Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

per affordable unit (adjusted each year for infla- tion). The funds paid by the developer go to the city's Affordable Housing Opportunities Fund. By ordinance, 60 percent of these funds must be used for the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing. Forty percent of the funds go to the Chicago Low Income Housing Trust Fund (CLlHTF), wh ich primarily provides funding for a highly successful rental subsidy program that partners with landlords across the city. Since 2003, the ARO, according to the city, has produced 763 affordable housing units- Chicago, and the ordinance ensures the promise of affordable housing when that happens. The principle behind the ARO is simple: If you want the city's land or money you will do something for affordable housing. Prong #2: Let the Neighborhoods Decide-The Chicago Partnerships for Affordable Neighborhoods Program (CPAN) The city created the CPAN program to create affordable housing in private developments in city neighborhoods. Under this program, if an approximately 220 affordable housing units each year. Some ofthese 763 affordable housing units were created as part ofthe Chicago Housing Authority's (CHA) Plan for Transformation devel- opments, which are mixed-income developments containing roughly a third public housing, a third affordable housing, and a third market-rate hous. ing as replacement housing for the demolished public housing high rises. Federal and state housing subsidies, including HOPE VI dollars and Low Income Housing Tax Credits, are already involved in these deals, which means the afford- able units were guaranteed even without the city's ARO ordinance. Nevertheless, T1F dollars are often used for residential developments in alderman-Chicago is governed by 50 locally elected aldermen who, as such, are the gate- keepers for local development-and a developer agree to include some affordable housing in an otherwise private development, the city will pro- vide incentives such as fee waivers and market- ing assistance to the developer. The success of the program is attributed to the city council's nearly certain deference to the wishes of the alderman on local land-use matters. For exam. pie, a developers request for a zoning change needs the alderman's support for city council approval. This Chicago tradition of "aldermanic prerogative" is as predictable and as accepted as a summertime refrain of "Wait 'til next year!" from Cubs fans. Acco'rding to the city, 16 of 50 aldermen have participated in the CPAN pro- gram, resulting in the creation of 461 affordable housing units since 2002. The city advertises this program as purely voluntary. In practice, though, CPAN can also be mandatory or nonexistent, depending on the alderman. If an alderman is a strong affordable housing advocate, the CPAN program may, in effect, operate as a mandatory policy for that ward. If it used on a purely voluntary basis, CPAN might only be used when a developer needs a zoning change and is amenable to doing some affordable housing. However, if an alderman does not support affordable housing, has a ward with little devel- opment, or simply lacks the energy or political will to negotiate tooth-and-nail with developers on specific developments, then it may not be used at all. The program requires development activity and a tremendous commitment oftime, energy, and political will from aldermen and community groups. Indeed, each orthe 451 affordable units prod,uced by the program is the result of significant effort from both. Unfortu. nately, only lEi aldermen have used the program. Although the Chicago approach of project- specific land-use decisions has unique quali. ties, many cities and towns across the country can draw parallels with it. Local govemments and special interest groups have long been known to use community input and opposition to stall, scale back, or prevent developments- especially those that include affordable hous- ing. In the past three decades, community resi- dents and elected officials in local govemments from Massachusetts and New Jersey to Califomia have reversed this historical trend by using the development approval process to secure affordable housing in market-rate devel- opments, and the CPAN program is an example of just that. ZONING PRACTICE 3.07 203 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3