Tag Archives: local government

The culture wars come for traffic policies

Posted on by

Should motorists or others take precedence on streets and roadways? Legislative battles over traffic policy in Washington, D.C. show how this has become a culture war issue:

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

One of the proposals would forbid Washington’s local government from banning right turns at red lights. Another would do away with the automated traffic-enforcement cameras that ticket D.C. drivers for speeding, blowing stop signs and other violations.

The provisions are not just a case of earnest traffic-engineering wonkery sneaking into Congressional oversight. They represent a culture-war cause just as real as D.C.’s needle-exchange efforts or mask mandates, two other targets of current GOP riders. At the core of it is the politically revealing question of cars versus other ways of getting around.

In blue cities across the country, local road policy in the past decade has been tweaked in the name of making things safer and more enticing for non-drivers — often by making things slower and more annoying for motorists…

In a polarized country, it was inevitable that this would become more than just a disagreement over traffic circulation and moving violations. After all, the 21st century push to promote alternative modes of transportation cites a Democratic-coded cause (climate change) to promote ways of getting around (by foot, bike, bus, or subway) that are a lot more convenient in dense blue cities.

On the right, for more than a decade, there’s been a refrain about the “war on cars” right alongside the war on Christmas. “There is a loud constituency that does not want you to drive your car,” said Jay Beeber, executive director for policy at the National Motorists Association, which has championed the measures dictating Washington policy. “A lot of this is virtue signaling.”

Four thoughts:

  1. Is it “inevitable” that this would become a culture war issue? I am sure there is an interesting history in here. Does this go back to seat belt laws? Speed limits on highways set in the 1970s?
  2. It is relatively easy to break this down into cities versus other areas. What about groups or political discussions in between such as suburbs promoting more walkability and bicycling, small towns and rural areas trying to lessen dependence on cars, and regions emphasizing different transportation policies? Are there Republicans for different road policies and Democrats for more driving?
  3. The interplay between federal and local policies is worth paying attention to. Americans tend to like local government oversight of local issues. Do Americans tend to think the federal government does too much regarding traffic policies or not enough?
  4. Where does this issue rank in the range of culture war issues? Is this more like a proxy war or the big issue? Americans like driving so this could get at core concerns about American ways of life.

Many years can pass – at least 17 for one suburban development – between proposing and completing a project

Posted on by

Some development projects take a long time from beginning to end. Here is a recent example from the Chicago suburbs:

Photo by Markus Spiske on Pexels.com

The Glen, a large residential development that was to be built in Elgin 17 years ago, has come back to life with the help of a new builder.

Moda Homes is partnering with Lennar Homes to build the first phase of a project that calls for 83 single-family homes, 54 age-restricted homes, a 150-unit senior assisted living facility and a neighborhood park on 73 acres off Nolan Road, according to plans presented to the Elgin Planning and Zoning Commission.

The unincorporated property was zoned in the early 2000s for a subdivision. Moda Homes is requesting the site be annexed into the city and a preliminary plat for the project be approved, both of which are now headed to the Elgin City Council for approval…

Elgin council members must approve the annexation agreement and the preliminary plans before construction can begin. A meeting date at which the project will reviewed has not been set.

If this is approved, this development may take about 20 years to complete.

This may seem like a long time. But lots of factors can slow down the process. This story does not say but I wonder if the 2007 proposal was shelved by the housing bubble of that era. Developers can face money issues or there can be a decrease in demand. With the current proposal, local officials might have concerns about annexation and the plans. Questions about or changes to the plan might slow or stop the process. And numerous other issues could pop up.

Perhaps a different question to ask is how long a development proposal “normally” takes. Then could such a prediction factor in local conditions (municipalities can vary), economic conditions, and particular developers or builders? If twenty years seems long, is 4-5 years “normal” from start to finish?

Of course, some developments are proposed – some seriously, some not so much – and never get built. In the Chicago area, think of the Burnham Plan or Frank Lloyd Wright’s idea for a one mile high skyscraper. For any development to be completed, lots of things have to go right.

We need solutions to continued low turnout – less than 20% – in Illinois elections

Posted on by

The primary elections earlier this week in Illinois excited few voters:

Photo by Tara Winstead on Pexels.com

Though thousands of properly postmarked mail-in ballots are still being tallied through April 2, state election officials believe it will be hard to crack 20%.

Unofficial results from the 20 most populated voting jurisdictions in Illinois — which represent more than 81% of all voters in the state — show less than 17% voter turnout combined.

Turnout tallies in the suburbs remain below 20% as well, with Lake County currently showing only 11.7% of registered voters cast a ballot.

Why so few voters?

“Most of the races were completely uncontested, with just one contested county board race on the Democratic side,” said Lake County Clerk Anthony Vega. “That lack of motivation could have resulted in voters not coming out.”

With that lack of choice, combined with the fact that Democratic President Joe Biden and former Republican President Donald Trump had all but secured their nominations ahead of Tuesday’s vote, low turnout was inevitable, experts said.

These are plausible reasons. Yet, I have heard little about significant solutions. Such options could come from multiple angles: local officials, voters, advocacy groups, the state government, employers, civic organizations, etc. Illinois may face serious problems in numerous areas but this strikes me as one that affects numerous others and is foundational for the supposed American system of government.

The one feature of this I think about is the ways that the suburbs grew, in part, because Americans like being closer to local government. Compared to big cities, states, and the federal government, a suburban resident can more easily interact with local officials and local government activity. But, if people do not even want to vote for those local measures – and there is a suggestion in this article that local referendums might have pushed voter turnout up a few percentage points – then this interest in or connection to local government may be severed.

Low turnout elections and planning tax-related questions on the ballot

Posted on by

A low percent of eligible suburban voters turn out in some years, meaning relatively few people often decide the fate of certain questions on the ballot:

Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com

But a Daily Herald analysis of vote totals for 22 ballot questions posed to suburban voters in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake and McHenry counties last April showed District 101’s turnout was the highest of those initiatives. Fifteen of the 22 were decided by less than a quarter of the eligible voters, including four that were decided by less than 10% of eligible voters, records show…

Another analysis showed similar findings of recent ballot questions in Cook County:

The study showed that 75 property tax-related questions posed to voters during that time were decided by less than a third of those eligible to cast ballots.

Having these tax-related questions on the ballot in low-turnout elections may be intentional:

Ryan Tolley, executive director of Change Illinois, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that advocates for ethical government and elections, said taxing bodies are deliberate about when they decide to pose questions to voters that could affect their property tax bills.

“They’re thinking about it strategically by putting them in an election when voter turnout is traditionally low,” he said. “Low voter turnout is often advantageous to them at the ballot box.”

Because voter turnout is traditionally highest for presidential elections, many taxing bodies try to avoid posing expensive ballot questions to voters then. Instead, they rely on voter apathy during local elections in odd-numbered years, nonpresidential general elections or primaries like the one coming up in a few days.

Suburbanites have opinions about local taxes in Illinois, a state with a lot of governmental bodies and high property taxes. Yet, voter turnout is often low, even with questions involving taxes up for vote.

In the short term, I do not think it is easy to boost turnout. This has been a trend for years now. Many people do not exercise their right to vote.

In the long term, one solution would be to limit the number of election cycles governments have. Why not limit local elections to 2 and 4 year cycles that line up with House and national elections? This would also save money as governments could consolidate election resources.

Another option would be to reduce the number of local government bodies in Illinois, thus reducing the number of elected members and initiatives. For example, abolishing townships would eliminate one layer of government whose services could be picked up by others.

Can pro-housing movements be bipartisan in a polarized era?

Posted on by

Jerusalem Demsas tackles an interesting question: how can housing advocates navigate a society marked by political polarization?

Photo by Simon Rizzi on Pexels.com

One thing that helps bind an ideologically diverse pro-housing movement is that everyone in a community suffers when housing prices soar. Checking Zillow is a nonpartisan activity. The other thing keeping the coalition together is that, well, it’s barely a coalition at all. YIMBYs work in the context of their own states and cities. No national group dictates the bills they support or the messages they send.

On the other hand:

That doesn’t mean the bill will become law. Hobbs told reporters she’s still considering whether or not to sign the Arizona Starter Homes Act, noting that she prefers legislation with support from local jurisdictions, and this bill has been opposed by the local-government lobby. Either way, the political price is low. In a state as divided as Arizona, where the last gubernatorial election was between Hobbs and the right-wing firebrand Kari Lake, no one’s switching their votes over zoning policy.

Not even die-hard YIMBYs. “I’m a Democrat; I voted for the governor,” Solorio told me. “And if she ended up being the biggest NIMBY in our state, I’d still vote for her reelection because zoning, even though I’m one of the biggest zoning-reform advocates in the state … still doesn’t rise high enough for me to flip my vote.”

I have argued before that housing is a local issue. Theoretically, Americans are less partisan at the local government level as they focus more on addressing community needs. Or, perhaps they are just less partisan here compared to the state or national levels.

If the YIMBY movement is able to be less partisan, is this partly because such movements are still rare or not that popular? It takes a lot of work to convince American property owners that more housing should be added near them. It is one thing to support housing in the abstract and another to support it nearby.

Might another path forward be to have third-party candidates that only promote more housing? This means they would not get entangled in other issues and could focus on one issue.

Grocery taxes and local government revenue

Posted on by

A recent announcement by Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker that he wants to eliminate the 1% tax on groceries has some suburban official upset:

Photo by Carlo Martin Alcordo on Pexels.com

In his budget address in February, Pritzker proposed raising taxes by almost $900 million, but called for eliminating the 1% grocery tax as a regressive tax that hurts poor people.

Revenue from the tax goes entirely to local governments. The mayors laid out how that would affect their municipalities.

The change would cost retail-rich Algonquin around $2 million, about 10% of its budget, Sosine said, calling it “unacceptable.”…

Libertyville Village President Donna Johnson said the mayors are sensitive to financially strapped residents, but said the cuts affect basic services like police, fire, public works and roads…

In anticipation of such criticism, the governor’s office released a statement that it supports local government operations with more than $1 billion annually in additional funds from sources including an internet sales tax, gas taxes and transportation bonds.

Local governments have an ongoing balance to keep in generating revenues and then providing services to their communities. On one hand, they have mechanisms by which they can raise their own revenue. As noted above, the small grocery tax has generated some monies that municipalities count on. On the other hand, local governments receive revenue from other governmental bodies. As noted above, the state of Illinois provides monies to communities through a variety of means.

The concerns expressed by these local officials hint at both immediate concerns of needing to address a potential budget shortfall if the grocery tax is halted and long-term concerns of making sure state funds continue to go to communities. Cited elsewhere in this story is that the percent of income tax monies going to communities has dropped several percentage points in recent years.

What is the ideal percent of revenue for municipalities that should be generated within the community? (Is the correct answer something like 110+%?) Answering this question has consequences for zoning and land use decisions as well as what local governments will offer to residents.

Needing thousands of signatures and a ballot initiative to start building a new community

Posted on by

To build on rural land, the backers of a proposed new city in California need to collect signatures and get on the ballot:

Photo by Matthias Zomer on Pexels.com

Former Goldman Sachs trader Jan Sramek unveiled his closely guarded ballot initiative for the proposed community between San Francisco and Sacramento in January, a plan that envisions 20,000 homes, transit infrastructure, schools, jobs and green space for an initial 50,000 residents. He has since amended it twice to address concerns raised by Solano County and a neighboring U.S. Air Force base.

Thursday is the deadline for the county counsel’s office to give the ballot initiative a title and summary, which will allow signature gatherers to hit the streets in search of the 13,000 they need — and preferably thousands more as a cushion. The delays mean the campaign has just two months, not three, to collect signatures if they want to give elections officials the maximum time to verify them…

“We’ve been walking a line of making sure we get this right and also realizing that the clock is ticking,” he said. “At the same time, we believe that the amendments that we made to the measure will significantly help increase our chances of success in November, and it was definitely worth the additional time that it cost us to get it right.”…

California Forever could have avoided this had the campaign shared its proposal with local officials ahead of time, said Ross, the consultant. “It’s very much an outsider approach,” he said…

The initiative specifies that the development agreement will include the 10 guarantees made by California Forever, such as $400 million to help county residents and Travis Air Force Base families buy homes in the community and $200 million for the county’s existing downtowns. An environmental impact review would also be required.

A friendly reminder: you cannot just start building a city or community in the United States. You may have been able to do this in the days before states or even afterward with more undeveloped land and smaller populations. But, at some point, communities had to appeal for incorporation. Later, they could appeal for home rule or other recognition.

Today, land use is governed by zoning guidelines at the county and municipal levels. Any change usually has to be approved by some body of local government. Local officials and local residents may disagree with developers and property owners about the best use of land. Some proposals are turned down while others are approved.

It sounds like this proposal has multiple local governments steps to proceed through. Will there be enough signatures to get on the ballot? Will it be approved by voters? What will local (and state) officials do? There is a long way to go even before any ground is broken.

If Americans increasingly do not trust or feel they cannot get answers from local governments, what happens then?

Posted on by

Even as trust in the federal government has fallen in the United States, Americans often have a rosier view of their local governments. What if those local relationships become more adversarial or less open?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The council’s silence leading up to the decision highlights what some observers say is a striking trend toward secrecy among local governments across the U.S. From school districts to townships and county boards, public access to records and meetings in many states is worsening over time, open government advocates and experts say…

Few states compile data on public records requests, and laws governing open records differ by state, making a comprehensive analysis difficult. However, a review by Cuillier of data provided by MuckRock — a nonprofit news site that files and shares public records requests – found that between 2010 and 2021, local governments’ compliance with records requests dropped from 63% to 42%…

Incidents of governments suing journalists and residents for making records requests also have become more common, said Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia.

Accessing local government meetings is getting more difficult, too. Elected officials are discussing significant public business in closed sessions, observers say. In some regions, they’re engaging in more combative behavior with constituents.

Many Americans like suburban, small town, and city local governments because they are more responsive to local needs, directly use local monies for visible benefits, and are more accessible to residents.

But, if local governments end up looking like what many perceive the federal government to be – faceless, cold, distant, and untrustworthy – what happens? Local government often works on the idea that any resident can show up or see what has been discussed. It is easy to contact local officials. Things need to get done and long arguments about abstract ideals or petty issues detracts from the local quality of life. Getting elected to a local position does not necessarily require independent wealth or political partisanship.

If Americans get to a point where they do not like local government, they might withdraw even further from civic life. Already, local voting turnout is very low. We can already find people online to interact with and drive where we want to rather than engage with neighbors and community members. I hope there is room for local government officials and residents to find ways to work together to serve their communities.

“Washington just isn’t set up to address the housing crisis”

Posted on by

One writer looks at what the federal government, particularly HUD, can and cannot do regarding housing:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The problem is structural: Washington just isn’t set up to address the housing crisis. The federal government plays a large, but largely indirect, role in the housing market. It operates through incentives, credits, guarantees, and subsidies. Rather than building housing, it makes mortgages cheaper and covers part of market rents. Rather than setting up retirement communities, it provides tax breaks for developers. You could say the country’s real department of housing and urban development is the Treasury Department, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Senate committee responsible for housing is the Banking Committee…

It wasn’t always that way. Indeed, Washington played an aggressive role in expanding the country’s housing stock from the 1930s to the 1970s. As part of the New Deal, the government financed the construction of homes for tens of thousands of families. HUD was founded during Lyndon Johnson’s administration and, as part of his Great Society, set out to build or rehabilitate millions of housing units…

Something else is stopping Washington from addressing the housing crisis: the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Land-use policy is not the purview of the federal government. It’s the purview of the states. Congress cannot rewrite Los Angeles’s building code. The White House can’t decide to upzone West Hartford, Connecticut. “I used to spend time with my counterparts in other countries and they’d say, Well, we just updated our national building code and national zoning code. We just wrote a national housing strategy,” Donovan told me. “I’d say, Wait, you have a national building code?”

As my colleague Jerusalem Demsas has written, we have delegated our housing policy not just to state and local governments but to every neighborhood’s homeowners association. Residents of a given place have ample opportunities—zoning-board meetings, candidate forums, historical architectural reviews, city-council open mics—to stop development. So they do. And thus mostly wealthy, mostly older people shape policy to their preferences: keeping new families out, maintaining single-family zoning, stopping development, and prioritizing the aesthetics of buyers over the needs of renters.

I understand the difficulties of creating federal laws or policies that then run into local government and zoning issues. I have written about this.

But, I am a little confused about the argument overall. It might be more accurate to say that the HUD and federal agencies have been reluctant to be directly involved in providing housing. The United States tried to provide some public housing in the mid-twentieth century and this did not go well. The federal government ended up retreating and, as the article notes, largely provides help now through housing vouchers.

At the same time, the federal government has an impact on financial markets, housing policy, and housing aspirations. Look at all of the interest in addressing interest rates. Or, the interest in mortgage regulations. Or, how politicians discuss homeownership. In other words, one journalist provided this quote of how housing works in the United States: “The former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, told me this: “Most countries have socialized health care and a free market for mortgages. You in the United States do exactly the opposite.”

Could the federal government do more to provide actual housing units? Yes, it could. This would require a concerted effort and resources as this has not been the approach for a while. Does the federal government promote housing, specifically supporting single-family homes? Yes, it does.

Americans largely in favor of policies that would lead to more housing – but how many want that housing near them?

Posted on by

New data from Pew shows large majorities of Americans are in favor of more housing:

Photo by Maria Orlova on Pexels.com

The findings from one of the largest surveys done on these issues shows significant but varying support for 10 policy initiatives to encourage more housing. At the high end, nearly 9 in 10 (86%) say they would back efforts to expedite permitting processes, while at the lower end, about half (49%) support the concept of allowing smaller lots, and homes to be built closer together…

Support for most of the housing policies transcended the usual fault lines of political party, region, race, income, and gender. The eight most popular proposals received clear majority support from Republicans, Democrats, and independents. In addition, 9 of the 10 tested measures received majority support from both renters and homeowners. All of these policies have either already been shown to work in improving housing affordability in American cities and towns or have recently been enacted by state or city policymakers hoping to do so.

Some approaches that stood out as especially popular—earning support from more than 70% of respondents—are similar to state laws that have passed in recent years (although the survey questions themselves were not modeled on any particular laws). For example, in 2023, California, Montana, Texas, and Washington took steps to simplify permitting for new housing. In recent years, California, Massachusetts, Montana, and Utah have passed laws to enable more housing near commerce or transit. And Maine, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont, among others, have enacted legislation to allow houses to have an accessory apartment or dwelling unit, as have many cities…

Respondents also broadly supported the reasons behind efforts to create more housing, with 65% to 82% seeing each reason as excellent or good. (See Figures 3 and 4.) However, in some cases, Republicans and Democrats prioritized different reasons. For example, somewhat more Republicans (68%) than Democrats (62%) identified freedom for property owners as an excellent or good reason, while more Democrats (81%) than Republicans (49%) chose reducing racial segregation as an excellent or good reason. But large majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents see improving housing affordability and allowing more people to live near their preferred jobs and schools as excellent or good reasons to change housing rules to allow more homes to be built in cities and suburbs. Successful state-level efforts to allow more housing have consistently received bipartisan support, and the survey results indicate that people with different political views can come together to support policies to end the housing shortage and affordability crisis for different reasons. 

Americans like the idea of owning housing. Add this to the current state of housing where both owning and renting is expensive and Americans broadly like more housing.

Here is my question: how many want this new housing near them? Even if Americans like more housing in the abstract, they may display much more resistance when this becomes a local issue. This is part of the reason housing is such a difficult issue to address in the United States: it is often a local issue where local governments and residents who want to control their surroundings. Housing is a good thing but people often move to a neighborhood and community and want to limit who else can live there.

Thus, the expression of this majority for housing is difficult to put into practice. Even state laws are often fraught as it can run against local desires. Take the efforts in Illinois to promote affordable housing at the state level: the initial legislation had limited enforcement and more would need to be done for state-level policy to provide more housing.

As noted above, one of the routes forward that could gather more local support involves policies that provide more opportunities for current property owners. Adding ADUs, for example, provides a choice for current property owners to generate more income or provide housing for family. Other policies might be viewed as funneling money to outside developers or providing housing for people who would not be as welcome in the community. If policies can add housing units and enrich/protect homeowners, they might find more support.