A request to the Common Sense Caucus: Support pro-growth housing policy
(it ought to be common sense, too)
As a reminder, we’ll be hosting another meetup for A City That Works readers on July 17th, at Jefferson Tap from 5:30-8:30pm. You can register here (attendance is free). Hope to see you there!
Let’s get this out of the way off the bat: I am a pretty big fan of the “Common Sense Caucus” that’s emerged in City Council. While not every member is my cup of tea, the group includes in a lot of alders that I’ve respected for a really long time.1
On policy, they’re also pretty aligned with many of the policy stances we’ve argued for in this space. We’ve advocated for deeper structural reforms to overall city spending, which they fought for, and we thought the infrastructure bond, which they tried to reform, was a bad idea. We’ve also emphasized the need for better and more policing - and actually enforcing the rules which we have - to address our public safety challenges, and I appreciate their efforts on this front as well. More broadly, I also think it’s important for City Council to serve as a counter-balance on the power of any mayor - we’ve seen in the past what happens when Chicago mayors don’t have that kind of check - and I think they’ve served a genuinely good role in reining in many of Mayor Johnson’s more questionable decisions.
All of that said, there are some spaces where I wish the Common Sense Caucus would take a stronger, more proactive position. The most obvious of these is on housing policy, where their stances have been much more of a mixed bag.
Parking Requirement Reform
Take, for example, a parking minimum reform ordinance introduced by Ald. LaSpata and co-sponsored by Alders Vasquez and Lawson. The measure would remove any minimum parking requirements within half a mile of an L or Metra station and within a quarter mile of a CTA bus line. The logic behind this kind of reform is fairly straightforward: by requiring so much square footage of a project to go towards parking, these minimums then reduce the footage of a project that goes towards actual housing construction. That results in fewer (or smaller) units built, resulting in less housing and increasing rents.
If we can get rid of the requirements - particularly in areas well-served by public transit, as this ordinance focuses on - that’s a good thing. I also want to be clear that this ordinance doesn’t prevent developers from including parking spots in their developments; it just gives developers the flexibility to let market demand, rather than government floors, dictate the appropriate number of parking spots for a development.
That strikes me as pretty sensible, which is why we’re seeing more and more places adopt such reforms. And it’s not just a left-wing, blue state push: in May, the Dallas City Council eliminated all parking minimums (not just those near transit), and the North Carolina State House passed a bill eliminating parking minimums across the entire state in June. But when La Spata’s ordinance was up at the Zoning Committee meeting last month, it was pushed back over concerns from several downtown alders (including Alders Conway and Reilly, two members of the Common Sense Caucus who I otherwise really like) about the impact to parking in the downtown area. I hear their point - I drive downtown a fair amount, and it is often hard to park! - but I am skeptical that Chicago is unable to deal with that challenge if places as car-centric as Dallas or Charlotte can.
Marcey Street Development
Another recent example that stands out is at 1840 N. Marcey Street, where a proposed project from developer Sterling Bay has been stalled for several months given opposition from Ald. Scott Waguespack. The predominant sticking point has been a property tax relief measure that Sterling Bay is relying on in their proposal, which reduces the property taxes paid on the project for the first 30 years.2
I hope that in many prior posts I’ve established how important I think it is to grow our tax base, and that I think one of the major benefits of new developments is the property tax dollars they’ll contribute to the city. Because of that, I have a huge problem with any special tax giveaways or one-off ad hoc deals to try and engineer a project. But that’s not what’s happening here; as I understand it this is a program passed by Springfield which is open to any eligible project within the geographic boundaries set out by City Council.
It also seems straightforwardly clear to me that even with those tax abatements, the project will generate significantly more revenue for the city than the vacant call center currently occupying the lot (even if it takes 3 years for that revenue to start coming in), in addition to the economic activity that an extra 600+ residents would generate in the Clybourn and Armitage corridors. It also means we get an extra 600+ residents in Lincoln Park, and add over 100 units of affordable housing, both of which are inherently good in their own right! I worry that this is a real instance of letting perfect be the enemy of the good, and slowing down progress on a project that we could really use. That doesn’t strike me as the kind of pro-growth strategy we should be adopting.
It’s not all bad
In fairness to the caucus, they haven’t been universally opposed to pro-growth proposals. Several of their members, for example - including Waguespack and Conway - are co-sponsors of Ald. Bennett Lawson’s ordinance to legalize ADUs across Chicago, a great pro-housing reform which unfortunately remains held up in committee at the request of the Johnson Administration.3 Many of them, including Alders Hopkins, Cardona, and Waguespack, also voted to pass the housing and economic development bond that we viewed as a good pro-growth step for the city.
It was similarly great to see Ald. Brian Hopkins come around in support of the Fern Hill development in Old Town, which will generate significant benefits for the city. Conway and Reilly have also overseen tremendous levels of development in River North and the West Loop which make up much of their wards. Both have also fought hard for the Loop / LaSalle Street revitalization projects adding significant housing supply to the Loop.
Moderates need a positive platform to fight for
But there’s more that can and must be done to ensure Chicago remains on good footing going forward. There’s a broader point to make here about what moderate, common sense politicians should be advocating for politically. When you have ineffective left-wing city leaders like Brandon Johnson, it’s relatively easy to position yourself as “not that” and just focus on opposing whatever ideas left wing politicians are pushing for.
But that doesn’t work in the long run. The moderate bloc needs its own policy agenda to fight for, with a constructive vision on how to make housing more affordable, how to spur more development, and how to generate more growth in the city. If it doesn’t have that, then it becomes a lot harder to win policy battles over lefties who are at least presenting a case (albeit often a bad one) about fixing problems that voters care about. They’ll have a harder time winning elections against left-wing candidates running on an affirmative list of ideas. If they do win, they’ll have a harder time governing and actually improving the city.
Pro-growth housing policy ought to be the cornerstone of that agenda, not something that only the left-wing cares about. In other contexts, the Common Sense Caucus is a group focused on fiscal responsibility, cutting red tape, and supporting growth in the city of Chicago. Common sense measures like eliminating parking minimums and approving projects which grow our tax base should be a part of that.
The next meeting of the city’s Zoning Committee is next Tuesday, July 15th, where both the parking reform and the Marcey project will be on the agenda. If you’re a member of the Common Sense Caucus, I implore you to support both to foster a growing, more prosperous, and more affordable Chicago.
Because this is an unofficial group (though official enough for the Tribune to write about it!), I can’t find a full list of members, but I take this group to include Alders Brian Hopkins (2nd), Anthony Beale (9th), Peter Chico (10th), Marty Quinn (13th), Ray Lopez (15th), Derrick Curtis (18th), Silvana Tabares (23rd), Felix Cardona (31st), Scott Waguespack (32nd), Bill Conway (34th), Gilbert Villegas (36th), Brendan Reilly (42nd), and Debra Silverstein (50th), among others.
My read is that the project qualifies for Tier 3 in the table here - receiving a 100% tax reduction for 3 years, 80% for years 4-6, 60% for years 7-9, 40% for years 10-12, and 20% for years 13 to 30.
As a clarifying note here: the Johnson administration’s opposition isn’t because they’re opposed to ADUs; instead it’s because they don’t think the proposed bill goes far enough in enabling their construction citywide and they favor a more aggressive ordinance. I don’t disagree, and I like their ambition, but I also think it’s another example of letting perfect be the enemy of the good when it comes to housing reform.
Sorry,guys, I don't agree with you on Marcey. The developer is near broke and has two other fully-proposed similar proposals, unbuilt. Not to mention, that this Sterling Bay, almost non-owner of the disastrous Lincoln Yards project. I had more affordable housing units built in Lincoln Park when I was alderman than in the previous 35 years, and I think it's appropriate to deny subsidies to developers who can't build the project.
I think this is a misread of what's going on with the Common Sense Caucus. The caucus comprises a few members from high-density affluent neighborhoods near downtown and several more members from low-density, homeowner-dominated neighborhoods on the fringes of the city. Those two groups have pretty different interests when it comes to housing.
The conflict over the ADU ordinance is telling. There are 16 co-sponsors on that ordinance. As you point out, the main sponsor (Lawson) and a couple of others are in the Common Sense Caucus. But 10 of the 16 are progressives. Insofar as there's any discernible pattern in who has supported the ordinance publicly, it's more about neighborhood density than these caucuses.
The opponent of the ordinance most willing to go on the record with reporters has been fellow Common Sense Caucus member Marty Quinn, who has called it an "attack" on the bungalow belt. This kind of effort to protect low-density, homeowner-centric neighborhoods is also reflected in the fierce defense of aldermanic prerogative that many members of the Common Sense Caucus have participated in.
As you note in the footnote, the Johnson administration's opposition to Lawson's ordinance comes from a preference for an ordinance that allows ADUs citywide and doesn't add hurdles for areas with single-family zoning. Setting aside for a moment whether pushing for the comprehensive version over the compromise version is tactically sound, the substance of the opposition is about something important: neighborhood inequality. There's a question here about whether these reforms will apply citywide, or whether we will continue to let some alders operate fiefdoms that work to keep their neighborhoods low-density, car-centric, and exclusive. This question is a critical part of recent conflicts over aldermanic prerogative and housing policy. Many members of the Common Sense Caucus have a clear answer on this question, and that's why they don't support pro-growth housing policy.