WEST GARFIELD PARK : Chicago (Naperville, Washington: rentals, crime rate, credit)

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Bitey

"Let's solve the housing affordability problem by creating even more disincentive to bring new housing to market!"

Add mandates and incentives for developers to create deeply affordable and family-sized affordable units

So it's kind of carrot and stick for us city dwellers. But I must ask again, why just the City? If affordable housing is national policy, as it is, then all communities should contribute (not just IL BTW). Besides, it isn't like they're not going to build a condo complex in lucrative downtown Winnetka if they have to set aside 30% affordable units. And since our affluent areas tend to have a lot of progressives, the residents are going to look mighty hypocritical if they object!

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Add mandates and incentives for developers to create deeply affordable and family-sized affordable units

So it's kind of carrot and stick for us city dwellers. But I must ask again, why just the City? If affordable housing is national policy, as it is, then all communities should contribute (not just IL BTW). Besides, it isn't like they're not going to build a condo complex in lucrative downtown Winnetka if they have to set aside 30% affordable units. And since our affluent areas tend to have a lot of progressives, the residents are going to look mighty hypocritical if they object!

I already answered the question: because a) we already have affordable housing in safe areas in the suburbs, in no small part because b) by-and-large our political leaders DON'T implement "affordable housing" mandates that create a counterproductive feedback loop.

[Don Cuccino]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Add mandates and incentives for developers to create deeply affordable and family-sized affordable units

So it's kind of carrot and stick for us city dwellers. But I must ask again, why just the City? If affordable housing is national policy, as it is, then all communities should contribute (not just IL BTW). Besides, it isn't like they're not going to build a condo complex in lucrative downtown Winnetka if they have to set aside 30% affordable units. And since our affluent areas tend to have a lot of progressives, the residents are going to look mighty hypocritical if they object!

Winnetka tried doing this so the cops and teachers who worked there could afford to live there. The minimum salary requirement to qualify in 2011 was $75,000 but I guess the residents thought that was too ghetto and would "raise prices"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...330-story.html

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Don Cuccino

Winnetka tried doing this so the cops and teachers who worked there could afford to live there. The minimum salary requirement to qualify in 2011 was $75,000 but I guess the residents thought that was too ghetto and would "raise prices"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...330-story.html

2011 - "There is plenty of affordable housing in neighboring communities," said Carry Buck, chairman of WHOA, or Winnetka Home Owners Association. "Most people in Winnetka are conservative and they do not want more involvement from government."

2020 - 73% Biden/Harris, 65% Dick Durbin, 40% Kim Foxx

https://results1120.cookcountyclerki...spx?eid=110320

Amazing how conservative they become when affordable housing in their back yard is mentioned right?

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Bitey

I already answered the question: because a) we already have affordable housing in safe areas in the suburbs, in no small part because b) by-and-large our political leaders DON'T implement "affordable housing" mandates that create a counterproductive feedback loop.

We probably just have different political views on this. As a Democrat and traditional liberal, I believe the government does, at times, need to intervene. For the most part, it should step aside and let the market work. Unfortunately though, this is one of those NIMBY situations where there will need to be some forms of mandates if there is really an interest in doing anything but leaving the poor concentrated in low opportunity urban areas.

I do not know where you live but no affluent suburbs that I'm aware of, except Oak Park and Evanston, have any notable volume of affordable housing. They have been able to avoid it through zoning rules and market demand. And the definition of "affordable" can be pretty broad, as Don's Winnetka example showed.

[Bitey]

Well I don't live in Winnetka, that's for sure.

Take a look at the development happening in suburbia. A lot of it is high-density, multi-unit developments rather than the McMansions on 2-acre lots that were all the rage in the 1990s. Maybe that's still going on in the fringes of McHenry and Kane Counties, but not so much in the more established suburbs where infill is the order of the day.

[NoHyping]

Still, this housing issue is Nationwide. Ability to build a luxury mid-rises off main corridors at least ..... Makes little sense. Much of the West Loop is zoned - in allowing most. Some Nimbism to a Alderman claiming complaints can complicate things by locals ... does not help. The South Loop still has land and even in Motor row. Basically no shortage of developing land and infill.

Great Milwaukee Ave was opened to it. That is a good corridor for it. Sure open up some more corridors ..

Even a booming city like Toronto..... with zoning upward in a good portion of the city and clearly has demand by immigration alone. Still has 1/3 the city zoned.... single homes.

Demonizing Chicago for it protective zoning of neighbohoods.... there is no shortage of luxury high-rises I here of. Affordable housing yes in most larger cities.

I always say that SF would look like Hong Kong/Vancouver if it could build to demand over the decades. Much of old SF then would be gone.

I would not wish for older long established solid Chicago housing be lost as if the city is booming in population and a shortage. Coridors opened on main drags , by the L sure.

The 78 has land and Goose Island that the Pandemic and WFH is hurting development and desire to live by the core over suburbs. Sadly, some development wWe now have office downsizing that can lessen demand for near-core housing too. What it WILL NOT KILL is demand for a solid Chicago well-built single to 3-flat.

Low to mid-rise multi-residential complexes is common in suburia corridors everywhere. Are the cheap.... no. I would much rather a bungalow in Chicago with NO ---- HOA any day then a high-rise outside of downtown region and the lakefront anyday.... There clearly have a place and demand for.

Chicago needs a more booming era overall citywide and speculative building then possibly seeking even more corridors opened and blvds. Destroying housing with no HOAs that are great updated inside... is not something i see needed. Gentrification surely has its place for existing homes.

[Greencheese]

Originally Posted by Don Coccino

Like I said, nobody wants people with lower income then themselves to live in their neighborhood, people who make 90K don't want minimum wage earners in their hood, people who make 700K don't want 70K earners, the Rahm Emanuel's are no exception.

Not only does nobody want lower income people in their neighborhoods but the question could also be framed as, what benefit is it to the suburb to try to accommodate lower incomes? If every household is pulling $250-$450k per year and entirely self sufficient while paying $20k+ in property taxes then all the government needs to do is provide basic services like streets, schools, police, etc... If people who make less money move in and need government services not only are they contributing less (if anything) to the local coffers but also creating a demand on local resources that higher income people would not.

Look at Ken Griffin, having him in Chicago creates ZERO demand on government resources like CHA. Instead he pays millions in taxes and personally helped build the lakefront trail. He has been nothing but a valuable asset for the city of Chicago. Now compare Ken to a low income family making <$20,000 living in public housing. They pay no real taxes, they receive SNAP, CHA pays for the housing, CTA provides free transit passes, they need additional government services... The fact of the matter is they're nothing but a burden and most government officials try to push those individuals out with as much plausible deniability as possible.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Greencheese

Not only does nobody want lower income people in their neighborhoods but the question could also be framed as, what benefit is it to the suburb to try to accommodate lower incomes? If every household is pulling $250-$450k per year and entirely self sufficient while paying $20k+ in property taxes then all the government needs to do is provide basic services.

The answer is no benefit, or a net negative. And that's why it needs to be mandated, ideally from the federal level. I mean most suburban Americans now vote for Democratic policies. One of those policies is affordable housing. So they need to start contributing their fair share. It's really that simple.

Many of these people have no problem rallying against gentrification, supporting rent control, calling for more affordable housing (where they don't live), and opining on how poor urban neighborhoods should be policed. So put your principles into action.

The government is going to have to give them a little push, but I wouldn't feel bad about it. If we don't do that then the cost of this is going to continue be unequally borne. By good people in poor urban neighborhoods. And who knows, maybe more people will start to see what the real problem is if we give them a direct reference point.

[BRU67]

Americans are becoming dangerously ignorant due to their ability to isolate. This is one small example...

https://tippinsights.com/media-is-po...nda-tipp-poll/

** I'm not using the word "ignorant" in a slang insult sense. I'm using it in its literal sense.