A CITY FRAGMENTED HOW RACE, POWER, AND ALDERMANIC PREROGATIVE SHAPE CHICAGO’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