the ARO are satisfied. density or rezoning to a district that does 122 Under the current ARO, developers may not allow for residential use. construct units on-site, off-site, or pay an in-lieu fee (into a city fund earmarked The ARO has been amended several for subsidizing rent or funding times because it is not achieving the affordable housing developments) intended results of creating affordable in order to comply. In wards where housing opportunities in low-poverty aldermen or their constituents are areas. This is largely due to aldermanic averse to the construction of affordable powers to evade ARO requirements. In housing, invariably, developers are March 2017, the Office of Inspector

40 General of Chicago (OIG) reported an the ARO in predominantly white wards audit of the Department of Planning did not include on-site affordable units. and Development’s administration of Wards without a predominantly white the Affordable Housing Requirements presence opted-out of on-site affordabil- Ordinance. One of the main goals of the ity in 67% of audit was to determine the geographic developments. outcomes of ARO units both on-site and This high opt- “Individual aldermen, for those financed through city funds. The out rate across OIG ultimately found that the city was the board is example, exert influence doing little to further geographically indicative of equitable affordable housing and the financial on the question of explicitly identified aldermanic disincentive to whether to bring ARO prerogative as an impediment: “OIG build on-site. understands that there are multiple As most wards and Density Bonus fee- parties involved with the city’s decision covered by the on where and how to invest ARO and 2015 non-buy- funded development Density Bonus fees, including aldermen, out provisions into their wards or, community members, and the developers are majority themselves. Individual aldermen, for white, the alternatively, to keep example, exert influence on the question landscape post of whether to bring ARO and Density 2015 looks such developments out.” Bonus fee-funded development into significantly —OIG Audit Findings their wards or, alternatively, to keep different, with such developments out.”123 The OIG 17% of ARO (2017) recommended that if the Department triggering of Planning and Development had an developments empirically-based strategy for equally opting out of affordable unit provisions distributing affordable housing across in predominantly white wards and 24% the city, then it might be able to combat in wards without a predominantly white aldermanic sway by more effectively population. However, this amounts to incentivizing aldermen to approve just 39 units in the 17 projects in ma- affordable housing options. jority white wards, and 94 units in the 17 projects in majority non-white wards Prior to the 2015 ordinance amend- under the post 2015 ARO. ments, 82% of developments triggering

41 42 were to increase residents’ access to ARO EXPLAINED a geographic diversity of affordable housing options. City officials and Seeking to address a shortfall of housing stakeholders found that there nearly 49,000 affordable housing was little opportunity to incentivize rental options in Chicago, in 2003, City developers to include affordable Council passed the first iteration of the housing options,125 given the narrow Affordable Requirements Ordinance circumstances under which a (ARO).124 An individual or family developer was required to include ARO qualifies for affordable housing if their options. Recognizing the potential household income falls below 60% of areas in need of improvement, City the area median household income. Council amended the ARO. The 2007 The 2003 ARO was relatively lax in ARO expanded the conditions that its affordable housing requirements would trigger ARO requirements: because it only specified requirements in two narrow circumstances when a 1) whenever the developer received building was proposed with 10 or more a zoning change that permitted residential units: a higher floor area ratio, changed the plot from a non-residential 1) whenever the city sold land to to a residential use, or permitted a private developer below market residential uses on ground floor; value; 2) whenever land was purchased 2) whenever a developer received from the city even if it was at market city funding, particularly TIF money. value; or In the first instance, to meet the 3) whenever the building affordable requirements, the developer was proposed on a Planned would either have to set aside 10% Development (PD) in a downtown of the building’s units for affordable zoning district. housing or pay an in-lieu-of fee of $100,000 per unit, paid into a city The idea was to capture zoning fund earmarked for subsidizing changes that many developers in low- rent or funding affordable housing poverty areas seek, in the hope that developments. In the second instance, this would incentivize the construction where the developer received city of affordable housing in the downtown funding, 20% of the building’s units and Northside areas. The 2007 ARO would have to be set aside for also rounded-up when counting affordable housing or pay the in-lieu of the number of units for affordable fee of $100,000 per unit. housing, so a 20 unit building would require 2 units for affordable housing, The 2003 ARO had accomplished whereas a building with 21-29 units very little in the way of reaching the would have to set aside 3 units for ordinance’s original goals, which affordable housing. However, the

43 ARO EXPLAINED in-lieu of fee remained set at building affordable housing $100,000. near public transit, and included an option for downtown area Once again city officials developers to build their and affordable housing required affordable housing stakeholders found the 2007 units off-site. The 2015 ARO ARO wanting. In 2015, city aimed at not only incentivizing council passed a new ARO.126 the inclusion of affordable The 2015 ARO, similar to the housing throughout all of the 2007 amendments, expanded City of Chicago, but placed the circumstances in which a greater emphasis on the developer would be required inclusion of affordable housing to include affordable housing in the downtown area, in high- units, but it also raised the in- income areas, and near public lieu of fee for higher-income transit hubs. areas, included incentives for

3) ACCESS TO CITY FUNDS not be reviewed by the administration’s internal loan committee—a necessary Aldermanic Support Requirements step in the approval process—unless and Typically, affordable housing projects until there is documented aldermanic utilize a mosaic of funding sources ap- support.127 Once the internal loan proved by Chicago City Council. By and committee approves the project, an large Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Intergovernmental Affairs Memo packet (LIHTC) available from both the State of is prepared for Illinois and the City of Chicago are the City Council “You absolutely need primary source of financing with other review. Internal city programs such as the Multifamily procedures aldermanic approval Loan Program (MFLP) providing gap dictate that this financing. Allocation and distribution of packet must before going to DPD these funds require “evidence of com- include a signed munity support” and in the case of the aldermanic with a proposal. This is MFLP, a letter of aldermanic support. support letter— part of unwritten rules At a very basic level, aldermen control the first item the funding mechanisms for affordable listed in the of doing development” housing and have the power to refuse mandatory funding for developments they do not checklist.128 –Housing approve of. This holds true for all forms Chicago’s Developer (2018) of financial support including TIF and Multifamily city-owned lots. Financing Program Guide also directs project The City of Chicago’s internal managers, when conducting feasibility Department of Housing Procedures reviews, to assess the level of aldermanic (2004), note that development projects and community support. Finally, in need of city funds over $150,000 will Chicago’s Qualified Allocation Plan

44 Chicago’s Multifamily Loan Program

Chicago channels significant projects deferred to later dates. portions of the HUD funds The Department of Planning it receives for affordable and Development performs housing development into the application reviews, focusing Multifamily Loan program. on responsible use of funds, The MFLP centralizes the and will then move the project application for all affordable to City Council for a vote—a housing funds. The financing process triggered by the sources include low-income presence of $150,000 or more housing tax credits, federal, of federal dollars.129 state, and local funds (including TIF). These funds are awarded As the MFLP aggregates as first and second mortgage multiple funds, it also loans, city land, and city bonds. aggregates, and in practice Developers are responsible for abdicates, fair housing identifying projects, performing requirements. DPD primarily groundwork, and approaching handles this by including the department with an language in the application application for funding. that places the burden of ensuring adherence to federal A subset of the projects are requirements on the developer. selected each year, with some

aligns with these internal procedures support requirements and burdensome by requiring development applications application processes and costs. For to include “evidence of community example, input and support for the project.”130 in addition Not only do these requirements hinder to pre- “[because of aldermanic development but they are inconsistent application prerogative] you end up with fair housing requirements and materials, recent guidance by the Internal Revenue the first in some of the usual Service. IRS Revenue Ruling 2016-29 stage of the clarified that the Internal Revenue Code two-stage wards, you tend to “neither requires nor encourages housing application get back to the usual credit agencies to honor local vetoes.”131 process has 30 items, suspects.” MFLP projects are continually sited including outside of predominantly white and “a Plan for —Housing Developer low-poverty areas. This concentration Community is unlikely to change due to aldermanic Input, and (2018)

45 a letter of support from the alderman.”132 Between the start of 1992 and the end of Each portion of the application has a 2017, the city approved loans for nearly significant cost, which must be borne 3,394 subsidized units of multifamily by the developer. High cost uncertainty housing in new construction projects: over the approval of the development and high likelihood of rejection in • 3,052 (90%) of these units were lo- predominantly white and low-poverty cated outside of predominantly white areas, drive developers to restrict their and low-poverty areas. operations to safer bets—areas where • Just 5 wards, or 10% of total wards, affordable housing has previously been accepted over half (59%) of all units, approved. while the aldermen of more than half (27 or 54% of total) of Chicago’s It is this relationship, between devel- wards did not accept even a single opers and housing-friendly aldermen, multifamily unit. which leads to the accumulation of affordable housing in a few select areas • For the wards that opted-out of of the city. By way of unofficial relation- affordable housing, 62% of their con- ships and required descriptions of past stituent block groups were majority work within the city in the MFLP appli- white and low-poverty. cation, a feedback loop emerges where developers who receive federal funds While evidence was clearly available to are deemed more capable of performing demonstrate that all of Chicago’s fam- additional development and those who ily rental housing was being located in do not are less likely to receive funding predominantly black and/or Latinx and in the future. Many developers express high poverty areas, aldermen continued frustration with the aldermanic support to wield aldermanic prerogative to erect requirement because it deters developers barriers to affordable housing projects in from expending resources in areas where white areas. they know it will be futile to seek local Inequities within affordable housing approval based on their own past expe- development become even more rience, or the experience of others in the apparent when breaking down industry. After multiple FOIA requests development by and interviews with developers, there is housing type. no evidence of a project receiving funds Concentration without a letter of aldermanic support. “Aldermen on the of housing The letter of support is, in actuality, varies by target Northside see senior the most important and very first thing population, attended to by a developer. Despite using housing as a no brainer, with senior the same application and process for se- developments curing subsidies, senior housing does not a political win that won’t having a show the same absolute concentration by relatively offend anyone.” wards. For example, despite seniors (or more equitable those over age 65) making up only 10% placement. —Housing Advocate of Chicago’s population, senior housing It seems that made up 39% of all affordable new con- (2018) aldermen struction and preservation from 2009- relax their 2013. Senior housing is also the only use of zoning tools to restrict housing type of affordable housing constructed in development considerably for senior predominantly white areas.133 housing; the same majority white

46 47 wards which account for 2% of new allowed the development of affordable construction multifamily housing housing. account for 15% of all senior housing. From 1992-2017, 64% of the almost Tax increment financing in Chicago 6,900 units of senior housing was placed is controlled by City Council. The outside of predominantly white wards. Community Development Commission The top 5 wards accounted for 27% of acts as a recommending body, working the total units and only 3 wards opt- through the Department of Planning out of senior development completely. and Development, and requiring council Senior and multifamily developments approval prior to any action.134 Such use the same application, have access actions can include the designation to the same resources, and the same of redevelopment areas, creation of review process as the multifamily units. redevelopment plans (including the Differences in the outcomes of the tar- enumeration of objectives for the area), geted buildings are not attributable to differences in the program as written, but to disparities in the execution of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) program. One of the main differences is is a government finance tool intended to that senior housing is simply less con- troversial, and is not associated with the combat blight and enable investment in same negative stereotypes that multifam- distressed areas. Establishing a TIF district ily developments are. Lower community freezes current tax revenues in a defined opposition opens up more of the city and area for up to 23 years and applies any tax reduces dependence on positive rela- revenue growth above the base level (the tax tionships with specific aldermen. Multi- increment) into a special fund for payment family developers rarely move outside of their service areas, and if they do, they on projects within the area. The boundaries often work with other aldermen known and eligible uses of the TIF funds are limited to be amendable to family affordable by the ordinance establishing the individual housing; efforts to develop in other district, which is the purview of the City wards become cost and time prohibitive Council in Chicago. due to aldermanic prerogative.

The relative distribution of senior projects suggests that a more equitable spatial placement of family affordable housing units is indeed possible were it not for community opposition and its influence on aldermanic prerogative. Fear of neighborhood racial change has hindered balanced family affordable housing development in Chicago and undercuts the city’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Changing the process, specifically removing aldermen as gatekeepers for development in their wards, would make it viable for developers to operate outside of the Outside of City Council chambers, affordable housing advocates speak against limited areas which have historically a TIF subsidy for an Uptown luxury apartment on January 11, 2016. (Ellyn Fortino/Progress Illinois)

48 49 acquiring or dispossessing of property, result is that majority white, low poverty and lending or grant making with TIF wards spend less TIF on affordable funds or bonds.135 Due to the council’s family housing than the wards with adherence to aldermanic prerogative, higher poverty levels and higher black the application of TIF Districts and TIF and/or Latinx populations. funding requires the support of the local alderman. 4) CONTROL OF CITY-OWNED LOTS Through state enabling statutes, projects selected for funding must The City of Chicago controls a large be consistent with the goals of the inventory of parcels throughout the 136 local redevelopment plan. Though city and, through various programs, TIF can be used for a wide array of makes them available to developers, projects, including affordable housing, community organizations, and the public requiring consistency with a council at large. This land inventory provides approved redevelopment plan allows opportunities to build affordable aldermen to constrain the scope of housing by reducing a major cost barrier uses and deny housing developers to development, especially in highly TIF funds. In fact, affordable housing desirable areas. In fact, any sale of city- must be explicitly included in the owned land for residential development plan to be considered an “allowable triggers the city’s Affordable 137 use.” Many TIF districts have an Requirements Ordinance mandating 10% industrial focus, creating a reasonable of the units be affordable. rationale for excluding housing from the redevelopment plan, but others exclude Indeed, city-owned land is often used affordable housing from their objectives in affordable development projects as a despite covering commercial areas with part of the “local matching contribution” viable zoning for mixed-use. Other required for the use of federal funds such districts use specificity to shape the type as the HOME program. Projects that of housing allowed. For example, the do utilize city-owned land for housing Western Avenue North Redevelopment developments are universally located in Plan encourages “the development of the South and West Sides of the city. No Senior Housing” and no other types.138 city-owned parcel of land has been used to build a single affordable dwelling With these limitations, aldermen mostly unit in the majority white, low-poverty avoid affordable housing-related TIF wards on the north side of the city. This, requests; however, any use of TIF even though the city owns and controls funds still requires a council vote for over 56 acres of land in these areas as approval. As an additional mechanism of the publishing of the latest inventory for aldermen to deny housing funds, in October, 2017. Disposition of the the vote guarantees that only aldermen properties requires city council action friendly to affordable housing will thus providing the opportunity for the use TIF for those purposes. The result exercise of aldermanic prerogative. is that TIF is actively used by 48 of Not only is land disposition under the 50 wards, but in various proportions Negotiated Sales Program subject to for housing. 34 wards have used TIF a letter of aldermanic support and for affordable housing targeted to Redevelopment Agreement with the city, some population group, but only 16 but certain parcels may be earmarked by wards have used TIF for non-CHA aldermen for “potential city projects,” in family affordable housing units. The effect removing them

50 Case Study: MONTROSE/CLARENDON TIF DISTRICT

In November 2012, Alderman opposed to affordable Cappleman announced the housing.”142 development of a glass 800-unit luxury high rise at In February 2014, Alderman the former site of Maryville ’s Academy in the Montrose/ development committee Clarendon TIF District.139 This announced the approval of would fall within the Uptown the use of $14 million in TIF Community Area that is 54% funds towards the project.143 white, 19% black, and 13% However, JDL was seeking Latinx with a total population of 56,296. This project began under his predecessor, “This is an urgent matter we Alderman Helen Shiller, who need to rush through.” insisted that the developer commit 20% of the units as (Alderman Burke) affordable pursuant to the 20% affordability requirements $32 million in TIF funds to of the TIF and the 10% support the $220 million deal.144 affordability requirements of When they could not secure the ARO.140 After Alderman additional TIF funds, JDL Cappleman took power, the Development then reduced the developer, JDL Development, units to 380.145 According to the stated that they would lower Redevelopment Agreement and the amount of affordable the Community Development housing units to a 10% set- Staff Report for the Montrose/ aside by contributing to the Clarendon TIF District, the city city’s affordable housing fund.141 and the developer settled on 20 The president of JDL, James affordable units (5% of the total Letchinger, defended the units) and a $5.7 million in-lieu decision to substantially reduce fee for the remaining 57 units the number of affordable units required by the ARO. JDL was within the project. “There is to receive $15.8 million in TIF too much low-income housing funds.146 in the neighborhood already,” Letchinger said. “Neighbors Local affordable housing have been overwhelmingly advocates objected to the deal,

51 arguing that the allocation of violating the Open Meetings TIF funds for a luxury housing Act by systemically blocking project went against the the organizers from the May stated goals of TIF. When the and June Council meetings matter came before the City when the city approved the Council, city staff blocked development on the Montrose/ affordable housing advocates Clarendon TIF District.147 from gaining access to council chambers, by marking seating In December 2016, a judge as “reserved” and having city ruled that the Council did staff interns fill seats. indeed violate the Open Meetings Act, and ordered In July 2016, advocates filed the city to come up with new a lawsuit against the city, rules for addressing public claiming that the City Council comments.148 from the developable land inventory. and were not low-poverty at the time the Aldermen opposed to the construction parcels were given to developers. of affordable housing in their wards may withhold city-owned land for “other Despite the high percentage of NHFC purposes” or simply refuse to approve units placed outside of predominantly sale of land resources for housing white and low-poverty areas, the projects eliminating the application of city-owned land inventory does have the city’s ARO. potential for development in low-poverty areas: 324 parcels with a total area of The city owns 12,986 lots, most on 2,413,660 square feet fall within low- the South and West Sides.149 The city poverty areas. An analysis of these city- maintains several programs which owned land inventory identified parcels make the lots available to developers by size and current zoning estimates and for a variety of uses. For housing, most found a portion sufficient to develop, city lots are made available through estimating 2,567 units by right in the New Homes for Chicago (NHFC) low-poverty areas, 615 of which are and City Lots for City Living program. located in some of the wealthiest and/ Under these programs, Chicago makes or quickest gentrifying, communities residential lots available for one dollar in Chicago including Lakeview, Lincoln and provides permit fee waivers to Park, the Near North Side, Near West eligible developers.150 The developers Side, Near South Side, Logan Square, build single family and two flat homes and West Town. If all of these parcels on the lots and, for income eligible were developed with new, multifamily buyers, provide an additional purchase housing through the NHFC or Negotiated price subsidy of up to $30,000 from Sales Program in combination with the the city’s HOME allocation. As of the MFLP, the supply of affordable housing in 2016 ACS estimates, 93% of the NHFC opportunity areas would nearly double. developments were located outside However, Aldermanic prerogative creates of low-poverty areas. The 7% that are a major impediment to accessing and located in low-poverty areas are in developing these parcels for affordable communities which have been under housing. immense gentrification pressure recently, 52 53 5) USE OF PARLIAMENTARY committee chairperson has the power AND EXTRA- to defer matters upon the request of PARLIAMENTARY POWER an alderman and may “defer a matter indefinitely” which would have the effect In situations where zoning relief is of killing the project “in committee.” required for an affordable housing This “courtesy” is a component of development, or a residential project aldermanic prerogative, indicative of that triggers the city’s ARO, aldermen deference to zoning matters to individual have been known to use parliamentary aldermen. While it is well known in the and extra-parliamentary maneuvers development to delay, or in essence, stop projects community in the approval process. In this sense, at large, and “They were given affordable housing is treated much especially differently from market-rate and luxury well known courtesies outside of the housing deals. Whereas in the Case for developers normal due process— Study Montrose/Clarendon TIF District, of affordable Alderman Edward Burke, chairman of housing—that and outside of normal the City Council Finance Committee, the exercise when discussing the luxury TIF of aldermanic aldermanic privilege development, expressed: “[t]his (TIF) prerogative is an urgent matter we need to rush ensures that dictates.” through.”151 Advocates speculated that unwanted —Housing Advocate, this urgency stemmed from the soon- developments to-be in effect 2015 ARO amendments, will not in reference to which would enhance the required get zoning inclusion of affordable housing units.152 approval— the opponents of an Expediency, however is generally there is not awarded to affordable housing no formal affordable housing developments. To the contrary, aldermen restriction on development (2018) who wish to block affordable housing a developer deals have employed extra-procedural who wishes a deferrals to extinguish deals. hearing before the City Council Zoning, Landmarks, and Building Standards Part of the reason aldermanic Committee. However, a developer prerogative is so effective is the would only request a meeting before deference given to this power when City Council’s Zoning, Landmarks, and exercised. City Council members, Building Standards Committee in the especially when the power is being used rare occurrence when the developer to block affordable housing, defer to has made the decision to sue on the aldermanic ward decisions and even matter, requiring the exhaustion of foster efforts to carry those wishes out. administrative means before the case is ripe for litigation. In these cases, the All zoning map amendments and parliamentary maneuver of deferring or planned developments are required to indefinitely deferring the matter for 6 be reviewed by Chicago City Council months will have the effect of denying Committee on Zoning, Landmarks and the application, regardless of whether Building Standards before going to full City Council has a vote on the the full City Council for passage. The application or not.

54 Case Study: The jefferson park trANSIT CORRIDOR

Jefferson Park is located within that the proposal was too the 45th ward on the Northwest dense, too big, too tall, too Side of Chicago and is 64% close to single family homes, white, 23% Latinx, and 1% and would set a dangerous black with a total population precedent for the Northside of 26,755.154 The 45th ward with one resident stating: “We is represented by Alderman want to keep our neighborhood . The 45th ward’s a neighborhood.”157 Meeting alderman since 2011, Arena fierce opposition, crystallizing has supported affordable in a 650-signatory petition housing efforts, including calling on signing a pledge to bring Alderman “You can have an at least 50 CHA-sponsored Arena to apartments to the ward before reject the alderman who is his term ends. Jefferson Park proposal,158 courageous every now is home to many city and Alderman and then, someone county employees and has Arena been known as the “Gateway scrapped the will stand up for racial to Chicago” in recognition of plan, fearing justice, but because of the community as a main the possibility transportation hub for the of losing segregation s/he… will city.155 reelection in potentially lose their

2015.159 153 In 2014, on a property vacant seat.” for over 20 years and located at After winning — Housing Advocate, 2018 the intersection of Long Avenue reelection in and Argyle Street near the 2015, Alder- Jefferson Park Transit Center, man Arena moved forward with Alderman Arena unveiled a his commitment to revitalize plan for developing two five- the Jefferson Park Transit story apartment buildings with Center Area.160 Returning to 48 apartments.156 Opponents the 48-unit proposal, Alderman of the plan, most notably the Arena reduced the two- Jefferson Park Neighborhood buildings from five-stories to Association (JPNA), feared four-stories, while remaining

55 Case Study: The jefferson park transit corridor committed to the 48 total units, the Northwest Highway five of which would be set development proposal, 5150 aside for affordable housing.161 N. Northwest Highway, a The JPNA reaffirmed their seven-story L-shaped building opposition to any development with 100 units, 80 of which that would require a zoning will be offered at affordable change to increase density.162 rents, including 20 reserved In May of 2016, JPNA members for Chicago Housing Authority continued to voice opposition to Alderman Arena’s plans. One longtime resident of the area predicted that “…people are going to leave Jefferson Park because that’s not what we want.”163 JPNA President, Bob Bank, took a more fatalist stance: “Let’s not wreck this great neighborhood.”164 On September 2, 2016, Alderman Arena approved the zoning Alderman John Arena (Abel Uribe/Chicago Tribune) changes required to build the vouchers with marketing 48-unit apartment complex.165 geared toward veterans and The approved proposal people with disabilities.167 included 5 units set aside for The project was proposed affordable housing.166 to Alderman Arena after the development had been On January 26, 2017, abandoned in the face of Alderman Arena announced community opposition in

A May 16, 2016 community meeting regarding a proposed housing development near the Jefferson Park Transit Center. (Heather Cherone/DNAinfo) 56 Case Study: The jefferson park transit corridor

Alderman Villegas’ 36th Ward.168 and we pay a lot of money to In order for the project to move live here. There’s no reason we forward, the site first required should have to pack all this a zoning change that would Section 8 housing into one allow for the construction of a building, right where we live.”172 storage facility. Other residents were more

Immediately after being announced, the JPNA began objecting to the rezoning request, claiming the residents of the property would invite crime and lower property values.169 JPNA President Bank stated that “[e]veryone I talk to is pretty upset about the idea of stuffing all this low-income housing into one building in one neighborhood. I think it’s just going to bring a bunch of Protesters rally against the proposed development at 5150 N. Northwest desperate low-income families Highway on February 21, 2017, outside of Alderman John Arena’s office. that are going to overcrowd our (Alex Nitkin/DNAinfo) schools and bring crime, and direct, asking the developer and bring all their problems with Alderman Arena “[w]hat ability them.”170 do you have, if any, to prevent a renter from passing the At a community meeting screening process, and then held on the project on bringing in every miscreant February 9, 2017, hundreds brother, uncle, cousin, son they of Jefferson Park residents have? You can call us elitist crowded into a neighborhood ... but I call us homeowners. church and gathered on the I’ve lived here my whole life, sidewalks outside to protest and if you think we’re going to the proposal.171 Residents believe this building will only be opposed to the development for retirees and veterans, then continued to advance fears you’re crazy.”173 Alderman Arena about residents with vouchers sought to get his constituents living in the buildings: “This is to see past their biases: “The a solid ward we’ve got here, folks who are low-income

57 Case Study: The jefferson park transit corridor will buy sandwiches from housing.175 And that he, “felt the deli, just like you do. They sorry for anyone who had to have insurance, and they need live near public housing.”176 medical services, just like you do. So I’m sorry, but it’s not After publicity surrounding fair to judge someone who these events, the organized makes less than you do, as if opposition instructed their they spent no money.” Another followers to temper their audience member asked if remarks in public.177 Public the developer would “screen positions from then on people under 18 years old?” concerned the height of the When the developer stated that building, the density proposed they could not screen children at the site, and the zoning under 18, someone yelled process itself. Comments on “there goes the neighborhood!” social media, and in testimony After a white veteran testified before the Chicago City in support of the affordable Council, however, continue to housing project, an attendee express discriminatory animus responded that “the community against the presumed residents knows that the housing will not of the development: families serve veterans like this.” 174 with children and people of color. Outside the meeting, protesters chanted “No Section 8” and Contemporaneously with “No CHA” and held signs the public backlash against reading “No CHA—No Crime” the Northwest Highway and “Jefferson Park not development, local residents, Rogers Park” and “Cabrini alarmed by the vitriol, began Green Started as Vet Housing.” to connect on social media, Protesters shouted slurs such seeking to counteract the as “faggot,” “thug,” “gangbanger,” negative stereotypes about and “freeloader.” A protester affordable housing and to claiming to be a Chicago police identify ways to advocate in homicide detective said that favor of the proposal in their “[t]hese people are like dirty community. These residents diapers” - allegedly a reference made contact with the Chicago to the predominately black Housing Initiative, a veteran residents of Chicago’s public housing organizing group

58 Case Study: The jefferson park transit corridor working on the ground in While the proposal passed the Jefferson Park to try to support the development. After the on March 16th, a week later public meeting on February 9th, 14th Ward Alderman Ed Burke these neighbors came together stepped in to block its passage as a group to advocate for in the zoning committee affordable housing. based on a claimed procedural defect (lack of quorum) that These volunteers formed is routinely ignored during the Neighbors for Affordable zoning process.179 The project Housing in Jefferson Park was again stalled in April (NfAH) which after a year of grassroots organizing boasts over 750 members. NfAH is entirely run by volunteers, with organizing guidance provided by the Chicago Housing Initiative and the Disability Rights Action Coalition for Housing, and is open to any resident of the Northwest Side of Chicago or stakeholder (including persons with A flier urging Jefferson Park Residents to oppose the proposed affordable housing project on 5150 N. Northwest Highway, on the grounds that the density and disabilities, veterans, or anyone height of the proposed structure would “forever change the landscape and in need of affordable housing). character” of the neighborhood. (obtained by the Chicago Housing Initiative)

In March 2017, the affordable 2017, when Alderman Arena housing complex became a requested an unprecedented city-wide issue, after a new zoning meeting where group – Northwest Side Unite proponents and opponents – emerged solely to oppose to the development could be affordable housing and heard.180 The hearing lasted organize against the Northwest more than three hours. Highway development. NSU Opponents also filed a lawsuit was able to pressure the city to against the city to stop the convene a special meeting of rezoning.181 the Chicago Plan Commission to discuss the Northwest Next, came a turn of events Highway development.178 underscoring how the power

59 Case Study: The jefferson park transit corridor of aldermanic prerogative community process Arena had depends on the purpose for advanced, including multiple which it is used. In May 2017, community meetings and a Alderman Napolitano of the special meeting with the chair 41st ward took up the call of the Zoning Committee. It of Northwest Side Unite by representing their interests in blocking the development. Alderman Napolitano went so far as to defend the protestors outside the community meeting and appear with NSU leaders at a press conference to denounce the proposal.182 Alderman Ricardo Munoz noted how unusual Napolitano’s attempts to interject himself in another ward’s business were, violating a longstanding practice of deferring to the decisions aldermen make in their wards.183 Despite More than 100 protesters gathered outside the Branch Community Church in Jefferson Park on February 9, 2017 to protest proposed affordable housing in Alderman Napolitano’s Jefferson Park. (Ryne Poelker/Chicago Housing Initiative opposition, the development passed the city Planning also implicitly placed a higher Commission and the full City value on the voices of residents Council, with only Alderman who opposed affordable Napolitano voting nay.184 housing over the residents who supported it. Cook County In late May 2017, Mayor Rahm Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Emanuel also weighed on the Garcia called out the Mayor for controversy, criticizing Arena his comments, arguing that for not having a process “as “Emanuel’s words, that anti- one where you hear people and affordable housing activists they need to be heard. As much ‘need to be heard’, functions as as [Arena] is offering his idea, an acquittal of racial animus, residents who live in that area masquerading as a white- need to be heard.” Emanuel’s washed call for process.”185 comments ignored the lengthy Garcia also noted the Jefferson

60 Case Study: The jefferson park transit corridor Park of the 1950s as compared including concerns over school to today has changed: overcrowding. Fifty-one years ago, around In early February 2018, the same time that Martin Alderman Arena filed a Luther King Jr. marched for complaint with the Civilian open housing in Marquette Office of Police Accountability, Park, a parallel march for open charging that 31 Chicago housing occurred in Jefferson police officers made “racially Park, equally met with bricks charged” comments regarding and violence. What is different the 5150 proposal.188 The today on the Northwest Side officers denied the claims. is that amidst the resurgence However, housing advocates of prejudice and hateful point to anti-5150 flyers on energy by some factions in neighborhood police district Jefferson Park, there is also an windows as evidence of the energetic movement growing local police districts opposition among anti-racist, largely to the development. In early white, homeowners, who are March 2018, in response to a as committed to opening their FOIA request, Mayor Emanuel’s community to new neighbors, office released a spreadsheet as others are to keeping it of individuals who had made closed.186 racist comments about the 5150 proposal compiled by Despite support from Alderman Alderman Arena’s staff, listing Arena for the project, the 70 individuals, including the 31 Northwest Highway project police officers that Alderman did not receive state nor Arena had filed a complaint city low-income housing tax against.189 In April 2018, the credits. On February 8, 2018, Fraternal Order of Police filed Alderman Arena announced a complaint with the city that Full Circle Communities Inspector General alleging that would reduce the number of Alderman Arena was filing false affordable housing units at the claims against city workers, Northwest Highway project and that Alderman Arena was from 100 to 75 and reduce the “cyberstalking” and harassing number of family-sized units.187 Chicago police officers.190 Arena said that Full Circle Alderman Arena denied the made the changes in response claims. to “community feedback”

61 Case Study: The Higgins Road Project

The proposed mixed-use rental the ZAC meeting, the developer, property, Cumberland Place at Higgins Development, was 8535 W. Higgins Road in the asked “if the housing would Jefferson Park community, be rental” and “how you would highlights the many ways an accommodate families with alderman can exert power kids?” The ZAC also asked that to block affordable housing, the height of the residential even when other structures building be reduced from 180 they have created support it. feet to 80 feet, pedestrian paths Located near O’Hare Airport be added, and the setback and adjacent to many hotels, increased on the residential stores, and office parks, the building.193 project would have supplied needed rental housing in this In December 2015, Higgins job rich area.191 However, Development again went before at each step in the process, the ZAC. During the meeting, it Alderman Napolitano (41st was stated that the proposed ward) found one way after 230-unit residential rental tower another to block it. This would primarily include studio exercise of parliamentary and one-bedroom units geared prerogative presented towards young professionals. a “whack-a-mole” type In response to ZAC’s requests, challenge for the developer Higgins Development also and supporters of affordable reduced the residential building housing. to 80 feet, resulting in the loss of 10 units,194 and added the In 2015, Host Hotels & Resorts pedestrian paths and setback filed a request for a zoning increase. Even though the change with the City of project required no zoning Chicago.192 In August 2015, change due to the Planned the planned development Development Application, proposal for a residential and ZAC voiced its support for commercial development was the project and instructed presented to the 41st ward Alderman Napolitano to send Zoning Advisory Committee. At DPD a letter of support.

62 Case Study: The HIGGINS ROAD PROJECT On January 20, 2016, Alderman results are likely to be lower Napolitano sent a letter of than these overly conservative support for the proposal to projections.” The study DPD Commissioner David concluded that “[t]he impact Reifman. In the letter, Alderman of both design, TOD location Napolitano stated that the and immediate surrounding “mixed-use nature of the site environments are likely to make is highly complimentary to this a very successful TOD with the adjacent hotel, conference a very low number of resident center, and other surrounding students attending CPS uses.”195 Napolitano also noted system.199 Similar low-impact that the developer had made assessments were made the changes requested by the concerning traffic density.200 41st Ward ZAC. After hearing Glenstar present Later that year, the property its proposal and findings in went under contract for sale to December 2016,201 on January Glenstar Properties.196 Glenstar 4, 2017, Alderman Napolitano’s also proposed to construct ZAC unanimously approved a mixed-use development, Glenstar’s proposal, a plan that with 297 luxury rental “micro- included seven affordable units units” in Jefferson Park.197 In and a payment of $2.9 million November of 2016, the results in-lieu of putting 23 more of two studies regarding the affordable units on site.202 potential impact of the project, one on school overcrowding Alderman Napolitano’s position and the other on traffic, were on the Higgins development released. The school study starkly shifted after he found that the development joined the ranks of the anti- would have no impact on the affordable housing group, local elementary school.198 The Northwest Side Unite. Once study also noted that “[i]f the 41st ward constituents joined on-site amenities are aimed the outrage against the 5150 at adults without children, and project, Alderman Napolitano the marketing of the property began using every tactic is similarly focused as were possible to block the Higgins recent TOD and lifestyle development.203 Napolitano projects within the Chicago informed the ZAC that he had metro area, then the actual reversed his position on the

63 Case Study: The HIGGINS ROAD PROJECT Higgins development, citing the that the developer could opposition to the Northwest communicate with the Highway development in an Alderman about his concerns.207 email to the ZAC chair.204 On July 7, 2017, the Glenstar Alderman Napolitano also plan was approved, with only attempted to discredit the one nay vote coming from education and traffic report Alderman who by arguing that the addition of wished to respect Alderman two more units to the building Napolitano’s authority, while invalidated the study.205 Ahead Alderman Tunney also took of the June 2017 meeting of the time to criticize the plan for the Chicago Plan Commission, its lack of affordable housing Alderman Napolitano options.208 triggered a 30-day delay while simultaneously imploring for an Displeased with the outcome, indefinite delay of the meeting Napolitano wrote e-mails to for the Higgins development.206 Department of Planning and The delay was granted at Development commissioners, the request of Glenstar, not demanding to know why a vote Alderman Napolitano, so had been held on the Higgins

64 Case Study: The HIGGINS ROAD PROJECT building after he asked for it to of affordable housing units be indefinitely deferred.209 from seven to 30, by essentially In one response, DPD forgoing the previously planned managing deputy in-lieu of fee under the ARO.213 commissioner, Patti Scudiero, At the meeting, Napolitano reminded Napolitano that, per and Glen Star Properties Chicago’s zoning ordinance, sparred over the proposal. At only the developer had the right one point, in violation of the to ask for a deferral in Plan Open Meetings Act, Zoning Commission hearings.210 Committee Chair Danny Solis (25th ward) called a recess As the Higgins development of the hearing and invited moved onto a September 2017 Napolitano and the committee hearing before the city’s zoning to speak off the record behind committee, Alderman Napolitano continued to obfuscate the plan. In preparing for the zoning committee meeting, Alderman Napolitano’s chief of staff coached the Dirksen Elementary School principal to write a letter that would most effectively derail the development.211

Napolitano also sought to prevent the Higgins building from being considered before the zoning committee with the same “indefinite deferral” request he made before the Plan Commission.212 This time he was successful. Shortly before the hearing, Glenstar announced it would increase the number

65 Case Study: The HIGGINS ROAD PROJECT

City Council chambers.214 as in deference to aldermanic More than 10 minutes later, privilege.217 “Alderman Solis the public meeting resumed greatly respects his colleagues with Solis announcing that and the fact that they have 15th ward Alderman Raymond been chosen by the voters to Lopez had a motion on this represent them,” he said in item. Lopez moved to defer it. an e-mailed statement to the All committee members voted . “On matters of in favor of deferral.215 Alderman zoning changes, the Chicago Napolitano then lobbied Solis City Council has always for an “indefinite deferral” of the given great deference to the project proposal, meaning that Alderman of the ward where a Glenstar would never receive a change is requested.”218 hearing and vote before the city’s zoning committee In March 2018, GlenStar before the Plan Commission’s Properties sued the City of approval becomes null and Chicago for blocking the project void.216 due to opposition to affordable housing, arguing that the In response to allegations that City’s “long ingrained custom delaying a vote on the zoning of and practice of ‘Aldermanic the project due to objections to prerogative’ for zoning matters” affordable housing may violate is illegal and an unlawful civil rights laws, a spokesman delegation of power.219 for Solis defended the action

66 Planning Against Prerogative: Towards a Less Segregated Chicago

Irrefutable patterns of residential Over the same time period, the city has segregation are kept in place by the tools lost 29,000 households that make less of aldermanic prerogative wielded with than $100,000.225 the effect of blocking family affordable housing. The resulting limitations on The social impact of this demographic affordable housing disparately harm shift could be black and Latinx households in need profound, as of such housing and restrict access to Mary Pattillo, a “We need a citywide housing opportunities. Northwestern University transparent zoning A recent report by the Institute for sociology Research on Race and Public Policy, and African process that concludes that Chicago’s racial and American advances racial ethnic inequities remain “pervasive, studies persistent, and consequential” due to professor, equity.” failures to address widespread private, commented in public, and entrenched institutional an article on —Housing Advocate discrimination.220 This institutional the topic, “As discrimination leads to what social blacks take (2018) scientists refer to as the “poverty trap” flight, that shifts which is perpetuated indefinitely when Chicago’s role nationally as a center of local government is blind to, or willfully African American culture, one that gave ignorant of, its critical role in designing rise to everything from the blues to the and enacting interventions against first black president. It doesn’t mean structural disadvantage.221 Perhaps it there won’t be black creativity or black is no surprise then, that in the face of economic development, it’s just going this willful ignorance, the city is losing to happen somewhere else.”226 When residents—8,638 residents from 2015 individuals are left to languish in a trap to 2016—and that these residents of poverty, when entire communities are disproportionately black and are devalued, and when housing is not disproportionately low- and moderate- provided at a range of affordability income.222 Census data shows that levels and for a range of household from 2000-2010 alone, Chicago lost types, reactionary outmigration is the 181,000 black residents.223 Since 1980, natural consequence. Until the city Chicago has lost a full quarter of its provides an objective and centralized black population.224 Moreover, economic system for approving affordable housing trends further paint the picture of a city and creates a comprehensive plan for in flux—with low- and moderate- income community investment that is grounded residents moving out and higher income in achieving racial equity, the city households moving in. Nearly 32,000 will remain segregated and will risk households making over $100,000 extinguishing its vibrancy, its very core moved into the city from 2010-2015. and constitution.

67 RECOMMENDATIONS should continue to work with such neighborhood entities to meet local Create a Citywide needs and preserve neighborhood Comprehensive Plan ambience.”230 This sentiment Despite its prominence as a world-class characterizes the development activity city that heavily influenced the field over the next several decades and was of urban planning, the City of Chicago codified within the principles for zoning implements land-use policies without a reform enacted in 2004.231 comprehensive plan for development. Principles for a comprehensive plan Today, what the city does plan and were drafted in 1964 and 1981, and report is fragmented, segmented by highlight the significant shifts in the issue area and continues to skirt issues city’s philosophy of development— of segregation and NIMBYism that are at moving from urban improvement to the core of “neighborhood preservation.” neighborhood preservation—but a For example, the city develops plans subsequent plan was not adopted. The based on HUD reporting requirements 1964 principles emphasize the core for the use of federal housing and theme of ensuring that Chicago is a community development funds. In “city for all people,” which, according addition, for the last 20 years, the City to the principles means: “The city of Chicago has drafted and adopted must insure a wide range of housing in a 5-year housing plan. Notably, this different kinds of neighborhoods and plan does not address issues related to at different densities. It must insure residential segregation nor racial equity. that there is the broadest possible Finally, the city creates plans targeting choice of housing costs and type to other issues such as homelessness, meet the needs of different families of health, transportation, and economic different incomes.”228 It touches on the development. need to foster “harmonious, stabilized neighborhoods attractive to families of all races” to bring about a better racial Comprehensive Plan: balance.229 Also within the 1964 policies A long-term plan to guide were undertones of “urban renewal” community development language centered on eliminating substandard housing and blight. As and land-use decisions mentioned, this plan was never adopted, related to residential, the remediation of blight was carried commercial, transportation, out with no assurances for stabilization parks and open space.227 and the promotion of housing choice to counterbalance the housing instability of those living within blighted areas. These individual and issue-specific The 1981 principles demonstrate plans fail to connect housing and a core shift in philosophy with a community development issues together greater emphasis on neighborhood and adequately assess the landscape preservation: “Most people choose of racial and economic segregation, to live in communities where others the mechanisms that fuel present-day share their basic lifestyle. This has manifestations of segregation, and the resulted in neighborhoods that house consequential social-ills that stem from people steeped in the same traditions… it. Without this level of analysis and this means that the city government planning, Chicago continues to

68 develop on an ad hoc basis, without comprehensive housing plan component. consideration given to overall effect on either the supply of housing or the This housing plan should form the basis impact on segregation, allowing hyper- for HUD reporting and include all of local influence to shape Chicago’s the required components mandated neighborhoods to the detriment of the therein including an identification of city as a whole. impediments to fair housing expressly stating that aldermanic prerogative is The city must therefore streamline indeed an impediment to affirmatively housing and community development furthering fair housing. The planning by producing a central comprehensive plan should be updated comprehensive plan that assesses every 5 years and the Bureau of Housing citywide community development will be charged with creating an annual and affordable housing needs and report measuring performance against barriers, identifies where affordable the plan goals for equitable distribution housing is lacking, where other types funding and unit construction. of investments—such as infrastructure improvements—are lacking, and creates Implement a Racial Equity measureable goals and benchmarks Impact Assessment as a Central for meeting community development Component of Citywide Planning and affordable housing need. This and Housing Decision Making plan should include analysis of past In acknowledgement that racial and existing subsidized affordable inequities are borne out of systematic, housing units that can be updated institutionalized racism perpetuated quarterly with tabulation indicating through public policy, Racial Equity neighborhood distribution. The Impact Assessments provide a systematic plan should include benchmarks for examination of the racial impacts of the equitable distribution of future proposed decisions before any harm can subsidized affordable housing units be done. Similar to an Environmental including subsidies (LIHTC, HOME, ESG, Impact Report, such assessments are TIF, LIHTF, etc.) geographically. This used to proactively identify unintended plan must address issues of segregation consequences and influence proposed and inequities in community investment decisions to mitigate adverse outcomes. that underpin racial disparities in access Otherwise, when racial equity is not to opportunity and serve as a policy consciously addressed, “racial inequality plan that guides decision-making and is often unconsciously replicated.”232 funding. There are several cities that have taken steps to implement Racial Equity Impact Further, the plan must be created with Assessments in various fashions in the support structures to assist its execution public policy sphere. This protocol and address the issues raised in this was developed in Seattle, Washington document. The deputy commissioner and has now been implemented in in charge of housing should be made over 125 jurisdictions nationwide and an ex oficio member of the Chicago codified within local ordinances in areas Zoning Board of Appeals, the Chicago such as King County in Washington, Plan Commission and the Chicago City Minneapolis, Minnesota, Madison, Council Zoning Committee in order Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon.233 to ensure planned developments, zoning map amendments, and special Although consideration should be given use decisions are consistent with the to implementing Racial Equity Impact

69 Assessment at a broader level in the consistent with the city’s comprehensive City of Chicago, for the purposes of this plan. report, it is recommended that Racial Equity Impact Assessments be employed The city’s zoning administrator must as a requirement of comprehensive be tasked with bringing a greater level planning and as a component of the of fairness and racial equity to zoning centralization of zoning. Advancing and land-use review. In cities that have racial equity should be a guiding adopted this model, political influence principle of comprehensive planning has been reduced, zoning corruption and of zoning review processes, with a has been curtailed, and individual diverse array of community stakeholders zoning and land-use decisions have involved throughout the process, been better aligned with local planning 234 including data gathering, goal and documents. benchmark setting, and evaluation. All Transparency and Accountability of the identified benefits and burdens imposed by the proposed goals should To bring about greater transparency be assessed through a racial equity lens. and accountability to the housing Accountability and transparency should development review process, the city be a central component of the decision- should establish uniform proposal and making process. approval processes, with mandated timelines, for affordable housing Centralization of Zoning development applications that is not Decisions over municipal zoning are infringed by ward-specific barriers considered a police power of local and rules. The application process legislative bodies in Illinois. This means should place a favorable emphasis that the power over zoning cannot be on projects that further the goals of completely removed from the Chicago the comprehensive plan, bring about City Council. However, the city’s policy more balanced affordable housing, and and practice of delegating zoning enhance racial equity. The city should decisions to individual aldermen, and also establish an open and uniform in turn, many aldermen delegating policy for the transfer, sale, and donation that power to ZACs, is an unauthorized of city-owned lots that adheres to the exercise of that zoning power. comprehensive plan. Finally, the city should establish an open and uniform The city must revise its zoning ordinance policy for TIF project financing with to prohibit ward level control over required justifications for the ways in zoning. The zoning ordinance must which each proposed project will further also be amended to be consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan. a comprehensive plan grounded in advancing racial equity, meaning that Financing each zoning decision is evaluated as to To eliminate the impact of aldermanic whether or not it advances the city’s prerogative on the affordable housing commitment to racial equity. The zoning development process, the city must ordinance must remove all references remove the required evidence of to “preserving the character of existing aldermanic/community support and neighborhoods,” which only serves to letter of aldermanic support requirement maintain residential segregation. The from the Multi-Family Loan Program, City Council’s decisions over zoning must Qualified Allocation Plan, and any be guided by a limited set of criteria internal city procedures related to the evaluating if the zoning request is review of affordable housing applications

70 for public financing. from blocking or stalling affordable Rather than obligate developers to housing developments, as long as secure aldermanic support, the city those developments align with the could require applicants to certify that comprehensive plan and meet other their proposed request for financing is specifications. Aldermen could still consistent with the city’s comprehensive retain the power to impose certain plan. If an alderman opposes a project, requirements on developers and they could submit comments based upon influence the overall developments, but a set of specific and limited reasons. if there is a need for affordable housing Such reasons might include the proposed in the ward, the aldermen would not be project perpetuating segregation or able to block or delay the deal. being located in a flood plain. In this manner, local officials would be required ARO Recommendations to make public the reasons for their To create more balanced affordable opposition and those reasons must be housing options for low-income factual and clearly related to rational families, the ARO should include deeper interests in the “sticks and bricks” of incentives for larger units and the the project, and not the demographics prioritization of deeply-affordable units. of the residents of the proposed The city should remove ward controlled project. Moreover, the opposition must influence over the ARO, such as the use be consistent with treatment of non- of ZACS to dictate the inclusion of on- affordable housing plans. Any selective site units, and the type of units made opposition by an alderman would not be available. considered legitimate. City-owned Lots The City’s financing decisions utilizing To further balance affordable housing public funds must also align with development the city could prioritize the goals of the comprehensive plan. the donation of city-owned lots in The City should incorporate AFFH predominantly white, low-poverty requirements into the Multi-Family Loan areas to non-profit affordable housing Program, such as issuing guidance on developers. 324 parcels of city-owned how target population or development lots with a total area of 2,413,660 square characteristics count for or against the feet fall within low-poverty areas. If all development during the review process, of these parcels were developed with and prioritizing the development of new, multifamily housing, the supply of multi-family affordable housing in low- affordable housing in opportunity areas poverty areas. would nearly double. Actively Discourage NIMBYism Education The city could also consider adapting The City of Chicago should incorporate Anti-NIMBY laws enacted in states mandatory annual AFFH and racial such as California235 to the municipal equity training for city employees context. Such an ordinance could bar involved in housing and community aldermen and/or their constituents development programs.

71 Appendix A: Methodology

INTERVIEWS the following decades and underlying parcels with reductions in the zoning This report was informed by the classification were flagged with the pre experiences of housing advocates, and post zoning classification for each affordable housing developers, and interval. As such, the area calculations former public officials who provided given represent the sum of parcel areas input and guidance through interviews and do not include right of ways or other carried out from December 2017 area included in the zoning district’s through May 2018. total area. QUANTITATIVE DATA Current zoning data were obtained from Chicago’s GIS system.237 GATHERING Landmarks and landmark district data This study analyses the location of were obtained from Chicago’s GIS affordable housing in Chicago, exploring system.238 the demographic and economic characteristics of neighborhoods selected SPATIAL DATA OF for affordable housing development in SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE context of the physical, political, and HOUSING IN CHICAGO regulatory constraints on developing housing in the city. These factors To prepare the evaluation of Chicago’s contribute to the creation of segregated affordable housing inventory and spaces. This Appendix provides programs, the location, funding, and context for the aggregated sources other characteristics of developments of affordable housing information, were collected from various sources and the characterization and grouping of assembled into a single database. The neighborhoods according to racial and database was designed to hold building economic characteristics, and additional level records of every subsidized housing information regarding analysis of the project identified in the city of Chicago, multifamily programs and others. making assessments accurate down to Analysis and data management was the census block or block group level in performed using Python, PostgreSQL, the event of multi building projects. The and QGIS. Graphics and design were level of accuracy allows for correctly completed with Adobe InDesign and identifying wards and identifying Illustrator. placement of buildings in limited pockets of segregation or poverty that might DOWNZONING AND otherwise not be visible. LANDMARKING DATA The primary source of information for The 1970 to 2016 downzoning data the city’s affordable housing projects base was generated through digitization from 1994 to 2017 was the Affordable and comparison of zoning maps in Housing Quarterly reports. The the city at decade intervals by Okrent reports offer a summary of all projects Kisiel Associates.236 Each zoning map selected to receive city financing over was compared against the maps from

72 the previous quarter. For the period represent the city’s best chance to place between 2009 and 2017, the quarterly units in areas outside of high poverty reports were retrieved from Chicago’s and racial segregation. Senior housing website.239 Quarterly reports prior to was chosen as a counterpoint as the 2009 were obtained from a FOIA request distribution of projects is significantly to the city’s Department of Planning different despite sharing the same and Development. The quarterly reports application process and funding sources. contain much of the information required, but do not always reflect TIF projects were obtained from the 243 the final state of the project: financing Chicago’s GIS system. Classification of sources can change between quarterly these projects was performed to address report publication and loan closing, as the use of TIF funds as housing or not can the configurations of some buildings. housing related, and to identify the targeted population of housing projects. City led projects prior to 1994 were identified through the Cook County ARO projects were obtained from the Journal of Proceedings records, from the City’s quarterly reports. If a project had reports of the Committee on Housing multiple revisions with changes in the and on Finance. Financing information units or fees associated with the project, for all projects was cross referenced with the most recent changes prevail, and the Journal of Proceedings. Additional prior versions were stricken from the FOIA requests to the city for Loan data set. Closing documents and various internal The city-owned land inventory data was databases maintained by the city of 244 Chicago’s Department of Planning and obtained from the city’s Data Portal. Development to track ongoing projects Missing locations were corrected with were made to further complete missing the Cook County Assessor’s Office parcel information. data. Parcel area was compared to the minimum lot area of the associated Additional information on projects, zoning to create a rough estimate of including housing not funded by the total developable units, barring the city directly was pulled from the additional limitations from parking. HUD Multifamily Insured Properties databases, HUD Multifamily Portfolio RACIAL/ECONOMIC Datasets, and the HUD LIHTC SEGREGATION IN CHICAGO database.240 241 242 Demographic breaks on the maps in Project location, confirmation of the document were selected at 25% ownership information, and additional Non-Hispanic White for race and data were obtained from the City’s ethnicity and 40% of the population buildings database, the Cook County below the poverty line. While this Assessor’s Office parcel and address level is substantially above a simple points files, and the Cook County racial majority (>50%) for block Recorder of Deeds. If buildings had been groups, Chicago is so segregated torn down, outlines and location were that the majority in practice does not recreated through historic aerials. significantly increase the total count of block groups in the analysis. The New construction family housing 40% poverty threshold was selected as projects were selected as the level of it is a commonly used break point for analysis as they carry the highest level 245 determining high poverty areas. of scrutiny under AFFH regulations and

73 Over time, relative proportions of census ward boundaries. As ward boundaries block groups <25% non-Hispanic are unstable, project information was white or >40% poverty are stable, aggregated to the active boundaries only significantly expanding along the during the time of council approval for southwestern and north western corridor analysis. of the city where the Latinx population has grown. The Milwaukee avenue Ward boundaries were obtained and corridor and far north of the city have digitized for 1940, 1986, 1992, 1996, transitioned to >25% non-Hispanic 2003, and 2015. Classification of white population due to advancing the wards as majority non-Hispanic gentrification. In 1990, 48% of the city’s white/non-white is based on the 2000 block groups were >25% non-Hispanic and 2010 Census data used for the white and <40% poverty, and in 2016 redistricting. The second ward presents 46% of the block groups are. 25% non- a special case due to its changing Hispanic white represents roughly the location (from the south to the north median block group concentration of side) and is treated as separate wards that population for the 2012-2016 ACS between its 2003 and 2015 boundaries 5 Year Estimates (20.3%) and very few as it has no overlapping boundaries and high poverty tracts are also not <25% the demographic changes significantly. non-Hispanic white, hence the roughly No other ward has had as significant equal division of the city by area. changes and most share relatively consistent boundaries and population For cross period analysis with census classifications according to the white and data, areal area weighted interpolation non-white binary split. was performed at the tract level as described in Logan et. al. (2014) with Relative shares for each ward of housing a Python implementation written by and zoning were compared against the Okrent Kisiel Associates.246 ward level shares of demographics to explore differences in the distributions Census data for the preceding Census and other associations between the (i.e. 1990 is used for all years 1990- variables. Further measures of inequality 1999) was used to identify the in housing siting were explored to proportion of non-Hispanic white test departures from placement under population and proportion of the the expectations of equal or random population under the poverty level at distribution. the block group in which the building is located. This allows the study to analyze the placement of subsidized affordable housing developments against the backdrop of what the city knew at the time of approval. ANALYZING CONCENTRATIONS OF HOUSING

Given the role of aldermen in dictating the site selection of affordable housing units, concentrations of affordable housing are measured in context of

74 Appendix B Ward-by-Ward Zoning Advisory Councils and Development Process Information pulled from 2010 Census Block-Level Redistricting Data, ward websites, personal communication via phone and email with ward staff, LinkedIn profiles, and newspaper archives

Presence Demographics Geographic Associated of a ZAC Name of ZAC and/or relevant Ward-Level Ward Alderman of Ward1 Area neighborhoods (informal2 community organizations Developer Checklist or formal3) 1 Joe Moreno White: 45.12 % Yes, extensive Wicker Park, West Town, Black: 7.02% Yes – Wicker Park Preservation and application with North side Ukrainian Village, Logan Latinx4: 43.11% formal Development Committee guidelines and Square 5 Asian: 3.76% checklist required 2 Brian Hopkins White: 76.51% Lincoln Park, Wicker Yes, extensive Black: 6% Park, Ukrainian Village, application with North side No N/A Latinx: 9.36% Gold Coast, Old Town, guidelines and Asian: 7.33% Bucktown checklist required 3 White: 22.42% Black: 64.62% Hyde Park, Bronzeville, South side No N/A No Latinx: 3.72% Fuller Park Asian: 8% 4 White: 22.75% Museum Campus, Black: 63.75% Yes – North Kenwood-Oakland South side Kenwood, Lakefront from N Latinx: 3.68% informal Conservation Community Council o Grant Park to Hyde Park Asian: 8.28%

5 White: 23.3% Indian Village, Hyde Park, Black: 64.3% Jackson Park, South South side No N/A No Latinx: 3.72% Shore, Greater Grand Asian: 7.23% Crossing 6 Roderick T. White: 0.43% Sawyer Black: 97.54% South side Chatham and Englewood No N/A No Latinx: 1.02% Asian: 0.06%

75 Presence Demographics Geographic Associated of a ZAC Name of ZAC and/or relevant Ward-Level Developer Ward Alderman of Ward1 Area neighborhoods (informal2 community organizations Checklist or formal3) 7 Greg Mitchell White: 1.51% Black: 92.06% Calumet Heights, Pill Hill, South side South Chicago, South No N/A No Latinx: 4.98% Deering, South Shore Asian: 0.19% 8 Michelle Harris White: 0.56% Avalon Park, Burnside, Black: 96.9% Calumet Heights, South side No N/A No Latinx: 1.34% Chatham, South Shore, Asian: 0.15% Greater Grand Crossing 9 1. Greater Roseland Chamber White: 1.46% of Commerce Pullman, Roseland, Black: 93.32% Yes – 2. Calumet Area Industrial South side Burnside, Altgeld No informal Commission Latinx: 4.22% Gardens, West Pullman Asian: 0.07% 3. Chatham Business Association 10 Susan Sadlowski White: 17.77% South Chicago, East Garza Black: 18.02% Side, South Deering, South side No N/A No Latinx: 63.23% Calumet Heights, Asian: 0.38% Hegewisch, Arizona 11 Patrick D. White: 37.3% Thompson Black: 4.77% Bridgeport, Armour South side Square, McKinley Park, No N/A No Latinx: 23.08% Fuller Park, New City Asian: 34.05% 12 George White: 8.65% Cardenas Black: 2.17% McKinley Park, Brighton South side No N/A No Latinx: 81.51% Park, Little Village Asian: 7.25% 13 Marty Quinn White: 33.11% Black: 1.84% West Lawn, Clearing, South side West Elsdon, Garfield No N/A No Latinx: 63.77% Ridge Asian: 0.86% 14 Edwards Burke White: 16.87% Black: 1.5% Garfield Ridge, Archer South side No N/A No Latinx: 79.89% Heights, Brighton Park Asian: 1.47%

76 Presence Demographics Geographic Associated of a ZAC Name of ZAC and/or relevant Ward-Level Developer Ward Alderman of Ward1 Area neighborhoods (informal2 community organizations Checklist or formal3) 15 White: 4.74% Brighton Park, Gage The Business Licensing and Park, Canaryville, West Zoning meeting takes place Black: 22.27% Southwest Yes – Englewood, Back of every first Monday – all business No Latinx: 71.6% side informal the Yards owners in the 15th ward are invited Asian: 0.98% to attend and participate 16 Toni Foulkes White: 1.4% Englewood, Gage Black: 68.50% Southwest Park, West Englewood, No N/A No Latinx: 29.2% side Chicago Lawn Asian: 0.18% 17 David Moore White: 2.19% Chicago Lawn, Marquette Park, Black: 81.15% Southwest Gresham, Auburn No N/A No Latinx: 15.78% side Gresham, West Asian: 0.22% Englewood 18 White: 12.67% Ashburn, Marquette Black: 54.67% Southwest Park, Auburb Gresham No N/A No Latinx: 31.18% side Asian: 0.78% 19 Matthew O’Shea White: 67.14% Beverly, Mount Yes, extensive Black: 25.83% Southwest Greenwood, Morgan Yes – application with 19th Ward Zoning Advisory Board Latinx: 5.41% side Park, Washington formal guidelines and Heights Asian: 0.83% checklist required 20 Willie B. Cochran White: 3.86% Back of the Yards, Black: 79.44% Southwest Canaryville, No N/A No Latinx: 14.28% side Washington Park, Englewood Asian: 1.42% 21 White: 0.29% Auburn Gresham, Jr. Black: 98.01% Washington Heights, South side No N/A No Latinx: 0.91% Gresham, Chatham, Roseland Asian: 0.04% 22 Ricardo Munoz White: 3.96% Little Village, South Black: 8.29% Lawndale, Archer West side No N/A No Latinx: 87.07% Heights Asian: 0.37%

77 Presence Demographics Geographic of a ZAC Name of ZAC and/or relevant Ward-Level Developer Ward Alderman Associated neighborhoods of Ward1 Area (informal2 community organizations Checklist or formal3) 23 Michael Zalewski White: 29.61% West Elsdon, West Lawn, Black: 2.59% Garfield Ridge, Clearing West side No N/A No Latinx: 66.67% Asian: 0.75% 24 Michael Scott Jr. White: 3.98% North Lawndale, Douglas Black: 85.72% Park, Little Village West side No N/A No Latinx: 9.55% Asian: 0.23% 25 White: 19.93% Lower West Side, Pilsen, Yes, extensive applica- Black: 9% Southwest Greektown, Chinatown, Uni- Yes – for- Pilsen Land Use Committee tion with guidelines and Latinx: 56.23% side versity Village/Little Italy mal checklist required Asian: 14.21% 26 Roberto Maldo- White: 19.56% Humboldt Park, Hermosa, nado Black: 12.7% Northwest Ukrainian Village, Logan No N/A No Latinx: 65.8% side Square Asian: 1.3% 27 Walter Burnett, Jr. White: 25.18% East Garfield Park, Hum- boldt Park, Near West Side, Black: 59.89% Northwest Yes – infor- Eckhart Park Community Illinois Medical District, No Latinx: 10.10% side mal Council Greektown, United Center Asian: 3.77% Park, Near North Side 28 White: 11.65% West Garfield Park, East Garfield Park, Austin, Doug- Black: 75.65% Northwest las Park, Illinois Medical No N/A No Latinx: 6.74% side District, University Village/ Asian: 5.11% Little Italy 29 Chris Taliaferro Austin, Montclare, Bel- 1. 29th Ward North Avenue White: 15.61% mont-Cragin Business Development Black: 69.17% Northwest Yes – for- Committee No Latinx: 13.14% side mal 2. Galewood Business Asian: 1.31% Development Committee (newly formed in 2017) 30 White: 28.02% Belmont-Cragin, Portage Black: 2.31% Northwest Park, Irving Park No N/A No Latinx: 65.54% side Asian: 3.36%

78 Presence Demographics Geographic Associated of a ZAC Name of ZAC and/or relevant Ward-Level Developer Ward Alderman of Ward1 Area neighborhoods (informal2 community organizations Checklist or formal3) 31 Milly Santiago White: 18.96% Black: 2.49% Northwest Hermosa, Belmont- No N/A No Latinx: 75.88% side Cragin, Logan Square Asian: 2.06% 32 Scott White: 72.55% Wicker Park, Logan Yes, extensive applica- Waguespack Black: 3.02% Square, Bucktown, North side No N/A tion with guidelines and Lincoln Park, Roscoe Latinx: 18.11% checklist required Asian: 5.52% Village 33 White: 32.3% Black: 3.9% Albany Park, Irving Park, Yes – infor- Avondale Neighborhood North side No Latinx: 52.9% Avondale mal Association Asian: 9.64% 34 White: 0.53% West Pullman, Black: 97.27% Southwest Washington Heights, No N/A No side Latinx: 1.29% Morgan Park, Roseland Asian: 0.08% 35 Carlos Ramirez-Rosa 1. Logan Square Preservation White: 19.64% Albany Park, Irving Park, 2. Logan Square Yes, extensive applica- Black: 4.69% Southwest Yes - infor- Avondale, Logan Square, Neighborhood Association tion with guidelines and side mal Latinx: 69.31% Hermosa checklist required Asian: 5.42% 3. We Are/Somos Logan Square

36 Gilbert Villegas White: 26.28% Montclare, Portage Black: 3.55% Northwest Park, Belmont-Cragin, No N/A No side Latinx: 66.64% Hermosa Asian: 2.92% 37 White: 1.46% Black: 79.38% Northwest Yes – infor- West Humboldt Development Austin, Humboldt Park No Latinx: 18.15% side mal Council Asian: 0.38% 38 Nicholas White: 69.20% Sposato Black: 1.04% Northwest Portage Park, Dunning No N/A No Latinx: 24.43% side Asian: 4.65%

79 Presence Demographics Geographic Associated of a ZAC Name of ZAC and/or relevant Ward-Level Ward Alderman of Ward1 Area neighborhoods (informal2 community organizations Developer Checklist or formal3) 39 Margaret Laurino White: 53.92% Black: 3.04% Northwest North Park, Jefferson No N/A No Latinx: 23.46% side Park, Albany Park Asian: 17.97% 40 Pat O’Connor White: 50.86% Black: 7.34% Lincoln Square, North side No N/A No Latinx: 23.95% Edgewater, West Ridge Asian: 16.81% 41 Anthony White: 82.34% Yes, extensive Napolitano Black: 1.19% Northwest Edison Park, Edgebrook, Yes – 41st Ward Zoning Advisory application with Latinx: 9.99% side Norwood Park, O’Hare formal Committee guidelines and Asian: 5.82% checklist required 42 Brendan Reilly White: 69.46% The Loop, Streeterville, Black: 5.57% Yes – North side Near North Side, River North Residents Association No informal Latinx: 5.79% Greektown Asian: 18.10% 43 Michele Smith White: 84.82% Yes – 1. Diversey Harbor Lakeview Black: 3.41% informal Association Latinx: 4.81% 2. Gold Coast Neighbors Asian: 6.15% 3. Lincoln Central Association 4. Mid-North Association 5. Old Town Merchants and Residents Association 6. Old Town Triangle Association 7. Park West Community North side Lincoln Park, Old Town Association 8. RANCH Triangle 9. Sheffield Neighborhood Association 10. South of North Avenue Association 11. Wrightwood Neighbors Association 80 Presence Demographics Geographic Associated of a ZAC Name of ZAC and/or relevant Ward-Level Developer Ward Alderman of Ward1 Area neighborhoods (informal2 community organizations Checklist or formal3) 44 Tom Tunney White: 82.57% Yes, extensive application Black: 3.22% Yes – Community Directed North side Lakeview with guidelines and formal Development Council Latinx: 6.36% checklist required Asian: 6.99% 45 John Arena White: 64.34% Old Irving Park, Yes, extensive application Black: 1.88% Northwest Portage Park, Yes – Ward Advisory Committee with guidelines and side Jefferson Park, formal Latinx: 24.54% checklist required Norwood Park Asian: 8.23% 46 James White: 57.24% Cappleman Yes, extensive application Black: 20.28% Uptown, Buena Park, Yes – 46th Ward Zoning and North side with guidelines and Lakeview formal Development Committee Latinx: 11.51% checklist required Asian: 9.54% 47 White: 74.76% North Center, Roscoe Yes, extensive application Black: 3.07% Yes – 47th Ward Zoning Advisory North side Village, Lincoln with guidelines and formal Committee Latinx: 13.98% Square, Uptown checklist required Asian: 7.17% 48 White: 53.86% Over 20 block clubs and Black: 16.75% Edgewater, Yes – chambers of commerce Yes, extensive application North side Latinx: 13.88% Andersonville, Uptown informal can be involved in zoning with guidelines required processes Asian: 13.95%

81 Presence Ward-Level Demographics Geographic Associated of a ZAC Name of ZAC and/or relevant community Ward Alderman Developer of Ward1 Area neighborhoods (informal2 organizations Checklist or formal3) 49 Joe Moore 49th Ward Zoning Committee Dorothy Gregory – profession unknown but noted advocate of the selling of public land to Loyola University Vernandez Jones - Youth counselor at Howard Area Community Center Joe Maschek - Landscape Architect Richard Moran – Self-employed White: 38.81% accountant and board member of Yes, extensive Black: 27.63% Yes - Northside Community Resources application with North side Rogers Park Latinx: 24.07% formal guidelines and Cynthia Ryan – Economic Development checklist required Asian: 7.5% Manager at Rogers Park Business Alliance Jonathan Rivera – Real estate developer and Director at Capright Mike Glasser – President and owner of Magellan Properties, President of Northside Community Development Corporation, President of the Rogers Park Builders Group (has been sued twice by HOPE Fair Housing Center for fair housing violations) 50 White: 45.17% N/A Black: 10.6% North side West Rogers Park No No Latinx: 18.87% Asian: 23.68% 1 Data is sourced from the 2010 Census Block-Level Redistricting Data 2 “Informal ZAC” is defined as a committee assembled at the behest of aldermen, typically comprised of various neighborhood councils, chambers of commerce, and/or residents perceived as having particular “expertise” on zoning and development. These ZACs are most often assembled “ad hoc” for specific development or zoning change proposals when aldermen have decided to seek outside input. 3 “Formal ZAC” is defined as a fixed assemblage of residents who meet routinely and are most often appointed to their positions by aldermen. They often have formal decision- making power over a development or zoning change proposal. 4 2010 Census Data uses the category “Hispanic” which we have re-categorized as “Latinx” 5 For those wards that do have extensive guidelines and checklists required for proposals, the full extent of these guidelines is typically found on the wards’ website.

82 Endnotes 1 City of Chi. Dep’t. of City Planning, Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies (1981). 2 Faisal Khan & Kelly Tarrant, How a Chicago alderman has used zoning law and political strong-arming to control private businesses, PROJECT SIX GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY TASK FORCE (May 16, 2017), https://these- cretsix.com/investigation/how-a-chicago-aldermanhas-used-zoning-law-and-political-strongarming-to-control-pri- vate-businesses/. 3 Maya Dukmasova, How’s Chicago supposed to desegregate when developments with affordable housing can be blocked by aldermen on a whim? CHI. READER, (Jan. 5, 2018), https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/ar- chives/2018/01/05/hows-chicago-supposed-to-desegregate-when-developments-with-affordable-housing-can-be- blocked-by-aldermen-on-a-whim. 4 Alex Keefe, Pregnancy Tests? Pigeon Poo? What Chicago Aldermen Really Do, WBEZ NEWS (June 11, 2013), https://www.wbez.org/shows/curious-city/pregnancy-tests-pigeon-poo-what-chicago-aldermen-real- ly-do/4d099e24-9b47-4b9d-8d39-fbbc92d379c0. 5 This report focuses on the three most predominant racial and . Authors acknowledge the need to assess impacts on other racial and ethnic groups represented in Chicago. 6 Elliott Ramos, Interactive: City Council-approved Chicago Ward Map, WBEZ News (Jan. 19, 2012), https://www. .org/shows/wbez-news/interactive-city-council-approved-chicago-ward-map/52630c78-06ad-4e98-8aab- 05bd3ca72e24. 7 Great Migration, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHICAGO (2004), http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/545. html. 8 Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated 77-91 (2017). 9 Id., at 143- 146. 10 Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (“the Fair Housing Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. 11 John C. Austin, Segregation and changing populations shape Rust Belt’s politics, THE BROOKINGS INST. (Sept. 14, 2017), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/theavenue/2017/09/14/segregation-and-changing-populations-shape-re- gions-politics/. 12 U.S. DEP’T OF HOU. AND URBAN DEV., Worst Case Housing Needs: 2017 Report to Congress, (2017), https:// www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Worst-CaseHousing-Needs.pdf. 13 The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 amended the original FHA, to include sex, disability, and familial status among the protected classes. 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq (2012). 14 United States ex. rel. Anti-Discrimination Ctr., Inc. v. Westchester Cty., 495 F. Supp. 2d 375, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 15 United States v. Starrett City Assoc., 840 F.2d 1096, 1100 (2d Cir. 1988); see generally Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (superseded on other grounds, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b)(1982).) 16 Westchester Cty., 495 F. Supp. 2d at 385 (quoting Otero v. City Hous. Authority, 484 F.2d 1122, 1134 (2d Cir. 1973).) 17 Inst. for Research on Race and Public Policy, A Tale of Three Cities: The State of Racial Justice in Chicago (2017), http://stateofracialjusticechicago.com/. 18 City of Chicago Consolidated Plan, 2010-2014, 19-20, https://web.archive.org/web/20151017100751/ http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/obm/supp_info/ConsolidatedPlan_and_Related- Docs/2010-2014ConsolidatedPlan.pdf. 19 What is a NIMBY?, NIMBY WARS, http://nimbywars.com/what-is-a-nimby. 20 A Tale of Three Cities, supra note 9. 21 The City of Chicago, Bouncing Back: Five Year Housing Plan, 2014-2018. 22 A Tale of Three Cities, supra note 9. 23 Metro. Planning Council, The Cost of Segregation, 4 -8 (2017), http://www.metroplanning.org/uploads/cms/doc- uments/cost-of-segregation.pdf. 24 Thomas J. Gradel & Dick Simpson, Patronage, Cronyism and Criminality in Chicago Government Agencies (2011); In April 2017, the Office of Inspector General released a report of its audit of the city’s Department of ransportaT - tion’s Aldermanic Menu program, whereby the city gives each alderman control of $1.32 million annually to fund residential infrastructure projects in their ward, including street and alley resurfacing, street lighting, speed humps, and sidewalk replacement. The audit demonstrated that aldermanic control of these funds has resulted in imbal- anced investments across the city, because funding is not based on need. The report also noted abuses of alder-

83 manic power: “We also found that in the years 2012 through 2015, the city allowed aldermen to designate $15.1 million of Menu funds for projects unrelated to core residential infrastructure improvements. ... Furthermore, in 2014, the city permitted aldermen to spend Menu funds on projects located outside of the wards they represented at the time and within their yet-to-be-effectuated future ward boundaries.” The audit noted that “[t]hese findings are deeply troubling and point to serious systemic issues in the city’s residential infrastructure planning which disproportionately affect certain parts of the city.” Chicago Office of the Inspector General, CDOT Aldermanic Menu Program Audit (Apr. 20, 2017). 25 Maya Dukmasova, Aldermen’s absolute veto power over ward projects gets unlikely court challenge, CHI. READER, (Apr. 16, 2018), https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2018/04/16/aldermens-absoluteveto-pow- er-over-ward-projects-gets-unlikely-court-challenge; Marisa Novara, When Local Control Goes Wrong, METRO. PLANNING COUNCIL (Apr. 3, 2018), http://www.metroplanning.org/news/8552/When-Local-Control-Goes- Wrong. 26 Cohen & Taylor, supra note 17, at 70. 27 Adam Cohen & Elizabeth Taylor, American Pharaoh: Mayor Richard J. Daley - His Battle for Chicago and the Nation 70 (2001). 28 Rothstein, supra note 5, at 20. 29 Cohen & Taylor, supra note 17, at 77. 30 Id., at 79. 31 Id., at 76-77. 32 Id, at 86. 33 The Public Housing Administration (PHA) was a branch of the Housing and Home Finance Agency (HHFA), cre- ated in July 1947. PHA was the federal agency responsible for administering federally-assisted affordable housing. Its responsibilities were superseded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in September 1965. 34 Cohen & Taylor, supra note 17, at 86; While the City Council tightened their control over the siting of public housing in order to maintain residential segregation, Urban Renewal took hold in Chicago. Urban Renewal was a federal program that began in the late 1940s after the passage of Title 1 of the Housing Act of 1949. P.L. 81-171. It aimed to revitalize major cities by providing federal subsidies for redevelopment of identified “slums,” areas with little economic impact or activity. The act was further amended in 1954 to increase federally-backed incentives for city-developers to seize, raze, and renew low-income housing tracts. While Urban Renewal was federally funded, all plans had to be approved by City Council vote. By the late-1960s, through Urban Renewal programs, the City Council had displaced around 13,043 families, and 79.6% of those families were Black. Arnold R. Hirsch, Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago 1940-1960 306 (1998). 35 Hirsch, supra note 24, at 240. 36 Cohen & Taylor, supra note 17, at 201. 37 Id. 38 Mary Pattillo, Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City, 188 (2007). 39 BPI Chicago, What is Gautreaux? (2013), https://www.bpichicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/what-is- gautreaux.pdf. 40 Id. 41 BPI Chicago, The Gautreaux Lawsuit, https://www.bpichicago.org/programs/housing-community-development/ public-housing/gautreaux-lawsuit/. 42 Gautreaux v. Romney, 448 F.2d 731 (7th Cir 1971). 43 Pattillo, supra note 28, at 188. 44 Pattillo, supra note 28, at 185. 45 Larry Bennett, Janet Smith, & Patricia Wright, Where are Poor People to Live?: Transforming Public Housing Com- munities 245 (2006) 36 310 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. §10/9 (2007) 47 Janet K. Levin, Rewriting Beginnings: The Lessons of Gautreaux, 28 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 57, 70 (1994). 48 Bennett, supra note 33, at 245. 49 Gautreaux 342 F. Supp. 827 (N.D.Ill. 1972), aff’d sub nom., Gautreaux v. City of Chi., 480 F.2d 210 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1144, 94 S.Ct. 895, 39 L.Ed.2d 98 (1974) (district court ordered CHA to by-pass Chicago City Council approval for selection of sites for low rent housing.). 50 Bennett, supra note 33, at 245.

84 51 Alexander Polikoff, Waiting for Gautreaux: A Story of Segregation, Housing, and the Black Ghetto, 140 (2006). 52 Chi. Policy Research Team, Not Welcome: The Uneven Geographies of Housing Choice, https://docs.wixstatic.com/ ugd/664803_7e496bfc89d345a7b6b3210991b38476.pdf (2017) 53 Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977) (finding that certain facially innoc- uous statements to be evidence of racial animus, especially when made during the sequence of events preceding challenged decision). 54 See Smith v. Clarkton, 682 F.2d 1055 (4th Cir. 1982); See also Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. St. Bernard Par., 641 F. Supp. 2d 563, 565 (E.D. La. 2009); See also Atkins v. Robinson, 545 F. Supp. 852, 871-72 (E.D. Va. 1982) (finding statement that resident “feared the projects ‘would degenerate to slumlike conditions, with an abundance of crime’ to be a veiled reference to race.”); See also Sunrise Dev., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d at 775 (find- ing substantial likelihood of discriminatory intent under FHA when residents of community voiced opposition to construction of assisted living facility, including by criticizing the “appearance and activity” of such facilities and asserting that such facilities would “alter the residential character,” lower property values, and drain community services.); See also Ave. 6E Invs., LLC v. City of Yuma, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14913, *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 29, 2018) (where cit- izens decried higher-density and lower-priced housing because it would increase crime and reduce property values based on the “demographics” that they associated with the developer’s other properties, which were at least 50% Hispanic). 55 See Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984); See also Lucas v. Colo. Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S. 713, 736-37 (1964); See also United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ. (Yonkers I), 837 F.2d 1181, 1224 (2d Cir. 1987). See also Innovative Health Sys. Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 49 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding that “a decision maker has a duty not to allow illegal prejudices of the majority to influence the decision-making process. A … discriminatory act [is] no less illegal simply because it enjoys broad public support.”). 56 BPI Chicago, supra note 51. 57 42 U.S.C. § 3608 (2012). 58 See 42 U.S.C. §§ 3608(d), 3608(e)(5)(2012) (requiring that HUD administer funding programs in a manner “af- firmatively to further” the policies of the Fair Housing Act). §3608 has long been recognized to impose binding ob- ligations on agencies/entities administering federal housing programs and receiving HUD funding. See, e.g., Otero, 484 F.2d at 1133-34 (finding that “the affirmative duty placed on … HUD by §3608(e)(5)” also extends to “other agencies administering federal assisted housing programs”); Langlois, 234 F. Supp. 2d at 73 (declining to “construe the boundary of the duty to affirmatively further fair housing as ending with [HUD]”);Wallace v. Chi. Hous. Auth., 298 F. Supp. 2d 710, 719 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (recognizing that recipients of HUD funding have an obligation to HUD to affirmatively further fair housing). 59 24 C.F.R. §§ 91.225(a)(1); 570.601(a)(2)(2017). 60 24 C.F.R. §§ 92.202(b)(2017); 24 CFR 983.57(e)(2017). 61 24 C.R.F. § 983.57(e)(3)(vi) (2017). 62 Multiple developers independently noted that Alderman Walter Burnett (27th Ward) was one of the few Northside alderman to openly welcome and support affordable housing. 63 Fran Spielman, Emanuel’s private emails filled with complaints about crime, CHI. SUN-TIMES (May 24, 2018), https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/emanuels-private-emails-filled-with-complaints-about-crime/. 64 Appendix A. 65 Dukmasova, supra note 3. 66 Gary Washburn, Daley defends system of aldermanic zoning decisions, CHI. TRIB. (Jan 29, 2008), http://articles. chicagotribune.com/2008-01-29/news/0801280572_1_aldermenmayorrichard-daley-upzoning. 67 John Byrne, Seven North Side aldermen vow to add affordable housing to end ‘legacy of exclusion,’ CHI. TRIB. (May, 10 2017), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-chicago-aldermen-affordable-hous- ing-met-0511-20170510-story.html. 68 Robert Becker and Dan Mihalopoulos, Community input an illusion, CHI. TRIB. (Jan. 28, 2008), http://www. chicagotribune.com/news/chi-code-astroturfjan28-story.html. 69 Howard Ludwig, New Condos, Apartments on 111th St. Would Require Neighbors’ OK Under Plan, DNAINFO (Sept. 29, 2015), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150929/mt-greenwood/new-condos-apartments-on-111th-st- would-require-neighbors-ok-under-plan/. 70 47th Ward Alderman Ameya Pawar, 47th Ward Zoning Advisory Committee, http://chicago47.org/projects/zoning/. 71 Alderman Napolitano 41st Ward, Zoning Advisory Committee, https://www.chicago41.com/zoning-advisory-com- mittee. 72 The 2015 proposed mixed-use rental property at 8535 W. Higgins Road in Alderman Napolitano 41st Ward is one

85 such example of the ZAC’s ability to leverage its power in order to change the character and nature of a develop- ment. At the request of the ZAC, the Higgins Development reduced the residential building by 80 feet (resulting in the loss of 10 units), added pedestrian paths, and increased the building’s setback from the street. 73 Appendix B. 74 Id. 75 Members of a closed Facebook group who opposed the 5150 N. Northwest Highway project frequently posted thinly veiled comments rooted in racist and classist misconceptions toward affordable housing and voucher hold- ers. 76 An example of this is seen in Pilsen’s affordable housing mandate, where the city’s affordable housing mandate is effectively doubled so that all new developments of 10 or more units are required to provide 21 percent of all units at an affordable rate. 92 Cherone, supra note 81. 78 Welcome to the Neighborhood: Edison Park, CHICAGO REALTOR (2010), https://chicagorealtor.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/09/CR_Autumn2010_Neighborhood.pdf. 79 Alex Nitkin, Edison Park Condo Proposal Shot Down by Advisory Committee, DNAINFO (Jan. 5, 2017), https:// www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170105/edison-park/edison-park-condo-development-41st-ward-advisory-commit- tee-oliphant. 80 Heather Cherone, Things Get Ugly as Rival Politicians Clash Over Edison Park Apartment Plan, DNAINFO (June 2, 2016), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160602/edison-park/things-get-ugly-as-rival-politicians-clash-over- edison-park-apartment-plan/. 81 Id. 82 Heather Cherone, Proposed Edison Park Mixed-Use Condo Project Blasted By Residents, DNAINFO (Oct. 7, 2016), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161007/edison-park/downtown-edison-park-condos-troy-realty-napoli- tano-heneghan/. 83 Id 84 Alex Nitkin & Heather Cherone, Edison Park Condo Proposal Still Faces Heat From Community, Despite Tweaks, DNAINFO (Nov. 11, 2016), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161111/edison-park/edison-park-mixed-use-con- do-development. 85 Jay Kozlarz, Local zoning committee scuttles condos planned near Edison Park transit stop, CURBED CHI., (Jan. 5, 2017), https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/1/5/14178360/chicago-development-news-edisonparkcondo-proj- ect-killed. 86 Alex Nitkin, Red Hot Edison Park Wants To Stay Exactly As It Is, Alderman Says, DNAINFO (Jan. 10, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170110/edison-park/edison-park-real-estate-property-taxes-condos-propos- al-defeated-chioromski. 87 Id. 88 Id. 89 Census Reporter, Census Tract 2505, Cook, IL, https://censusreporter.org/profiles/14000US17031250500-census- tract-2505-cook-il/. 90 Jeffrey Steele, Galewood a convenient, close-knit Chicago neighborhood, CHI. TRIB. (Feb. 12, 2010), http://www. chicagotribune.com/ct-home-0212-galewood-profile-chomes-20100210-story.html. 91 Igor Studenkov, Proposed apartments in Galewood spark debate, OAKPARK.COM (Oct. 12, 2017), http://www. oakpark.com/News/Articles/10-12-2017/Proposed-apartments-in-Galewood-spark-debate/. 92 Id. 93 Igor Studenkov, Taliaferro won’t support luxury apartment proposal, Austin Weekly News, (Oct. 31, 2017), http:// www.austinweeklynews.com/News/Articles/10-31-2017/Taliaferro-won’t-support-luxury-apartment-proposal-/. 94 Igor Studenkov, Proposed apartments in Galewood spark debate, OakPark.com (Oct. 12, 2017), http://www.oak- park.com/News/Articles/10-12-2017/Proposed-apartments-in-Galewood-spark-debate/. 95 Id.. 96 Jay Koziarz, Galewood apartment development blocked by local alderman, Curbed Chi. (Nov. 1, 2017), https:// chicago.curbed.com/2017/11/1/16593024/galewood-apartment-development. 97 Elliott Ramos, Interactive: City Council-approved Chicago Ward Map, WBEZ News (Jan. 19, 2012), https://www. wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/interactive-city-council-approved-chicago-ward-map/52630c78-06ad-4e98-8aab- 05bd3ca72e24. 98 Heather Cherone, 55-Unit Affordable Apartment Complex Proposed for Portage Park, DNAINFO (Jan 25, 2016), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160125/portage-park/55-unit-affordable-apartment-complex-proposed-for-

86 portage-park/. 99 Portage Parke, Low income development at central and patterson (the vacant lot north of the CVS), EveryBlock Chi. (Jan 18, 2016), https://web.archive.org/web/20160122032644/https://chicago.everyblock.com/kindness/ jan18-low-income-development-central-and-patterson-vacant-lot-7301705/. 100 Id.. 101 Id. 102 Id. 103 Brian Nadig, Alderman Villegas pulls plug on affordable housing plan for Portage Park, Nadig Newspaper (Jan. 27, 2016), http://nadignewspapers.com/2016/01/27/alderman-villegas-pulls-plug-on-affordable-housing-plan-for- portage-park/. 104 Id. 105 Id. 106 Id. 107 Id.. 108 Gilbert from Chicago on behalf of Ald. Villegas, Proposed Development at 3655 W. Central Ave, EveryBlock Chi. (Jan. 26, 2016), https://chicago.everyblock.com/announcements/jan26-proposed-development-3655-w-central- ave-7315571/. 109 Alex Nitkin, Portage Park Dementia Care Facility Plan Wins Praise From Neighbors, DNAINFO (June 30, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170630/portage-park/anthem-memory-care-alzheimers-dementia-assist- ed-living-treatment-center-portage-park. 110 Chuck Sudo, When Aldermen Downzone, It Can Hurt Small Businesses, BISNOW (Apr. 5, 2018), https://www. bisnow.com/chicago/news/commercial-real-estate/aldermen-and-the-power-to-rezone-buildings-86767. 111 Vincent Lesczynski Michael, Preserving the Future: Historic Districts in New York City and Chicago in the late 20th Century, University of Chicago (2007). 112 Id. 113 2 Chi., Ill. Code §120-740 -120-850 (2017). 114 See 13 Chi., Ill. Code §32-020 (2017); 13 Chi., Ill. Code §32-120 (2017); 13 Chi., Ill. Code §32-200 (2017); 13 Chi., Ill. Code §32-205 (2017); 13 Chi., Ill. Code §200-100 – 105. (2017); 18 Chi. Ill. Code §13-101 (2017). 115 Affordable rental units are characterized here as units of any size with annual rents less than 30% of a low-in- come family’s earnings (60% of the AMI, roughly equivalent to rents in LIHTC properties). Note that this does not cross tabulate unit size and uses contract rent. Growth of utility expenses and other factors of rent, plus the pricing of smaller units make this less affordable respective to family size than the data is able to demonstrate. 116 Elliott Ramos, Interactive: City Council-approved Chicago Ward Map, WBEZ News (Jan. 19, 2012), https://www. wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/interactive-city-council-approved-chicago-ward-map/52630c78-06ad-4e98-8aab- 05bd3ca72e24. 117 Mina Bloom, Logan Square Building Boom Has Neighbors In Avondale Looking For Control, DNAINFO (Sep. 27, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170927/avondale/avondale-downzoning-effort-corner-project-alder- man-carlos-ramirez-rosa-milwaukee-change. 118 Mina Bloom, Ald. Rosa Flexes Muscles On Milwaukee: No New Developments Without Approval, DNAINFO (Oct. 12, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20171012/avondale/alderman-carlos-ramirez-rosa-rezoning-down- zoning-avondale-milwaukee-avenue. 119 Mina Bloom, Tensions High As Neighbors Debate Milwaukee Avenue Rezoning Plan, DNAINFO (Nov. 1, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20171101/avondale/milwaukee-avenue-rezoning-milwaukee-avondale-alder- man-carlos-ramirez-rosa-downzoning. 120 Id. 121 Id. 122 The only exception is a mandatory (or elective) planned development in a D (Downtown) zoning district. 123 City of Chi. Office of the Inspector Gen., Department of Planning and Development Affordable Requirements Ad- ministration Audit (March 2017). 124 Rick Wendy & David Warner, Chicago Expands Mandatory Affordable Housing for Private Residential Development. Chicago, IL: Freeborn and Peters, LLP. 125 2 Chi., Ill. Code §45-110 (2017) (2007 affordable housing commitment). 126 2 CHI., ILL. CODE §45-115 (2017) (2015 affordability requirements).

87 127 City of Chi. Dept. of Hous., Internal Procedures (2004). 128 City of Chi. Dept. of Hous., Internal Procedures (2005) (Internal Program Descriptions – Home Improvement/ Special Needs. Revision Date: Summer 2005 Multi-unit Lending Procedures). 129 CHI. SO2017-7654, Section 7 (Dec. 4, 2017). 130 City of Chi. Qualified Allocation Plan (2011), Section III. Tax Credit Reservation Process B., Application Forms and Documentation (the requirement was also included in the same location the qualified allocation plans for the years 2001, 2006 and 2009). 131 Rev. Rul. 2016-29, 6. (“When state housing credit agencies allocate housing credit dollar amounts, § 42(m)(1) (A)(ii) does not require or encourage these agencies to reject all proposals that do not obtain the approval of the locality where the project developer proposes to place the project. That is, it neither requires nor encourages hous- ing credit agencies to honor local vetoes.”) The Ruling finds that state housing finance agency Qualified Allocation Plans that have a local support requirement are acting inconsistent with § 42 (m)(l)(A)(ii) as well as federal fair housing laws. Id. 132 City of Chi. Dept. of Planning and Dev., Multi-Family Housing Financial Assistance Application Instructions (2017), https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/housing/2017_MF_Application_In- structions.doc. 133 Marisa Novara, Is fear of young people driving our housing supply?, Metro. Planning Coun. (Mar. 16, 2016), http://www.metroplanning.org/news/7283/Is-fear-of-young-people-driving-our-housing-supply. 134 2 CHI., ILL. CODE § 124-030(a) (2017). 135 2 CHI., ILL. CODE §124-030(b) (2017). 136 2.CHI., ILL. CODE §124-030(b)(3) (2017). 137 65 ILC.S. § 5/11-74.4-4(c);(e);(j). 138 City of Chi., Western Avenue North Redevelopment Project Area: Tax Increment Financing District Eligibility Study, Redevelopment Plan, and Project (2000), https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/tif/ plans/T_084_WesternNorthRDP.pdf. 139 Adeshina Emmanuel, $220M Development Proposed for Former Maryville Academy Site, DNAINFO (Nov. 28, 2012), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20121128/uptown/220m-developmentproposed-forform- er-maryville-academy-site. 140 Interview with housing advocate. 141 Id. 142 Adeshina Emmanuel, Developer Says Uptown Has ‘Too Much’ Affordable Housing, Aims For Luxury, DNAINFO (Dec. 27, 2012), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20121227/uptown/critics-say-planned-luxury-lakefront-com- plex-needs-more-affordable-units/. 143 Adeshina Emmanuel, $14 Million TIF for Uptown Luxury Housing Draws Committee OK, Protests, DNAINFO (Feb. 26, 2014), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140226/uptown/14m-tif-for-uptown-luxury-housing-draws-ok- by-local-committee-protests/. 144 Adeshina Emmanuel, Developer Could Change Plan for Luxury Housing Amid Financial Uncertainty, DNAINFO, (July 1, 2014), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140701/uptown/developer-could-change-plan-for-luxu- ry-housing-amid-financial-uncertainty/. 145 Mina Bloom, Controversial Luxury Development in Uptown Moving Forward, DNAINFO (Apr. 2, 2015), https:// www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150402/uptown/controversial-luxury-development-uptown-moving-forward-des- pite-setbacks 146 City of Chi. Dept. of Cmty. Dev., Montrose Clarendon Tax Increment Financing Plan and Project (2010) https:// www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/tif/plans/T_173_MontroseClarendonRDP.pdf; Ted Cox, Coun- cil ‘Iced’ Activists From Meeting By Using Interns to Fill Seats: Suit, DNAINFO (July 14, 2016), https://www.dnainfo. com/chicago/20160714/uptown/council-iced-activists-from-meeting-by-using-interns-fill-seats-suit/. 147 Id. 148 Hal Dardick, City Council must allow public comment, judge rules, Chi. Trib. (Dec. 20, 2016), http://www.chicag- otribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-chicago-city-council-open-meetings-met-1221-20161220-story.html. 149 Chi. Data Portal: City Owned Land Inventory (Oct. 6, 2017). 150 City of Chi. Dep’t of Planning and Dev., New Homes for Chicago: City Lots for City Living Application. 151 Ken Hare, Chicago City Council Sued Over Alleged Closed TIF Meeting, CHI. DEFENDER (Aug. 5, 2016), https:// chicagodefender.com/2016/08/05/chicago-city-council-sued-over-closed-tif-meeting/. 152 Id 153 Interview with housing advocate.

88 154 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Community Data Snapshot: Jefferson Park (June 2017), http://www. cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/126764/Jefferson+Park.pdf. 155 Jefferson Park, Encyclopedia of Chicago (2004), http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/667.html. 156 Heather Cherone, Jefferson Park Apartment Complex Opponents to Launch Petition Drive, DNAINFO (June 25, 2014), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140625/jefferson-park/jefferson-park-apartment-complex-oppo- nents-launch-petition-drive. 157 Id. 158 Heather Cherone, Petition Against Jefferson Park Apartment Complex Delivered to Ald. Arena, DNAINFO (July 24, 2014), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140724/jefferson-park/petition-against-jefferson-park-apart- ment-complex-delivered-ald-arena. 159 Heather Cherone, Alderman’s Support for Dense Developments Near Transit Hubs Sparks Debate, DNAINFO (Jan. 21, 2015), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150121/jefferson-park/aldermans-support-for-dense-develop- ments-near-transit-hubs-sparks-debate. 160 Heather Cherone & Ted Cox, Jefferson Park Gateway Project Approved by City Commission on Second Try, DNAIN- FO (Sept. 8, 2015), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150908/jefferson-park/jefferson-park-gateway-project- approved-by-city-commission-on-second-try. 161 Heather Cherone, Plan for 48 Apartments Near Jeff Park Transit Center Revived, Alderman Says, DNAINFO (May 6, 2016), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160506/jefferson-park/plan-for-48-apartments-near-jeff-park-tran- sit-center-revived-alderman-says. 162 Id. 163 Heather Cherone, Argument Over Jeff Park’s Future Boils Over During Debate About Apartments, DNAINFO (May 17, 2016), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160517/jefferson-park/argument-over-jeff-parks-future-boils- over-during-debate-about-apartments 164 Id. 165 Heather Cherone, 48-Unit Apartment Complex Near Jefferson Park Transit Hub Gets Arena’s OK, DNAINFO (Sept. 6, 2016), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160902/sauganash/48-unit-apartment-complex-near-jefferson- park-transit-hub-gets-arenas-ok. 166 Id. 167 Alex Nitkin, Jeff Park Plan For 100 Mixed-Income Apartments Unveiled by Ald. Arena, DNAINFO (Jan. 26, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170126/jefferson-park/jefferson-park-mixed-income-affordable-apart- ments-john-arena. 168 Alex Nitkin, Jefferson Park Mixed-Income Housing Would Bring ‘Miscreants,’ Neighbors Say. DNAINFO, (Feb. 12, 2017) https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170210/jefferson-park/jeffeson-park-mixed-income-housing-meeting- arena. 169 Nitkin, supra note 166. 170 Alex Nitkin, Jefferson Park Mixed-Income Housing Proposal Sparks Fierce Backlash, DNAINFO (Feb. 3, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170126/jefferson-park/jefferson-park-mixed-income-affordable-apart- ments-john-arena. 171 Northwest Side Residents Against the 5150 Northwest Highway, https://www.change.org/p/jefferson-park-neigh- borhood-association-northwest-side-residents-against-the-5150-northwest-highway-development-project. 172 Alex Nitkin, Jefferson Park Mixed-Income Housing Would Bring ‘Miscreants,’ Neighbors Say, DNAINFO (Feb. 12, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170210/jefferson-park/jeffeson-park-mixed-income-housing-meeting- arena. 173 Id. 174 Interview with housing advocate. 175 Id. 176 Id. 177 Northwest Side Neighbor, News: March 7th Ward Night Protest, Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/ events/1831738160429456/. 178 Alex Nitkin, Jeff Park Storage Facility To Be Considered At Unprecedented Zoning Meeting, DNAINFO (May 5, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170505/jefferson-park/jefferson-park-affordable-housing-storage-fa- cility-john-arena-northwest-side-unite. 179 Alex Nitkin & Heather Cherone, Jeff Park Storage Facility Gets Final OK Despite Napolitano’s ‘No’ Vote. DNAINFO. May 24, 2017 https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170524/jefferson-park/jefferson-park-affordable-housing-stor- age-facility-john-arena-anthony-napolitano/.

89 180 Id. 181 Jay Kozlarz, 25 units cut from controversial Jefferson Park apartment plan, Curbed Chi. (Feb. 8, 2018), https://chi- cago.curbed.com/2018/2/8/16986216/jefferson-park-northwest-highway-development-update. 182 Heather Cherone, Aldermen Fight Over Affordable Housing On NW Side: ‘Stay Out Of The 45th’ DNAINFO, (May 18, 2017 https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170518/downtown/two-far-nw-side-aldermen-square-off-over- affordable-housing-jeff-park; Cyryl Jakubowski, Protest goes on outside church during Arena’s community meeting, Nadig Newspapers (Feb. 14, 2017), http://nadignewspapers.com/2017/02/14/protest-goes-on-outside-church- during-arenas-community-meeting/. 183 Heather Cherone, Aldermen Fight Over Affordable Housing On NW Side: ‘Stay Out Of The 45th’ DNAINFO, (May 18, 2017 https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170518/downtown/two-far-nw-side-aldermen-square-off-over-af- fordable-housing-jeff-park. 184 Id. 185 Jesús “Chuy” Garcia, Letter: The fight for affordable housing in Jefferson Park continues, Chi. Trib. (June 6, 2017), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-affordable-housing-jefferson-park-emanuel-arena-gar- cia-20170606-story.html. 186 Id. 187 Jay Kozlarz, 25 units cut from controversial Jefferson Park apartment plan, Curbed Chi. (Feb. 8, 2018), https://chi- cago.curbed.com/2018/2/8/16986216/jefferson-park-northwest-highway-development-update. 188 Brian Nadig, Complaint charges cops made racist remarks on housing plan Nadig Newspapers (Feb. 9, 2018), http:// nadignewspapers.com/2018/02/09/complaint-charges-cops-made-racist-remarks-housing-plan/; John Byrne, Northwest Side alderman files complaint against cops, alleging racially charged language in housing controversy, Chi. Trib. (Feb. 9 2018), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-arena-northwest-side-housing-po- lice-complaint-20180202-story.html. 189 Brian Nadig, Dozens of government workers, including firefighters, and retired teachers faced scrutiny from Arena’s office for their social media comments, Nadig Newspapers (Mar. 3, 2018), http://nadignewspapers.com/2018/03/03/ update-nearly-60-current-retired-government-workers-faced-scrutiny-arenas-office-comments-housing-proposal/. 190 Brian Nadig, Fraternal Order of Police files complaint against Ald. Arena with Inspector General,N adig Newspapers (Apr. 6, 2018), http://nadignewspapers.com/2018/04/06/fraternal-order-of-police-files-complaint-against-ald-are- na-with-inspector-general/. 191 Nadig, supra note 189. 192 Alby Gallun, Residential tower planned next to O’Hare Marriott, Crain’s Chi. Business (Sept. 23, 2015), http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20150923/CRED03/150929948/residential-tow- er-planned-next-to-ohare-marriott. 193 41st Ward Zoning Advisory Board (Aug. 5, 2015), https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/fbd82e_60848ce386914125910267cce46e299d.pdf. 194 Dukmasova, supra note 3. 195 Ald. Napolitano letter to Commissioner Reifman, on file with the author. 196 41st Ward Zoning Advisory Board (Aug. 5, 2015), https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/fbd82e_60848ce386914125910267cce46e299d.pdf. 197 Dukmasova, supra note 3. 198 Alex Nitkin, 297 Apartments Near O’Hare Approved Over Alderman’s Objection, DNAINFO (July 20, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170720/ohare/napolitano-glenstar-ohare-297-apartments-cumberland-blue- line-passed-plan-commission. 199 Memorandum from Tesca Associates to Lawrence Debb, Student Pop. Estimate, Nov. 9, 2016, on file with the author. 200 Dukmasova, supra note 3. 201 Alex Nitkin, 299 Luxury Micro Apartments Proposed Next To Cumberland Marriott, DNAINFO (Dec. 8, 2016), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161208/ohare/cumberland-blue-line-marriott-apartments-micro. 202 Nitkin, supra note 200. 203 Id. 204 Dukmasova, supra note 3. 205 Id. 206 Alex Nitkin, New Apartments Near O’Hare Opposed By Napolitano, Citing ‘Density’ Concerns, DNAINFO (June 16, 2017), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170616/ohare/napolitano-glenstar-ohare-297-apartments-cumber- land-blue-line.

90 207 Lawrence A. Debb, Letter to Alderman Napolitano (July 11, 2017), https://www.chicagoreader.com/gener- al/201801/July-11-2017-Letter-from-GlenStar.pdf. 208 Nitkin, supra note 200. 209 Dukmasova, supra note 3. 210 Id. 211 Id. 212 Id. 213 Id. 214 Id. 215 Id. 216 Id. 217 Id. 218 Id. 219 Danny Ecker, Developer sues city for blocking apartment project, CRAIN’S CHI. BUSINESS (Mar. 22, 2018), http:// www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20180322/CRED03/180329942/developer-sues-city-for-blocking-apart- ment-project; Glenstar O’Hare, LLC., v. City of Chi., 2018 CH 03622 (March 20, 2018). 220 A Tale of Three Cities, supra note 9. 221 Robert J. Sampson, Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect, (2011). 222 Marwa Eltagouri, Chicago only major U.S. city to lose population from 2015 to 2016, CHI. TRIB. (May 25, 2017), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-census-met-20170524-story.html. 223 Id. 224 David Mendell, The Real Problem with Chicago’s Shrinking Population, CHI. MAGAZINE (May 8, 2017), http:// www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/June-2017/Chicagos-Population-Problem/. 225 Inst. for Hous. Studies at DePaul Univ., Calculation of data from American Communities Survey 5-year estimates, 2006-2010 and 2011-2015. 226 Mendell, supra note 226. 227 Chi. Metro. Agency for Planning, Overview of Comprehensive Plans (2011), http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/docu- ments/10180/199110/Comp_Plan_Presentation-05-09-2011.pdf/6b2958af-7634-49cb-8bda-0909e54207ee. 228 City of Chi. Dep’t. of City Planning, Basic Policies for the Comprehensive Plan of Chicago (1964). 229 Id. 230 City of Chi. Dep’t. of City Planning, Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies (1981). 231 Progress Report of the Mayor’s Zoning Reform Commission, Principles for Chicago’s New Zoning Ordinance: Rec- ommendations for Preserving, Protecting, and Strengthening Chicago’s Neighborhoods (May 2002), http://www.cct. org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ChicagoCentralAreaPlan2003.pdf. 232 Race Forward: The Center for Race Justice Innovation, Racial Equity Impact Assessment Toolkit, https://www. raceforward.org/practice/tools/racial-equity-impact-assessment-toolkit. 233 Id. 234 Sara Pratt & Michael Allen, Addressing Community Opposition to Affordable Housing Development: A Fair Housing Toolkit (2004), http://www.fhcsp.com/Links/toolkit.pdf. “Austin, Texas: SMART Housing works with developers to ensure submissions respond to legitimate community concerns about land use impact and explicitly reject extrane- ous grounds of opposition. By getting the developer and the neighbors at the same table early in the process, the staff is able to identify and deal with legitimate land use issues. Its internal goal is to have a zoning application on the docket of City Council for final action within 45 days after it is filed” (17). 235 In 1982, California adopted the Housing Accountability Act. Cal. Gov’t Code § 65589.5(a)(1)(A). 236 City of Chicago Zoning Maps [book], Chicago: Index Publishing Corporation, 1970-2010. 237 City of Chicago Map Server. Current Zoning, http://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/arcgis/rest/services/Exter- nalApps/Zoning/MapServer/1 (May 2018). 238 City of Chicago Map Server. Landmark Districts, http://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/arcgis/rest/services/Exter- nalApps/Zoning/MapServer/5 (May 2018). 239 City of Chicago, Department of Planning and Development, Affordable Housing Quarterly Reports, https:// www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/quarterly_housingreports.html (May 2018). 240 US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Low Income Housing Tax Credit Database, https://lihtc. huduser.gov/ (April 2018). 241 US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Multifamily Insured Properties Database, https://egis-hud. opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/8047154d02664441acb2b1e8881cdad3_0 (June 2018).

91 242 US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Multifamily Housing Portfolio Database, https://egis-hud. opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/83d334f8b4614cce9e67b0e0a1105520_0 (June 2018). 243 City of Chicago Open Data Portal, TIF Projects, https://data.cityofchicago.org/Community-Economic-Develop- ment/Tax-Increment-Financing-TIF-Projects/mex4-ppfc/data (May 2018). 244 City of Chicago Open Data Portal, City Owned Land Inventory, https://data.cityofchicago.org/Community-Eco- nomic-Development/City-Owned-Land-Inventory/aksk-kvfp (May 2018). 245 Paul Jargowsky, Concentration of Poverty in the New Millenium, The Century Foundation, https://tcf.org/assets/ downloads/Concentration_of_Poverty_in_the_New_Millennium.pdf (2013). 246 Logan et. al. Interpolating US Decennial Census Tract Data from as Early as 1970 to 2010: A Longitudinal Tract Database, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4134912/ (April 2018).

92