Tag Archives: local government

Chicago area suburbs passing ordinances to not allow long-term stays by migrants

Posted on by

The Chicago suburb of Oak Park is devoting resources to helping migrants while other suburbs are trying to keep migrants from having long-term stays in their community:

Photo by Binyamin Mellish on Pexels.com

Unlike their counterparts in Schaumburg and Rosemont, Elk Grove Village officials aren’t yet taxing long-term hotel stays, but have crafted a local ordinance of their own to prevent migrants from coming back to town.

The new village rules bar hotel and motel owners from providing a room to anyone without certified medical documentation verifying that the individual is free of contagious diseases, such as malaria or tuberculosis, over the last 60 days. That certification can only come from a board-certified infectious disease physician, according to the ordinance. The requirement doesn’t apply to anyone who has been living in the United States for at least a year.

The ordinance also aims to prevent warehouse owners in Elk Grove Village’s sprawling industrial park, or the owners of vacant shopping centers, from turning their buildings into temporary housing. Property owners would have to get a village license and meet certain zoning and health and safety requirements, such as providing a complete bathroom including flush toilet, sink, bath or shower in each sleeping unit…

The former La Quinta Inn at 1900 Oakton St. in Elk Grove Village — since purchased and demolished by the village — was among the first suburban locations to host migrants in September 2022.

Elk Grove’s board was set to consider the new regulations Thursday, but moved up approval to a Nov. 20 special meeting once officials received a spreadsheet purporting to show suburban hotel locations being eyed to host new migrant arrivals. The list came from a restaurateur who was asked to provide meals for migrants, Johnson said.

The idea seems to be that by limiting sites where migrants can stay, a suburb can keep migrants out and/or discourage other actors from making arrangements for migrants to stay in a suburb.

It would be interesting to compare these suburban efforts to those that might be taking place in other suburbs in the Chicago region and in other metropolitan regions. Some suburbs have hotels or industrial properties while others do not. These conditions are the result of decades of planning and zoning decisions.

Furthermore, do suburban residents as a whole feel migrants should be temporarily housed in their communities and do their opinions differ from city or rural residents? One reason Americans like suburbs is the accessible local government and I would guess the ordinances in the suburbs mentioned above came, at least in part, do to input from local residents and business owners.

Chicago suburbs lobbying at the federal level – and it might pay off?

Posted on by

Multiple Chicago suburbs employ lobbyists in Washington and those lobbyists may pay for themselves:

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

Crashes at one of the state’s most dangerous rail crossings, in Elmwood Park, have killed seven people and injured at least 27 over the last few decades. Village officials want to build an underpass to make the intersection safer, but the village can’t do it alone — the $121 million price tag is more than four times the western suburb’s annual budget, according to Village Manager Paul Volpe…

Elmwood Park has paid $230,000 since 2020 to the transportation lobbying firm Tai Ginsberg and Associates, according to federal lobbying records. So far, the village has received $3 million in federal funds, Volpe said…

Illinois cities, towns, villages and counties besides Chicago spent about $838,000 on federal lobbyists in 2020, $1 million in 2021 and $1.4 million in 2022, lobbying disclosure records kept by the U.S. Senate and analyzed by the Chicago Tribune/Pioneer Press show. This year, they have spent a total of $720,000 so far, per lobbying disclosures. The grand total is slightly inexact because lobbyists are not required to report receipts under $5,000.

One town that’s turned its attention to opportunities in Washington is north suburban Niles, where the village board recently renewed a $60,000 contract with lobbying firm Smith, Dawson and Andrews…

So far, Alpogianis said the village is more than satisfied with that change. He pointed to a recent $200,000 federal grant for the Niles Teen Center the village secured with the help of U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin’s office.

Suburbanites tend to like local government because they believe it is easier to convey their interests and they can see and experience local decisions. So getting more federal money that can be directly used to improve a local quality of life is a win, right?

I could imagine two primary objections:

  1. Do lobbyists always pay for themselves? The story cited highlights several examples of successes. Does this work for every suburb?
  2. Is federal money the money suburbs want? Local government beholden to federal dollars? Some might object, others may not care where helpful money comes from.

It would be interesting to hear from the lobbyist side about firms or individuals that do well for suburbs. What is their success rate?

Participatory budgeting in the US started in Chicago

Posted on by

Participatory budgeting involves community members in discussions of and decisions about local monies. While this is not a widespread process, it started in this country in Chicago:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Participatory budgeting, in which members of the public get a direct vote in how tax dollars are spent, has been around in Chicago for more than a decade, and made its U.S. debut here in the North Side’s 49th ward in 2009, led by then-Ald. Joe Moore.

The concept was born in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 1989 and is now used in cities across the world. In Chicago, residents vote on how to spend the majority of the $1.5 million in “menu money” City Council members are allotted for infrastructure projects each year — in the handful of wards that choose to use it. It’s also utilized in a handful of Chicago Public Schools as a form of civic education.

But despite its special ties to the city, participatory budgeting, or PB, has failed to launch on the scale advocates envision, lagging other U.S. cities such as New York and Boston that have implemented different versions of citywide programs. Now, proponents of participatory budgeting see an opportunity with Chicago’s newly elected mayor, who has vowed collaboration with residents, and whose transition report calls for Chicago to be “real pioneer” in participatory democracy.

Many local issues involve money. Where is it coming from? Where is it being spent? Who is benefiting and who is not? One local expert describes the benefits of participatory budgeting:

“That’s what our research shows is that over and over again, people who participate talk about how they learn more about what their needs are in their community, that they meet more neighbors, they feel more positively about their aldermen, they learn more about how government works, they’re more comfortable contacting government agencies and officials,” said Crum, whose group also helps alderpersons facilitate ward-level participatory budgeting processes each year.

Would doing more participatory budgeting help restore public faith in government? If a good number of residents feel that elected people or appointed officials are not using money in ways that are good for the community, it can be easy to criticize the whole system. At the least, participating in budget conversations can help reveal all of the possible priorities and how decisions might be made.

Who owns a neighborhood? Or, who can make decisions to alter it?

Posted on by

A discussion of recent housing changes in Arlington, Virginia, an increasingly whiter and wealthier community, included this summary:

Photo by Jonathan Meyer on Pexels.com

Perhaps the opponents are beginning to accept that their community is not, has never been, exclusively their own domain.

Who owns a neighborhood? In many American communities, the people who live there might feel this way. They expect to provide input and exercise some oversight of what happens in their neighborhood. They want to exercise control over their own properties and those around them.

But, they do not do this on their own. They interact with other property owners and also engage with local governments. These local governments typically represent a broader community and have regulations about what can and cannot be done in neighborhoods.

In this particular case, the residents are single-family home owners and they have money and status. Thus, they really expect to be able to control their surroundings and they have means to back up their interests. Zoning in the United States often privileges protecting single-family homes.

In the end, however, local government has the task of considering the broader interests of a community. These may or may not align with the interests of a neighborhood. The neighborhood residents can respond by not voting for these local government officials and it is relatively easy in a smaller community to express discontent with local officials. But, action may already be underway that cannot be changed.

Or, here is another way to address the same questions: if every neighborhood will change over time, who gets to street this change and/or benefit from this change? Those with means and vested interests will have their own perspective and goals while a broader community might have another point of view.

Fighting for suburban voters ahead of 2024, Carmel, IN edition

Posted on by

A mayoral race in a well-regarded suburb hints at suburban voting patterns for 2024?

Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com

Tuesday’s electoral results show in miniature the national Republicans’ weakening grip on the suburbs. Come November, the race will also be a key post-midterms bellwether for both parties. Democrats made big gains in suburbs nationally in 2018 and 2020.

Nowhere else is that more apparent than Carmel. Slowly, this city has become more diverse and seen an influx of younger, more moderate voters who flock here for its award-winning school system, public art, affordability and culture (it’s home to a $126 million concert hall drawing national acts like the singer and songwriter Jason Isbell, and boasts more than 138 roundabouts, more than any other city in the U.S.). Students of the public school system speak 65 languages from 55 countries. Though many of its communities are gated, it’s not been walled-off from social change: Black Lives Matter marches snaked down the Monon Trail in Carmel amid $1 million townhouses and an upscale steakhouse in the summer of 2020…

Now, the Indiana Democratic Party is eyeing Carmel as a potential pickup this November. Mike Schmuhl, Pete Buttigieg’s former campaign manager and the state party chairman, is targeting this suburb in hopes of flipping it blue.

“The city has changed a lot,” Schmuhl said over lunch today at Fat Dan’s Chicago Deli in Carmel. “This used to be a rock-ribbed, Republican, conservative area but the Republican Party has changed a lot, too. So what you have up in Carmel is a lot of development, a lot of families, educated voters, hard working people, and the Democratic Party’s values appeal to those people.”

As someone who studies suburbs, four things I would note about Carmel that are relevant for this story:

  1. It is regularly named a Best Place to Live in Money’s list.
  2. It is right outside the combined Indianapolis-Marion County unigov arrangement. While that move was intended to help the city capture some suburban growth, Carmel sits right outs Marion County in neighboring Hamilton County.
  3. The population growth since 1960 has been astounding as it had just less than 1,500 residents in the 1960 Census. The suburb has had more than 25% population growth every decade since then and now has just under 100,000 residents.
  4. It has plenty of white-collar jobs due to corporate headquarters and offices.

Carmel exemplifies complex suburbia where larger suburbs can be more diverse, have more economic activity, and experience rapid growth and change. This can include changing political patterns at the state and national level but within communities where many do not vote in local elections.

The number of suburbs – or communities overall – that look like Carmel is small. At the same time, these larger suburbs have a higher status ad get more attention. As the political parties continue to fight over suburban voters, pundits will continue to look to growing and changing suburbs to see which ways the winds are blowing.

Do all mayors feel this way: “We’re the envy of what most cities want to be”

Posted on by

The outgoing mayor of Naperville considered his legacy and summed up his community compared to others:

Photo by Matheus Bertelli on Pexels.com

Q: What will be your legacy as mayor of Naperville?

A: It has to be the financial impact on the city. Eight years seems like a long time, but it’s not when you’re trying to turn a ship like that. To turn over the city with tons of cash, not to mention federal money we didn’t touch, they’re going to be able to do a lot. And that’s my gift, to make sure the city was on the right trajectory. We’re the envy of what most cities want to be.

One of the jobs of a mayor is to champion their community. They are often the chief booster. In many American communities, professional staff – a city manager and others – address day-to-day concerns while mayors work with a council and act as cheerleader. The outgoing mayor earlier in the interview described the suburb’s success in planning, development, and revenues. Yet, always highlighting the best of the community is key and Naperville has a precedent: former mayor George Pradel did this for decades. I assume mayors will say their community is great.

Yet, it can be interesting when mayors make statements that involve other communities, implied or otherwise. It is one thing to say your community is great; it is another to say that it compares well to other communities. Some communities can be leaders or models for others. In the United States, this might involve growth or a high quality of life or economic opportunities or tackling particular issues.

Do most cities want to be Naperville or like Naperville? This might be hard to answer, particularly if leaders elsewhere will tend to focus on the good things in their own communities.

Long Island resistance to a denser suburbia

Posted on by

Plans from New York’s governor to bring more housing to the suburbs is not being greeted with joy by some Long Island leaders and residents:

Photo by Thirdman on Pexels.com

In New York, one such proposal from Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul has run into howls of opposition in one of the birthplaces of the American suburb. Critics on Long Island, a sprawling expanse of communities home to 2.9 million people, are denouncing provisions that would set growth targets, drive denser development near train stations and sometimes let state officials override local zoning decisions.

“Her plan would flood YOUR neighborhood with THOUSANDS of new apartments” reads one opposition mailing. Others warn Long Island would become New York City’s “sixth borough.” Critics, many of them Republican officials, claim it would strip away local control…

If municipalities don’t meet targets, developers could pursue a process in which the state could allow projects to go forward. Another provision would require localities to rezone areas within a half-mile of commuter rail stations unless the area already meets density requirements…

A counter proposal from the Senate’s Democratic conference included a more incentive-heavy housing plan that excludes mandatory requirements and overrides of local zoning.

Hochul and legislative Democrats were trying to resolve their differences in negotiations over the budget, which was due April 1. That deadline has been extended into at least next week. The governor has described housing costs as a “core issue” that needs to be addressed.

Affordable housing is badly needed in the New York City region, as well as many metropolitan regions throughout the United States. How to encourage or mandate housing construction is under consideration in multiple states. When suburbanites move to the suburbs in part because of local government and control, how much can a state override local zoning and land use decisions?

Even without state level mandates, there is at least some interest in denser suburbs. Some want “surban” places that combine suburban and city life. Thriving suburban downtowns can bring in money and boost a community’s status.

So what really is at threat here is the sanctity of the single-family home neighborhood and its housing values. This might be the most sacred of suburban settings.

Take Levittown as one example. If Levittown’s density significantly increases, it will mark another stage in the evolution of the paradigmatic suburb. It started with the mass construction of a limited number of floor plans, the community changed over time as residents added to and changed the residences, and the homes became more valuable. Could the Levittown of 50 years from now be marked by significant amounts of multifamily housing?

Suburbanites like local government…but do not like voting in local elections?

Posted on by

One reason Americans like suburbs is that they are closer to local government, meaning they have more say in local matters and more access to local officials. They feel can make their voice and tax dollars heard.

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

Yet, when given the option in the Chicago suburbs to elect local officials, not many people do. In recent years, local turnout has been under 20% in some elections (earlier posts here and here). There are likely lots of reasons for this.

However, the local control suburbanites like – the ability to influence what happens around their property, the oversight of local schools, pursuing community issues they care about, where their tax money goes – depends on community members voting. How do people get into office? By votes. How are people appointed to boards and commissions? Often by those voted into office. Who decides how to spend local tax dollars? Local officials. And so on.

There is still lots of time to vote today. There are plenty of candidates running in the Chicago region. There is a lot of information available about their platforms and goals. May voters turn out and contribute to the local government and control they say they value.

Do big bureaucracies or democracies have customer-service problems?

Posted on by

Americans can find it difficult to find accountability with government or businesses:

Democracy’s ideal is built on a foundation of accountability. In the past, many, if not most, of the decisions that mattered to our lives were taken by people and businesses that felt close to us. That’s not the case anymore. Now all roads seem to lead to bad hold music.

Whenever we encounter a problem we didn’t create—like my outrageous electricity charge, or vacations ruined by an incompetent airline, or hospital-billing errors, or a mix-up at the IRS—all we can really do is go online for a customer-service number and cross our fingers that, by some miracle, the call won’t consume the entire day, or worse. When a person coping with cancer treatment spends hours on the phone with her insurance company or Medicaid, she may wonder why her society is so cruel, or so incompetent, or both. And she may start to see the appeal of a demagogue who promises to deliver simple solutions: the “I alone can fix it” candidate…

In the European Union, if an airline causes a flight delay of more than three hours, it has to pay you 250 to 600 euros, depending on the length of the flight. In the U.K., when a train is more than 15 minutes late, I can go to a website and, in a few minutes, demand financial compensation.

For the most part in America, when you screw up, you pay, but when corporations or governments screw up, nobody pays. Even when protections do exist, they’re difficult to navigate, or are unknown to most citizens. Other democracies have made clear it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s not rocket science to solve such maddening everyday problems, and American democracy would be better off if the government devoted more effort to it.

Government could indeed be more on the side of residents rather than the side of corporations and itself.

But, I wonder if a good number of Americans would see this as an inevitable function of the size of government or business. When these actors become large, it can be harder for decisions to be made and mistakes righted. Big government and big business become caught up in trying to achieve their own goals rather than caring about the little people.

There is a long history of this thinking in the United States. How much should the federal or state government control? Do the best ideas come from established entities or from startups and more nimble organizations? It is also part of the appeal of suburbs to many where residents can have more access to and more participation in local government and decisions. One perception is that local governments have to make things work for everyday life to go on.

As sociologist Max Weber noted, bureaucracies can be efficient and necessary in the modern era but they can also lead to an iron cage. Can governments that clearly work for the people reduce this feeling of the iron cage?

“Anybody can be suburban. It just takes money…” misses the intersection of class, race, and local control

Posted on by

As some states pursue affordable housing guidelines for communities, one critic argues it just requires money to live in the suburbs:

Photo by Travis Saylor on Pexels.com

Racial discrimination is abhorrent and should be prosecuted. But as a Brookings Institution analysis of the 2020 census shows, race isn’t a barrier to suburban living. Blacks are moving to the suburbs at a faster pace than whites. Anybody can be suburban. It just takes money — especially in Connecticut. In 2017, developer Arnold Karp purchased a colonial house on tree-lined Weed St. in small, ultra-wealthy New Canaan. There are no commercial or multifamily buildings on the street. He now wants to build a five-story, 102-unit apartment complex with 30% set aside for affordable housing.

The data does suggest people in all racial and ethnic groups are moving to suburbs. Here is what William Frey concluded from 2020 Census data:

This analysis of suburban and primary city portions of the nation’s major metropolitan areas shows that these big suburbs are more racially diverse than the country as a whole. Moreover, in contrast to how white flight fueled growth there in the past, most big suburbs have shown declines in their white populations over the 2010-20 decade. Their greatest growth came from Latino or Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, persons identifying as two or more races, as well as Black Americans—continuing the “Black flight” to the suburbs that was already evident the 2000-10 decade. 

Today, a majority of major metro area residents in each race and ethnic group now lives in the suburbs. And for the first time, a majority of youth (under age 18) in these combined suburban areas is comprised of people of color.

But, as a sociologist of suburbs, here is what is missing from the critics’ analysis: people of different racial and ethnic groups are not evenly distributed across suburbs and not all racial and ethnic groups have the same wealth, income, and resources to obtain suburban homeownership.

In other words, because social race and race and ethnicity in the United States are connected, it is not just about money in reaching the suburbs.

What is really at stake? From the critic:

Local control will be obliterated. Albany will call the shots on what your town looks like, how much traffic there is and ultimately what your home is worth…

Ensuring a supply of affordable housing within a region is more reasonable than demanding every town alter its character.

Suburbanites like local control and local government. These arrangements allow leaders and residents means by which to decide who can live in their community. This is often done through housing values and prices; ensure the land and homes or rental units expensive enough and the community can be exclusive.

Additionally, one of the problems of affordable housing – and other land uses less desired by suburban homeowners (including drug treatment centers and waste transfer facilities) – is that few suburban communities want it. Communities with means and political voices will keep affordable housing out. This means affordable housing is not plentiful often and is often clustered in particular locations. One reason states are pursuing this at a metropolitan level is that there is not enough affordable housing in the current system that prioritizes local decision making over what is good for the region.

Suburban residents may not like the idea of affordable housing arriving in their community. However, the legacy of housing in the United States is often one of exclusion and restriction, not about communities and residents coming together to provide housing for all.