Category Archives: Politics

Who will lead the way to address the need for hundreds of thousands of housing units in Illinois?

Posted on by

A new study suggests Illinois needs a lot of new housing:

Photo by Curtis Adams on Pexels.com

Illinois has a shortage of about 142,000 housing units and must build 227,000 in the next five years to keep pace with demand, a number that would require recent annual production rates to double, according to a new economic study.

The joint study published Tuesday by the Illinois Economic Policy Institute and the Project for Middle Class Renewal at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign found that although the rental and for-sale housing markets in Chicago and Illinois as a whole remain more affordable than many coastal cities, such as New York and Los Angeles, and some other states, Illinois still faces a severe housing shortage that is escalating affordability challenges.

National housing shortage estimates are wide-ranging, with Freddie Mac citing 3.7 million and the National Association of Realtors reporting 5.5 million.

And the recommendations for how to do this?

The authors suggest a variety of solutions, some of which Chicago officials and other state leaders are already working on, including easing zoning restrictions, quickening permitting processes, offering tax incentives to convert commercial buildings to residential units and increasing surtaxes on short-term rentals such as Airbnb. Aldermen recently took a step toward giving themselves the power to ban Airbnb and other short-term rentals from opening in their wards, a move that could potentially lead to an increase in housing supply.

This is not a new issue. And even drastic changes right now would not lead to 227,000 new units in five years. This is a long-term project that needs to be addressed.

One thought: this is an opportunity for Illinois to do something that could help lead the way in the United States. Here is why. It is a blue state and Chicago and its region dominates politics and perceptions. (This is not to ignore those living outside the Chicago area; there are just fewer of them.) It has more affordable costs compared to numerous other important cities. Chicago is still an important, world-class city. If Illinois could make a serious dent in providing affordable housing across the state, it could become a model for numerous other places. What works in Illinois might not work at all in New York City or Seattle or San Francisco or other super-heated housing markets. But it might work in Cleveland, Nashville, Denver, and other American metropolitan regions. Figure it out and Illinois and lots of areas could benefit.

For numerous reasons, it seems like politicians and business leaders in American cities and regions are hesitant to truly tackle affordable housing. But those who get out ahead of it can (1) help people living there and (2) provide models and tools for others to learn from and use.

Who should benefit more from selling a home: sellers, buyers, realtors, Zillow, others?

Posted on by

The process by which a single-family home or other residential property is built and sold has been under discussion in recent years. Here is one argument about who should benefit more from the process:

Photo by energepic.com on Pexels.com

So, when the National Association of Realtors recently adopted a policy allowing limited off-MLS marketing, Zillow announced it would permanently ban any listing not posted to the MLS within one day. Essentially, Zillow — a company that doesn’t sell homes — is asserting it gets to decide how you can market and sell your home. 

Zillow claims it is protecting consumers from off-MLS marketing, which it says leads to longer market times and lower prices. But a 2024 study by Midwest Real Estate Data — the MLS serving Chicagoland — shows the exact opposite. MRED offers a Private Listing Network that shares listings with all member agents without circulating them to public websites. Homes first marketed through MRED’s Private Listing Network sold 55% faster, for more money, and at a higher percentage of list price (97.5% versus 95.4%) than those listed publicly from day one.

Our own experience across tens of thousands of transactions confirms the findings of this study. At @properties Christie’s International Real Estate, we developed a “private-to-prominent” listing strategy that starts with an off-MLS marketing period and builds to a full public offering. This approach has several benefits. It allows a seller and their agent to prepare the home for sale while building interest and demand. It also gives them an opportunity to test a price without having Zillow or other websites display any reductions that might be made prior to the public listing. And the listing does not accumulate market time during this premarketing phase. (Typically, as market times increase, buyer interest decreases.) 

This approach can result in faster, higher-value sales, often before the home ever hits the MLS, or Zillow. Most importantly, it keeps the seller in control. They choose when to list publicly and can accept or reject an offer at any time. 

The key here is at the end: “it keeps the seller in control.” Should the seller be the one calling all the shots and having the advantages?

Another argument could be made that the seller having the primary options limits potential buyers. Is the home reaching all the possible purchasers? If it is on a private network first, how often does it reach the general public? Could private listings build off existing networks, reproducing inequalities?

Or should Zillow and other actors play the primary role as many Americans look for real estate online? Is this more of a tug-of-war between the established real estate industry and the online competitors who offer information for any searchers without the need to contact an agent? There are a lot of jobs and a lot of money at stake.

Is there any role for communities or people who might want to access certain communities down the road? If the strength of local real estate is often taken as a sign of local vibrancy and status, should this only involve private actors?

I suspect this discussion will continue as different actors look for an edge in real estate. Hopefully this does not come down to solely who can lobby the most effectively.

Suburban voters as part of larger political realignments in the US

Posted on by

Political changes in recent election cycles in the United States include the voting patterns of suburbanites:

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

The realignments of recent years—the midwestern white working class toward Trump’s GOP and the suburbs toward the Democrats—can be understood as the process of ideological and education sorting coming for groups that were the most out of place in the new political realm: rich suburban Republicans and culturally conservative working-class Democrats. In 2020 and 2024, this realignment came for the nonwhite voters once at the center of Barack Obama’s coalition, especially working-class Hispanics, and most especially those in the rural outskirts of the Rio Grande Valley.

Starr County’s tradition of machine politics, manifest in an unusually strong preoccupation with local elections, marked a place ripe for a sudden political shift. Not unlike the Democratic majorities in the big cities of mid-century, which continue at some level into the present day, political dominance in the region was built not through allegiance to liberal ideals but through political machines that delivered tangible benefits and shaped the political identity of new immigrant groups. This is evident in polling today showing that nonwhite Democrats are much more moderate and conservative than their white counterparts. For a time, ideological differences were subsumed to the work of advancing group interests through machine politics. But in an era of declining party organization and an emptying out of majority-minority cities in favor of more integrated suburbs, the tide of ideological voting could be held at bay for only so long. Once it poured in, America shifted into a new era of politics, from one forged by social connections at the neighborhood level to today’s cultural and ideological polarization, where you vote Republican if you have conservative cultural beliefs, regardless of race.

Two claims here stand out:

  1. “Rich suburban Republicans and culturally conservative working-class Democrats” shifted in recent decades. As the suburbs grew quickly after World War Two, those new suburbanites were assumed to be Republicans. Now, college-educated suburbanites tend to lean toward Democrats. And it also matters where in the suburbs someone lives; those closer to big cities tend to vote Democratic and those more on the metropolitan edge tend to vote Republicans.
  2. The connection made between “more integrated suburbs” and increased polarization. Did the people moving to the suburbs lead to polarization – more residents of different racial, ethnic, and social class backgrounds living in suburbs – or did people moving out lead to polarization? What exactly changed and what led to what? How did suburbs over time become different social and political places?

The pattern seems well-established now: the political state of suburbia has changed. The reasons for it and the long-term consequences are still to be worked out.

Americans have been pretty pessimistic about the direction of the country for 15 years

Posted on by

Not once in the last 15 years has a majority of Americans said the direction of the country is on the right track:

Granted, the polling average does move a decent amount at some points. It is over 45% just before 2010 and it is over 40% again around 2022. And it is down under 20% at a few points, including around 2012, 2014, and 2023.

What does long-term pessimism or concern do to a country? These patterns span multiple leaders, election cycles, events, and social movements. Are the same people down on the direction of the country or does this change depending on conditions? Are people responding more to the current moment or thinking about the near- or long-term future that they think the country is headed towards?

Put it another way: what might it take for a majority of Americans to say the country is on the right track?

In a metropolitan transit system, should the city or suburbs get more votes?

Posted on by

As actors in the Chicago region consider the possibility of consolidating multiple transit agencies, the issue of voting members came up:

Photo by Alex Qian on Pexels.com

The MMA would have three directors appointed by the governor, five by Chicago’s mayor, five by the Cook County Board president and five by the chairs of the DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will county boards.

Republican Rep. Dan Ugaste of Geneva said, “what’s very important to us in the collar counties and probably in some suburban Cook, as well, is how is this going to work? If we’re talking simple majorities, once we get to the voting structure — that’s going to effectively allow all these five other collar counties to be silenced if Cook and Chicago work together.”

Democratic state Rep. Eva-Dina Delgado of Chicago, who is sponsoring the MMA bill, countered that “for a long time it has been city versus suburbs. We have to change our mindset around that, as well, and see this as a regional issue.”

There could be many different ways to figure out the formula for the number of votes from each part of the region. Some options:

  1. Equal number of suburban and city votes, meaning an equal number from Chicago and equal number from the suburbs (with some way of figuring out which suburban areas are represented).
  2. More votes from Chicago compared to the suburbs. City residents may use transit more.
  3. More votes from the suburbs compared to Chicago. There are many more residents overall in the suburbs compared to the city.
  4. Wild card: more appointees at the state level than either local interests such that the governor or state leaders retain control over which way votes might go.

Beyond the complications of local Illinois politics, the broader issue is that American cities and the suburbs around them do not always see eye to eye on transit and other regional issues. If either side feels that they have to “win” this portion of the negotiations, does this limit what can be accomplished? Or if one side does not really want to participate but also may not want to be locked out of the political process, where does that lead?

Under 15% of local voters could decide important suburban mayoral race

Posted on by

The Chicago Tribune made its endorsement for mayor in Aurora, Illinois. This is not a small city or a recently-developed place; Aurora is the second largest community in Illinois with over 175,000 residents and it has nearly two centuries of history. The current mayor ran in the 2022 Republican primary for governor. Lots of people would be interested in voting, right?

Photo by Tara Winstead on Pexels.com

Or maybe not. Richard Irvin has been elected as mayor twice before, in 2017 and 2021. The first time he won with 5,838 votes out of 10,963 total votes. The second time he won with 6,697 out of 12,047 votes. The 2021 primary election had low turnout. In the 2021 mayoral election, turnout was under 13% for the Kane County portion of the city’s residents.

And this is not an isolated case; voter turnout in local elections in the Chicago region is often low.

All of this means that a relatively small portion of communities elect local officials. If turnout is under 15%, then a mayor can be elected by less than 10% of a suburb’s population. These elected officials then help make important decisions about local ordinances, land use, infrastructure, and more. They represent the community to residents and outsiders.

Does this low turnout in local elections help explain why it is difficult for mayors to make the jump to higher levels of government? They may be known in their communities – also think of Pete Buttigieg, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana – but they do not necessarily need large voting blocs to support them and help them get into office. Running for higher offices, like Congress or governor, then requires amassing many more votes.

Comparing neighborhood partisan segregation to workplace partisan segregation

Posted on by

The findings of a new study regarding political sorting in American workplaces can be compared to findings about political sorting in neighborhoods:

Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com

Demsas: How does this compare to the level of partisan segregation that we observe in other places? We know, for instance, that there’s partisan segregation happening in schools or in dating markets and churches and stuff like that. Is the workplace the most segregated based on party in America, or is this in line with other places?

Chinoy: Yeah, so it’s hard to answer this directly for every other social environment or every other group of people. I can tell you a couple things. So one is: I think a natural comparison is residential partisan segregation. This is something that people study a lot, right—the extent to which Democrats live on the same block as Democrats, and Republicans live next to other Republicans. And so we can sort of compare what I told you—that 10 percent number, that overexposure ratio—against partisan segregation across neighborhoods.

And you can define neighborhoods in different ways. One way to do it is a zip code. And when we do that, we find that partisan segregation at work is pretty similar. So, like, a little bit less than but overall pretty similar to partisan segregation across zip codes. We can go one step further and say, you know, maybe the zip code is a little bit bigger than what you have in mind when you think of neighborhood-level sorting. And so we have individual addresses in our data, and so we can say, you know, You have 15 co-workers. Let me figure out how many of them share your party affiliation, and let me look at our sample of the 15 people who live closest to you and figure out how many of those people share your party affiliation.

And when we do that, we find that workplace-level segregation, workplace-level overexposure ratio is a little bit less pronounced than that sort of nearest neighbor level of segregation, but still pretty similar, not so different. It’s not orders of magnitude different. So that’s kind of why we say that it’s a little less pronounced than residential segregation as a whole but still pretty sizable.

It sounds like the levels of political sorting are similar: what people tend to experience where they live is similar to what they experience at work.

I wonder how much it is experienced differently at work compared to a neighborhood. Where are politics more visible? In a neighborhood, a resident may have different indicators of political affiliation. It could come through conversation or yard signs or particular behaviors. At work, people might interact with each other or be in physical proximity more. Would political ties then be more apparent through conversation? Or are people sharing other signs of political leanings (things at a desk/cubicle/office, etc.)? Across both settings, are political views most visible on social media or online activity? Are people more comfortable with partisan sorting with neighbors or coworkers?

“Map lines are inherently political”

Posted on by

Maps document human interpretations of physical and spatial features:

Photo by Andrew Neel on Pexels.com

Map lines are inherently political. After all, they’re representations of the places that are important to human beings — and those priorities can be delicate and contentious, even more so in a globalized world where multiple nations often share the same maps.

Numerous examples follow:

The water bordered by the Southern United States, Mexico and Cuba will be critical to shipping lanes and vacationers whether it’s called the Gulf of Mexico, as it has been for four centuries, or the Gulf of America, as President Donald Trump ordered this week. North America’s highest mountain peak will still loom above Alaska whether it’s called Denali, as ordered by former President Barack Obama in 2015, or changed back to Mt. McKinley as Trump also decreed…

The Persian Gulf has been widely known by that name since the 16th century, although usage of “Gulf” and “Arabian Gulf” is dominant in many countries in the Middle East. The government of Iran — formerly Persia — threatened to sue Google in 2012 over the company’s decision not to label the body of water at all on its maps. Many Arab countries don’t recognize Israel and instead call it Palestine. And in many official releases, Israel calls the occupied West Bank by its biblical name, “Judea and Samaria.”…

The Associated Press, which disseminates news around the world to multiple audiences, will refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its original name while acknowledging the name Gulf of America. AP will, however, use the name Mount McKinley instead of Denali; the area lies solely in the United States and as president, Trump has the authority to change federal geographical names within the country.

Humans make meaning of the world around them and maps capture some of that meaning. And because meaning is sometimes agreed upon and sometimes contested, maps reflect these realities.

What are innovative ways to include multiple names or meanings on a map? Or layer changes in a map over time? I have seen some interesting displays online that attempt to do this. How can maps be more dynamic and flexible?

“Trump won the suburbs”

Posted on by

One media source recently declared “Trump won the suburbs”:

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

The suburbs have become increasingly diverse and populous. More than half of voters in 2024 were in suburban areas, according to exit polls. They have become swing areas, home to some of the most closely targeted House seats, and a good barometer of who will win the presidential election.

The winner in the suburbs has won 11 of the last 12 presidential elections, dating back to 1980. And this year that was Trump, 51%-47%, according to exit polls.

Vice President Harris was hoping she could turn out women in the suburbs in key swing states to get her across the finish line. But that didn’t happen. Trump, for example, won white suburban women by 7 points, as well as white suburban men — by 27. So there were some split kitchen tables, but not enough to help Harris win.

In multiple swing states, there were significant shifts in Trump’s direction in the suburbs, based on nearly final vote totals. That includes a net swing of almost 60,000 votes in the four counties that make up the Philadelphia suburbs and the two major ones north of Detroit, more than 10,000 in the “WOW” counties around Milwaukee (Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington) and in the counties touching Fulton County, Ga., where Atlanta is.

This is the strongest declaration I have seen thus far about suburban voters in the 2024 election.

Two graphics in the story add to the text above:

  1. A national map of counties shows many suburban counties shifted toward more raw votes for Trump between 2020 and 2024. Relatively few suburban counties shifted toward Harris.
  2. There is an interactive graphic that shows shifts in suburban counties from 2016 to 2020 to 2024 and some suburban counties did move toward Harris in that span. This graphic shows there is significant variation in voting patterns across suburban counties.

On the whole, one candidate garnered more votes from the suburbs. Did that determine the election? This analysis does not say; it suggests suburban voters contributed to the outcome.

Exit poll data on suburbanites in key states in the 2024 presidential election

Posted on by

NBC reports exit poll results involving people in 10 key states, hinting at how suburbanites voted for president in the 2024 elections:

Based on these results, it looks like the Democratic candidate won large percentages in urban areas, the Republican candidate won a majority in rural areas, and suburban voters went slightly for the winning candidate.

If this pattern roughly held across the United States, it would be similar to patterns from previous presidential election cycles. If a candidate wants to win, they need to appeal to enough suburban voters.

What appealed to suburbanites specifically in 2024? If economic conditions was a top concern of voters, is this what drove suburban voters? The top table above suggests white suburbanites in these 10 states voted for the winning candidate. Were they driven by economic concerns or other issues?

And as attention turns to the next election cycle, how will parties and candidates seek to appeal to suburbanites? In addition to those thinking of presidential office, how will House districts involving suburbs speak to suburban residents?