Illinois local officials against realtors and developers regarding the BUILD plan

Posted on by

The president of the Illinois Municipal League explained why his organized opposed Governor J.B. Pritzker’s plans for the BUILD plan:

Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on Pexels.com

Cole said the BUILD plan not only preempts local authority, but it also strips community engagement and public input in zoning decisions. He also said he and other IML members were wary the plan would only create more units that most people still couldn’t afford.

“Every mayor in Illinois wants their community to grow,” Cole said. “Our focus was on affordability, if this is about developers or about Realtors, well, that’s not the business we’re in.”

Pritzker’s political operation often teamed up with real estate agents to promote BUILD, hosting roundtables and filming social media videos with real estate agent influencers. His campaign’s Facebook and Instagram accounts posted BUILD content almost every week, the message being: more houses on the market means reduced costs.

These comments clearly state the sides Cole sees for and against this plan: local officials and residents who want to retain local control and realtors, developers, and the governor who want to build more housing units.

Often, all of these actors work together regarding development. As Cole notes, all communities want to grow. This can add residents and business activity. It can lead to increased tax revenues. It means jobs for construction workers.

But these groups do not always agree. Developers may propose a particular project that a municipality does not look favorably upon. Realtors may see developments or communities in particular ways. Communities have their own ideas about what they would like to be.

Given how much municipalities like to control their own zoning, I do not know if there is a compromise available between these sides. Do developers and realtors want to be portrayed as being on the side of the governor and against local communities? Can local communities say they do not really want to build middle-housing or housing that could help provide housing opportunities for more people? Everyone wants to grow but who will get to steer this growth?

The rising costs of homeownership

Posted on by

Americans like the idea of owning single-family homes. Would they give that up if homeownership is too expensive?

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

A home buyer in 2019 could expect to spend about $20,000 a year on basic homeownership expenses: mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, maintenance and repairs, according to data from Intercontinental Exchange and home-services marketplace Angi.

By 2025, that annual bill had soared above $28,500, outpacing inflation and keeping many would-be buyers out of the market . Homeowners who wish they could sell and move elsewhere are also staying put, turned off by the cost of purchasing today…

Home-insurance and property-tax costs have also climbed in many parts of the country, affecting home buyers and longtime owners alike.

Insurance costs have risen due to persistent natural disasters and increases in material and labor costs for home repairs. And rising home values have pushed up property-tax assessments, sparking pushback from voters in some states…

One of the appeals of the postwar American Dream was that owning a house could be as cheap or even cheaper – a claim in Levittown, for example – than renting. If homeownership was financially doable, Americans jumped at the opportunity.

The article cited above suggests a different story: homeownership has gotten more expensive. The costs have gone up more than inflation and it does not look like they will go down soon. (Interestingly, there is no mention of comparisons to rent costs.)

Given the decades-long interest in homeownership, how close to homeownership and renter costs have to be for people to choose buying a home? If Americans increasingly think of homeownership in economic and investment terms, what is the tipping point in the numbers?

If homeownership costs continue to go up more than inflation, it will be interesting to see what adjustments are made to help homeownership be within reach for more people. Different financial instruments? Higher wages? More housing programs?

Americans divided over 250th celebrations but might unite over soccer?

Posted on by

The US men’s soccer team has started out strong at the World Cup. American flags, sing alongs, celebrations of wins. Might their success bring Americans together in a fractured time? A few thoughts:

Photo by Dar ius on Pexels.com
  1. Americans like sports, both domestic and international.
  2. They may like sports but they really like winning at an international level. The Olympics and World Cup are good examples.
  3. For lots of reasons, the United States is not a world power at soccer – the team is good but not among the best. Do Americans see themselves as an underdog at the World Cup, and, if so, does this help bring people together?
  4. Does the unity while at a game or watching at the same time continue at all past the event or is it a completely in the moment phenomenon?
  5. Which Americans tend to follow soccer? How much does this fandom overlap with enjoying the NFL, MLB, or NBA? How does following soccer fit with political affiliations? Is following soccer seen as a repudiation of “typical” American fandom?
  6. If politics are like sports in certain ways, are sports still more interesting or worthwhile to more Americans (compared to politics)?

What might all these questions lead to? Many may enjoy the World Cup in North America and it could get interesting if the United States makes a deeper run than they have in the past. But conflicts over celebrating July 4th and the leadup to the midterm elections may render any World Cup togetherness a pleasant memory.

No World Cup games in Chicago is a travesty – and a new football stadium could have helped

Posted on by

The World Cup is underway and Chicago is not part of it. Why not?

Former mayor Rahm Emanuel rejected FIFA’s proposal to play games in Chicago.

Chicago was a host city during the last men’s World Cup played in the US, which came back in 1994.

It seemed like an ideal place to host games, not only because of that history, but also due to the fact it boasts an iconic stadium in Soldier Field.

However, Mayor Emanuel rejected FIFA’s proposal for two reasons. One because he did not feel like his city was getting a fair deal, and the other because there was a chance the sport’s governing body could put a roof on Soldier Field.

It sounds like Emanuel thinks he was protecting the city. However, it is a missed opportunity for the nation’s third largest city which is a global city, has a busy airport that can handle all the visitors, great sites and neighborhoods, and plenty of soccer fans. And it has happened before: Soldier Field has home to five games in the 1994 World Cup, including the opening game.

Could a new stadium like the Bears are seeking have made this possible? Soldier Field is smaller in comparison to other American football stadiums hosting World Cup games. A number of the host stadiums have been built more recently. Whether in Arlington Heights or Hammond, wouldn’t a new stadium have been exactly the kind of venue to help fans experience the Chicago area?

How do Americans think highways are funded?

Posted on by

How would Americans prefer to pay for the highways and roads they use? The Chicago Tribune suggests raising tolls perpetually is not a good way to go:

Photo by ud835udce2ud835udcf1ud835udceaud835udcf7ud835udcee ud835udce6ud835udceeud835udcfcud835udcfd u2122 on Pexels.com

The Illinois Tollway board is in the process of implementing a 45-cent toll increase for I-Pass users, meaning a 70-cent toll today could become $1.15 in 2027.

And the toll hikes won’t stop there. Starting in 2029, the proposal to be considered by the Illinois Tollway board sets up CPI-indexed toll hikes every two years.

Wait a minute.

Transit fares aren’t being indexed to inflation. Why tolls? Even if this is allowed by the state, ongoing toll hikes should not be part of the tollway’s plan right now.

Tolls may not be a favored funding method in general but even worse in Illinois is the original promise that highway tolls would go away once the bonds that helped fund construction were paid off.

The editorial also mentions the gas tax which helps fund roads. But with high gas prices, having a higher gas tax in Illinois compared to other states is not popular.

How about funneling more road money to mass transit? This is a popular idea among some who argue mass transit can more efficiently move larger numbers of people and reduce the need to drive. But the American public tends to drive and not use mass transit.

Highways and roads do not just appear. The federal government provided a lot of money to fund the interstate system. Roads need to be built and maintained. The old Chicago joke regarding the two seasons of winter and construction requires money.

Should driving be free? Are tolls offensive because they make obvious that driving is costly? Drivers know their personal costs for driving – gas, insurance, maintenance – but may not think much about infrastructure costs. Drivers may not like tolls, particularly ones that increase in price, but they will likely pay for roads one way or another.

Making the case for city downtowns

Posted on by

A recent report from Gensler presents a vision for downtowns:

Photo by Eddie O. on Pexels.com

Downtowns are citywide reputation engines. They anchor the tax base, centralize economic growth, and can determine whether a city feels dynamic or stagnant. Our research suggests that improving downtown experience is one of the most effective levers for strengthening a city’s brand, building a thriving economy, and retaining residents. Great downtowns — whether called a Central Business District (CBD), city center, or financial district — make their cities more competitive for talent, businesses, and investments.

Revenues. Business activity. Vibrancy. Status. Defining a city.

What are downtowns in the United States today? Are they more vacant than in the past, perhaps stuck in urban doom loops? Are metropolitan regions now where more people live and conduct their daily business?

The report goes on to suggest that downtowns can thrive if they pursue a mixed-use approach:

Urban vibrancy is generated by dwell time, not solely by how many people visit downtown. Cities that understand this move from prioritizing throughput to experience, creating spaces vibrant enough to turn an errand into an afternoon stay. In this way, the CBD can evolve from a business district into a living room for the entire city. Mixed-use density, activated ground floors connected to the street, and safe, walkable pedestrian areas create the conditions for urban vibrancy. Downtown design choices are never purely local decisions; their benefits extend across the entire city. The most successful cities of the future will be those that invest in their CBDs to foster an environment that encourages residents and businesses to stay.

This would require some major changes in American cities. This is not the first expert suggesting that downtowns need to change. However, the old model has been around a long time. People and systems are used to it. What might be a reasonable timeline for a big city to significantly change their downtown from a business-first model? How does a city pursue this across the board as opposed to a development here or a development there?

Different cities pursuing different versions of this could be useful. There likely is no one size fits all solution. The biggest cities or the superstar cities might have very different options compared to other cities. Or the local context might matter quite a bit.

Another improbable suburban outdoor basketball court

Posted on by

I recently saw another unique outdoor basketball hoop arrangement. Here is what the court used to look like: a blacktop surface (not quite regulation court size) with a hoop at just one end. It looks like this on Google Maps satellite view:

With this setup, basketball players can play a half-court game. There are even a full set of half-court lines. We could ask why there is not a full-court setup but a decent half-court offers possibilities for those who want to play basketball. .

So imagine the same surface then gets a second hoop. Where would it be best to place to the hoop for basketball purposes? Directly opposite the other hoop, right?

Here is where Google Streetview shows the second hoop existing today:

The second hoop is not opposite the first one. It is at a right angle to the first one. It does not enable a full-court game. It does not enable two half-court games played back to back. It permits two half-court games played at an angle to each other. And the second possible half-court does not have painted lines.

Why position the hoops this way? I first posted about this in 2011 and have occasionally posted about it since (finding a circular court in 2019 or noting the rise of backyard basketball courts in private backyards in 2019). If park districts and schools and other entities make basketball courts for people to use, why make it so difficult for basketball players to play a game?

1 day until Every Somewhere Sacred: writing and waiting, learning and doing

Posted on by

Writing a book does not just involve putting words on a page, or, more accurately, typing letters into computer software. It involves thinking, discussing, doing. I find it hard to write something without first turning it through in my mind over and over as well as living out the ideas and the questions. Here are two examples from the process of creating Every Somewhere Sacred.

Photo by manu prasad on Pexels.com

First, I live in the suburbs of the United States. These are unique settings with particular histories. A majority of Americans live there, including many American Christians. (Read Sanctifying Suburbia for more on this.) What does difference, if any, should it make to be Christian and live in the suburbs?

Thinking about this is important. It is easy to live a suburban life, including doing Christian things as part of this life. Doing is also important: Christians are to use their minds and their bodies as they live out their faith.

Second, lots of American communities are home to Christian congregations and organizations. How do these Christian groups shape places and land? Are they primarily focused on their own internal activities or do they contribute to the flourishing of communities and places?

Photo by Luis Quintero on Pexels.com

I ask this as I live and work in a suburb partly known for its religious character. In addition to being home to a known evangelical college, it is home to 40+ churches and many evangelical organizations are in the suburb or nearby. Does this mean the character of the community is different in terms of how people interact (interpersonally and collectively) and how land and creation are treated?

I hope the years spent working with Ben on writing this book also influenced how I act. My question about living in the suburbs or Christians meeting together in certain locations could apply to any place and setting. We address both thinking and doing in Every Somewhere Sacred. We argue we need new tools, metaphors, and lenses to help us recognize what is going on in lands and places and to see what God is doing. We want to act with these lenses, listening to others, open to what we might have missed, and acting in ways that are consistent with God’s mission. If we can see land and place as a gift, sacrament, kin, or home, it can prompt us to better participate in what God is already doing in these settings.