|
<br />tive and highly successful effort by Chicago to
<br />navigate the difficult shoals of density, devel-
<br />opment, and affordable housing. Proponents of
<br />affordable housing should applaud the city for
<br />its efforts, which will likely be imitated by other
<br />cities. In fact, Seattle has followed Chicago's
<br />lead with the adoption of its downtown density
<br />bonus program. Similar to New York City,
<br />Chicago employs voluntary, targeted
<br />approaches to secure the creation of affordable
<br />housing. CPAN produces units in a way that
<br />meets the variety of housing needs and politi-
<br />cal desires ofthe city's diverse neighborhoods
<br />and wards.
<br />However, Chicago's programs suffer two
<br />major shortcomings. Rrst, the voluntary nature
<br />of the programs can create un predictability for
<br />developers and unfaimess for neighborhoods
<br />and communities. This problem is most evident
<br />with CPAN-some neighborhoods participate
<br />while others abstain. Some developers have to
<br />participate; others do not. When purchasing
<br />land, developers may be unaware of whether
<br />compliance with (PAN will be required.
<br />CPAN creates un predictability in the
<br />development process, fails to establish a
<br />level playing field for developers and neigh-
<br />borhoods, and creates the potential for differ-
<br />ential treatment for developers based on
<br />political clout. In San Diego, San Francisco,
<br />Denver, or even Boston, the inclusionary zon-
<br />ing requirement is clear, predictable. and
<br />applied across the board to all developments
<br />that meet broad criteria.
<br />Second, the voluntary nature and limited
<br />coverage of CPAN, ARO, and the downtown
<br />bonus create "missed opportunities." With an
<br />inclusive or mandatory program applying to a
<br />wider variety of developments, Chicago could
<br />generate many more affordable units and more
<br />money for successful programs like the city's
<br />Low Income Housing Trust Fund.
<br />If Chicago expanded its CPAN program
<br />and ARO ordinance to be more of a mandatory,
<br />across-the-board policy such as the programs
<br />in Denver, San Francisco, San Diego, and
<br />Boston (covering all zoning changes, etc.), the
<br />city would benefit from increased production
<br />and increased predictability in the develop-
<br />ment process. Under its current voluntary pro-
<br />grams, Chicago must be savvy and generous
<br />with .its incentives to secure participation by
<br />developers. And yet, despite being savvy, there
<br />are still large and overt missed opportunities.
<br />With a mandatory, citywide ordinance in place
<br />fom 1998 to 2003, the city would have created
<br />over 7,000 affordable homes and apartments.
<br />
<br />206
<br />
<br />WHERE DOES CHICAGO GO FROM HERE?
<br />Census figures reveal that from 2000 to 2005
<br />the number of home owners in the City of
<br />Chicago paying more than 35 percent of their
<br />income for housing increased from about one
<br />in every five home owners to a whopping one
<br />in every three home owners and the percent-
<br />age of renters paying more than 35 percent of
<br />their income on rent increased from 30 to 46
<br />percent. The data also reveal that the city lost
<br />71,000 rental uflits after enjoying a slight gain
<br />in population from 1990 to 2000. The city is
<br />
<br />
<br />once again losing population to the suburbs
<br />as 190,000 people left the city for other
<br />locales since 2000. And the out-migration is
<br />no doubt due at least in part to the affordable
<br />housing crunch. Chicago cannot continue a
<br />rebirth, nor cement its place as a world-class
<br />city in the global economy, until it deals suffi-
<br />ciently with the problem of providing enough
<br />affordable housing for middle- and working-
<br />class and poor households. So, what next?
<br />
<br />MAYOR RICHARD M. DALEY'S PROPOSAL
<br />In November 2006, Mayor Daley introduced an
<br />ordinance to expand the city's affordable
<br />requirements ordinance to cover all zoning
<br />
<br />changes where the city grants an increase in
<br />residential density or allows a residentialllse
<br />not previously allowed, to cover all develop-
<br />ments constructed on city land (not just devel-
<br />opments that get a discount on the sale of city
<br />land), and to cover all developments that go
<br />through the planned unit development process
<br />(PUD). If passed, the new ordinance would
<br />require 10 percent affordable housing (at or
<br />below 100 percent of AMI for ownership units;
<br />at or below 60 percent of AMI for rental units) in
<br />developments of 10 or more units that fit the cri-
<br />teria listed above. This would be a significant
<br />expansion consistent with the current Chicago
<br />approach and one that city officials believe
<br />would create 1,000 affordable units each year.
<br />~Passing the ordinance would make Chicago
<br />similar to Boston (which covers all develop-
<br />ments that receive a zoning change).
<br />
<br />THE ADVOCATES' PROPOSAL
<br />For the past five years, a coalition of community
<br />groups has worked to pass a citywide inclusion-
<br />ary housing ordinance in Chicago that would
<br />require 15 percent affordable housing in all new
<br />construction, substantial rehabs, and condo
<br />. conversions of 10 or more units. Under the pro-
<br />posed ordinance, developers would receive cost
<br />offsets from a possible menu of benefits
<br />(including density bonuses, fee waivers, and
<br />reduced parking requirements).
<br />Passing the ordinance would make
<br />Chicago the largest city in the nation with a
<br />citywide, mandatory inclusionary housing pol-
<br />icy (surpassing San Diego). The city has come
<br />a long way towards the advocates' suggestion
<br />(by passing the three policies described in
<br />this article), but remains short of the advo-
<br />cates' ideal. Similar to the Denver, San Diego,
<br />San Francisco, and Boston ordinances, a city-
<br />wide approach would provide developers with
<br />greater predictability than they currently have
<br />under the CPAN program (where they are sub-
<br />jectto the desires of the local aldermen and
<br />the community); it would establish a level
<br />playing field for all development; and it has
<br />tremendous production potential (as demon-
<br />strated earlier).
<br />The Daley administration and the devel-
<br />opment community oppose such a measure.
<br />Thus, advocacy groups are calling for
<br />strengthening of the mayor's ordinance by
<br />proposing three amendments: 1) Similar to
<br />Boston, increase the percentage from 10 to 15
<br />percent on all city-owned parcels of land and
<br />all PUDs; 2) Similar to the city's existing
<br />requirement for TIF funds, increase the per-
<br />
<br />ZONiNG PRACTICE 3.07
<br />AMERICAN P!J<NN1NG A550CIAllON I poge 6
<br />
|