Imagine a suburban municipality full of data centers. It could help serve the needs of the surrounding region. It could draw on its own water and electricity supply (or make its own deals for these resources). It would not have to worry about being located near residences or other land uses where residents feel threatened.
This is not the first time I have thought of this idea. It could work for waste transfer sites. Landfills. Warehouses. Industry. Marijuana dispensaries. Religious congregations (see examples of opposition from my own research here and here)? This could work for the multiple land uses that suburban residents often object to or communities see as threats to their established way of life.
Creating such communities could be difficult. Given that many metropolitan areas are full of development, there might be three primary options to find land for such an endeavor:
Locate the new municipality on the fringes of the region. This has the advantages of not changing densely developed land and it is already located further away from residences.
Convert an existing suburb into such a place. While the image of American suburbs is often that of wealthy and exclusive communities, industrial suburbs have also been around for a long time. There are already suburbs with fewer residents that might be willing to take on more data centers.
Take a bit of land from several existing communities and create this new municipality. This could be hard to do as suburbs are likely to resist losing land. But if the tradeoff is giving up land so that the perceived threat of a data center is not their responsibility, perhaps a conversation can start.
Any of these are unlikely. Not impossible. But suburban leaders and residents have resisted certain land uses for decades. The hope seems to be in each community that if they can successfully keep the land use out, that is success and good luck to other communities in addressing the issue.
Four months later, Carroll and others say the response to the mass shooting has only reinforced long-simmering feelings of neglect among the 3,000-plus residents clustered in apartment and condominium complexes in an unincorporated area on DuPage County’s southeastern edge…
In recent weeks, DuPage County Board members have pledged more than $1.5 million for infrastructure improvements and to bolster the efforts of nonprofit organizations already working in the community…
Williams eventually moved from the complex. But she started a nonprofit organization, Youth 4 Excellence Inc., that works with families in the community. Hers is one of a handful of nonprofits that have tried to fill in the service gaps in a neighborhood that Williams called “a desert,” its residents — many living at or below poverty — isolated by a lack of public transportation and afforded limited access to amenities enjoyed by their affluent neighbors…
At least part of that isolation is due to the area being unincorporated. Though Willowbrook and Hinsdale are found in the names of the neighborhood and some of its residential complexes, it has no affiliation with either town. Instead, it’s part of the county’s 3rd District, which covers portions of at least 10 communities and is represented by three county board members.
A few thoughts and questions about this given my knowledge and study of communities and DuPage County:
Unincorporated areas can be under the oversight of DuPage County – it sounds like this is the case here. That means the County is responsible for local services, not a municipality.
Why has this area remained unincorporated rather than being annexed into a nearby suburb? Suburban communities are often eager to expand their boundaries; why did this part of the county not end up as part of another community?
Does it matter that this area primarily consists of apartments and condos rather than single-family homes? How different are day-to-day life and local services compared to other unincorporated areas in DuPage County that consist of more single-family homes?
DuPage County Board members represent both actors in municipalities and in unincorporated areas. To which do they pay more attention?
In a suburban county with relatively little open land left to develop, unincorporated areas likely face unique challenges compared to the hundreds of thousands of residents located within communities.
Taiwan-based Foxconn Technology Group forged an agreement in 2017 with former Gov. Scott Walker to manufacture LCD screens in Mount Pleasant, investing $10 billion and employing 13,000, in return for billions in subsidies. But the company, a top manufacturer of Apple’s iPhones, downsized its plans and created few jobs, forcing government officials to find other users.
Data centers process and store huge volumes of computer data, forming the backbone of the internet. Although these facilities typically don’t create large numbers of permanent jobs, local leaders and tech experts say Microsoft’s arrival signals the Foxconn land, along with infrastructure improvements already complete, won’t go to waste…
Residents on the land promised to Foxconn were displaced from their homes, but the company, blaming “unanticipated market fluctuations,” canceled the mega-factory. In 2021, it signed a new deal with Gov. Tony Evers, who beat Walker after criticizing the original agreement. Instead of up to $3 billion in subsidies, Foxconn agreed to collect $80 million for creating 1,454 jobs and investing $676 million in a set of smaller facilities by 2026.
Microsoft’s agreement with Mount Pleasant and Racine County requires it to launch construction by 2026. The company can recover 42% of its property taxes, but no more than $5 million per year. The local governments can also repurchase the land at the same price if Microsoft fails to hit the deadline.
The logic for this is provided in the story. Attracting big companies and jobs is viewed as important. If growth does not come here, it will go to other communities who will benefit. The deal with Foxconn fell through but having some deal and a few jobs is better than nothing. Growth must continue as must the tax breaks.
Do they really have to continue in this fashion? The final paragraphs hint at one of the possible motivating factors for these companies locating in southern Wisconsin: they are just over the Illinois border and can service the Chicagoland region. If Chicago area municipalities will not compete with each other in these same ways, just go over the border and find plenteous tax breaks. Another motivating factor seems to be a fixation on big companies and tech companies. What community would not want to boost they have a Microsoft facility (even if it is just a data center)?
I hope some people keep following up this story and similar ones to find out what communities and residents actually get out of these tax break deals. How much is spent per job? How does the business growth help the community? What does a data center contribute to a community? Years down the road, who benefits the most from these deals?
The partnership agreement features a code of professional conduct that prevents members from soliciting businesses from other participants’ jurisdictions, or disparaging those communities when a business considers relocation. The agreement also calls for the participants to share information and produce 150 “pro-Chicagoland” decisions.
Michael Fassnacht, president and CEO of World Business Chicago, said that after 23 years, the city’s public‑private economic development agency is becoming a regional operation. The region’s gross domestic product is not only the third-largest in the nation, but the size of some nations’, including Sweden and Poland, he added…
By getting investors to view the region as a whole, it has a better chance of landing valuable projects for the good of all, Conroy said…
Having traveled the world in search of foreign investment, Reynolds said potential partners speak of Chicagoland, not just Chicago. And so he was happy Wednesday to have heard local leaders use that term more in one morning than they had in decades.
It will be interesting to see what the first successful efforts of this partnership yields. Or, conversely, the first conflict where actors and municipalities in the region do not agree.
A new large plot of land may soon be available in the middle of Lake County, Illinois. What should go there? Here is an early idea:
The family that owns the Chicago Blackhawks wants to turn more than 700 acres of farmland it owns near Mundelein into a housing, commercial and industrial development, village officials confirmed.
If the Wirtz family’s vision becomes reality, the land would be annexed into Mundelein and become the largest development by acreage in Lake County, Village Administrator Eric Guenther said.
“This is a big deal,” Guenther said. “(It) could prove to be a very extraordinary development for Mundelein, the Wirtz family and Lake County as a whole.”…
Guenther declined to detail the family’s specific plans for the land. They will be unveiled to the public at the village board’s Dec. 12 meeting.
Given what I have seen regarding suburban development, here are some of the steps to come and the common responses from involved actors:
The landowners will bring a plan to the municipality that maximizes or at least includes a lot of profit through developing the land.
The Village of Mundelein will receive the proposal and work on it through elected and appointed officials plus professional staff.
There will be public hearings regarding the property and proposed plans.
Community residents will chime in with a variety of concerns, including regarding traffic and noise. The local school district and other actors will wonder how new development will affect local services and amenities. The village will want to consider the tax base on how the tax revenues add up from such a property. Some actor(s) will propose keeping the property or part of it as green space.
There will be some negotiations between the developers and the community. This could go relatively quick or slowly, depending on the changes asked for and the vision of the developers. They could happen behind the scenes or be more visible to the public.
Roughly 1-2 years from now a plan will be in place and development can start.
Each of these steps could proceed differently with the potential for plans to move more quickly or more slowly. There is no guarantee that the proposed project will go forward.
However, given the size of this parcel, there will be a lot of interest from everyone about what happens with this land and how this might affect Mundelein – whether it is the community’s character, revenues, or land use – for decades to comes.
Village trustees Monday voted 4-2 to approve the 5% entertainment tax as part of its upcoming budget. The tax would take effect July 1.
Village officials budgeted $25,000 in revenue from the new tax, which would tack 77 cents onto a standard monthly Netflix subscription costing $15.49 or 15 cents to an Amazon video rental costing $2.99.
“This is a modern version of the original telecommunication tax,” Village Administrator Erika Storlie said, adding that the village has seen a decrease in taxes collected from cable subscribers as more people drop cable television in favor or streaming services…
Chicago adopted an entertainment tax charging 9% on streaming services in 2015. In March, a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Apple Inc. challenging the tax. Though Apple’s complaint was dismissed, the judge left the door open for Apple to file an amended complaint.
Evanston, where Storlie served as city manager before coming to East Dundee, has charged a 5% entertainment tax on streaming services since October 2020.
Several thoughts about this:
-This is a relatively small tax in this community: the story above suggest its will generate $25k in revenue. Even in a small suburb, the money this generates will only do so much?
-I could imagine the argument that infrastructure is required to provide streaming services and taxes like these would help communities cover these costs. (I could also imagine – very faintly – the logic of a vice tax to limit the hours upon hours that Americans spend in front of televisions and screens…but limiting television watching via taxation seems somehow un-American. )
-I do not recall seeing much about public discussions of such taxes within communities. Is the tax so small that it does not attract much attention? Do residents not have a compelling argument against a streaming tax?
-Entertainment taxes are sometimes used for visitors or more public activities such as tickets for sporting events or theater shows. A streaming tax is aimed more at residents than visitors.
Many municipalities need consistent tax revenue streams as they look to provide services and balance budgets. This is one way to help achieve that goal.
Far worse than corporations taking a few thousand units off the market for owners are the governments and noisy NIMBYish residents taking millions of units off the market for owners and renters alike—by blocking construction projects in the past few decades. (California alone has an estimated shortage of 3 million housing units.) From New York to California, deep-blue cities and states have amassed a pitiful record of blocking housing construction and failing to meet rising demand with adequate supply. Many of the people tweeting about BlackRock are represented by city councils and state governments, or are surrounded by zoning laws and local ordinances that make home construction something between onerous and impossible.
One of the issues at play here is a numbers one: who exactly is acting within the US housing market and how much sway do they have. Concerns about corporations and housing can be placed in the larger context of how many housing units there are and how many are being built. Here are the numbers Thompson provides:
The U.S. has roughly 140 million housing units, a broad category that includes mansions, tiny townhouses, and apartments of all sizes. Of those 140 million units, about 80 million are stand-alone single-family homes. Of those 80 million, about 15 million are rental properties. Of those 15 million single-family rentals, institutional investors own about 300,000; most of the rest are owned by individual landlords. Of that 300,000, BlackRock—largely through its investment in the real-estate rental company Invitation Homes—owns about 80,000. (To clear up a common confusion: The investment firm Blackstone established Invitation Homes, in which BlackRock, a separate investment firm, is now an investor. Don’t yell at me; I didn’t name them.)
If I am calculating correctly, institutional investors currently own 2% of the single-family rentals. Of course, this number could grow if these firms find this to be a good investment.
Thompson settles on local actors – governments and residents – as holding back housing construction. In this numbers game, restrictions on a local level collectively are holding back the construction of single-family housing. If these restrictions were lifted or lessened, concerns about institutional investors would presumably diminish because there is a larger supply of houses to choose from.
One problem I see with this among the larger numbers: while local actors might in the aggregate have oversight over millions of units, they individually have control over relatively few units. Let’s say a particular suburb in the Bay Area (and this NIMBY argument often comes back to California) is against building new single-family homes. Depending on the size of the community and the availability of land, this might affect just a few homes to several thousand. This is not many. Zoom out to the whole region and many suburbs doing this adds up to tens of thousands of potential homes. Do this across all of California’s metro areas and the numbers add up. Similarly, you could do this across all the metro areas in the United States.
All of this does not necessarily mean Thompson is wrong. Yet, to get to the numbers of new homes constructed that would make a significant difference – whether in reducing the need many metro areas have for more affordable housing or outweighing the actions of investment firms – would require a lot of change across many communities. State or federal legislation may or may not be successful and would be unpopular in many places without a significant public groundswell of support that this is an issue that all or even most communities need to address.
Together, municipal changes regarding zoning and NIMBY could add up. But, changes would need to come across communities to make a big difference.
It was an honor to be invited to contribute to a symposium titled “Rethinking Religion and Secularism in Urban Planning” in the journal Planning Theory & Practice. See all of the contributions here.
For this particular symposium, all of the authors considered the role of urban planners amidst religion and secularism. Building on my findings, I suggest urban planners can play an important role in helping communities plan for future religious uses and, once a proposal is made, focus on welcoming groups and working with them and the community rather than allow the community to emphasize threats.
This will continue to be an issue in communities across the United States as both secularism and religion continue and change. For example, a recent survey suggesting 43% of millennials do not believe in God received a lot of attention in some quarters. But, it would be a mistake to focus on such a find just at the broader, abstract nation-state level; this has implications for communities.
Kolko and his colleagues got a survey sample of 55,000 households to sound off about whether their neighborhoods were urban, rural or suburban. That let them build a model looking at which factors predict how respondents will answer.
Unsurprisingly, many people defined their neighborhoods in part by their population density. But a whole host of other factors also made the prediction more accurate. For example, areas with higher median incomes were more likely to be called suburban. Areas with older homes were more likely to be called urban. Areas with lots of senior citizens were more frequently called rural.
The researchers—Kolko, Shawn Bucholtz of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Emily Molfino of the U.S. Census Bureau—have released data online showing how their model classifies every neighborhood in the U.S., as well as an academic working paper detailing their methods and findings.
It’s a question that matters quite a bit because, by the researchers’ survey, more than half of American households identify as suburban: 52%, versus 21% rural and 27% urban.
A few thoughts based on this summary:
This suggests defining places requires more than just political or geographic boundaries: how people perceive communities and neighborhoods matters. There is a cultural, meaning-making dimension to where people live that is often not picked up in these kinds of definitions.
The next step after #1 is this: if residents of some places may technically live in a big city but they perceive it to be more suburban, they may act differently. Or, if they think of their suburban area as urban, they could lead different lives and favor different policies.
The overall proportions of Americans living in different settings are not that different than what the Census Bureau calculates. What then makes this useful information is the ability to provide micro-level data about specific neighborhoods and communities.
Without looking at the working paper, my guess is some of the discrepancies between this model and the Census definition is on the edges of areas: the fringes of big cities where residents could be suburban or urban and on the edges of suburbia where areas could be suburban or rural. These areas straddling municipal boundaries as well as lifestyles could be in flux for a long time.
All of this points to an ongoing recognition of “complex suburbia.”
Angering residents who showed up in droves to oppose the sale of recreational marijuana in the village, Buffalo Grove trustees at about 1 a.m. Tuesday approved zoning regulations to allow it.
For 4½ hours, residents spoke passionately against recreational pot sales. But in the end, only one trustee, David Weidenfeld, voted against the regulations, which will allow recreational dispensaries as a special use in nonresidential areas — three business districts and the industrial district.
There are two issues at work here. The first is this: the article suggests there was a vocal set of residents opposed to marijuana sales who were not happy with the results. Local residents can become active if they perceive a change in the community will negatively affect their quality of life and/or property values (see recent suburban cases in Glen Ellyn, Wheaton, and Itasca). If the decision does not go their way – and there are plenty of cases where there are vocal residents and leaders on both sides – then resentment and long-term conflict can develop.
But, the second issue is what I want to focus on here: how late the meeting ran. How many residents, even if they are energized by a particular cause, can afford to stay out past midnight at a public meeting or hearing? Staying up that late can put a severe damper on the next day’s activities, particularly depending on jobs, family situations, and health. Residents may feel they need to stay to the end of a meeting to be heard but that comes at a cost.
Local officials may also be in a bind regarding time. Many municipalities already have rules in place so that individual speakers do not run too long and that plenty of people get a chance to speak. There is other business that needs to be conducted at many local meetings, including considering a variety of proposals, approving payments, and considering reports from other staff or committees. The meeting can only start so early as residents and leaders may be coming from jobs, dinner, and other responsibilities. Stretching meetings over multiple days may not be optimal though multiple meetings or hearings can happen if leaders want to provide more opportunities for people to voice their opinions.
In the particular case above, it looks like the public had a chance to speak – 4.5 hours – and therefore the approval could not come until later (and the approval was overwhelming). The late ending may have only rubbed salt in the wounds of those opposed to pot sales. But, as best practice, local officials should work to avoid concluding meetings in the wee hours in the morning.
Legally Sociable 