Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
for Developing
One Region. One Future .
Attainable Workforce
Housing in the
Chicago Region
Since its creation by The Commercial Club in 1999, Chicago Metropolis 2020 has recognized The genesis for this Workforce Housing Action Agenda came out of deliberations of the
housing as one of the greatest challenges to this region’s economic and social vitality. Commercial Club’s Land Use and Housing Committee over a series of meetings in 1997 and
1998. Under Charlie Shaw’s guidance, this Committee identified key regional housing
Far too many of the people who work for a living in our region cannot afford to buy a home or problems which had to be addressed as well as potential solutions to these problems. The
rent an apartment, especially in communities close to their jobs. As a result, those families Committee’s work was reflected in Chicago Metropolis 2020, ably written by Elmer Johnson
experience hardship because they spend too much time away from home and family on long and published in January of 1999.
job commutes and spend too much of the family’s income on monthly payments of mortgage
or rent. Over the last two years, we have explored regional housing issues in greater depth, meeting
with officials from each of Metropolitan Chicago’s six counties, mayors and city/village officials
The impact of this jobs/housing mismatch is not limited to those families struggling with hous- from over 30 Chicago suburbs, housing officials from the City of Chicago, and housing experts
ing costs and commute expenses. All of us are impacted. It contributes to congestion and throughout the region. We have carefully reviewed county and city housing action plans and
contributes to recruitment and retention barriers for many employers who can’t draw a reviewed numerous proposals to address the region’s affordable housing problems. From all
sufficient workforce in or near their communities. this background work and feedback we got from the people we interviewed have come the
recommendations in our Housing Action Agenda.
Under the leadership of King Harris, former President and CEO of Pittway Corporation, Chicago
Metropolis 2020 is addressing the housing issue. In May 2001, Metropolis 2020 secured the Special thanks are in order to Robin Snyderman and MarySue Barrett and their colleagues at
commitment of over 100 of the region’s employers to The Metropolis Principles. By signing the Metropolitan Planning Council; Larry Joseph and his team of graduate students at the
The Principles, those employers agreed to consider affordable housing options and the University of Chicago’s Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies; Jack
availability of public transit when making expansion and location decisions. Markowski and Stacie Young from the City of Chicago’s Department of Housing; Jo Patton at
Business and Professional People in the Public Interest; John Lukehart and Aurie Pennick at the
Both the public and private sectors need to do more. Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities; Marca Bristo and Alberto Barrera at
Access Living; Jack Catlin of LCM Architects; John Pritscher at Community Investment
We hope that the region’s leaders will answer this call for action so that we can ensure that Corporation; Kevin Jackson at the Chicago Rehab Network and Mayors Arlene Mulder, Rita
people of all incomes have housing choices throughout the region. Mullins, Zenovia Evans, Irwin Bock and Sue Klinkhamer – all active members of the
Metropolitan Mayors Housing Task Force. Their ongoing feedback helped finalize the Housing
Agenda. Thanks are also in order to my colleagues at Metropolis 2020 who supported this pro-
ject and reviewed its findings at each stage of its development.
Donald G. Lubin George A. Ranney, Jr. Finally, a word about my direct collaborators, Theresa Mintle and Nancy Firfer. Their active
Chair, President & CEO, participation in research, interviewing and action planning as well as their insightful comments
Chicago Metropolis 2020 Chicago Metropolis 2020 were critical in preparing this Agenda.
Partner, Senior Counsel,
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal Mayer, Brown, Rowe, and Maw
King Harris
Senior Executive
Chicago Metropolis 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY issues, the sad fact is that housing is a neglected priority in Illinois. At the state level neither
Republicans nor Democrats have actively debated housing policy. There is no State
s the 21st century began, the six-county Metropolitan Chicago region was at a Department of Housing to mirror the U.S. Department of Housing. The General Assembly
A crossroads in terms of its housing situation. It had just gone through a remarkable
decade in terms of economic growth and overall prosperity, one which saw median
has no Housing Committee.
At the local government level, the situation is not much better. While the City of Chicago
household income rise in all six counties, unemployment decline, educational levels rise and has many major initiatives underway to increase the supply of affordable housing for families
home values soar. Yet, despite all this good news, well over 100,000 families were in financial and senior citizens, most suburban communities have little or no interest in addressing the
Population crisis because they were paying over 50% of their income toward monthly apartment rental issue with a notable exception being moderately priced housing for senior citizens. With
projections costs. Over 730,000 families, roughly 25% of all families in the region – were under widespread public opposition to the construction of moderate income single family housing
indicate that an financial pressure because they were spending more than 30% of their income for mortgage and almost universal public opposition to the construction of moderately priced rental
additional payments or rent payments. Many other families – over 50,000 by one estimate – could not apartments for families with children, most suburban mayors and elected officials see the
1,000,000 to afford any kind of dwelling unit. They were doubling up with other families in overcrowded issue of affordable housing as a political “third rail,” a subject to be avoided whenever
1,200,000 people dwelling units. A growing number of families were simply homeless. possible.
will move into the The housing outlook for families whose incomes were under $30,000 per year appeared to What explains the public opposition in suburban areas to moderate income housing? On the
region by 2020. be getting worse. Badly needed rental units were not being built at a rate to accommodate surface, the opposition relates to broader subjects such as sprawl, unwelcome population
If these their needs. In the City of Chicago and in Suburban Cook County – the home of many of growth, increasing road congestion, rising school costs, and a fear that non-desirable change
projections are the region’s moderate income and low income families, the number of rental units actually will erode the value of homes, the most valuable asset that most families possess. At a deeper
correct, between declined between 1990 and 2000. In three key high job growth areas of the region – level, though, the opposition reflects the ongoing belief of suburban residents that
160,000 and DuPage, Lake and Will Counties, rental housing for moderate income families was not “affordable” or moderate income housing is really a euphemism for public housing, the same
200,000 new keeping pace with job growth. Five of the region’s six counties had vacancy rates well below kind of public housing that led to increased crime, social problems and neighborhood deteri-
6%, the threshold rate for “tight” housing conditions according to the U.S. Department of oration in Chicago. Public housing is also equated with housing for minorities, and many
affordable
Housing and Urban Development. Only Will County with a 7% vacancy rate had an suburban residents have fled the City of Chicago to get away from minority groups.
dwelling units will
adequate supply of available rental housing.
be needed to What suburban residents do not clearly see is that local demand for affordable housing is
meet the demands Of even greater concern was the outlook for the construction of housing which would be coming in many cases from people who already live and work in their communities –
affordable to a moderate income working family. Nearly all the new single family housing While a few
of moderate municipal employees, factory and office workers, hospital workers, retail store personnel, and
being built in the region was priced well over $160,000, out of the price range of families forward looking
income working senior citizens. They are working or retired people, people whose family incomes are lower
whose income fell below $50,000 per year. Communities experiencing rapid population than $50,000 per year. They may be people who grew up in a community and now want to political leaders
families.
growth were encouraging the construction of high priced homes, homes in the $250,000 to move to a smaller dwelling unit. They may be people who are currently spending one to two have actively
$350,000 range. Concerned about the impact that families with school age children would hours a day commuting to and from their worksites from distant communities and want to spoken out on
have on their educational budgets, these communities wanted homes built which would spend more time with their families. They may be police officers, firefighters and teachers housing issues,
generate the maximum amount of property taxes, the taxes that are the backbone of school who want to be more actively involved in the communities they serve. the sad fact is that
funding in Illinois. As for new rental housing, it was almost a non-factor in terms of meeting housing is a
the needs of moderate income families. With the exception of a few publicly financed apart- Today’s reality is that the lack of moderately priced housing is both a suburban and city
neglected priority
ment buildings, almost no moderately priced multiple family dwelling units were being built problem. It is the suburbs, however, where the most rapid job growth is taking place and
where the need for workers and workforce housing is the greatest. in Illinois.
in the region. The cost of multi-family construction had become so high that projected rents
could not cover total construction costs and a modest developer’s profit. The one exception
to this rule was a small number of town homes being built in selected outlying communities
where land costs permitted sale prices in the $110,000 to $130,000 per unit range. The Need For An Action Plan to Address Housing Issues
These housing trends do not bode well for the region. Population projections indicate that We believe that our region and our state must act now to address its serious affordable
an additional 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 people will move into the region by the year 2020. If housing problems. We have confidence that public and private sector actions can go a long
these projections are correct, between 160,000 and 200,000 new affordable dwelling units way toward alleviating our current affordable housing shortage.
will be needed to meet the demands of moderate income working families. If the units are
With the help of many experts in the housing field and with the advice of elected officials
not built, the region’s housing crisis will become truly severe, impacting the lives of a huge
throughout the region, we have put together a comprehensive housing action agenda, one
number of families and potentially choking off population and economic growth.
that recognizes that local, regional, state and federal government actions will be needed to
Given the realities of the regional housing market, we would expect that our elected increase the preservation and production of affordable housing in the six-county
leadership at the local and state level would be pressing hard for solutions to the housing Metropolitan Chicago area.
crisis. While a few forward looking political leaders have actively spoken out on housing
2 Executive Summary Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 3
Our key recommendations are in the following areas: AN OVERVIEW OF THE WORKFORCE HOUSING
! Zoning reform, a must at the local level to bring land costs associated with housing down
SITUATION IN THE CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA
! Code enforcement, a critical need in communities with aging single family and rental
housing T hree years ago, when Metropolis 2020 first addressed the issue of housing in the original
Chicago Metropolis 2020 report, we focused on a select group of problems related to
attainable1 workforce housing:
! Rehabilitation, the key to preserving the “trickle down” housing stock which will provide
Our housing ! Sprawl and the resulting mismatch between the location of new jobs and the location of
the majority of affordable dwelling units in the future
action agenda workforce housing.
is ambitious but ! Growth planning which must include planning for the workforce housing needed to
meet population growth ! The overall lack of attainable housing in the Metropolitan Chicago region and the need
doable, even in
for specific actions to increase the supply of such housing including:
today’s tight fiscal ! State government incentives or mandates which will assure that affordable workforce ! Expansion of the HUD voucher program in the region
environment. It housing will be built in the future ! Expansion of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program
can help our ! Support for programs which allow lower income families to purchase homes
! Increased federal government investment in programs which spur the availability of
region address its ! Implementation of the very ambitious CHA Transformation Plan which called for the
affordable housing
critical shortage of replacement of many CHA high rise properties with new mixed income developments
affordable ! Corporate support for affordable workforce housing via employer assisted housing ! Business support for employer assisted housing
4 Executive Summary Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 5
Banks have learned that lending into what were previously red lined neighborhoods can ! Employers in the region are starting to take a more active interest in Employer Assisted
work and can be productive. Housing (EAH) programs thanks to the tireless efforts of the Metropolitan Planning
Council.
! The CHA Transformation has made solid progress since it was launched. By the end of
this year roughly 9,000 of the CHA’s 25,000 dwelling units will have been renovated or ! The State of Illinois has recently created an Affordable Housing Tax Credit program (also
replaced. While the program has been subject to some criticism, it still represents a huge known as the Donations Tax Credit Program) which has earmarked $13 million per year
step forward in the area of public housing given Chicago’s previous record in the area. It in tax credits ($.50 for each dollar contributed) for the next five years to leverage private
remains the most ambitious public housing program in the United States. donations to affordable housing projects. These credits should lead to another $26
million per year being invested in affordable housing.
! Rehabilitation organizations operating in the region – including Neighborhood Housing
Services, Community Investment Corporation, Hispanic Housing and other community ! Cook County’s Tax Classification System has been modified so that the tax rate on new Housing code
development corporations supported by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, and and rehabilitated multi-family affordable rental properties has been dropped from 33% to
enforcement
the Northwest Housing Partnership – have shown that well managed and well run 16%4 and the tax rate on all Class 3 multi-family residential properties is being reduced
programs in
rehabilitation programs can work, can recycle deteriorated family living units and can from 33% to 26% by 2004.5 These changes should make the construction of badly
preserve or create thousands of affordable dwelling units each year. selected communi-
needed affordable apartments more appealing to developers.
ties like Joliet,
! The Metropolitan Mayors Caucus has recently endorsed a set of principles, program ! Cook County has just created a new incentive Class S to cover “mark up to market” Hanover Park and
evaluation criteria and action steps related to housing development and maintenance. multi-family rental buildings in which at least 20% of the units are in the Section 8 pro- Elgin, though
Among other things, the mayors have identified the need to: gram. The tax assessment rate on the units in the Section 8 program will drop from 33% needing to be
! Create affordable housing where jobs are being created, especially housing near transit
to 16% so long as property owners agree to retain all the Section 8 units in the program responsive to fair
stops for at least 5 years after the expiration of the initial Section 8 contracts.
! Encourage the creation of a broad range of housing, including housing to serve
housing concerns,
moderate and low income families ! Downtown renewal efforts in communities like Arlington Heights and Highland Park have shown how
Federal have included attainable housing. Though such housing has been primarily aimed at effective code
! Create mixed income housing developments
government senior citizens, its popularity and appeal has underscored the potential demand for such enforcement can
! Support efforts to expand housing code enforcement, housing rehabilitation and
support for units if they are created by other municipalities. stabilize neighbor-
property management training
low income ! Reduce school funding reliance on property taxes hoods and encour-
! Housing code enforcement programs in selected communities like Joliet, Hanover Park
housing appears age residents to
We hope that all municipalities in our region endorse the Caucus’s principles and evalua- and Elgin, though needing to be responsive to fair housing concerns, have shown how
to be increasing invest in and
tion criteria. effective code enforcement can stabilize neighborhoods and encourage residents to invest
after more than in and improve their dwelling units. improve their
two decades of dwelling units.
! Federal government support for low income housing appears to be increasing after more
cutbacks. We can be optimistic because we have seen that communities which historically have
than two decades of cutbacks:
These increases ! HUD has recently been increasing the number of housing vouchers nationwide. promoted and sustained housing diversity – communities like Bolingbrook, Joliet and Elgin
underscore the 50,000 vouchers were added to the existing supply in 1999. Another 60,000 were – can grow and be prosperous.
growing national added in 2000 and 80,000 more were scheduled to be added in 2001. Vouchers may Finally, we can be optimistic because we have seen what effective leadership can mean to a
support for action not be a perfect answer to the nation’s affordable housing problem, but they offer community in terms of improving its housing situation. Cities that have mayors and top
in the area of many advantages over concentrated low income housing projects. officials fully committed to maintaining and improving housing for working families have
attainable !
The tax-exempt bond cap for low income housing has gone up from $50 per capita to succeeded in the last decade. Included, significantly, in the cities which have made
workforce $75, a 50% increase. substantial progress in recent years is Chicago, which has one of the most broadly based
housing. !
State low income housing tax credits have gone up from $1.25 per capita to $1.75, a attainable housing programs in the nation.
40% increase. Both the tax credit and the tax-exempt bond programs will increase
thereafter by the rate of inflation.3 We believe that many of these positive developments can continue in the years to come.
These increases underscore the growing national support for action in the area of
attainable workforce housing. The soon-to-be-released report from the Millennial
Housing Commission will show that the support is bi-partisan.
3 While the increases in tax credits and bonding authority will increase the City of Chicago’s funding capacity by $100 million over a three-year period ending 4The tax rate change expanded the Class 9 program to all of Cook County. We should note in passing, though, that this change only applies to new construc-
in 2003, they will not have a maximum effect on affordable housing construction unless additional private financing and soft secondary financing such as tion or substantial rehabilitation of property.
HOME funds are available to meet increased needs. Tax credits generally support about half the cost of a project. 5From 1999 to 2000 there was a 32% countywide reduction in the number of Class 3 multi-family parcels. In the City of Chicago the reduction percentage
was 37%.
15Data from a private communication from Chicago’s Department of Housing. 18As Tony Downs pointed out in a 2000 speech at a HUD conference, “Poor immigrants are not deterred from entering our cities by high housing prices that force them to double
16Housing prices in Illinois increased 6.1% in the year ended September 30, 2001 per data collected by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. and triple up because overcrowded housing is superior to what they experience in their home areas.”
17The percentage of rent burdened households had been around 40% for at least the last 15 years. See the Metropolitan Planning Council’s For Rent: 19To get some understanding of how the affordable housing shortage affects low income working families, read Ehrenreich’s “Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By In America,”
especially pp.25-27, 139, 171-173, and 196-199.
Housing Options in the Chicago Region, pp. 9-10. 20Metropolis 2020 projects that by 2030 commuting time to places of work will increase on the average by 27% unless action is taken to deal with ever increasing metropolitan
sprawl.
-single-family, 1 Communities should modify their zoning and development regulations to encourage region are substantially rehabilitated each year24 and sold or provided to low-to-
and multi-family; the construction of attainable workforce housing - both single-family and multi-family; moderate-income families. This represents a small percentage of the roughly 100,000
for-sale and rental housing. Zoning reform should focus on lot size, density, and parking sub-standard units that “would probably not pass HUD Housing Quality Standards
for-sale and rental
requirements.22 inspection without substantial renovation.”25 We believe that this number can be
housing. 1-1 Density bonuses should be given for affordable housing located near transit stations. increased to 6,500 to 7,500 units per year with a modest amount of additional public
2 All communities should seek ways to speed the process for review and approval of funding (If Neighborhood Housing Services and CIC increased the scope of their
housing development proposals. programs by 50% – an increase which is achievable over a three- to five-year period –
that increase alone would amount to 1,500 incremental units). The extra 2,500 units
3 All communities should have pro-active housing code enforcement programs which, at which would be preserved each year would preserve 25,000 additional affordable
a minimum, inspect all rental property once every five years and require that such prop- units over a ten-year period, not a small amount of workforce housing.
erty be kept in acceptable condition. Effective code enforcement, coupled with respect 4-4 Concurrent with efforts to expand rehab efforts where they are needed, communities
for fair housing, remains the best way to preserve existing housing and to expand the should make rehab easier by amending their building codes to adopt HUD’s
amount of “trickle down” housing available to moderate and lower income families. “Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions” which are modeled
after New Jersey’s successful Rehabilitation Sub-Code. These provisions feature a
21We note, in passing, that one collaborative planning project sponsored by the Northern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) did yield a whole series of good recommendations. 23Joliet has four full-time inspectors who make sure that all residential property, including owner occupied property, is maintained in an acceptable way.
This project, which involved a number of northwestern suburban community and county officials as well as NIPC representatives, illustrates what can be done in the area of regional 24We have been unable to find a more precise number. CIC and NHS alone rehab close to 3,000 units per year.
housing planning. See NIPC’s “Sub-Area Regional Planning: A Demonstration Project in Intergovernmental Collaboration.” 25See page 17 of the MPC’s For Rent: Housing Options in the Chicago Region.
22The Metropolitan Planning Council has recently published a detailed series of recommendations to modify Chicago’s 1957 zoning code to provide for more affordable housing.
We support the MPC’s efforts toward zoning reform.
14 Action Agenda Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 15
By the Numbers: Illinois’ Affordable Housing Struggle
Change in Employment and Total Occupied Rental Units Increase in Severely Overcrowded Housing Units, 1989-1999
500,000 189.4%
469,017 Total net change in occupied rental units by county, 1990-2000. Total net employment change, 1991-2000. 179.8%
180%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, 2000.
Illinois Department of Employment Security, Where Workers Work File 1991-2000.
Employment
400,000
Rental Units 140% 134.1%
124.3%
106.8%
300,000
100%
200,000 60%
39.8%
145,262
132,639
20%
100,000
80,343
47,775
40,317 Chicago Suburban DuPage Co. Kane Co. Lake Co. McHenry Co. Will Co.
22,681 Cook Co.
7,084 5,451 3,066 2,361 1,786
0 As population growth among low and moderate income families outstripped the growth of affordable housing in the 1990s, severe overcrowding
-5,080 -500
-5,000 increased dramatically throughout the region. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development identifies dwellings with more than 1.5 occu-
Regional Total Cook DuPage Kane Lake McHenry Will pant per room as “severely overcrowded.” Data Source: 2000 Census data
In 1991 there was one rental unit for every 2.95 jobs in the region. By 2000 that ratio had risen 15% to one rental unit for every 3.4 jobs. Cook
Workers Struggle to Meet the Illinois Housing Wage
County lost nearly 5,100 rental units over the 1990s, the steepest drop in the region, largely because of condominium conversions and the demolition
of Chicago Housing Authority structures. Cook County, however, contains 81% of the Chicago region’s rental units.
While 69% of new jobs created during the last ten years are located in McHenry, Will, Kane, DuPage and Lake Counties, these five counties are home $22.36
to only 19% of the region’s rental units. During the 1990s, Kane County was the only other county besides Cook County to record a net loss of rental $21.50
units although its share of new jobs created was 10.2%. Kane County contains 3% of the Chicago region’s rental units, only a slightly higher share $20.78
than Will County (2.7%) and McHenry County (1.45%). $20.00
Households $15.81
Rent Burden 400,000
378,800 $15.00
374,800
Households that spend more than 30% of their monthly 368,800
income on rent are “rent burdened” according to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Rent burden is an indicator of housing affordability,
housing choice, and the quality of life. People who con- 300,000
$10.00
sume 30% or more of their monthly income for rent have $8.95
$8.47
less money than they should have available for other $8.03 $7.95 $7.78
necessities such as food, clothing and medical costs.
The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that a worker would have to earn $17.13 per hour in the Chicago area to afford a two-
bedroom unit at the area’s fair market rent of $891 per month. This “housing wage” of $17.13 is 333% of the present Minimum Wage, $5.15 per
1991 1995 1999 hour. Between 2000 and 2001 the two-bedroom “housing wage” in Illinois increased by almost 17%.
Data Source: Occupational Employment Statistics: Wage Data, Chicago PMSA, 2000, Illinois Department of Employment Security
“ladder” system progressing from least to most in terms of the amount of changes to
a building needed to meet code requirements. The provisions make rehab more
Housing Affordability in the Chicago Region, 2000 appealing in many instances and can spur the rejuvenation of a neighborhood.
4-5 Cities and counties should actively support local not-for-profit organizations which
provide credit counseling and support services to moderate income families seeking
to buy homes or condominiums.
5 Communities, even communities with small amounts of available land, should consider
setting aside land for the construction of attainable workforce housing. Land costs can
represent 15% to 25% of the total cost of building an affordable dwelling unit. Funding
AFFORDABLE ($0-128K)
for land acquisition could come from building permit fees, an increased local real estate Recommendation:
transfer tax or a housing tear down tax.26 Further analysis of possible funding methods is All communities
SOMEWHAT ($129-178K) needed. should bring their
6 All communities should bring their building codes up to date in terms of accessibility building codes up
NOT VERY AFFORDABLE ($179K+)
requirements which meet the needs of the disabled. Current codes do not reflect all the to date in terms of
requirements contained in the Illinois Access Code and in federal Fair Housing accessibility
legislation.27 requirements
A census tract is classified as "affordable" if the ratio of median
6-1 Communities should also consider ways to make more housing “visitable” by the which meet the
housing value in 2000 over estimated median regional household
income ($51,232) does not exceed 2.5.
disabled. Homebuilders, for example, could be required to explain to prospective needs of the
homebuyers how a new home could be modified to be “visitable” by a person in a disabled. Current
A ratio of between 2.5 and 3.5 is considered "somewhat wheelchair.
affordable," while a ratio above 3.5 is considered "not very affordable" codes do not
for a family with the median household income. 7 The City of Chicago must acquire the additional land needed to complete the CHA reflect all the
The thick black line corresponds to the approximate area where 47% Transformation. Such land is needed to complete this critical program. requirements con-
of the region's employment growth occurred between 1991 and 2000. tained in the
8 The City of Chicago should expand its current programs to build affordable housing on
Illinois Access
Sources: Claritas, Inc., U.S. Census Bureau vacant lots by using modular housing. The City of Chicago currently owns close to
10,000 vacant lots and gives potential developers the opportunity to buy these lots for $1 Code and in
each. Over the last ten years thousands of affordable homes have been built on such lots federal Fair
via the New Homes for Chicago and other City sponsored programs. We believe that Housing
even more lots can be used for affordable housing if modular housing is introduced on a legislation.
reasonable scale. We would urge the City to seek out one or more well capitalized manu-
facturers of modular homes capable of building affordable homes on single lots. We
Housing affordability is one measure of the Chicago region’s quality of life for its residents. Housing affordability also influences the attractiveness of believe a well run, well capitalized firm could build hundreds of such homes per year.28
the region to employers. A supply of affordable housing near jobs gives employers a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining workers.
9 Counties and municipalities should support the establishment of community
Despite a record-high increase in the supply of new housing units, moderate and low income households in the Chicago region are still hard pressed
to find housing they can afford in certain communities, especially those where new jobs have located. Jobs concentrated in northwest Cook County development guidelines (see State recommendations below) which mandate the
and DuPage County accounted for nearly half (47.1%) of the region’s employment growth between 1991 and 2000. Our fastest growing construction of a modest number of attainable workforce dwelling units29. It is
employment centers are separated from a significant share of housing affordable to families earning the region’s median income.
absolutely critical that our local governments establish development guidelines which lead
to the creation of a meaningful amount of attainable workforce housing.
10 Cook County should work with local officials and the State of Illinois to get all developed
unincorporated land annexed by adjacent municipalities. In general, municipalities are in
a better position to provide the level of services needed to support more intensive
development. We are increasingly concerned about social problems that are developing in
26A recent Urban Land Institute/Campaign for Sensible Growth Workshop in Chicago suggested the use of land trusts to address affordable housing needs
(see the ULI monograph titled “Recommendations for Developing Workforce Housing in Hanover Park, Highland Park and Humboldt Park in the Metropolitan
Chicago Area, August 15-17, 2001”).
27Metropolis 2020 will shortly have a guidebook available which will show how currently used BOCA codes can be modified so they are fully compliant with
the Illinois Access Code and federal Fair Housing legislation.
20 Action Agenda Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 21
6 The State should have one uniform building code like the International Building Code in the voucher program, voucher utilization success rates will not reach high levels. We
(IBC). The Code should include the latest IBC requirements related to housing for the are encouraged by a recent HUD recruiting program in McHenry County which
disabled. It should also have a chapter on housing rehabilitation which incorporates dramatically increased the voucher utilization success rate in the County by getting more
HUD’s Nationally Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions. Illinois is one of the few property owners involved.
major states that does not have a statewide building code. Instead, our communities have
3 HUD should increase the number of housing vouchers for the entire six-county region.
a myriad of local codes, all based on different editions of BOCA codes. If we want to
Such an increase can happen if voucher utilization rates increase. As we have noted earlier,
make housing development simpler and less expensive in Illinois, we need uniformity in
the Bush Administration has recently announced its intention to increase the number of
our building codes.
housing vouchers nationwide.
7 The State should consider modest tax incentives for property owners participating in the
4 HUD should amend its housing choice voucher regulations to allow reasonable “fair
federal housing choice voucher program. Such incentives may help expand the availability
share” limits on the number of vouchers in communities that already have excessive
of rental units in communities with few voucher families.
numbers of tenants holding such vouchers. Riverdale, Harvey, and Chicago Heights in
8 The State should reform its educational funding system so that the clear majority of Southern Cook County and Zion and Waukegan in Northern Cook County are cases in
school funding comes from State income tax revenue, not local property taxes. What we point. The communities affected cannot revive themselves if they are overburdened with
have seen in our research is that local and county housing policy is being dictated by very low income families. They typically are given little in the way of extra social, educa-
The governor of educational funding considerations. Communities are resisting new, affordable housing tional or economic resources to cope with the problems excessive numbers of voucher
Illinois should developments because they equate affordable housing with children and added families bring. A key benefit of the voucher program is supposedly its ability to disperse
educational costs at a time when they are struggling to balance their educational budgets. lower income families into mixed income communities. Such dispersal is not happening
establish a State
in the Chicago area.36
Department of 9 The Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA) should make it a
Housing... priority to support economic development and employment centers in or near communi- 5 Community Development Block Grant and HOME funding for housing should be The Community
The Illinois ties with an adequate supply of affordable housing and with adequate mass transit. increased.37 Not enough money is available to meet pressing housing needs. Reinvestment Act
General Assembly DCCA should not provide economic development funds to business ventures located in 5-1 Serious consideration should also be given to making CDBG and HOME funding should be
should create a areas removed from communities with an adequate supply of affordable housing. contingent on local planning action to remove barriers to the construction of afford- expanded to cover
joint Senate/House 10 The structure of Illinois state government should be modified so that more focus is
able housing. Such federal action could supplement state efforts we call for above non-bank lenders
Housing (see our second major State recommendation). such as mortgage
given to housing matters:
Committee to 10-1 The governor of Illinois should establish a State Department of Housing 6 The Community Reinvestment Act should be expanded to cover non-bank lenders and insurance
oversee matters 10-2 The Illinois General Assembly should create a joint Senate/House Housing such as mortgage and insurance companies which provide close to 70% of all mortgage companies which
related to housing Committee to oversee matters related to housing in Illinois. loans. The CRA’s success in spurring affordable housing development in low income provide close to
in Illinois. There is a growing likelihood that many decisions related to housing policy will be neighborhoods can be built upon by an expansion of CRA coverage. 70% of all
turned over to the states in the near-term future. Illinois must be prepared to exercise mortgage loans.
a greater role in housing policy.
7 Serious consideration should be given to establishing a new or expanded program to
The CRA’s success
produce affordable rental housing. Only with federal financial support can a meaningful
11 The State should consider creating a secondary market for second mortgage loans related in spurring afford-
number of new rental units be built in the metropolitan area.
to housing rehabilitation. Such a market would allow rehab organizations which generate 7-1 The creation of a national affordable housing trust fund could help create more
able housing
second mortgage loans to expand their financing capabilities. rental housing. development in
7-2 The creation of a new rental production program within the existing HOME low income neigh-
Federal Government Actions program could also spur the creation of more rental housing. borhoods can be
built upon by an
1 HUD should provide the funding necessary to complete the CHA Transformation. Legislation to create a national affordable housing trust fund and a new rental
expansion of CRA
While the Transformation has had many problems to deal with34, it has, on the whole, production program is currently before Congress.
coverage.
gotten off to a very promising start. It has sufficient funding to carry through to 2006
when 81% of its program will be completed.35
8 Tax incentives should be created to preserve the existing supply of Section 8 housing.
One important proposal currently being considered is one which would relieve Section 8
2 HUD should expand its efforts to increase the utilization of housing choice vouchers in
our region. Until more property owners throughout the region are willing to participate
34The most notable problem being lack of social service support for families being relocated. While support personnel (“service connectors”) are being 36See “Putting the Choice in Housing Choice Vouchers” published by the Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance. As the Alliance’s brief on vouchers points out,
provided, their numbers are small, their caseloads too high, and their training poor. We believe that volunteer support from local universities, colleges, and racism is the major factor in voucher placement decisions. Afro-American families are almost invariably placed in heavily Afro-American communities. We
not-for-profit organizations could help augment the efforts of the few existing service providers. We also believe that local universities and colleges could cre- should also note here that, if more attainable workforce housing were available throughout the metropolitan region, then voucher families would be less likely
ate training programs for personnel involved in this work. to be concentrated in a few areas.
35Per data supplied by the CHA. 37In late January 2002 the Bush Administration announced that it will be seeking an extra $200 million for First-Time Homeowner down payment assistance.
Such extra funding, if it is truly new money and not just money taken from other housing programs, is clearly a step in the right direction. We should note in
22 Action Agenda Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 23
owners of capital gains taxes if they transfer Section 8 properties to responsible owners
who agree to ensure that the properties remain affordable and well maintained.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
9 HUD and other federal and state agencies should review their lead paint removal
regulations. While there are many valid public health reasons for mandating the removal
of lead paint, the cost of paint removal represents a major barrier to cost effective housing
rehabilitation.38 Unless HUD provides significantly more funding for lead paint removal
during rehabilitation, regional efforts to increase rehab work will be stymied.
24 Action Agenda Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 25
Massey, Douglas and Nancy Denton, American Apartheid: Rusk, David, Inside Game Outside Game: Winning Strategies for
BIBLIOGRAPHY Dreier, Peter, John Mollenkopf and Todd Swanstrom., Place
Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Saving Urban America, Brookings Institution Press, Washington,
Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-First Century, University Press
Bier, Thomas, “Moving Up, Filtering Down: Metropolitan Housing Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1993 D.C., 1999
of Kansas, 2001
Dynamics and Public Policy,” paper presented at the Brookings McHenry County Department of Planning and Development, Rusk, David, “Deconcentrating Poverty: CHA’s Plan for
Institution, September 2001 DuPage County Consortium, “Consolidated Plan for Housing and
“Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan For Transformation,” draft paper prepared for Chicago Metropolis
Community Development 2000-2004,””February 2000
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blanding, Michael, “Suburban Brawl,” Boston Magazine, April Program Years 2000 Through 2004,” November 1999 2020, December 2000
2002 Ehrenreich, Barbara, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In
McHenry County Department of Planning and Development, Schubert, Michael, “Housing for a Competitive Workforce:
America, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2001
Boston Consulting Group, “Chicago Metropolis 2020: Final “Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan, 2001 Homeownership Models That Work,” Metropolitan Planning
Steering Committee Readout,” March 2002 Elgin, Illinois, “Far West Planning Area: Development and Design Program Year,” 2001 Council, Chicago, Illinois, April 1998
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX B
20.0% - 25.0% - 30.0% - 35% 30% Not
Housing Owner- Renter- Vacant Housing Owner- Renter- Vacant TOTAL <20% 24.9% 29.9% 34.9% or more or more computed
units occupied occupied units units occupied occupied units
Chicago 263,925 126,988 34,790 25,328 17,333 56,032 73,265 3,454
100% 48.1% 13.2% 9.6% 6.6% 21.2% 27.8% 1.3%
Chicago 1,152,868 464,865 597,063 90,940 1,133,039 425,259 599,915 107,865
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
Suburban Cook 552,607 278,182 81,366 58,236 37,512 94,206 131,718 3,105
Suburban Cook 943,253 677,812 234,441 31,000 888,794 617,645 236,669 34,480 100% 50.3% 14.7% 10.5% 6.8% 17.1% 23.8% 0.6%
Lake County 150,663 67,132 25,074 18,380 11,491 27,848 39,339 738
Collar Counties 968,970 732,504 200,240 36,226 776,171 552,283 188,076 35,812 100% 44.6% 16.6% 12.2% 7.6% 18.5% 26.1% 0.5%
DuPage 335,621 248,762 76,839 10,020 292,537 207,956 71,388 13,193
Kane 138,998 101,739 32,162 5,097 111,496 74,514 32,662 4,320
DuPage County 219,711 106,448 36,507 25,636 16,136 34,137 50,273 847
100% 48.4% 16.6% 11.7% 7.3% 15.5% 22.8% 0.4%
Lake 225,919 168,301 47,996 9,622 183,283 129,036 44,930 9,317
McHenry 92,908 74,391 15,012 3,505 65,985 50,289 12,651 3,045 McHenry County 67,899 29,370 12,159 8,948 5,707 11,368 17,075 337
122,870 100% 43.3% 17.9% 13.2% 8.4% 16.7% 25.1% 0.5%
Will 175,524 139,311 28,231 7,982 90,488 26,445 5,937
Will County 127,180 59,072 22,590 15,991 9,746 19,204 28,950 577
Metro Area Total 3,065,091 1,875,181 1,031,744 158,166 2,798,004 1,595,187 1,024,660 178,157 100% 46.5% 17.8% 12.6% 7.7% 15.1% 22.8% 0.4%
Kane County 92,205 41,290 16,449 11,452 7,036 15,548 22,584 430
Chicago 37.6% 24.8% 57.9% 57.5% 40.5% 26.7% 58.5% 60.5%
100% 44.8% 17.8% 12.4% 7.6% 16.9% 24.5% 0.5%
Grand Total 1,474,180 258,343 363,304
Suburban Cook 30.8% 36.1% 22.7% 19.6% 31.8% 38.7% 23.1% 19.4%
100% 17.5% 24.6%
Collar Counties 31.6% 39.1% 19.4% 22.9% 27.7% 34.6% 18.4% 20.1% Source: 2000 Census data
DuPage 10.9% 13.3% 7.4% 6.3% 10.5% 13.0% 7.0% 7.4%
Kane 4.5% 5.4% 3.1% 3.2% 4.0% 4.7% 3.2% 2.4% Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income, 1999
Lake 7.4% 9.0% 4.7% 6.1% 6.6% 8.1% 4.4% 5.2%
4.0% 2.4% 3.2% 1.7% 20.0% - 25.0% - 30.0% - 35% 30% Not
McHenry 3.0% 1.5% 2.2% 1.2%
5.7% 7.4% 4.4% 5.7% 2.6% 3.3% TOTAL <20% 24.9% 29.9% 34.9% or more or more computed
Will 2.7% 5.0%
Chicago 596,060 202,901 75,443 58,951 42,030 183,735 225,765 33,000
100% 34.0% 12.7% 9.9% 7.1% 30.8% 37.9% 5.5%
Metro Area Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Suburban Cook 234,235 82,262 32,588 25,237 17,229 65,447 82,676 11,472
100% 35.1% 13.9% 10.8% 7.4% 27.9% 35.3% 4.9%
Percent Change, 1990 - 2000
Lake County 47,760 15,181 7,083 5,231 3,744 12,788 16,532 3,733
Housing Owner- Renter- Vacant 11.0% 7.8% 7.8%
100% 31.8% 14.8% 26.8% 34.6%
units occupied occupied units
DuPage County 76,702 27,796 12,772 8,903 5,855 18,758 24,613 2,618
Chicago 1.8% 9.3% -0.5% -15.7% 11.6% 7.6% 3.4%
100% 36.2% 16.7% 24.5% 32.1%
McHenry County 14,652 4,698 2,249 1,800 1,294 3,898 5,192 713
Suburban Cook 6.1% 9.7% -0.9% -10.1%
100% 32.0% 15.3% 12.3% 8.8% 26.6% 35.4% 4.9%
24.8% 32.6% 6.5% 1.2% Will County 27,825 10,492 3,829 2,923 2,007 7,017 9,024 1,577
Collar Counties
14.7% 19.6% 7.6% -24.1% 100% 37.7% 13.8% 10.5% 7.2% 25.2% 32.4% 5.6%
DuPage
Kane 24.7% 36.5% -1.5% 18.0% Source: Harris School Affordable Housing Kane County 31,837 11,323 4,653 3,546 2,547 8,408 10,955 1,360
23.3% 30.4% 6.8% 3.3% Project, “Affordable Housing in the Chicago 11.1% 8.0% 4.3%
Lake 100% 35.6% 14.6% 26.4% 34.4%
Suburbs” (Irving B. Harris Graduate School of
40.8% 47.9% 18.7% 15.1% Grand Total
McHenry Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, 1,029,071 300,051 374,757
42.9% 54.0% 6.8% 34.4%
Will June 2002), based on data from the 100% 29.1% 36.4%
Northeastern Planning Commission and the
9.5% 17.6% 0.7% -11.2% U.S. Bureau of the Census. Source: 2000 Census data
Metro Area Total
APPENDIX D
Total Units Vacancy Rate Total Units Vacancy Rate 1989 1999 Increase
Owner- Renter- Home- Rental Owner- Renter- Home- Rental Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
occupied Occupied owner occupied occupied owner Chicago
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
Cook County 1,142,677 831,504 1.4% 5.3% 1,042,904 836,584 1.3% 8.6% Occupied housing units 1,025,174 100% 1,061,921 100% 36,747 3.6%
Units with 1.51 or more 35,165 3.4% 49,188 4.6% 14,023 39.8%
occupants per room
Chicago 464,865 597,063 1.7% 5.7% 425,259 599,915 1.7% 9.6%
Suburban Cook
Suburban Cook 677,815 234,441 1.2% 4.3% 617,645 236,669 1.0% 6.0%
Occupied housing units 854,314 100% 912,260 100% 57,946 6.8%
Units with 1.51 or more 8,325 1.0% 19,486 2.1% 11,161 134.1%
Collar Counties 732,504 200,240 1.1% 5.2% 552,283 188,076 1.5% 6.7% occupants per room
DuPage 248,762 76,839 0.8% 4.8% 207,956 71,388 1.6% 7.9% DuPage County
Kane 101,739 32,162 1.2% 5.2% 74,514 32,662 1.2% 5.2% Occupied housing units 279,344 100% 325,601 100% 46,257 16.6%
Lake 168,301 47,996 1.1% 5.0% 129,036 44,930 1.5% 6.0% Units with 1.51 or more 1,949 .7% 5,454 1.7% 3,505 179.8%
McHenry occupants per room
74,391 15,012 1.2% 4.0% 50,289 12,651 1.5% 3.7%
Will 139,311 28,231 1.7% 7.0% 90,488 26,445 1.3% 7.6%
Kane County
All Suburbs 1,410,316 434,681 1.2% 4.7% 1,169,928 424,745 1.2% 6.3%
Occupied housing units 107,176 100% 133,901 100% 26,725 24.9%
Units with 1.51 or more 2,141 2.0% 4,427 3.3% 2,286 106.8%
occupants per room
Metro Area Total: 1,875,181 1,031,744 1.3% 5.3% 1,595,187 1,024,660 1.4% 8.3%
Lake County
Source: Harris School Affordable Housing Project, “Affordable Housing in the Chicago Suburbs” Occupied housing units 173,966 100% 216,297 100% 42,331 24.3%
(Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, June 2002), Units with 1.51 or more 2,071 1.2% 4,645 2.1% 2,574 124.3%
based on data from the Northeastern Planning Commission and the U.S. Bureau of the Census. occupants per room
McHenry County
Occupied housing units 62,940 100% 89,403 100% 26,463 42.0%
Units with 1.51 or more 330 .5% 988 1.1% 658 189.4%
occupants per room
Will County
Occupied housing units 116,933 100% 167,542 100% 50,609 43.3%
Units with 1.51 or more 844 .7% 1,403 .8% 559 66.2%
occupants per room
Six-County Total
Units with 1.51 or more 50,825 85,591 34,766 68.4%
occupants per room
sive plans for communities Ordinance: Chicago Metropolis 2020 would like to recognize the generosity of
! Provides an incentive for communities to begin
In areas devoted to mixed residential uses: these foundation and corporate supporters.
efforts now
!
The number of single-family attached and
detached units permitted shall be 5 to 8+
The Commercial Club of Chicago and its Civic Committee
! Under the new law a comprehensive plan must dwelling units per acre
contain a “housing element” which will provide: !
The number of multi-family units shall be 15
The Chicago Community Trust
! An adequate supply of housing that meets existing to 40 dwelling units per acre
and forecasted needs in the local government unit !
For each affordable housing unit provided,
The Ford Foundation
! Specific policies and programs that promote the one additional dwelling unit shall be permit-
development of housing for residents ted, up to a maximum 15 percent increase in
! A range of housing choices that meet the needs fo dwelling units.
The Grand Victoria Foundation
persons of all income levels and of all age groups A variety of lot sizes should be provided to facili-
tate housing diversity and choice and meet the
The John T. and Catherine D. MacArthur Foundation
and persons with special needs
! Policies and programs which promote the availabil- projected requirements of people with different
housing needs. The Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation
ity of land for development or redevelopment of
low-income and moderate-income housing Front building setbacks in mixed use areas
! Programs to maintain or rehabilitate existing should have no minimum setback. Front Pittway Corporation Charitable Foundation
housing building setbacks in mixed residential areas
should be 0 to 15 feet for single-family attached
! Beginning on January 1, 2010, any program or action Abbott Laboratories
and multi-family dwellings, 0 to 25 feet for sin-
of a local governmental unit that affects land use shall gle family detached units. Accenture
be consistent with that local governmental unit’s com- Zero-lot-line side setbacks should be permitted American Airlines
prehensive plan, including: Aon Foundation
! County zoning ordinances enacted under State ! Wisconsin encourages all its State agencies to design Bank of America
statute 59.69 programs, policies, and investment plans to “reflect a
! City or village zoning ordinances enacted or balance between the mission of the agency and a Bank One
amended under State statute 62.23(7) number of local comprehensive planning goals includ- BP America Inc.
! Town zoning ordinances enacted or amended ing the goal to provide an adequate supply of afford- Deloitte & Touche
under State statute 60.61 or 60.62 able housing for individuals of all income levels Digital BandWidth, LLC
! Impact fee ordinances that are enacted or throughout each community.”
Ernst & Young LLP
amended under State statute 66.0617
Harris Bank
! Beginning on January 1, 2010, any county Illinois Tool Works
development plan for unincorporated territory must Kemper Insurance Companies
follow the new planning and development guidelines.
KPMG
! The State of Wisconsin may provide grants to local LaSalle Bank
government units to be used to finance the cost of McDonald’s Corporation
planning activities related to the new law.
Navigant Consulting
! Starting in fiscal year 2005-6, the State of Wisconsin Northern Trust Company
will also provide “smart growth dividend aid” to com- PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
munities which have put into effect a comprehensive Tellabs, Inc.
plan adhering to the new law and which have zoning
and subdivision regulations which conform to it. “Aid
United Airlines
credits” will also be awarded for new affordable hous- William Blair & Co. Foundation
ing units sold or rented in the year before a grant
application for smart growth dividend aid is made. (and additional private donors)
Grants shall be awarded based on the number of cred-
its a city, town, village or county receives in the year to
which its application relates.
32 Appendices
Chicago Metropolis 2020