Tag Archives: local government

Deannex a property, seek to have it annexed a short time later

Posted on by

Development plans can push property owners to either disconnect or connect their land to a local municipality:

Photo by Charles Criscuolo on Pexels.com

The annexation is proposed ahead of a potential redevelopment of the roughly 67-acre site, which is on the southeast corner of Higgins and Bartlett roads. A Rosemont company called the Opus Group wants to purchase the site and construct a light-industrial complex.

The proposal is similar to the one Texas-based Hillwood Development Co. put forth in 2022. Allstate petitioned for disconnection the following year, and it was granted by a Cook County judge in February 2025.

But Hillwood is out of the picture now, and the Opus Group has a contract to purchase the land, Vasselli said….

“Once developments de-annex, they seldom come back, but I believe there is renewed interest in South Barrington because of what we have been able to accomplish in recent months,” McCombie wrote. “There is a desire to be a part of the exciting growth and development of our community.”

Annexation is connected to the oversight municipalities exert over land as well as what services might be available for the land. What is interesting here – and unique, as mentioned several times in the article – is that one developer wanted to be outside the suburban municipal limits and the next one wanted to be within the local boundaries.

Suburban communities generally like annexation. They then have more oversight over the land and can fold the development into their comprehensive plan and land use goals. They can benefit from the tax revenues the property provides. They can tout the new development taking place in their community.

It is too bad we do not hear more from the two developers. How did the first see disconnection as advantageous? Why does the second want to be annexed back into the community? How do these decisions affect their bottom line and how they use the land?

This is also a reminder that municipal boundaries are not always fixed. Some sprawling communities and regions have this happen regularly as new development continues. Some communities may have little room to do much given surrounding municipal boundaries. But even in these cases, there could be parcels of land that individual property owners might want to annex or deannex at different points.

First suburban referendum to ban future data centers

Posted on by

Voters in a Milwaukee suburb supported a local referendum to ban more data centers within the community:

Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels.com

City residents who sponsored the voter initiative said it marks an escalation of tactics to oppose the massive facilities needed to power artificial intelligence and could inspire activists in other towns to follow suit….

The Port Washington referendum doesn’t actually derail the city’s controversial data center campus — a $15 billion, 1.3-gigawatt facility from tech giants OpenAI and Oracle that’s one of multiple “Stargate” AI megaprojects the companies are planning with the Trump administration’s support. Instead, it takes aim at future projects by requiring city leaders to obtain voter approval before awarding developers lucrative tax incentives…

The referendum could be frozen within days as part of an ongoing court challenge. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Association of Commerce, a regional business group, filed a lawsuit in late January seeking to block the measure on grounds that it violates state law…

Residents in Monterey Park, California, will decide in June on a measure seeking to indefinitely ban new data center construction within city limits. In August, Augusta Township in rural Michigan will decide whether to override a local ordinance that cleared the way for a data center project. And in November, Janesville, Wisconsin will vote on a measure that could scuttle plans to redevelop a former General Motors assembly plant into an AI factory.

This is a different way for communities to address data centers: put a referendum on the ballot and let local residents express their opinions through a vote.

Perhaps this context is unique. The article suggests some local officials opposed the ban. Can suburbs pass up on major developments that could be local revenues and jobs? It sounds like residents in this suburb were responding to a big data center already in the works that they did not like. Perhaps residents did not feel that local officials represented their interests?

At the same time, it takes planning and work to put together referendums for local residents to consider. Port Washington is not big – over 12,000 residents – but there are calendars to be followed to get placed in front of voters and signatures that are needed. Then there is public discussion. Then there is the vote and the aftermath as different groups consider their options.

Of course, a primary recourse residents have if they do not like local decisions about data centers is to vote accordingly the next time local leaders are up for election. Those opposed to or in favor of data centers could make this a major issue in upcoming elections as smaller communities grapple with what data centers might bring.

“Informal housing” and affordable housing in the postwar suburbs

Posted on by

Historian Michael Glass describes how informal housing units came to be in the postwar suburbs:

Photo by David Osandatuwa on Pexels.com

Yes, this was a major surprise during my research. While scanning through microfilm reels of local newspapers, I kept coming across exposés of “illegal apartments,” that is, single-family homes illegally converted for multifamily occupancy. This took many forms: owners might rent out the basement, convert the garage into a dwelling, or wall off the attic as a separate apartment. Urban planners conducted comprehensive studies, and they estimated that by the 1970s between 10 and 20 percent of the single-family homes had been subdivided. A truly astounding statistic! 

In addition to being exclusionary and costly, the postwar suburban development model was completely unsustainable. Today the housing stock in Nassau County consists almost entirely of single-family dwellings. But people in the suburbs also needed cheap rentals, especially low-income families, young singles, divorced couples, retirees, and undocumented immigrants. Because zoning prohibited multifamily housing in most places, homeowners and landlords met these needs by converting single-family homes into apartments. 

The apartments were hidden, but certainly not a secret. Local officials absolutely knew the subdivisions were happening, and they let it continue because the informal apartments were meeting important housing needs. What I take from scholars of informal housing in the Global South – folks like Ananya Roy and Raquel Rolnick – is that turning a blind eye is itself a policy choice. It’s a way for government officials to manage housing needs in a context of scarcity. 

My basic argument is that informal apartments became the tacit solution to the affordable housing crisis. It helped resolve contradictions: local officials could simultaneously declare their opposition to new apartment construction while continuing to quietly tolerate informal units. 

People needed housing in the growing suburbs, homeowners adapted their properties, and local officials responded by not doing much. I wonder how much the lack of local reaction discovered was due to:

  1. The actual need for housing. How many units were needed in the postwar decades, particularly in comparison to today? Even as suburbs were growing rapidly, how much would local officials admit that even more housing was needed?
  2. The reference in the quote above to apartments is interesting as many suburban communities did consistently resist apartments because this might lead to different kinds of residents and affect the character and property values of nearby single-family homes. Informal housing is preferable to apartments until when?
  3. What happened when local residents complained about informal units? Say a resident suggests their neighbor has created an informal housing unit in violation of local regulations. How did local officials respond given #1 and #2 above? The quote above refers to media exposes so there must have been some local responses.

This might fit into a bigger story of suburban residents who since World War Two have used their homes and properties in ways that go against local regulations or what was expected. The idea of property rights is pretty important in many suburbs but so is the impulse to not have one’s property and housing values threatened by nearby land uses.

Funding local services via property taxes or state funds

Posted on by

What should be the formula by which local governments and the state of Illinois contribute monies for local services? There might be change coming:

Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA on Pexels.com

The concern centers on the Local Government Distributive Fund, the long-standing revenue-sharing mechanism that sends a portion of state income tax collections to cities and towns across Illinois.

Illinois mayors are warning that Pritzker’s proposed fiscal year 2027 budget plan reduces the share of state income-tax revenue distributed to local governments, a shift that would force many municipalities to make tough choices.

The proposal would lower the municipal share of income tax revenue distributed through the fund from 6.47% to 6.23%, meaning cities and villages would receive about $60 million less than they would under the current formula. Lawmakers have reduced that share significantly over the years, starting with a substantial cut from the 10% level that persisted prior to 2011 when lawmakers significantly increased the income tax.

While the change would send more money to the state, it would squeeze local governments that rely heavily on property taxes to fund services. Pulling additional dollars from the LGDF risks shifting the burden onto Illinois homeowners, who already face some of the highest property tax bills in the country. Property taxes are set locally, but state decisions about revenue sharing inevitably shape how much local governments must rely on them. 

Several matters appear to be at play:

  1. Local residents and leaders tend to like more local oversight of government and funds. But they are not necessarily opposed to getting funds from elsewhere – like the state – to then spend locally.
  2. Who should be making “tough choices”? Let’s say the formula is reconfigured; what local services are at risk for Illinois communities? Or where is that extra money the state is keeping then being spent? Would that money be spent in ways that helps lot of people?
  3. Property taxes are a hot button issue in many places. People like their property values going up but they do not like their property taxes going up along with that. And property taxes pay for the local services that help support their property values (schools, local amenities, etc.). If people don’t want property taxes to keep going up, what would local communities actually cut or scale back?

Percentage-wise, the formula change seems small but this gets at a fundamental issue in the American political and social system: there are multiple layers of government that provide for residents. Americans tend to like local control but townships, counties, states, and the federal government also provide services. The optimal distribution of funding and services is up for negotiation and the debate grows stronger when there is less money to go around.

Two quotes illustrating negative suburban responses to the idea of the state overriding local zoning

Posted on by

Some suburban officials expressed concern regarding Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker’s suggestion that the State of Illinois should be able to override local zoning. Two quotes from a news story provide some of the justification for the suburban argument. Here is the first quote:

Photo by Duy Le Duc on Pexels.com

“Zoning is one of the great protectors we have for investment,” he said. “Zoning is not (there) to exclude. Zoning is to protect.”

Suburbanites have invested money into their homes and zoning helps ensure property values increase/do not drop. Suburban residents like single-family homes, in part because of they view them as sources of wealth. They then can see many other land uses near these homes as threats to those values.

The second quote:

“Our local leaders are best positioned to craft solutions tailored to their residents’ needs,” he said.

Suburbanites also like local control. They can create zoning to prompt development that is consistent with what already exists in the community. They can spend local monies on what residents want. They have more control of local spending, rather than letting others further away spend their monies.

At the same time, do the efforts to protect and retain local control mean that suburban communities limit who might live in their community? Zoning for larger lots will tend to drive up housing values. Keeping zoning (and other matters) under local control means local officials can shape local options. If lots of suburban communities follow these logics, this can limit opportunities.

The problem for places trying to hold off on giving tax breaks to corporations: someone else will make an offer

Posted on by

You are a municipal or state leader who wants to take a stand on not providing tax breaks to corporations regarding land and/or development. You make the case that wealthy firms can pay their own way. You present evidence that tax breaks tend to benefit the companies, not necessarily communities. You say that tax dollars could be used more effectively in other ways.

Photo by http://www.kaboompics.com on Pexels.com

This may be a convincing argument to many. But then something happens. Another community or state offers a lot of taxpayer money. They say they will spend tax money to help a company move. They want that company and will pay the money needed to help make it happen. Can a community afford to lose a major actor? Can a local politician be the one who let them get away?

This could happen for a sports team – see what is going on with the Chicago Bears (even before the latest efforts from Indiana). It could happen with the headquarters of a big company – see the offers made for a second Amazon headquarters. It could happen with warehouse facilities or a shopping mall or a residential development.

Unless every body of government refuses to offer tax breaks, someone might jump in. All the places in a region might not offer a break but then someone across state lines offers money or someone in another region jumps in. There is value for organizations staying in place without tax breaks but it is also hard to do so if someone is offering a lot of money and/or savings to locate elsewhere.

This may indeed be the world we live in. Communities and places compete for jobs, resources, and firms. But hopefully the competition does not leave taxpayers paying for decades for minimal local impacts.

Which American communities will give up local services in order to not have any property taxes?

Posted on by

As multiple states consider having no property taxes, what happens to the local services that property taxes fund? This could include local schools and local services. Many communities value their local services, whether the residents themselves make use of them and/or because they help contribute to local property values.

Photo by Caleb Oquendo on Pexels.com

So if there is less funding for local services (this assumes county or state funds might not make up the loss of property tax revenues), which ones would people be willing to forgo? Some possibilities:

-Local schools. Lots of complaints about how much schools cost, particularly labor costs. And people who do not have kids in the schools might want to pay less for schools. (Counterargument: the quality of schools helps boost the status of communities and is related to property values.)

-Local police/fire. Do we need this much local coverage?

-The number of local government employees/functions. Are they all needed?

-Thinking about these last two: why not consolidate police or roads or other local services with other communities or within an entire county? (Counterargument: individual communities then have less say over how much the local services interact with their residents.)

I suspect that places that eliminate property taxes may then have some interesting discussions about how to make sure the services that property taxes helped fund continue. How many residents will actually accept a decrease in local services and amenities?

Local control is essential to understanding American suburbs

Posted on by

The mayor of Naperville thanked the City Council for not supporting a proposal that regional transit authorities could develop land within half a mile of train stations. He explained his opposition this way (via his Scott Wehrli for Naperville Facebook page):

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

I’m proud of our City Council for standing together in opposition of this legislation that would give transit agencies the power to control development within a half-mile of our train stations—taking that authority away from the local officials you elected.

In Naperville, development decisions should be made by our community, through our City Council, not by transit agencies in Chicago. Local control has always been the foundation of our city’s success, and we’ll continue to protect it.

This is a good example for why I included local control as one of the seven reasons that Americans love suburbs. Suburban residents and leaders want to be able to make decisions about local land and monies as they see fit. They can resent when decision-making involving their land and money takes place elsewhere, particularly if it goes against what the suburban community wants or is perceived to be a threat to an established way of life.

This particular case involves transportation and land development. A popular idea in numerous cities and suburbs is to construct transit-oriented development which often involves higher residential densities adjacent to mass transit stops and a reduced number of parking spaces required. A number of Chicago suburbs have pursued this in recent decades; trains going in and out of Chicago pass apartments and condos in suburban downtowns.

But the key for many of these suburbs is that they made these decisions regarding development around train stations. These conversations often included debate about the size of new buildings and the number of units involved. How tall is too tall for a suburban downtown? How many units will be erected? What is the target population for these new developments?

Leaders and residents in Naperville and suburbs across the United States might pursue denser development near mass transit but they want to make the decision and steer development in ways they feel is consistent with the existing character and footprint of their community.

(I would also argue that local control is closely linked to the other six reasons Americans love suburbs.)

If population growth in the US slows, this will make competition between cities for people even more intense

Posted on by

For cities and communities in the United States, growth is good. It signals progress, status, new development. To be flat in population or to lose residents hints at problems or failure.

Photo by Burak The Weekender on Pexels.com

Throughout the history of the United States, the growth rate each decade has been over 10% for every decade except for 4 (1930s, 1980s, 2000s, 2010s). The population growth came through births and immigration. This population growth means many communities could grow. Some places might lose people – such as several prominent cities in the second half of the twentieth century – but there was growth in many places.

So if population growth across the United States slows, how can many cities, suburbs, and metropolitan areas also grow? There will be fewer people to go around. This could lead to some different outcomes:

  1. There will be clearer “winners” and “losers” in population.
  2. Communities and commentators could adjust their image of how much growth is needed. They could adjust their expectations down.
  3. Americans could decouple population figures from their ideas about quality of life. Perhaps population change has little relationship with whether communities are doing well.

My guess is that #1 would lead the way as people are used to growth and the perceived benefits that go with it. #2 and #3 could happen but would take time as people adjust to different realities where growth is more limited and fewer communities can expand in population.

And if population growth is harder to attain, what might communities and governments do to try to encourage more of it? Bigger incentives? More advertising? Promoting particular amenities or quality of life concerns?

NIMBY wins by reducing the number of residential units

Posted on by

One observer discusses how NIMBY efforts reach their goals:

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Sometimes working together, sometimes working separately, NIMBYs have manipulated a web of local laws and requirements—such as exclusionary zoning, minimum lot sizes, and parking minimums—to reduce production of homes. As with any production cap, the result is higher prices for new residents and higher profits for incumbents, and a transfer of wealth and power from buyers and renters to existing owners.

The article places this in the context of antitrust efforts. Local residents and officials are able to operate a monopoly with local land and regulations, thus limiting any competition. Loosen the monopoly’s hold, others can promote and build housing, and housing prices might be more reasonable and more units are available to those who could not otherwise more there.

In the suburban context, one of the reasons Americans tend to like suburbs is because of this local control. They want to buy a home in a community, enjoy the benefits of that community, and then see their property values appreciate as they are there for a while. More housing units is perceived to do multiple things: (1) threaten the amenities of the community – through density, traffic, new residents, etc. and (2) threaten property values.

The author describes efforts in Washington state to counter local NIMBY efforts. It sounds like efforts at the state level changed what local communities could do. It remains to be seen how much local change will now occur and it is not clear how many states would be willing to go as far as Washington. How many local residents would support state-wide efforts that could overrule community interests regarding housing/