Suburban school districts in the Chicago region that might need to make a case for closing schools

Posted on by

As Chicago political leaders and candidates debate closing schools (examples here and here), this raised for me a broader question: which Chicago area school districts in the coming years will make a positive case to the public for closing some schools and then actually close them?

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

A number of communities could face this as they relatively stagnant populations and declining birth rates. This is not true of all places; there are still parts of the Chicago region growing more rapidly or that have higher percentages of young families. But many communities have school districts and facilities sized to an earlier era of growth, whether that was immediately in the postwar decades for some places closer to Chicago or in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century in other places.

What case could they make to local residents about closing schools?

-Limiting property taxes or limiting future increases.

-Better allocation of resources to serve the needs of students, teachers, and others in the school district.

-Finding new uses for the buildings or land that can contribute positively to the community.

-Being responsive to changing communities.

Like there has been in Chicago, there will be residents and leaders who will make arguments against closing schools. Do suburban school districts have the processes ready and trust built up to facilitate conversations between those who would be for closures and against closures? Since at least some of the process of choosing a residence in suburbia is tied to schools, these could be intense conversations.

Or what would residents think of another option: consolidating or merging school districts? Suburbanites like local control over schools but mergers could take place between similar districts or communities.

Right now, this might sound to many in the Chicago region as an issue only Chicago is facing. That may not be the case in the next decade or two.

NIMBY, YIMBY…and THIMBY?

Posted on by

A dispute in Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood about a proposed Comed substation includes the involvement of a local THIMBY group:

Photo by Phil Evenden on Pexels.com

Driscoll, a Lakeview resident for more than half a century, is among thousands of locals caught up in a bitter fight over ComEd’s plans to build an electrical substation at 1111 W. Diversey Parkway. The utility maintains that the site is the best available option for equipment necessary to protect the area from blackouts and brownouts, while opponents argue the land should be used for housing instead.

But the monthslong dispute has devolved into a battle of competing narratives, with residents accusing ComEd of dishonesty and the utility insisting their critics misunderstand the project. For Driscoll, who belongs to the Diversey Community Coalition, or DCC, the stakes extend far beyond electrical infrastructure.

The coalition, a grassroots group formed earlier this year, has rallied more than a thousand residents against the substation. Rejecting the label of NIMBYism is central to the DCC’s identity, with members instead embracing a term of their own: THIMBYism, or “Transit-oriented Housing In My Backyard.”…

As the coalition tells it, the property could accommodate upwards of 200 apartments that house more than 450 people, including dozens of affordable units. Based on those estimates, the DCC says the development would generate another $5 million in annual neighborhood spending.

The pitch appears to be that they don’t want dangerous infrastructure in their neighborhood – and they proposed multiple alternative sites – but the group does want housing.

Many communities could benefit from housing, particularly if it is located near transportation options and corridors. Infrastructure also needs to be located somewhere and Comed already owns this land.

Is what unites NIMBY, YIMBY, or THIMBY the idea that local residents and/or leaders get to decide how land is used? And when these acronyms are connected to the efforts of wealthier communities, like Lincoln Park, it is a reminder of how development decisions are made.

It is too bad we don’t get parallel universes here that would let us see how different scenarios play out. Let’s say the substation gets moved; what does it then look like in the community with all the work it would take to approve transit-oriented development? Or if the substation is constructed, what happens next to promote housing in the community? Rallying against an undesirable land use might motivate neighbors but sustaining long-term community involvement to construct housing is a long-term project.

Chicago’s downtown as a “cultural stadium”

Posted on by

Plans and money are moving forward to adding more arts to the Loop:

Photo by Brian Lazo on Pexels.com

Backed by $2 million in private, corporate and government funds, the idea for the so-called “Cultural Stadium” was created by Lou Raizin, president and CEO of Broadway In Chicago. The proposal aims to weave arts and culture into the everyday lives of Chicagoans, especially those working in or visiting the Loop…

Some programming has already been piloted this summer and fall. Through a Cultural Umbrella pilot program that offered free days for children and their families to access the city’s major cultural institutions, more than 400 children and their parents attended events at places such as the Joffrey Ballet, Chicago History Museum, Chicago Children’s Theatre and the Adler Planetarium. The effort was funded by a $50,000 grant from the Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events.

Also underway is “Poetry Way,” the creation of a digital display in the alley between Joffrey Tower and the Chicago Theatre in the Loop. The collaboration between the Poetry Foundation and the Joffrey Ballet launched during the Chicago Loop Alliance Arts Fest in October. A permanent debut is set for March 2027…

According to the Cultural Stadium website, other potential projects include The Link, which proposes turning a portion of Lower Wacker Drive into a music venue; The Vault, a large canopy and pedestrian walkway imagined for LaSalle Street, between Jackson Boulevard and Adams Street; and The Pause, which aims to “transform the humble public restroom into a bold statement of what a great city can be.”

For a long time, the primary activity of American downtowns has been business. Commerce. Making money. Commodities and financial products. Consumer and industrial goods. Stores, offices, markets.

That does not mean downtowns do not have other activities. Chicago’s downtown also includes restaurants, theaters, museums, some residential units, and more. Cultural activities are a key part of big cities.

So it will be interesting to see how much of a “cultural stadium” the Loop can be. How much of the activity is linked to interest in music, art, theater, etc. and how much of it is linked to economic development and tourism? Can the city with a downtown full of large buildings also feel culturally alive?

And the idea of a “cultural stadium” implies an arena or particular settings where people can expect spectacles. Can a downtown feel like a cohesive stadium when activity is spread out across blocks and locations?

Suburban voters swing toward Democrats in 2026 elections

Posted on by

More voters in the country’s most populous setting voted for Democrats last week (according to the SSRS 2026 polling data on House races):

Even as urban voters are heavily Democratic and rural voters are more Republican, the suburban voters went more for Democrats. (My guess is that there is some overlap between suburban and small town here as the US urban population is around 80%.)

Urban and suburban voters were more likely to see their House vote as being cast against the current president:

When considering the most important issues in the election, voters in urban and suburban areas were more alike (with some slight differences in rural areas and small towns regarding immigration and democracy):

Both because the suburbs contain so many potential voters and there are some suburbanites who can be swayed (see how they voted in 2024), this will be something to watch for leading up to 2028. If the economy was the leading issue in 2026, what changes would influence suburban voters one way or the other?

Affordability and cost of living affected voting; how will elected candidates address housing?

Posted on by

Cost of living appeared to be a big motivation for how Americans voted in the 2026 elections. Here is one summary of polling data:

Photo by Jakub Zerdzicki on Pexels.com

Most voters say the economy or the state of democracy is the top issue facing the country, with the cost of living and government corruption weighing heavily on many Americans’ minds as they cast a ballot in Tuesday’s midterm elections. The poll also signals a strong desire for Congress to take a more forceful role in checking the presidency.

Given these sentiments, what will politicians now do about housing? It is not the only expensive or costly items voters care about; see concerns about gas prices or groceries or utility bills. But it is a persistent and important concern. It is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, line item in household budgets. It is tied to all sorts of other life opportunities and outcomes. Good housing at a reasonable cost is something people (read voters) want.

Some directions we might see in the coming months:

-More statewide efforts to address local zoning issues. If individual communities can reject housing, can states allow more situations where housing can be built regardless of local concerns?

-More federal monies funneled toward helping people obtain housing. This could take different forms but it could help people purchase homes or find rentals.

-More incentives for builders and developers. What could help them provide cheaper housing? What could help them build more units?

-Resources for redeveloping spaces. If there are properties not living up to their potential (whether they are residential, commercial, or institutional), money or changed policies or something else might spur turning them into needed housing.

-More agreement that the federal government should step in or should address housing needs. Public housing may not be popular but local governments are not always open to big housing change. Who can help address the logjam of housing needs?

These are not very specific as there are multiple opinions and options.

At the same time, curbing inflation and affecting the price of everyday goods would be welcomed by many but still does not get at the fundamental issue many Americans face: how can I find decent housing at a reasonable price? People want action, not just a lot of possibilities.

Voting against data centers in the 2026 elections

Posted on by

In the 2026 elections, voters in a number of communities and races also considered what to do about data centers:

Photo by Altaf Shah on Pexels.com

Voters in at least 29 jurisdictions across the country passed bans or restrictions on data centers Tuesday, reflecting the widespread public revulsion to the facilities and adding to the growing pushback on the ambitions of the artificial intelligence industry.

Data center construction also suffered setbacks in several states that are hot spots for the projects, as Democratic candidates promising to curb the rapid proliferation of the compute warehouses won governors’ races…

A voter poll conducted on behalf of major TV networks said early on Wednesday that 56 percent of midterms voters considered AI and data centers to be a major or crucial factor in their vote. That ranked them as the least influential among five issues, far behind government corruption, the war in Iran and the cost of living…

It’s unclear whether local and state restrictions will meaningfully slow the frantic building of AI data centers around the United States. Some industry officials say that a significant portion of the roughly 600 large-scale AI data centers either planned or under construction is unlikely to become operational regardless of public reaction.

Three quick thoughts in response:

  1. With these election results, this does not necessarily mean that data centers cannot or will not be built in some places. Does this mean places and officials open to data centers will build more within their geography? Is this an opportunity for some locations?
  2. I’m curious to see how conversations about AI and its potential line up with conversations about people not wanting to live near them. What is the point where people say data centers are needed because AI is needed for particular uses and so they have to go somewhere near us? Is there any point that this happens if there are always options where data centers can be located elsewhere?
  3. When I read about NIMBY responses to all sorts of land uses, I keep coming back to an idea: why not have municipalities or special government zones where these undesirable land uses could be concentrated? Use the Chicago area as an example: if many residents in the city and suburbs do not want data centers near them, is there a way to put a bunch of data centers in one municipality with no residents nearby? Out of sight and hearing, out of mind?

Trending towards children as “luxury goods” in the United States?

Posted on by

One recent data analysis suggests those in the top 1% are more likely to have 3 or more children:

Photo by Puwadon Sang-ngern on Pexels.com

In an analysis of the Federal Reserve’s recent Survey of Consumer Finances, Mike Konczal, vice president of policy and research at the left-leaning nonprofit Economic Security Project, found that 49 percent of U.S. families in the top 1 percent of incomes had three or more children, compared with 40 to 43 percent for most other income groups.

The same pattern held for the top 1 percent of earners by net worth; 50 percent of Americans in that group had three or more children.

This does not necessarily line up with the number of children Americans say they want to have:

Overall, Americans want an average of 2.7 children; they actually end up having an average of 1.6.

What might this lead to?

Haspel put it simply. “You don’t want children to be a luxury good,” he said.

This reminds me of sociologist Viviana Zelizer’s book Pricing the Priceless Child where she argues children shifted around the turn of the twentieth century from being economically valuable to emotionally valuable. Could we then see this as a continuation of a long process?

The article discusses policy implications. Multiple countries have tried financial incentives to promote adults having more children. Others argue it would take a larger reordering of the whole system to help potential parents. Is there anything that actually works right now on a broad scale?

And if this is the way it is playing out in people’s lives, at what point does the ideal number of children shift significantly? As noted above, there is a gap between how many children people have versus how many they want. What might happen to that gap in the coming years? Or what does that gap – hopes that are not realized – turn into?

How the sole resident of a one person Nebraska town keeps the community going

Posted on by

The community of Monowi, Nebraska has one resident. She fulfills multiple roles:

Photo by Vanessa V. on Pexels.com

Elsie is not simply Monowi’s last resident. She is also its mayor, clerk and treasurer, effectively running a local government in which every official position leads back to the same person.

Each year, she hangs up a notice in Monowi’s only business (her bar) advertising mayoral elections, and then votes for herself.

With no political rivals to threaten her reign, Elsie casts the only ballot at election time, securing a staggering 100 per cent of the vote without so much as knocking on a door.

Elsie is responsible for keeping Monowi’s finances afloat and its official status intact, while navigating the peculiar business of approving the paperwork needed to run her own tavern…

She has also previously explained that she raises around £380 ($500) annually in local taxes to help cover essential services, including the maintenance of three flickering lampposts and water maintenance.

Someone has to keep the lights on. There are taxes to be paid and then used for local infrastructure. Elections need to be held. The one local business needs operating.

Americans tend to like local government so I imagine at least a few other Americans would enjoy being all of the local government in one person. Some might imagine this would be exciting for a larger community. A single mayor or city manager could make all the decisions and make things happen. Other might like having just a one person community.

But, as the article notes, this came about because of the steady decline of Monowi. It was never large but it once had roughly 150 residents. There were multiple businesses and a post office. How many people would want to run the show in a declining town of one where there are abandoned buildings and a loss of residents over time?

It could almost be cast in video game terms: could you grow a community from a population of 1? Trying to attract other residents would take work as would adjusting to change within the community. Would it be possible to try to buy up all of the nearby land and sell a whole town (as has been tried before elsewhere)?

What votes did Pope Leo cast in local suburban political races and questions?

Posted on by

Pope Leo voted in the 2026 American election cycle in suburban New Lenox, Illinois:

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

Records show that the pope is registered under his baptismal name, Robert Francis Prevost, to vote in the Chicago suburb of New Lenox, where his brother John lives. The Chicago-born pontiff has cast ballots in both Republican and Democratic primaries in recent years and cast a vote in the 2024 presidential election….

The pope’s ballot is expected to include votes for the senate and governor race in Illinois, along with house of representative, state and county elections.

While there is interest in comparing the Pope’s political views versus that of the current US administration, I would be interested to know how he voted regarding local candidates and issues. As noted above, this includes voting for state and local elections. Local choices could include for county boards, forest preserves, local judges, and municipal governments. It might include local referendum issues about property tax increases for school district needs or other specific local questions. Local residents might struggle to keep up with all the local issues and all the names on signs that pop up at each election cycle, let alone someone who is living elsewhere and voting from a distance.

The shorthand the media often uses for state and national issues – it is Democrats vs. Republicans, one party wins and the other loses – do not always hold up in suburban elections. Sometimes they do; elections for county boards and school boards in the Chicago suburbs can now echo national party platforms. But sometimes they do not. There are local election slates. Or particular histories and character in communities that influence local elections. A suburban community may lean more Democratic or Republican in larger political races but the local political activity can be unique.

New Lenox, Illinois is a unique suburban community southwest of Chicago. It has grown rapidly in recent years, increasing from under 3,000 residents in 1970 to over 27,000 in 2020. The suburb is largely white with the 2020 Census finding over 87% were white alone. A 2015 promotional campaign for the community emphasized that it is “home to proud Americans.” How do leaders and residents understand their community’s character, considering past, present, and future, and how does this affect their vote?

After the election concludes, there will be data regarding races – national, state, and local – that New Lenox residents voted in. It sounds like the Pope’s votes will be part of this.

Regretting buying a house when it is “just what a person does”

Posted on by

Americans generally promote homeownership. Owning a home might prove to be an unsatisfying experience:

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

“We have two kids, two full-time jobs. We don’t even have time to talk about the repairs we need to make or what we should do,” she says. “We don’t make nearly enough to hire a house manager or nanny or anything like that, so even when things do go wrong, we don’t have time to figure out how to handle it or even who we would need to hire to outsource it.” A house manager may sound like a luxury (and it is). But the share of couples with children in which both parents work full time is now 52 percent, up from 31 percent in 1975. When both parents work outside of the home, the labor of taking care of the home, in ways large and small, doesn’t simply disappear…

Thomas, in Seattle, echoes this sentiment. He was in his late 30s when he bought, feeling that it was “just what a person does.”…

So, sure. He, in true millennial parlance, “did the thing.” But what did he lose in the process?

This is a common refrain in so many of the stories I’ve heard about homeownership: We gave up the things that made our lives meaningful in order to have the thing we thought we were supposed to want…

A house is meant to be the foundation of stability and safety in our lives. Instead, ours is a high-pitched stress alarm.

Owning a house does require maintenance and resources. This has always been true. Even newer homes that might appear to require few repairs might need a lot of time to maintain.

So what has changed that the work that goes with homeownership is problematic? A few ideas based on this article:

  1. A cost/benefit analysis approach to life is an interesting way to live. Is this everything about being efficient and opportunity costs? People today have some different ideas about how they would like to use their time and what they find meaningful.
  2. There are more older homes for people to purchase. Many homes have survived decades. The single-family tract homes built in the postwar suburban boom decades are largely still around. They may need substantial repairs. Our standards for what is needed in homes – certain appliances, how kitchens should look and operate, great rooms, etc. – are now different.
  3. American society as a whole may have shifted toward consumer goods that should be great or are broken and disposable. How much maintenance can we do with smartphones or appliances or vehicles or homes? How much patience do we have for repairs and restoring and preserving when it is easier for many items to simply replace?
  4. The high cost of homeownership influences all of this. If people are going to make such a significant financial investment (and also expect certain financial returns), any decisions about or additional resources needed are notable. Buy a house, even with help, in a really expensive housing market like Boston and Seattle and it is frustrating when that really expensive housing is difficult to maintain.

Thinking further, I could imagine homeownership that requires no maintenance through either (1) built-in repair and maintenance services from the beginning (factor it into the purchase and mortgage costs) and/or (2) switching homes regularly to avoid major repairs (similar to how cars have points where costly repairs are likely such as 60,000 miles or 100,000 miles).