Tag Archives: local government

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?

Suburbanites today go online early to protest development they do not like. How different is this from 50 years ago?

Posted on by

I recently read news about a developer wanting to build duplexes in a nearby suburb. I soon saw reactions on social media platforms to the proposal. One response suggested the land should be protected green space while another response said what the community really needed was affordable housing.

Photo by Jess Chen on Pexels.com

These are not unusual reactions from suburbanites opposed to housing proposals in their community. What is different compared to reactions in the past is the form the reactions now take: quick responses online that can then reach other community members (and broader audiences). How different is this opposition compared to 50 years ago?

My own research on suburban development suggests suburbanites have opposed new housing and other kinds of development near them for decades. This occurred even as their community was growing rapidly and some of them had been part of that growth in recent years. Residents made arguments about the character of the community, traffic, water management, green or open space, local services, threats to property values, and who might move in.

But without online platforms to share their opinions, how did these residents go about voicing their concerns? One regular forum not used much today involved writing letters to the editor. In local newspapers, residents shared their argument in relatively few words. These discussions could go then back and forth multiple times as supporters and opponents of particular plans wrote in.

Presumably suburbanites talked to neighbors and others in the community. Social scientists have argued the social fabric of the United States looked different decades ago as more Americans were involved in local organizations. Americans may have had more close friends. These relationships would provide space to discuss local issues.

Local petitions could demonstrate the opinions of residents. People would collect signatures and present them to local officials. Decades ago, this would have involved going door to door or being in public spaces to get names on paper. The process looks a little different today through change.org or similar venues.

At the same time, the process by which these proposals move forward looks similar to fifty years ago. Developers talk with municipal leaders and staff. The plans of developers are vetted by zoning boards or plan commissions who then make a recommendation to a city council or village board. Residents and others have a chance to share their opinion in public in public hearings along the way or in some meetings when leaders and developers are discussing plans. There are often months, sometimes years, for conversation and deliberations to take place.

Do the loud voices online either for or against a proposal attract more attention than efforts of residents in the past? Either way, the majority of residents in a community do not publicly voice an opinion. They might vote a certain way based on such decisions or maybe even move to a different community based on what they think is happening. And these actions can be consequential; decisions about development helps shape a community for decades.

At least four Illinois municipal leaders in favor of giving up some local zoning control in order to build more housing

Posted on by

The leaders of Sesser, Des Plaines, Lexington, and Oak Park, Illinois recently described why they support the BUILD plan proposed by Governor Pritzker:

Photo by D Goug on Pexels.com

You are probably wondering why local officials are challenging the instinct of protecting local control. But here’s the reality: The housing market does not stop where our towns end. The housing market, and subsequent shortage, crosses municipal boundaries and affects communities across Illinois, from large cities to small towns. Yet the system for addressing it remains fragmented and reflects the larger problems that we are all facing — the fewer houses available, the more expensive those few become. That’s why we support a statewide solution to give us the framework to do the things that make sense for our individual towns. BUILD does not replace local control with a one-size-fits-all system. It does not override community character or dictate identical development across Illinois. It creates a tool kit for us to implement a housing vision for our individual communities that addresses our unique needs on an improved and more efficient, affordable and attainable timeline.

BUILD would mean more townhomes, two-flats, duplexes, cottages, bungalows — just regular types of houses that have historically formed the backbone of neighborhoods, made housing affordable and showcased the uniqueness of Illinois’ architecture. They are the homes that allowed working families, young people and seniors to live in communities they could afford. Somewhere along the way, these types of houses stopped being built. Regular, affordable houses have since become so rare that people think the only options are unattainable mega-mansions or luxury high-rise developments. It does not have to be this way.

BUILD would restore balance and establish a clear, statewide baseline that makes it possible to build regular types of housing in the first place. BUILD would establish minimum expectations and set a baseline to meet every locality’s housing needs, while preserving and enhancing the character of what makes each of our towns so unique. From there, we would retain control over how that housing fits in our communities through design standards, form and local context. We would still shape where housing goes, how buildings look and how development fits in our communities.

Several quick thoughts in response:

  1. This is an interesting mix of communities: two small towns, one in central Illinois, one in southern Illinois, and two Chicago suburbs. How many communities near them would agree with these arguments? Will there be a clear set of communities for and against this plan or will more quietly work behind the scenes?
  2. Each of the op-ed writers are leaders in their communities: three mayors, one village president. How many of their fellow local officials, elected or not, would agree with them? Pushing a little further, does this become an important local campaign issue for those running for municipal office?
  3. If there are some communities more open to the BUILD plan than others, would they end up with significantly more new housing units if the BUILD plan goes forward? Do they see the BUILD plan as the way to population growth and all that comes with that (status, construction jobs, etc.)?

And I would still be interested to know what kind of incentives would be needed for developers to take a big interest in cheaper or affordable housing in the four communities highlighted here…

Where data centers will end up when some community leaders see them as providing benefits, others see them as threats

Posted on by

There are already thousands of data centers in the United States and more to come. Some community leaders say they benefit their community:

Photo by Sandeep Verma on Pexels.com

The recently approved CyrusOne data center in Sangamon County is projected to bring $500 million in capital investments to the county. Marc Ayers, a former Sangamon County Board member, said it’s estimated to generate $5 million to $6 million in property taxes annually, with around $98 million in tax revenue over the next 20 years…

DeKalb Mayor Cohen Barnes said the Meta data center that has been operational since 2023 has contributed significantly to the city with community investments and around $250,000-300,000 in utility taxes…

Barnes said the data center in DeKalb employed more than a thousand union construction workers over the five years it took to build. Now, he said there are hundreds of permanent jobs working on tech, electricity and maintaining the HVAC systems.

Other local leaders describe the downsides:

Property tax revenue from data centers can be significant, but many say the massive centers aren’t worth the millions of gallons of water they consume or the stress they put on an already struggling electric grid. The ComEd territory in northern Illinois, for example, has enough large-load energy projects in its queue to more than double the amount of energy demand in the territory by 2040…

John Laesch, the mayor of Aurora, said the five operational data centers in his community have provided generous tax payments, but those benefits don’t outweigh the downsides data centers can bring to communities…

“But during our public hearings, we heard residents ask, is that $1.6 million worth the noise pollution and the strain on our power grid and potential long-term risk to our climate?” Laesch said.

With these different perspectives, are there and will there be clear patterns in which communities have data centers and which do not? With land uses that can be controversial, will most or all communities say no or will there be certain kinds of communities that approve data centers?

Given some existing patterns, these might be some fault lines:

-Communities with residents with higher incomes and higher levels of education vs. those with lower levels

-Communities who are seeking out new economic and development opportunities vs. those who are not

-The political leanings of local officials

-Communities with pro-business/jobs/growth/construction coalitions vs those where such coalitions have a lesser presence

-Metro areas with a stronger presence of big tech companies versus places that do not

I would bet some of this could be answered already but it would also be interesting to see what happens now with companies and communities having the advantages of seeing what has already happened and what might work for getting the outcome they want.

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.