Recommendations

for Developing
One Region. One Future .
Attainable Workforce
Housing in the
Chicago Region

A WORKFORCE HOUSING ACTION AGENDA

AND GUIDE FROM CHICAGO METROPOLIS 2020
Released, Summer 2002
 A MESSAGE FROM CHICAGO
METROPOLIS 2020
Since its creation by The Commercial Club in 1999, Chicago Metropolis 2020 has recognized
housing as one of the greatest challenges to this region’s economic and social vitality.
Far too many of the people who work for a living in our region cannot afford to buy a home or
rent an apartment, especially in communities close to their jobs. As a result, those families
experience hardship because they spend too much time away from home and family on long
job commutes and spend too much of the family’s income on monthly payments of mortgage
or rent.
The impact of this jobs/housing mismatch is not limited to those families struggling with hous-
ing costs and commute expenses. All of us are impacted. It contributes to congestion and
contributes to recruitment and retention barriers for many employers who can’t draw a
sufficient workforce in or near their communities.
Under the leadership of King Harris, former President and CEO of Pittway Corporation, Chicago
Metropolis 2020 is addressing the housing issue. In May 2001, Metropolis 2020 secured the
commitment of over 100 of the region’s employers to The Metropolis Principles. By signing
The Principles, those employers agreed to consider affordable housing options and the
availability of public transit when making expansion and location decisions.
Both the public and private sectors need to do more.
We hope that the region’s leaders will answer this call for action so that we can ensure that
people of all incomes have housing choices throughout the region.
Donald G. Lubin George A. Ranney, Jr.
Chair, President & CEO,
Chicago Metropolis 2020 Chicago Metropolis 2020
Partner, Senior Counsel,
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal Mayer, Brown, Rowe, and Maw
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The genesis for this Workforce Housing Action Agenda came out of deliberations of the
Commercial Club’s Land Use and Housing Committee over a series of meetings in 1997 and
1998. Under Charlie Shaw’s guidance, this Committee identified key regional housing
problems which had to be addressed as well as potential solutions to these problems. The
Committee’s work was reflected in Chicago Metropolis 2020, ably written by Elmer Johnson
and published in January of 1999.
Over the last two years, we have explored regional housing issues in greater depth, meeting
with officials from each of Metropolitan Chicago’s six counties, mayors and city/village officials
from over 30 Chicago suburbs, housing officials from the City of Chicago, and housing experts
throughout the region. We have carefully reviewed county and city housing action plans and
reviewed numerous proposals to address the region’s affordable housing problems. From all
this background work and feedback we got from the people we interviewed have come the
recommendations in our Housing Action Agenda.
Special thanks are in order to Robin Snyderman and MarySue Barrett and their colleagues at
the Metropolitan Planning Council; Larry Joseph and his team of graduate students at the
University of Chicago’s Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies; Jack
Markowski and Stacie Young from the City of Chicago’s Department of Housing; Jo Patton at
Business and Professional People in the Public Interest; John Lukehart and Aurie Pennick at the
Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities; Marca Bristo and Alberto Barrera at
Access Living; Jack Catlin of LCM Architects; John Pritscher at Community Investment
Corporation; Kevin Jackson at the Chicago Rehab Network and Mayors Arlene Mulder, Rita
Mullins, Zenovia Evans, Irwin Bock and Sue Klinkhamer – all active members of the
Metropolitan Mayors Housing Task Force. Their ongoing feedback helped finalize the Housing
Agenda. Thanks are also in order to my colleagues at Metropolis 2020 who supported this pro-
ject and reviewed its findings at each stage of its development.
Finally, a word about my direct collaborators, Theresa Mintle and Nancy Firfer. Their active
participation in research, interviewing and action planning as well as their insightful comments
were critical in preparing this Agenda.
King Harris
Senior Executive
Chicago Metropolis 2020
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
s the 21st century began, the six-county Metropolitan Chicago region was at a
A crossroads in terms of its housing situation. It had just gone through a remarkable
decade in terms of economic growth and overall prosperity, one which saw median
household income rise in all six counties, unemployment decline, educational levels rise and
home values soar. Yet, despite all this good news, well over 100,000 families were in financial
Population crisis because they were paying over 50% of their income toward monthly apartment rental
projections costs. Over 730,000 families, roughly 25% of all families in the region – were under
indicate that an financial pressure because they were spending more than 30% of their income for mortgage
additional payments or rent payments. Many other families – over 50,000 by one estimate – could not
1,000,000 to afford any kind of dwelling unit. They were doubling up with other families in overcrowded
1,200,000 people dwelling units. A growing number of families were simply homeless.
will move into the The housing outlook for families whose incomes were under $30,000 per year appeared to
region by 2020. be getting worse. Badly needed rental units were not being built at a rate to accommodate
If these their needs. In the City of Chicago and in Suburban Cook County – the home of many of
projections are the region’s moderate income and low income families, the number of rental units actually
correct, between declined between 1990 and 2000. In three key high job growth areas of the region –
160,000 and DuPage, Lake and Will Counties, rental housing for moderate income families was not
200,000 new keeping pace with job growth. Five of the region’s six counties had vacancy rates well below
6%, the threshold rate for “tight” housing conditions according to the U.S. Department of
affordable
Housing and Urban Development. Only Will County with a 7% vacancy rate had an
dwelling units will
adequate supply of available rental housing.
be needed to
meet the demands Of even greater concern was the outlook for the construction of housing which would be
affordable to a moderate income working family. Nearly all the new single family housing
of moderate
being built in the region was priced well over $160,000, out of the price range of families
income working
whose income fell below $50,000 per year. Communities experiencing rapid population
families.
growth were encouraging the construction of high priced homes, homes in the $250,000 to
$350,000 range. Concerned about the impact that families with school age children would
have on their educational budgets, these communities wanted homes built which would
generate the maximum amount of property taxes, the taxes that are the backbone of school
funding in Illinois. As for new rental housing, it was almost a non-factor in terms of meeting
the needs of moderate income families. With the exception of a few publicly financed apart-
ment buildings, almost no moderately priced multiple family dwelling units were being built
in the region. The cost of multi-family construction had become so high that projected rents
could not cover total construction costs and a modest developer’s profit. The one exception
to this rule was a small number of town homes being built in selected outlying communities
where land costs permitted sale prices in the $110,000 to $130,000 per unit range.
These housing trends do not bode well for the region. Population projections indicate that
an additional 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 people will move into the region by the year 2020. If
these projections are correct, between 160,000 and 200,000 new affordable dwelling units
will be needed to meet the demands of moderate income working families. If the units are
not built, the region’s housing crisis will become truly severe, impacting the lives of a huge
number of families and potentially choking off population and economic growth.
Given the realities of the regional housing market, we would expect that our elected
leadership at the local and state level would be pressing hard for solutions to the housing
crisis. While a few forward looking political leaders have actively spoken out on housing
2 Executive Summary
issues, the sad fact is that housing is a neglected priority in Illinois. At the state level neither
Republicans nor Democrats have actively debated housing policy. There is no State
Department of Housing to mirror the U.S. Department of Housing. The General Assembly
has no Housing Committee.
At the local government level, the situation is not much better. While the City of Chicago
has many major initiatives underway to increase the supply of affordable housing for families
and senior citizens, most suburban communities have little or no interest in addressing the
issue with a notable exception being moderately priced housing for senior citizens. With
widespread public opposition to the construction of moderate income single family housing
and almost universal public opposition to the construction of moderately priced rental
apartments for families with children, most suburban mayors and elected officials see the
issue of affordable housing as a political “third rail,” a subject to be avoided whenever
possible.
What explains the public opposition in suburban areas to moderate income housing? On the
surface, the opposition relates to broader subjects such as sprawl, unwelcome population
growth, increasing road congestion, rising school costs, and a fear that non-desirable change
will erode the value of homes, the most valuable asset that most families possess. At a deeper
level, though, the opposition reflects the ongoing belief of suburban residents that
“affordable” or moderate income housing is really a euphemism for public housing, the same
kind of public housing that led to increased crime, social problems and neighborhood deteri-
oration in Chicago. Public housing is also equated with housing for minorities, and many
suburban residents have fled the City of Chicago to get away from minority groups.
What suburban residents do not clearly see is that local demand for affordable housing is
coming in many cases from people who already live and work in their communities –
While a few
municipal employees, factory and office workers, hospital workers, retail store personnel, and
forward looking
senior citizens. They are working or retired people, people whose family incomes are lower
than $50,000 per year. They may be people who grew up in a community and now want to political leaders
move to a smaller dwelling unit. They may be people who are currently spending one to two have actively
hours a day commuting to and from their worksites from distant communities and want to spoken out on
spend more time with their families. They may be police officers, firefighters and teachers housing issues,
who want to be more actively involved in the communities they serve. the sad fact is that
housing is a
Today’s reality is that the lack of moderately priced housing is both a suburban and city
neglected priority
problem. It is the suburbs, however, where the most rapid job growth is taking place and
where the need for workers and workforce housing is the greatest. in Illinois.
The Need For An Action Plan to Address Housing Issues
We believe that our region and our state must act now to address its serious affordable
housing problems. We have confidence that public and private sector actions can go a long
way toward alleviating our current affordable housing shortage.
With the help of many experts in the housing field and with the advice of elected officials
throughout the region, we have put together a comprehensive housing action agenda, one
that recognizes that local, regional, state and federal government actions will be needed to
increase the preservation and production of affordable housing in the six-county
Metropolitan Chicago area.
Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 3
 Our key recommendations are in the following areas: AN OVERVIEW OF THE WORKFORCE HOUSING
! Zoning reform, a must at the local level to bring land costs associated with housing down
SITUATION IN THE CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA
! Code enforcement, a critical need in communities with aging single family and rental
housing T hree years ago, when Metropolis 2020 first addressed the issue of housing in the original
Chicago Metropolis 2020 report, we focused on a select group of problems related to
attainable1 workforce housing:
! Rehabilitation, the key to preserving the “trickle down” housing stock which will provide
Our housing ! Sprawl and the resulting mismatch between the location of new jobs and the location of
the majority of affordable dwelling units in the future
action agenda workforce housing.
is ambitious but ! Growth planning which must include planning for the workforce housing needed to
meet population growth ! The overall lack of attainable housing in the Metropolitan Chicago region and the need
doable, even in
for specific actions to increase the supply of such housing including:
today’s tight fiscal ! State government incentives or mandates which will assure that affordable workforce ! Expansion of the HUD voucher program in the region
environment. It housing will be built in the future ! Expansion of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program

can help our ! Support for programs which allow lower income families to purchase homes
! Increased federal government investment in programs which spur the availability of
region address its ! Implementation of the very ambitious CHA Transformation Plan which called for the
affordable housing
critical shortage of replacement of many CHA high rise properties with new mixed income developments
affordable ! Corporate support for affordable workforce housing via employer assisted housing ! Business support for employer assisted housing

housing and posi- programs !

Reform of the Cook County tax classification system so that the tax on rental housing
tion itself for would be reduced We can be
! Corporate effort to expand or locate facilities only in communities which are addressing
future economic ! Creation of a new private sector compact related to workforce housing, mass transit optimistic because
workforce housing needs.
growth. and job creation a wide variety of
programs
Over the last twenty-four months we have taken a much more in-depth look at the region’s launched or
workforce housing problem to understand more fully its causes and to identify very specific refined over the
actions which can address it in the near term future. We have met with mayors and munici-
last ten to fifteen
pal officials throughout the region. We have talked with housing experts as well as residential
years, programs to
developers. We have assessed the current strategies of key not-for-profit organizations
involved in the housing field. conserve and
expand the supply
Our review of housing issues has made us more optimistic that the region’s significant of attainable
shortage of attainable workforce housing can be significantly reduced if the public makes workforce
workforce housing production a major priority in terms of resources and zoning reform. It housing, have had
has also increased our concern about the lack of workforce housing because the shortage we
positive results.
first wrote about in 1999 may have gotten worse, not better, in the last three years.

Why Be Optimistic About Future Efforts to Expand the Supply of

Source: Photo courtesy of the
Our complete housing action agenda appears at the end of this monograph. It is ambitious
Sustain project
but doable, even in today’s tight fiscal environment. It can help our region address its critical
shortage of affordable housing and position itself for future economic growth.
As an action-oriented organization committed to bring ideas into reality, Chicago Metropolis
2020 will work with public and private policy makers at the local, regional, state or federal
level to carefully review the proposals in our agenda and to consider how to integrate them
into housing action plans. We note again that no comprehensive regional or statewide action
plan to develop significant amounts of workforce housing exists.
Attainable Workforce Housing?
We can be optimistic because a wide variety of programs launched or refined over the last
ten to fifteen years, programs to conserve and expand the supply of attainable workforce
housing, have had positive results:
! Mortgage lending by banks under the Community Reinvestment Act has significantly
increased home ownership among low and moderate income working families in many
previously blighted neighborhoods both in Chicago and in older suburban communities.2
1We define “attainable” housing as housing which serves the needs of families whose income is equal to or less than 80% of area median income which, in
the Chicago Metropolitan Area, was $63,800 in 1999.
2Immergfluck and Smith report (see their monograph titled “Who’s Buying Where?”, page 8) that home buying between 1990 and 2000 in the six-county
region was fastest among low and moderate income buyers. While many people feel that increased home ownership among lower income families represents
a very positive step forward, others are concerned about the concentration of higher risk FHA mortgages in lower income neighborhoods (See Bier, “Moving
Up, Filtering Down: Metropolitan Housing Dynamics and Public Policy”).

4 Executive Summary Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 5
 Banks have learned that lending into what were previously red lined neighborhoods can ! Employers in the region are starting to take a more active interest in Employer Assisted
work and can be productive. Housing (EAH) programs thanks to the tireless efforts of the Metropolitan Planning
Council.
! The CHA Transformation has made solid progress since it was launched. By the end of
this year roughly 9,000 of the CHA’s 25,000 dwelling units will have been renovated or ! The State of Illinois has recently created an Affordable Housing Tax Credit program (also
replaced. While the program has been subject to some criticism, it still represents a huge known as the Donations Tax Credit Program) which has earmarked $13 million per year
step forward in the area of public housing given Chicago’s previous record in the area. It in tax credits ($.50 for each dollar contributed) for the next five years to leverage private
remains the most ambitious public housing program in the United States. donations to affordable housing projects. These credits should lead to another $26
million per year being invested in affordable housing.
! Rehabilitation organizations operating in the region – including Neighborhood Housing
Services, Community Investment Corporation, Hispanic Housing and other community ! Cook County’s Tax Classification System has been modified so that the tax rate on new Housing code
development corporations supported by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, and and rehabilitated multi-family affordable rental properties has been dropped from 33% to
enforcement
the Northwest Housing Partnership – have shown that well managed and well run 16%4 and the tax rate on all Class 3 multi-family residential properties is being reduced
programs in
rehabilitation programs can work, can recycle deteriorated family living units and can from 33% to 26% by 2004.5 These changes should make the construction of badly
preserve or create thousands of affordable dwelling units each year. selected communi-
needed affordable apartments more appealing to developers.
ties like Joliet,
! The Metropolitan Mayors Caucus has recently endorsed a set of principles, program ! Cook County has just created a new incentive Class S to cover “mark up to market” Hanover Park and
evaluation criteria and action steps related to housing development and maintenance. multi-family rental buildings in which at least 20% of the units are in the Section 8 pro- Elgin, though
Among other things, the mayors have identified the need to: gram. The tax assessment rate on the units in the Section 8 program will drop from 33% needing to be
! Create affordable housing where jobs are being created, especially housing near transit
to 16% so long as property owners agree to retain all the Section 8 units in the program responsive to fair
stops for at least 5 years after the expiration of the initial Section 8 contracts.
! Encourage the creation of a broad range of housing, including housing to serve
housing concerns,
moderate and low income families ! Downtown renewal efforts in communities like Arlington Heights and Highland Park have shown how
Federal have included attainable housing. Though such housing has been primarily aimed at effective code
! Create mixed income housing developments
government senior citizens, its popularity and appeal has underscored the potential demand for such enforcement can
! Support efforts to expand housing code enforcement, housing rehabilitation and
support for units if they are created by other municipalities. stabilize neighbor-
property management training
low income ! Reduce school funding reliance on property taxes hoods and encour-
! Housing code enforcement programs in selected communities like Joliet, Hanover Park
housing appears age residents to
We hope that all municipalities in our region endorse the Caucus’s principles and evalua- and Elgin, though needing to be responsive to fair housing concerns, have shown how
to be increasing invest in and
tion criteria. effective code enforcement can stabilize neighborhoods and encourage residents to invest
after more than in and improve their dwelling units. improve their
two decades of dwelling units.
! Federal government support for low income housing appears to be increasing after more
cutbacks. We can be optimistic because we have seen that communities which historically have
than two decades of cutbacks:
These increases ! HUD has recently been increasing the number of housing vouchers nationwide. promoted and sustained housing diversity – communities like Bolingbrook, Joliet and Elgin
underscore the 50,000 vouchers were added to the existing supply in 1999. Another 60,000 were – can grow and be prosperous.
growing national added in 2000 and 80,000 more were scheduled to be added in 2001. Vouchers may Finally, we can be optimistic because we have seen what effective leadership can mean to a
support for action not be a perfect answer to the nation’s affordable housing problem, but they offer community in terms of improving its housing situation. Cities that have mayors and top
in the area of many advantages over concentrated low income housing projects. officials fully committed to maintaining and improving housing for working families have
attainable !
The tax-exempt bond cap for low income housing has gone up from $50 per capita to succeeded in the last decade. Included, significantly, in the cities which have made
workforce $75, a 50% increase. substantial progress in recent years is Chicago, which has one of the most broadly based
housing. !
State low income housing tax credits have gone up from $1.25 per capita to $1.75, a attainable housing programs in the nation.
40% increase. Both the tax credit and the tax-exempt bond programs will increase
thereafter by the rate of inflation.3 We believe that many of these positive developments can continue in the years to come.
These increases underscore the growing national support for action in the area of
attainable workforce housing. The soon-to-be-released report from the Millennial
Housing Commission will show that the support is bi-partisan.

3 While the increases in tax credits and bonding authority will increase the City of Chicago’s funding capacity by $100 million over a three-year period ending 4The tax rate change expanded the Class 9 program to all of Cook County. We should note in passing, though, that this change only applies to new construc-
in 2003, they will not have a maximum effect on affordable housing construction unless additional private financing and soft secondary financing such as tion or substantial rehabilitation of property.
HOME funds are available to meet increased needs. Tax credits generally support about half the cost of a project. 5From 1999 to 2000 there was a 32% countywide reduction in the number of Class 3 multi-family parcels. In the City of Chicago the reduction percentage
was 37%.

6 Overview Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 7

 Why Be Concerned About Present Trends in Attainable Workforce Housing
in Our Region?
While many efforts to create more attainable workforce housing in recent years have been
successful, the shortage of such housing in our region is apparently growing, not
diminishing. Why?
The growth of low and moderate income working families in our region is outstripping the
creation of new attainable housing for such families.
Region-wide we are adding roughly 50,000 to 60,000 new residents per year.6 If we assume
2.8 members per family, we are adding roughly 17,900 to 21,400 new households per year,
While many each in need of housing.7 If we further assume that at least 45% of these households have
efforts to create family income at or below 80% of area median income8, we need an additional 8,100 to
more attainable 9,600 affordable dwelling units per year to meet demand. Our clear sense from talking to
workforce housing housing experts in the area is that we are not meeting this demand either via “trickle down”
in recent years of existing housing units, rehabilitation of existing housing units or the construction of new
have been attainable workforce housing. We may, in fact, be reducing the absolute number of such
successful, the dwelling units because of price inflation affecting existing single family homes and rental
shortage of such units (especially in neighborhoods experiencing gentrification), condominium conversions,
tear downs of existing dwelling units, and the loss of rental units previously in HUD’s
housing in our
Section 8 housing program.9
region is
apparently Relatively few new single-family homes and multi-unit apartment buildings are being built
growing, not which serve the needs of low and moderate income families.
diminishing. ! In the case of single family homes, high land cost in many suburbs, coupled with
restrictive zoning and building codes, has driven up the cost of new homes to well over
$150,000, in many cases to over $200,000. A recently completed study of zoning codes in
39 representative Chicago suburbs done by University of Chicago graduate students
underscores the widespread existence of restrictive zoning and building codes in the
metropolitan area.10 What explains the popular support for these restrictive codes?
! A desire on the part of existing residents, often affluent residents, to maintain or
upgrade housing values in their communities. Expensive homes, necessitated by
restrictive codes, are seen as a plus to the community.
! Anti-growth sentiment, which has increased in recent years as traffic congestion has
gotten worse in suburban areas. Local officials who respond to this anti-growth
sentiment want as few houses as possible in new housing developments.
! The recognition by village officials and others that fewer, more expensive homes are
more desirable than a large number of moderately priced homes from a school funding
point of view. Fewer homes translate into fewer children. Expensive homes yield higher
per unit property taxes than moderately priced homes. As long as property taxes play a
6Immigration is having a major impact on population in the Chicago metropolitan area. According to World Business Chicago, over one million legal
immigrants – approximately 55,000 per year – moved into metro Chicago between 1972 and 1998.
7The 2000 census shows that 8,091,000 residents in Metropolitan Chicago lived in 2,906,900 dwelling units, an average of 2.78 residents per dwelling unit.
Between 1990 and 2000, the six-county metropolitan area’s population increased by 830,544 people. At the same time the number of occupied dwellings
increased by 287,078 units. On an incremental basis this worked out to 2.89 residents per dwelling unit. We have chosen to use a 2.8 residents/dwelling unit
figure here.
8A fair assumption given 1999 data as presented in the Metropolitan Planning Council’s For Rent: Housing Options in the Chicago Region, page 21.
9A recent bulletin published by the Chicago Rehab Network (CRN) points out that between 2000 and 2005, 16,000 Section 8 units will be at risk of loss.
Chicago neighborhoods such as North Lawndale, Uptown, the Near West Side, Woodlawn and Greater Grand Crossing each have over 1000 Section 8 units
at risk. The Chicago Department of Housing estimates that, between 1993 and 1998, at least 46 large buildings, representing 8,515 rental units, were lost to
conversions. The recent action by Cook County to create a new incentive Class S to cover Section 8 properties may substantially reduce the future loss of
Section 8 units in areas where property values are appreciating. CRN estimates that 3,000 of the 16,000 Section 8 units it has identified may be affected by
the new Class S law.
8 Overview
key role in school funding, the equation of home pricing and school funding will
remain a fact of life.
!
A desire on the part of many communities with substantial amounts of older,
affordable housing – communities like Elgin, Aurora and Bolingbrook – to “balance” As a rule of
their housing stock by encouraging the construction of homes in the $250,000 to thumb, a family
$400,000 price range. can afford to
purchase a
!In the case of multi-family apartment buildings, the same concerns about housing values,
dwelling unit
excess growth, school funding11 and community “balance” have led to strong community
whose sale price
opposition in the suburbs to the construction of moderately priced apartment buildings,
equals 2.5 to 3.0
even, in some cases, to apartment buildings targeted for senior citizens.12 Another
times its total
important reason that multi-family housing is opposed in the suburbs is racism. White
residents in many communities often equate “affordable” housing with public housing yearly income.
and an influx of minority residents. They elect municipal leaders who favor zoning
practices which make the construction of affordable housing nearly impossible with the
possible exception of senior housing near city centers.13 Whatever the specific cause of the
opposition is, the results speak for themselves. According to 2000 census data, rental unit
growth in the metropolitan area was less than 1% during the 1990s, a decade which saw a
9.5% growth in total housing units. As Appendix A shows, the disparity between rental
unit growth and total housing unit growth was greatest in the suburbs. Bear in mind that
low to moderate income families, those with yearly incomes below $35,000, cannot, for
the most part, afford to own their own home. They depend on rental units for shelter.
! As a rule of thumb, a family can afford to purchase a dwelling unit whose sale price equals
2.5 to 3.0 times its total yearly income. This means that a family earning $40,000 per
year – roughly 60% of median family income in our region – can afford to purchase a
home for $100,000 to $120,000. A family earning $53,000 per year – roughly 80% of
median family income – can afford a $132,000 to $160,000 home. New single family
homes in the $130,000 to $160,000 price range are, for the most part, only available on
the fringes of our metropolitan area in communities like Joliet, Marengo, and Round
Lake where land and construction costs are lower than average. New town homes can be
found in some outlying communities for as low as $100,000 to $120,000.14
!As a rule of thumb, a family should spend no more than 30% of its yearly income on
housing. If a family’s total income is $30,000, then it can afford $9,000 per year or
$750/month in rent payments. If a family’s income is $40,000, then it can afford $12,000
per year or $1,000 per month in rent payments. While rentals in the $750 to
$1,000/month range are available in most communities, they are mostly available in older
multi-family dwelling units. Very few new affordable rental units are being built. Why are
new rental units not available in this price range? One key reason, as we have mentioned
earlier, is community opposition. Another key reason, though, is cost. The cost of
building a new rental unit – base construction cost, land and land improvement cost,
building and impact fees, and financial and administrative costs – is running between
$115,000 and $150,000 in the metropolitan area depending on land costs, code
10See “Affordable Housing in the Chicago Suburbs,” University of Chicago, Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, June 2002
11School funding concerns are not based on fact. Census data shows that apartment renters on the average have significantly fewer children than single-fam-
ily homeowners.
12The University of Chicago suburban zoning study identified several communities that had made multi-family zoning more restrictive in the last ten years.
More than half of the communities in the study reported some resistance to multi-family and/or high density residential development.
13Lewis, et. al.’s recently released report, “Race and Residence in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, 1980 to 2000”, shows how significant racism remains in the
Chicago metropolitan area. While some progress is being made, Afro-Americans and whites largely live apart, both in the City of Chicago and in its surround-
ing suburbs.
14Data taken from a Tracey Cross & Associates survey conducted for Metropolis2020 in the fall of 2001.
Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 9
 requirements, and financial costs. The cost is even higher in certain new mixed income
developments in the City of Chicago. Without public subsidies, builders cannot offer
rents in the $750 to $1,000 per month range given maintenance costs, mortgage
payments and acceptable financial return needs.
!The only new affordable rental dwelling units being built in our region for families whose
income falls below $40,000 are units subsidized by federal, state or local government. In
the City of Chicago per unit subsidies on multi-family rental dwelling units are ranging
from $80,000 to $200,000 depending on the income level of the family being served.
City of Chicago subsidies on newly constructed single family homes in the New Homes
for Chicago program can be up to $40,000 ($10,000 for the developer and up to $30,000
for the new home owning family).15 There is obviously a limit, and a very low limit at
that, to the number of subsidized new dwelling units the government can help build each
year.
!The growth of rental housing – critical to families whose yearly income is below $40,000
– is not keeping pace with employment growth, especially in DuPage, Lake and Will
Counties. On a broader basis, population growth in these three counties was far behind
job growth in the 1990s.
The price of
housing has been !The price of housing has been rising significantly faster than inflation.16 What explains
rising significantly the escalation of housing prices? One significant factor is that demand is exceeding supply
faster than in broad parts of the market including the all-important moderate range of the market.
inflation.
What Has Been the Impact of the Shortage of Attainable Workforce
Housing?
A large number of families in our region are spending more money on housing than they
should, sacrificing other necessities in the process.
Data from the 2000 Census (See Appendix B) shows that 36.4% of renters (375,000
households in Metropolitan Chicago) and 24.6% of homeowners (363,000 households) are
paying more than 30% of their income toward housing costs.17
Regional businesses are less competitive than they should be because of additional labor costs,
employee turnover costs, and lost productivity.
A recently completed Boston Consulting Group study estimated the direct cost of the
jobs/housing mismatch in our region at $200 million to $300 million with the greatest
impact on businesses requiring entry level workers. The BCG study also pointed out that
the mismatch has significant indirect and social costs which make the overall regional impact
much worse.
Rental vacancy rates are well below acceptable levels.
Ideally, rental vacancy rates in a given area should not fall below 6%. 2000 Census data (see
Appendix C) shows that the rental vacancy rate in the metropolitan area dropped from 8.3%
in 1990 to 5.3% in 2000. Only Will County had a vacancy rate exceeding 6%. The Census
data confirms the findings reported in the Metropolitan Planning Council’s 1999 report,
For Rent: Housing Options in the Chicago Region.
15Data from a private communication from Chicago’s Department of Housing.
16Housing prices in Illinois increased 6.1% in the year ended September 30, 2001 per data collected by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
17The percentage of rent burdened households had been around 40% for at least the last 15 years. See the Metropolitan Planning Council’s For Rent:
Housing Options in the Chicago Region, pp. 9-10.
10 Overview
Overcrowding is increasing throughout the region.
Recently released census data for the region (see Appendix D) shows a significant increase in
overcrowding, a sure tip off that lower income families are doubling or tripling up in
dwelling units.18 A recent lawsuit against Elgin, brought by Latinos, underscores the
problem. On one hand, Elgin is working hard to stabilize neighborhoods and keep property
well maintained throughout the City. In pursuing these goals, Elgin is bringing legal action
against property owners violating City ordinances against overcrowding. On the other hand,
Latino families, most notably working class families, find that they have to double up to
afford to buy single-family homes. The problem, of course, is not limited to single-family
homes. Rental properties in many lower income communities have experienced similar, if
Recently released
not worse, overcrowding. We learned of one situation in which twelve migrant workers were
census data for
being housed in a small dwelling unit flop-house style. In short, overcrowding and all its
attendant social and health problems may be becoming a growing phenomenon in our the region shows
a significant
region, a challenge that must be dealt with in a way that protects the legitimate interests of a
community while providing relief for affected low-income families. increase in
overcrowding, a
Homelessness appears to be growing. sure tip off that
Those who deal with the homeless tell us that family homelessness and homelessness of
lower income
working families has become more common recently. The current recession, of course, has
families are
something to do with the apparent increase in homelessness. The shortage of affordable
housing, of course, makes a bad situation worse.19
doubling or
tripling up in
Commuting times for moderate income working people are growing.20 dwelling units.
The homes and apartments these people can afford to own or rent are often in older
neighborhoods in the City of Chicago or in the far outlying suburbs, frequently at a good
distance from their work places. One-way commutes to work of 30 to 45 minutes are
becoming commonplace; more than a few workers face one-way commutes exceeding one
hour.
Labor shortages, even during the current recession, appear in the suburbs, especially those
suburbs where moderate income people cannot afford to live.
Why Must Northeastern Illinois Aggressively Act Now To Alleviate Its
Shortage Of Attainable Workforce Housing?
As we pointed out earlier, natural population growth and immigration is currently expanding
the population of Northeastern Illinois by approximately 50,000 to 60,000 people per year.
Official projections are that our regional population will grow to about 9,000,000 by 2020
from its present level of 8,050,000. Significantly, most of this population growth is projected
to occur outside the City of Chicago. Our projections suggest the following population and
housing stock growth county by county: (see next page)
18As Tony Downs pointed out in a 2000 speech at a HUD conference, “Poor immigrants are not deterred from entering our cities by high housing prices that force them to double
and triple up because overcrowded housing is superior to what they experience in their home areas.”
19To get some understanding of how the affordable housing shortage affects low income working families, read Ehrenreich’s “Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By In America,”
especially pp.25-27, 139, 171-173, and 196-199.
20Metropolis 2020 projects that by 2030 commuting time to places of work will increase on the average by 27% unless action is taken to deal with ever increasing metropolitan
sprawl.
Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 11
 Population Growth Additional Housing Additional Affordable (IHDA) has both one-year and five-year plans for its use of allocated housing resources.
County by 2020 Units Needed Units Needed While IHDA and HUD do collaborate on many projects and get input from a large number
of interested parties, no true multi-level planning exists.
Cook, including Chicago 239,000 88,000 39,600
DuPage 82,000 30,000 13,500 For example, all important housing code enforcement activities and strategies are not
Lake 163,000 60,000 27,000 emphasized in HUD or IHDA reports. Nor are regional plans to create and strengthen
Kane 148,000 55,000 24,750 effective and efficient housing rehabilitation organizations. The impact of one community’s
McHenry 87,000 32,000 14,400 housing problems on an adjacent community is not discussed. Little encouragement is given
Will 236,000 87,000 39,150 to groups of neighboring communities to collaborate on housing problems. The one
exception in this area is the allocation of HUD money to counties. Smaller communities in a
Where will the 352,000 incremental new homes be built? While land is available in all six given county are forced to jointly decide through their county government how HUD
counties, restrictive zoning practices and community resistance to growth will present Community Development Block Grant and HOME money is spent.
Where will formidable barriers to development. Then there is the matter of the type of housing required.
The lack of regional and sub-regional planning and coordination in the area of housing
the 352,000 We estimate that 45% of the new housing required – 158,400 units – will have to be
creates less than optimal decision making. We can cite two examples here.
incremental new attainable workforce housing because almost half of our new residents will be members of
homes be built? low to moderate income families. The affluent North Shore City of Highland Park (median family income in 2000, $158,000)
has devoted considerable time and effort to address its shortage of affordable housing. While
Unless current population trends change – and such change is always a possibility – we are
commendable progress has been made by Highland Park in terms of increased affordable What our region
likely to see an ongoing battle, community by community over growth and the nature of
housing for senior citizens, efforts to create meaningful amounts of affordable housing for clearly needs is a
growth. Places like Elgin, Aurora, Joliet, and currently unincorporated portions of Kane,
non-seniors have been frustrated by lack of funding and lack of available structures and land well thought out,
McHenry, Lake and Will County will be the battlegrounds. We can either take a passive
to use for affordable housing. Currently, Highland Park is talking about generating $1 comprehensive
position on the subject of housing and growth or make a determined effort to put policies
million per year which could be used for affordable housing. Meanwhile, immediately
and programs in place which will assure our region of future growth which will incorporate housing plan
adjacent to Highland Park sits Highwood, an older community with ample amounts of
the needs of all our current and new residents. Metropolis 2020 clearly favors the latter, which identifies
affordable housing. Already close to 50% Hispanic, Highwood is in bad need of funding to
pro-active approach. what can be done
rehabilitate existing structures and upgrade community amenities to stabilize existing
We also need to take a close look at housing construction and operating costs and ways to neighborhoods before they deteriorate. The same $1 million Highland Park is talking of by government,
reduce these costs for developers serving the low and moderate income portions of the generating could do a world of good in tax poor Highwood. The irony here is that Highland civic, business and
housing market. Park and Highwood share many public schools. Many Highwood residents work in housing industry
Highland Park. leaders locally,
regionally,
Needed: A Comprehensive Plan To Increase Attainable Workforce Housing The upscale north suburban Village of Glenview (median family income in 2000, $115,000)
statewide and
in Our Region has been actively working on development projects for many years. It is far along in an
ambitious residential/commercial redevelopment of the Glenview Naval Air Station, a nationally to
One fact has surprised us over the last twenty-four months as we have done in-depth research redevelopment which will include new senior citizen housing subsidized by the gift of free address our grow-
into the region’s housing problems – no comprehensive housing plan exists for our region, land by the Village. It is steadily improving its downtown area. Meanwhile, just west of ing attainable
one that: Glenview is a significant tract of land which is part of unincorporated Cook County. There workforce housing
! Charts future housing needs by income level and family size are many older, affordable multi-family dwelling units on this land. The condition of these problem.
! Makes intelligent “guesstimates” of net housing creation (new units versus tear downs, properties is deteriorating, and social problems in the area are growing and beginning to have
abandonments, etc.) an effect on Glenview itself. The irony here is that many children living in this
! Clearly identifies the role that rehabilitation should play in addressing housing needs unincorporated part of Cook County go to Glenview schools. Glenview also provides fire
! Examines the region’s successes and failures in maintaining a quality stock of existing protection and other services to this community. What Glenview cannot do is aggressively
dwelling units via housing code enforcement deal with the unfolding housing and social problems right on its doorstep. Neither Cook
! Identifies specific strategies that should be undertaken at local, county, regional and state County nor the State of Illinois has encouraged Glenview to take such action. Concerned,
levels to address housing needs, especially the current mismatch between jobs and understandably, with its tax situation, Glenview has no reason to consider annexing this
attainable workforce housing. nearby land and bringing it under municipal control.
What our region clearly needs is a well thought out, comprehensive housing plan which
Each county and major city has specific plans, both short and long range, related to its identifies what can be done by government, civic, business and housing industry leaders
HUD-overseen federal housing grants. The City of Chicago Department of Housing has locally, regionally, statewide and nationally to address our growing attainable workforce
gone beyond this scope with the initiation of an inclusive process to develop a five-year plan housing problem. We believe that such a plan can be created, especially if it has the support
to govern all of its funding and activities. The Illinois Housing Development Authority

12 Overview Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 13

 of those public and business leaders who have to deal with housing problems on a day-to-day
basis.21
Over the last two years we have discussed with regional leaders possible actions which might
be taken by both the public and private sector to significantly reduce our current shortage of
workforce housing. We have reviewed a wide variety of action proposals and formulated
them into the Workforce Housing Action Agenda which follows.
AN ATTAINABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING ACTION AGENDA
W e believe that a lot more can be done now and in the near-term future to alleviate our
current shortage of affordable housing in the region.
The ideas we are proposing are not new. Knowledgeable people have been proposing
solutions to various housing-related problems for years. Our role here is to consolidate them
into one comprehensive action plan.
We fully recognize that many of the solutions below cost money. We recognize that we are
currently in the middle of a recession of indeterminate length and that government at all
levels – local, state and federal – is facing a funding crunch which has led to significant
Recommendation:
cutbacks in many programs including those related to housing. Nevertheless, we are
proposing a broad action plan because such a plan is needed. We fully understand that some
Communities of our programmatic ideas may not be funded for several years.
should modify
We should point out, however, that many of our key recommendations – ones related to
their zoning and
housing code enforcement, housing rehabilitation and revised zoning policies – are not costly
development recommendations. In fact, they can be implemented for relatively small amounts of money.
regulations to
encourage the Here, then, is our proposed action plan. For convenience sake, we have broken it down into
four levels:
construction of
attainable Local Government Actions
workforce housing
-single-family, 1 Communities should modify their zoning and development regulations to encourage
and multi-family; the construction of attainable workforce housing - both single-family and multi-family;
for-sale and rental housing. Zoning reform should focus on lot size, density, and parking
for-sale and rental
requirements.22
housing. 1-1 Density bonuses should be given for affordable housing located near transit stations.
2 All communities should seek ways to speed the process for review and approval of
housing development proposals.
3 All communities should have pro-active housing code enforcement programs which, at
a minimum, inspect all rental property once every five years and require that such prop-
erty be kept in acceptable condition. Effective code enforcement, coupled with respect
for fair housing, remains the best way to preserve existing housing and to expand the
amount of “trickle down” housing available to moderate and lower income families.
21We note, in passing, that one collaborative planning project sponsored by the Northern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) did yield a whole series of good recommendations.
This project, which involved a number of northwestern suburban community and county officials as well as NIPC representatives, illustrates what can be done in the area of regional
housing planning. See NIPC’s “Sub-Area Regional Planning: A Demonstration Project in Intergovernmental Collaboration.”
22The Metropolitan Planning Council has recently published a detailed series of recommendations to modify Chicago’s 1957 zoning code to provide for more affordable housing.
We support the MPC’s efforts toward zoning reform.
14 Action Agenda
3-1 Those smaller communities without adequate financial resources to maintain an
effective code enforcement program should actively seek state aid for code
enforcement. The State of Illinois should make the support of housing code
enforcement activities a priority of its overall housing assistance program (see below).
3-2 All communities should consider supplemental programs related to property mainte-
nance and property maintenance training. Joliet’s property maintenance program,
currently funded via Community Development Block Grant money, offers a possible
model for other communities to follow.23
4 Communities with a significant amount of older housing should push for the creation
of or expansion of housing rehabilitation programs supported by experienced not-for- Recommendation:
profit rehab organizations. If such communities are small, like Riverdale or Round Lake
Beach, they should work toward the establishment of sub-regional rehabilitation firms Experienced, well
that can support substantial amounts of rehabilitation work in their sub-regions. established
4-1 Experienced, well established not-for-profit rehabilitation organizations like
not-for-profit
Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS), Community Investment Corporation rehabilitation
(CIC), and Hispanic Housing should be encouraged to expand their operations, both
organizations ...
into additional neighborhoods in the City of Chicago and into older communities in
should be
the region. Foundations and businesses should increase their support of experienced
encouraged to
rehabilitation organizations and community development corporations so that they
expand their
can administratively expand their operations. The State of Illinois should provide
operations, both
additional financial support to such organizations.
into additional
4-2 On a cost/benefit basis rehabilitation may be the region’s best strategy to stem the
neighborhoods in
loss of dwelling units for low and moderate income families. Rehabilitation costs less
than new construction of affordable dwelling units, generally much less. Rehab subsi- the City of
dies run from as low as $2,500 to $3,500 per dwelling unit (CIC’s current average Chicago and into
subsidy for its multi-family program) to $40,000 per unit (NHS’s current average for older communities
its single family home program). Compare these subsidies to the $60,000 to
in the region.
$140,000 subsidies provided by the City of Chicago to fund the creation of new
affordable dwelling units.
4-3 We estimate that approximately 4,000 to 5,000 sub-standard dwelling units in our
region are substantially rehabilitated each year24 and sold or provided to low-to-
moderate-income families. This represents a small percentage of the roughly 100,000
sub-standard units that “would probably not pass HUD Housing Quality Standards
inspection without substantial renovation.”25 We believe that this number can be
increased to 6,500 to 7,500 units per year with a modest amount of additional public
funding (If Neighborhood Housing Services and CIC increased the scope of their
programs by 50% – an increase which is achievable over a three- to five-year period –
that increase alone would amount to 1,500 incremental units). The extra 2,500 units
which would be preserved each year would preserve 25,000 additional affordable
units over a ten-year period, not a small amount of workforce housing.
4-4 Concurrent with efforts to expand rehab efforts where they are needed, communities
should make rehab easier by amending their building codes to adopt HUD’s
“Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions” which are modeled
after New Jersey’s successful Rehabilitation Sub-Code. These provisions feature a
23Joliet has four full-time inspectors who make sure that all residential property, including owner occupied property, is maintained in an acceptable way.
24We have been unable to find a more precise number. CIC and NHS alone rehab close to 3,000 units per year.
25See page 17 of the MPC’s For Rent: Housing Options in the Chicago Region.
Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 15
By the Numbers: Illinois’ Affordable Housing Struggle
Change in Employment and Total Occupied Rental Units Increase in Severely Overcrowded Housing Units, 1989-1999
500,000 189.4%
469,017 Total net change in occupied rental units by county, 1990-2000. Total net employment change, 1991-2000. 179.8%
180%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, 2000.
Illinois Department of Employment Security, Where Workers Work File 1991-2000.
Employment
400,000
Rental Units 140% 134.1%
124.3%

106.8%
300,000
100%

Region: 68.4% 66.2%

200,000 60%

39.8%
145,262
132,639

20%
100,000
80,343

47,775
40,317 Chicago Suburban DuPage Co. Kane Co. Lake Co. McHenry Co. Will Co.
22,681 Cook Co.
7,084 5,451 3,066 2,361 1,786
0 As population growth among low and moderate income families outstripped the growth of affordable housing in the 1990s, severe overcrowding
-5,080 -500
-5,000 increased dramatically throughout the region. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development identifies dwellings with more than 1.5 occu-
Regional Total Cook DuPage Kane Lake McHenry Will pant per room as “severely overcrowded.” Data Source: 2000 Census data

In 1991 there was one rental unit for every 2.95 jobs in the region. By 2000 that ratio had risen 15% to one rental unit for every 3.4 jobs. Cook
Workers Struggle to Meet the Illinois Housing Wage
County lost nearly 5,100 rental units over the 1990s, the steepest drop in the region, largely because of condominium conversions and the demolition
of Chicago Housing Authority structures. Cook County, however, contains 81% of the Chicago region’s rental units.

While 69% of new jobs created during the last ten years are located in McHenry, Will, Kane, DuPage and Lake Counties, these five counties are home $22.36
to only 19% of the region’s rental units. During the 1990s, Kane County was the only other county besides Cook County to record a net loss of rental $21.50
units although its share of new jobs created was 10.2%. Kane County contains 3% of the Chicago region’s rental units, only a slightly higher share $20.78
than Will County (2.7%) and McHenry County (1.45%). $20.00

HOUSING WAGE: $17.13

Households $15.81
Rent Burden 400,000
378,800 $15.00
374,800
Households that spend more than 30% of their monthly 368,800
income on rent are “rent burdened” according to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Rent burden is an indicator of housing affordability,
housing choice, and the quality of life. People who con- 300,000
$10.00
sume 30% or more of their monthly income for rent have $8.95
$8.47
less money than they should have available for other $8.03 $7.95 $7.78
necessities such as food, clothing and medical costs.

More than one-third of the Chicago region’s one million 200,000

rental households are rent burdened. While the share of $5.00
these households fell for both Chicago and suburban
renters between 1995 and 1999, there are still 375,000
families in the region that are paying too much money
toward housing costs.
100,000
Source: American Housing Survey and 2000 Census Manufacturing Retail Data Entry Firefighter Elementary Machinery Nursing Police Patrol Child Care
Assemblers Sales Worker Teacher Mechanic Aides Officers Workers
& Orderlies

The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that a worker would have to earn $17.13 per hour in the Chicago area to afford a two-
bedroom unit at the area’s fair market rent of $891 per month. This “housing wage” of $17.13 is 333% of the present Minimum Wage, $5.15 per
1991 1995 1999 hour. Between 2000 and 2001 the two-bedroom “housing wage” in Illinois increased by almost 17%.
Data Source: Occupational Employment Statistics: Wage Data, Chicago PMSA, 2000, Illinois Department of Employment Security

Housing Affordability in the Chicago Region, 2000
AFFORDABLE ($0-128K)
SOMEWHAT ($129-178K)
NOT VERY AFFORDABLE ($179K+)
A census tract is classified as "affordable" if the ratio of median
housing value in 2000 over estimated median regional household
income ($51,232) does not exceed 2.5.
A ratio of between 2.5 and 3.5 is considered "somewhat
affordable," while a ratio above 3.5 is considered "not very affordable"
for a family with the median household income.
The thick black line corresponds to the approximate area where 47%
of the region's employment growth occurred between 1991 and 2000.
Sources: Claritas, Inc., U.S. Census Bureau
Housing affordability is one measure of the Chicago region’s quality of life for its residents. Housing affordability also influences the attractiveness of
the region to employers. A supply of affordable housing near jobs gives employers a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining workers.
Despite a record-high increase in the supply of new housing units, moderate and low income households in the Chicago region are still hard pressed
to find housing they can afford in certain communities, especially those where new jobs have located. Jobs concentrated in northwest Cook County
and DuPage County accounted for nearly half (47.1%) of the region’s employment growth between 1991 and 2000. Our fastest growing
employment centers are separated from a significant share of housing affordable to families earning the region’s median income.
“ladder” system progressing from least to most in terms of the amount of changes to
a building needed to meet code requirements. The provisions make rehab more
appealing in many instances and can spur the rejuvenation of a neighborhood.
4-5 Cities and counties should actively support local not-for-profit organizations which
provide credit counseling and support services to moderate income families seeking
to buy homes or condominiums.
5 Communities, even communities with small amounts of available land, should consider
setting aside land for the construction of attainable workforce housing. Land costs can
represent 15% to 25% of the total cost of building an affordable dwelling unit. Funding
for land acquisition could come from building permit fees, an increased local real estate Recommendation:
transfer tax or a housing tear down tax.26 Further analysis of possible funding methods is All communities
needed. should bring their
6 All communities should bring their building codes up to date in terms of accessibility building codes up
requirements which meet the needs of the disabled. Current codes do not reflect all the to date in terms of
requirements contained in the Illinois Access Code and in federal Fair Housing accessibility
legislation.27 requirements
6-1 Communities should also consider ways to make more housing “visitable” by the which meet the
disabled. Homebuilders, for example, could be required to explain to prospective needs of the
homebuyers how a new home could be modified to be “visitable” by a person in a disabled. Current
wheelchair.
codes do not
7 The City of Chicago must acquire the additional land needed to complete the CHA reflect all the
Transformation. Such land is needed to complete this critical program. requirements con-
tained in the
8 The City of Chicago should expand its current programs to build affordable housing on
Illinois Access
vacant lots by using modular housing. The City of Chicago currently owns close to
10,000 vacant lots and gives potential developers the opportunity to buy these lots for $1 Code and in
each. Over the last ten years thousands of affordable homes have been built on such lots federal Fair
via the New Homes for Chicago and other City sponsored programs. We believe that Housing
even more lots can be used for affordable housing if modular housing is introduced on a legislation.
reasonable scale. We would urge the City to seek out one or more well capitalized manu-
facturers of modular homes capable of building affordable homes on single lots. We
believe a well run, well capitalized firm could build hundreds of such homes per year.28
9 Counties and municipalities should support the establishment of community
development guidelines (see State recommendations below) which mandate the
construction of a modest number of attainable workforce dwelling units29. It is
absolutely critical that our local governments establish development guidelines which lead
to the creation of a meaningful amount of attainable workforce housing.
10 Cook County should work with local officials and the State of Illinois to get all developed
unincorporated land annexed by adjacent municipalities. In general, municipalities are in
a better position to provide the level of services needed to support more intensive
development. We are increasingly concerned about social problems that are developing in
26A recent Urban Land Institute/Campaign for Sensible Growth Workshop in Chicago suggested the use of land trusts to address affordable housing needs
(see the ULI monograph titled “Recommendations for Developing Workforce Housing in Hanover Park, Highland Park and Humboldt Park in the Metropolitan
Chicago Area, August 15-17, 2001”).
27Metropolis 2020 will shortly have a guidebook available which will show how currently used BOCA codes can be modified so they are fully compliant with
the Illinois Access Code and federal Fair Housing legislation.
Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 19
 certain unincorporated areas of Cook County. The State of Illinois should offer financial
incentives to communities to annex such areas.
11 Cook County should reduce tax assessment disparities that create incentives for businesses
to move to other counties. The loss of business in Southern Cook County, caused, in part,
by high commercial tax rates, has had a very negative impact on its municipalities which
depend on property taxes to fund services such as code enforcement and meet municipal
maintenance needs.
Recommendation:
12 Counties should assist cities and villages to form sub-regional rehabilitation programs run
Cook County
by experienced rehab organizations (see above).
should reduce tax
assessment dispar- Regional Actions
ities that create 1 Regional workshops related to affordable housing should be encouraged.
incentives for 1-1 We note the success the Chicago Rehab Network has had with its rehab workshop
businesses to program. This program should be strengthened and expanded.
move to other 1-2 We support efforts by the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus Housing Task Force to create
counties. a regional resource and training center related to the preservation and expansion of
affordable housing in the region. Such a center could be especially useful to
interested municipalities in the areas of housing code enforcement, housing rehabili-
tation and development strategies, neighborhood revitalization strategies, and
property management training. It could also serve as a vehicle to bring municipal
officials up-to-date in terms of state and federal accessibility code requirements. A
center could be financially supported by area foundations, HUD or the State of
Illinois.
2 Business, not-for-profit, and governmental leadership in the region should consider
forming a not-for-profit organization to promote the development of affordable
housing and the revitalization of neighborhoods. By being a bridge between the private
and public sectors, the organization could reduce the delays with approvals and permits
which often frustrate the development of affordable housing.
2-1 New York City’s Housing Partnership, which has sponsored the development of
18,000 homes and apartments, could be a model for the organization.
3 Current efforts to create a regional housing data base, one with up-to-date information on
rents, housing availability, etc. should be supported.
State Actions:
1 The State of Illinois should develop new community-based planning legislation and
guidelines which would require local governments to establish housing development
policies which would lead to the creation of a broad range of housing to meet the needs
of current and future residents. These policies would encourage the development of
housing for residents at all income levels as well as residents with special needs such as the
disabled. They would promote the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing.
They would have to be approved by a State agency, an agency with the authority to
28HUD’s recently published “Community Guide To Factory-Built Housing” estimates that a well built modular home can be built for roughly $65,000. Once
site improvement and construction financing costs are figured in, the total cost goes up to $68,000. If a vacant lot were sold by the City to a developer for
$10,000, the home could still be sold profitably for $90,000 to $100,000.
29In the fall of 2000 the Lake County Board actively considered a development ordinance which would have mandated that any development of ten or more
dwelling units set aside 10% of such units as affordable units. The proposed ordinance was eventually voted down by anti-growth supporters as well as peo-
ple who felt that new development would put additional burdens on local school districts.
20 Action Agenda
require a local government entity to bring its plan into compliance with State guidelines.
The State of Wisconsin’s recently approved Comprehensive Planning Legislation (see The State of
Appendix E for an outline of the legislation) could serve as a model for Illinois action.30 Wisconsin’s
While calling for statewide action in the area of affordable housing, it lets local communi- recently approved
ties make actual decisions regarding development strategies.31 Comprehensive
2 The State of Illinois should establish some kind of incentive/enforcement mechanism Planning
to make sure that attainable workforce housing would be created as the result of the Legislation (see
planning legislation described in Proposal 1 above.32 The incentive/enforcement Appendix E) could
serve as a model
mechanism could be:
2-1 Priority funding for state infrastructure grant and public works programs for new for Illinois action.
housing developments which include target percentages of attainable workforce While calling for
housing. statewide action
2-2 A State right to withhold certain State shared revenues from communities not in the area of
working toward the creation of more attainable workforce housing. affordable
2-3 Establishing a legal means for developers to appeal local decisions which deny
housing, it lets
permits for the construction of attainable workforce housing.33 local communities
3 More State money should be invested in housing preservation and rehabilitation. As we make actual
have pointed out earlier, most affordable housing to service the needs in the region now decisions
and in the future will come via “trickle down,” not the construction of new housing. regarding
Accordingly, IHDA should make effective housing code enforcement and rehabilitation development
top priorities. strategies.
3-1 Affordable housing preservation also includes the preservation of existing HUD
Section 8 housing. An estimated 16,000 Section 8 units may be converted into mar-
ket rate housing in the next four years unless Illinois or HUD institutes programs to
keep the housing affordable.
4
Additional State funding should also be earmarked into programs which either
subsidize the construction of new multi-family rental housing or provide funding for
rent subsidies. As the MPC’s Regional Market Rental Analysis showed in 1999, the
region’s greatest housing shortage is in the area of rental housing to serve the needs of low
income families. Without subsidies, new mixed income housing developments which
allocate 20% to 33% of all dwelling units to lower income families cannot be built.
5 Additional funding for affordable housing could come via an increase in the State’s real
estate transfer tax on property sales over $200,000, and 100% of the increase should go
toward affordable housing. Currently, the State transfer tax stands at $.50/$100 and only
50% of the revenue generated is earmarked for housing. Increasing the tax on the sale of
upscale properties would effectively transfer money from wealthier communities which
have little affordable housing to communities which need help maintaining or creating
new affordable housing. Other possible funding sources could include a portion of build-
ing permit fees or a housing tear down tax. All of these would require further analysis.
30Complete information on Wisconsin’s planning legislation can be found at http://www.doa.state.wi.us/olis/
31Illinois legislators should also give serious consideration to a formal inclusionary zoning law based on Montgomery County, Maryland’s successful housing
program. Montgomery County’s inclusionary zoning ordinance, passed in 1974, has led to the construction of 10,500 affordable dwelling units within the
County. Two facts regarding the Montgomery County program are worth noting. First, Montgomery County is the fourth most affluent county in the United
States, so inclusionary zoning can work in an upscale environment. Second, even today Montgomery County home sale prices under the Ordinance are very
attractive - $135,000 for a detached three-bedroom unit; $115,000 for a three-bedroom townhouse; and $95,000 for a two-bedroom garden
condominium.
32A recent study published by Business and Professional People For The Public Interest shows why state planning statutes need “teeth” to succeed.
33A legal mechanism similar to the State of Massachusetts’ statute, Chapter 40B, also known as the “Anti-Snob Zoning Law.”
Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 21
 6 The State should have one uniform building code like the International Building Code
(IBC). The Code should include the latest IBC requirements related to housing for the
disabled. It should also have a chapter on housing rehabilitation which incorporates
HUD’s Nationally Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions. Illinois is one of the few
major states that does not have a statewide building code. Instead, our communities have
a myriad of local codes, all based on different editions of BOCA codes. If we want to
make housing development simpler and less expensive in Illinois, we need uniformity in
our building codes.
7 The State should consider modest tax incentives for property owners participating in the
federal housing choice voucher program. Such incentives may help expand the availability
of rental units in communities with few voucher families.
8 The State should reform its educational funding system so that the clear majority of
school funding comes from State income tax revenue, not local property taxes. What we
have seen in our research is that local and county housing policy is being dictated by
The governor of educational funding considerations. Communities are resisting new, affordable housing
Illinois should developments because they equate affordable housing with children and added
educational costs at a time when they are struggling to balance their educational budgets.
establish a State
Department of 9 The Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA) should make it a
Housing... priority to support economic development and employment centers in or near communi-
The Illinois ties with an adequate supply of affordable housing and with adequate mass transit.
General Assembly DCCA should not provide economic development funds to business ventures located in
should create a areas removed from communities with an adequate supply of affordable housing.
joint Senate/House 10 The structure of Illinois state government should be modified so that more focus is
Housing
given to housing matters:
Committee to 10-1 The governor of Illinois should establish a State Department of Housing
oversee matters 10-2 The Illinois General Assembly should create a joint Senate/House Housing
related to housing Committee to oversee matters related to housing in Illinois.
in Illinois. There is a growing likelihood that many decisions related to housing policy will be
turned over to the states in the near-term future. Illinois must be prepared to exercise
a greater role in housing policy.
11 The State should consider creating a secondary market for second mortgage loans related
to housing rehabilitation. Such a market would allow rehab organizations which generate
second mortgage loans to expand their financing capabilities.
Federal Government Actions
1 HUD should provide the funding necessary to complete the CHA Transformation.
While the Transformation has had many problems to deal with34, it has, on the whole,
gotten off to a very promising start. It has sufficient funding to carry through to 2006
when 81% of its program will be completed.35
2 HUD should expand its efforts to increase the utilization of housing choice vouchers in
our region. Until more property owners throughout the region are willing to participate
34The most notable problem being lack of social service support for families being relocated. While support personnel (“service connectors”) are being
provided, their numbers are small, their caseloads too high, and their training poor. We believe that volunteer support from local universities, colleges, and
not-for-profit organizations could help augment the efforts of the few existing service providers. We also believe that local universities and colleges could cre-
ate training programs for personnel involved in this work.
35Per data supplied by the CHA.
22 Action Agenda
in the voucher program, voucher utilization success rates will not reach high levels. We
are encouraged by a recent HUD recruiting program in McHenry County which
dramatically increased the voucher utilization success rate in the County by getting more
property owners involved.
3 HUD should increase the number of housing vouchers for the entire six-county region.
Such an increase can happen if voucher utilization rates increase. As we have noted earlier,
the Bush Administration has recently announced its intention to increase the number of
housing vouchers nationwide.
4 HUD should amend its housing choice voucher regulations to allow reasonable “fair
share” limits on the number of vouchers in communities that already have excessive
numbers of tenants holding such vouchers. Riverdale, Harvey, and Chicago Heights in
Southern Cook County and Zion and Waukegan in Northern Cook County are cases in
point. The communities affected cannot revive themselves if they are overburdened with
very low income families. They typically are given little in the way of extra social, educa-
tional or economic resources to cope with the problems excessive numbers of voucher
families bring. A key benefit of the voucher program is supposedly its ability to disperse
lower income families into mixed income communities. Such dispersal is not happening
in the Chicago area.36
5 Community Development Block Grant and HOME funding for housing should be The Community
increased.37 Not enough money is available to meet pressing housing needs. Reinvestment Act
5-1 Serious consideration should also be given to making CDBG and HOME funding should be
contingent on local planning action to remove barriers to the construction of afford- expanded to cover
able housing. Such federal action could supplement state efforts we call for above non-bank lenders
(see our second major State recommendation). such as mortgage
6 The Community Reinvestment Act should be expanded to cover non-bank lenders and insurance
such as mortgage and insurance companies which provide close to 70% of all mortgage companies which
loans. The CRA’s success in spurring affordable housing development in low income provide close to
neighborhoods can be built upon by an expansion of CRA coverage. 70% of all
mortgage loans.
7 Serious consideration should be given to establishing a new or expanded program to
The CRA’s success
produce affordable rental housing. Only with federal financial support can a meaningful
in spurring afford-
number of new rental units be built in the metropolitan area.
7-1 The creation of a national affordable housing trust fund could help create more
able housing
rental housing. development in
7-2 The creation of a new rental production program within the existing HOME low income neigh-
program could also spur the creation of more rental housing. borhoods can be
built upon by an
Legislation to create a national affordable housing trust fund and a new rental
expansion of CRA
production program is currently before Congress.
coverage.
8 Tax incentives should be created to preserve the existing supply of Section 8 housing.
One important proposal currently being considered is one which would relieve Section 8
36See “Putting the Choice in Housing Choice Vouchers” published by the Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance. As the Alliance’s brief on vouchers points out,
racism is the major factor in voucher placement decisions. Afro-American families are almost invariably placed in heavily Afro-American communities. We
should also note here that, if more attainable workforce housing were available throughout the metropolitan region, then voucher families would be less likely
to be concentrated in a few areas.
37In late January 2002 the Bush Administration announced that it will be seeking an extra $200 million for First-Time Homeowner down payment assistance.
Such extra funding, if it is truly new money and not just money taken from other housing programs, is clearly a step in the right direction. We should note in
Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 23
 owners of capital gains taxes if they transfer Section 8 properties to responsible owners
who agree to ensure that the properties remain affordable and well maintained.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
9 HUD and other federal and state agencies should review their lead paint removal
regulations. While there are many valid public health reasons for mandating the removal
of lead paint, the cost of paint removal represents a major barrier to cost effective housing
rehabilitation.38 Unless HUD provides significantly more funding for lead paint removal
during rehabilitation, regional efforts to increase rehab work will be stymied.

Private Sector Actions

1 Businesses should locate new facilities in communities which actively support the
Businesses
maintenance and creation of affordable housing for working families. Our Metropolis
and larger Principles specifically address this need and should be followed by all those companies
not-for-profit The agenda we have outlined above is comprehensive, ambitious, and most important of all,
that have signed the Principles.
organizations such doable. It can help our region address its critical shortage of affordable housing and position
as hospitals 2 Businesses and larger not-for-profit organizations such as hospitals should actively itself for future economic growth. As an action-oriented organization committed to bring
consider Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) programs. The Metropolitan Planning ideas to reality, Chicago Metropolis 2020 will work with public and private policy makers at the
should actively
Council has successfully launched a local EAH initiative and can assist interested parties local, regional, state or federal level to review carefully the proposals on our agenda and to
consider Employer consider how to integrate them into housing action plans. We note again that no
with EAH planning. The State of Illinois, via its Illinois Affordable Housing Tax Credit,
Assisted Housing comprehensive regional or statewide action plan to develop significant amounts of attainable
has set aside $2 million per year for the next five years to encourage businesses and others
programs. to invest in EAH-type projects. workforce housing exists.
2-1 Cities and counties should partner with
businesses willing to split the cost of for- Chicago Metropolis 2020 will be working with the business community to provide leadership
givable first-time homeowner loans on a on issues related to attainable workforce housing. We will promote constructive actions by
50/50 basis. Would-be home or businesses to increase the supply of such housing including those specific initiatives mentioned
condominium owners, who could be above.
given loans ranging in size from
$5,000 to $10,000 dollars, could be Chicago Metropolis 2020 is also developing The Metropolis Plan for Growth and
given priority over other applicants. By Transportation which is meant to provide a vision for growth in the region, a vision which
getting businesses involved in housing includes attainable, accessible housing near places of employment.
subsidy programs, local and county gov-
ernments could expand the size and
funding of current first-time homeowner
programs.
Source: Photo courtesy of the
Metropolitan Chicago Council
project
3 Businesses and private individuals should consider direct contributions to affordable
housing projects which have been declared eligible for State Donations Tax Credits. Such
contributions will lead to a $.50 tax deduction for each $1.00 given to a project.
4 The business community should actively support local efforts to increase the supply of
attainable workforce housing. A strong business “voice” at local meetings in support of
workforce housing can be pivotal in terms of getting communities to take positive action.
We note, in passing, the key role in housing matters that the business community has
played in recent years in the Silicon Valley.
5 The use of location efficient mortgages currently being tested in several locations should
be expanded.
passing, though, that inflation adjusted CDBG outlays declined 38% from fiscal 1980 to fiscal 2001.
38Federal lead paint removal programs administered by IHDA suggest that the average cost of lead paint removal per dwelling unit ranges between $10,000
to $13,000. HUD officials have pointed out to us, however, that there are relatively few contractors experienced at removing lead paint. Once more contrac-
tors get experience and competition for lead paint removal contracts increases, costs should come down.

24 Action Agenda Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bier, Thomas, “Moving Up, Filtering Down: Metropolitan Housing
Dynamics and Public Policy,” paper presented at the Brookings
Institution, September 2001
Blanding, Michael, “Suburban Brawl,” Boston Magazine, April
2002
Boston Consulting Group, “Chicago Metropolis 2020: Final
Steering Committee Readout,” March 2002
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brookings Institute, “Moving Beyond Sprawl: The Challenge for
Metropolitan Atlanta”, 2002
Brown, Karen, “Expanding Affordable Housing Through
Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from the Washington, D.C.
Metropolitan Area,” Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
October 2001
Business and Professional People For The Public Interest, “A Survey
of State Planning Statutes With Affordable Housing Elements,”
April 2002
Chicago Department of Housing, “Housing Opportunities Into the
Next Century,” June 1998
Chicago Department of Housing, “Chicago’s Housing Strategy: Our
Shared Challenge,” May 1999
Chicago Department of Housing, “City of Chicago 2000
Consolidated Plan: Community Development Block Grant, Housing
Opportunities for People with AIDS Grant, Emergency Shelter Grant
and HOME Investment Partnership Grant,” December 1999
Chicago Department of Housing, “Chicago Forum on Housing
Solutions: Action Plan,” January 2000
Chicago Department of Housing, “City of Chicago 2001 Action
Plan: Community Development Block Grant, Housing Opportunities
for People with AIDS Grant, Emergency Shelter Grant, HOME
Investment Partnership Grant,” December 2000
Chicago Department of Housing, “Affordable Housing Plan 1999-
2003,” Quarterly Progress Reports dated March 31,2001 and
September 30, 2001
Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance, “Putting the Choice in Housing
Choice Vouchers,” November 2001
Civic Federation of Chicago, “Assessing the Impact of Tax Increment
Financing in Northeastern, Illinois”, March 1997
Collins, J. Michael and Nicolas Retsinas, “Towards a Targeted
Homeownership Tax Credit,” Brookings Institution, Washington,
D.C., 2001
Cook County, Illinois, “Consolidated Community Development Plan:
2000-2004,” October 2000
Cowan, Spencer, “Anti-Snob Land Use Laws and Suburban
Exclusion,” paper presented at a conference sponsored by the Civil
Rights Project of Harvard University, November 2001
Downs, Anthony, New Visions for Metropolitan America, Brookings
Institute, Washington D.C., 1994
Downs, Anthony, “Housing Policies in the New Millennium,”
speech given at HUD’s October 3, 2000 conference in Washington,
D.C.. Text available at
http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/speeches/housingpolicy.htm
Dreier, Peter, “Expanding the Political Constituency for Affordable
Housing in Metro Areas and in Washington: Tentative Lessons for
Los Angeles,” paper presented at the Conference on Housing
Opportunity, Civil Rights and the Regional Agenda, Brookings
Institution, Washington, D.C., 2001
26 Appendices
Dreier, Peter, John Mollenkopf and Todd Swanstrom., Place
Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-First Century, University Press
of Kansas, 2001
DuPage County Consortium, “Consolidated Plan for Housing and
Community Development 2000-2004,””February 2000
Ehrenreich, Barbara, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In
America, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2001
Elgin, Illinois, “Far West Planning Area: Development and Design
Guidelines,”, January 2001
Elgin, Illinois, “Five-Year Plan: 2000-2004,” 2000
Hattis, David, “Smart Codes in Your Community: A Guide To
Building Rehabilitation Codes,” prepared for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development
and Research, Washington, D.C., August 2001
Philip B. Herr & Associates, “Zoning for Housing Affordability,”
Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund, July 2000
Hirshhorn, Joel and Paul Souza, “New Community Design to the
Rescue,” National Governors Association, Washington, D.C., 2001
Illinois Housing Development Authority, “State of Illinois
Consolidated Action Plan, Program Year 2002,” 2001
Immergluck, Dan and Geoff Smith, “Who’s Buying Where? A Series
on Home Buying and Neighborhood Change in the Chicago Area in
the 1990s”, Woodstock Institute, Chicago, November 2001
Johnson, Elmer, Chicago Metropolis 2020, Commercial Club of
Chicago, 1999
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, “The State
of the Nation’s Housing 2001,” 2001
Kane County Development Department, “2020 Land Resource
Management Plan,” June 1996
Kane County Development Department, “Housing and Community
Development Consolidated Plan for 1998-2003,” April 1998
Kennedy, Maureen and Paul Leonard, “Dealing with Neighborhood
Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices,” Brookings
Institute, Washington, D.C. April 2001
Knapp, Gerrit, and Emily Talen, Robert Olshansky and Clyde Forrest,
“Government Policy and Urban Sprawl,” Department of Urban and
Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Knapp, Gerrit, and Clyde Forrest, Robert Olshansky, and Emily Talen,
“Land Use and Land Use Policy Reform,” Department of Urban and
Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Kunstler, James, “Home From Nowhere,” The Atlantic Monthly,
September 1996
Lake County Consortium, “2000-2004 Housing and Community
Development Plan,” June 2000
Lake County Consortium, “2001 Housing and Community
Development Plan,” March 2001
Lewis, James and Michael Maly, Paul Keppner, and Ruth Anne
Tobias, “Race and Residence in the Chicago Metropolitan Area
1980 to 2000,” Institute For Metropolitan Affairs, Roosevelt
University and Office for Social Policy Research, Northern Illinois
University, April 2002
Listokin, David and Barbara Listokin, Barriers to the Rehabilitation
of Affordable Housing, Volumes I and II, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. 2001
Massey, Douglas and Nancy Denton, American Apartheid:
Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1993
McHenry County Department of Planning and Development,
“Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan For
Program Years 2000 Through 2004,” November 1999
McHenry County Department of Planning and Development,
“Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan, 2001
Program Year,” 2001
Metropolitan Planning Council, “Housing for a Competitive
Region,” Metropolitan Planning Council, Chicago, Illinois,
December 1995
Metropolitan Planning Council, For Rent: Housing Options in the
Chicago Region, Metropolitan Planning Council, Chicago, Illinois,
November 1999
Metropolitan Planning Council, “Zoning Recommendations from
Chicago Neighborhoods,” December 2001.
Miara, Jim, “Housing Crunch,” Urban Land, January 2002
Mid-North Financial Services, “Data Related to Rezoning Chicago
and Barriers to Constructing Affordable Housing,” August 2000
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, “Study of Inclusionary
Housing Initiatives: Report to the Legislature,” February 2002
National Housing Conference, “Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons
Learned In Massachusetts,” NHC Affordable Housing Policy Review,
January 2002
National Low Income Housing Coalition, “Out of Reach 2001,”
September 2001
Nelson, Arthur and Rolf Pendall, Casey Dawkins, Gerrit Knapp,
“The Link Between Growth Management and Housing
Affordability: The Academic Evidence,” Brookings Institute,
February 2002
New Jersey, Uniform Construction Code: Rehabilitation Subcode,
2000 Revision
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, “Sub-area Residential
Planning: A Demonstration Project In Intergovernmental
Collaboration, Report to the Steering Committee,” June 1999
Ohm, Brian, John Merrill and Erich Schmidtke, “Housing
Wisconsin: A Guide to Preparing the Housing Element of a Local
Comprehensive Plan,” University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 2002
Ohm, Brian, James LaGro Jr., and Chuck Strawser, “A Model
Ordinance for Traditional Neighborhood Development,” University
of Wisconsin-Madison, 2001 (approved by the Wisconsin
Legislature, July 28, 2001)
Orfield, Myron, Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community
and Stability, Brookings Institute Press, Washington, D.C. 1997
Portland Oregon Metro Council, “Regional Affordable Housing
Strategy,” June 2000
Puente, Robert and Myron Orfield, “Valuing America’s First
Suburbs: A Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest,” The
Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., May 2002.
Reilly, Paul, Arthur Lyons, Daniel Burke and Kenneth Oliver,
“Assessing Government Assisted Multi-Family Housing,” Chicago
Rehab Network
Riche, Martha, “The Implications of Changing U.S. Demographics
for Housing Choice and Location in Cities,” Brookings Institution,
Washington, D.C., March 2001
Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region
Rusk, David, Inside Game Outside Game: Winning Strategies for
Saving Urban America, Brookings Institution Press, Washington,
D.C., 1999
Rusk, David, “Deconcentrating Poverty: CHA’s Plan for
Transformation,” draft paper prepared for Chicago Metropolis
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2020, December 2000
Schubert, Michael, “Housing for a Competitive Workforce:
Homeownership Models That Work,” Metropolitan Planning
Council, Chicago, Illinois, April 1998
Schill, Michael and Susan Wachter, “Principles To Guide Housing
Policy at the Beginning of the Millennium,” Cityscape, Volume 5,
Number 2, 2001
Stonefield, Sam, “Override Statutes: Lessons Learned,” draft paper
presented at a conference sponsored by the Civil Rights Project at
Harvard University, November 2001
Talen, Emily and Gerrit Knaap, “The Implementation of Smart
Growth Principles: An Empirical Study of Land Use Regulation in
Illinois,” Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Tracy Cross & Associates, “Pricing Characteristics, Single Family and
Townhome/Condominium Developments, Chicago Metropolitan
Area, The Production Sector,” December 2001
Turner, Abravanel, Popkin and Cunningham, “Public Housing
Relocatees and the Rental Housing Market in the Chicago Region,”
The Urban Institute, March 2001
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Section 8
Tenant-Based Housing Assistance: A Look Back After 30 Years,”
Washington, D.C., March 2000
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “A
Community Guide to Factory-Built Housing,” Washington, D.C.,
September 2001
University of Chicago, Irving B. Harris School of Public Policy
Studies, “Affordable Housing in the Metropolitan Chicago
Suburbs,” June 2002
Urban Land Institute, “Recommendations for Developing
Workforce Housing in Hanover Park, Highland Park and Humboldt
Park in the Chicago Metropolitan Area,” Urban Land Institute,
Washington, D.C. 2001
Von Hoffman, Alexander, “Good News: From Boston to San
Francisco The Community-Based Housing Movement Is
Transforming Bad Neighborhoods,”, The Atlantic Monthly, January
1997
Will County Community Development Department, “Consolidated
Plan 2000-2004 and Year 2000 Action Plan,” June 2000
Wisconsin Department of Administration, Office of Land
Information Services, “Wisconsin’s Comprehensive Planning
Legislation,” revised September 2001
Wisconsin Department of Administration, Office of Land
Information Services, “A Guide to Wisconsin’s Comprehensive
Planning Legislation,” revised September 2001
Wood, Leonard, “Apartments Don’t Strain Schools,” National Real
Estate Investor, November 2001
Wright, Patricia, Yittayih Zelalem, Tom Lenz, Janet Smith, James
Coles, John Betacur, “City of Highland Park: Affordable Housing
Needs and Implementation Plan,” prepared for the Highland Park
Housing Commission by the Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for
Neighborhood and Community Improvement, Great Cities
Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago, August 2000
27
APPENDIX A: HOUSING UNITS IN METROPOLITAN CHICAGO, 1990 AND 2000 APPENDIX B: HOUSING EXPENSES AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
Specified Owner-Occupied Units with Selected Owner Costs as a
Housing Units in Metropolitan Chicago, 1990 and 2000 Percentage of Household Income, 1999
2000 Census 1990 Census

APPENDIX B
20.0% - 25.0% - 30.0% - 35% 30% Not
Housing Owner- Renter- Vacant Housing Owner- Renter- Vacant TOTAL <20% 24.9% 29.9% 34.9% or more or more computed
units occupied occupied units units occupied occupied units
Chicago 263,925 126,988 34,790 25,328 17,333 56,032 73,265 3,454
100% 48.1% 13.2% 9.6% 6.6% 21.2% 27.8% 1.3%
Chicago 1,152,868 464,865 597,063 90,940 1,133,039 425,259 599,915 107,865
APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B
Suburban Cook 552,607 278,182 81,366 58,236 37,512 94,206 131,718 3,105
Suburban Cook 943,253 677,812 234,441 31,000 888,794 617,645 236,669 34,480 100% 50.3% 14.7% 10.5% 6.8% 17.1% 23.8% 0.6%

Lake County 150,663 67,132 25,074 18,380 11,491 27,848 39,339 738
Collar Counties 968,970 732,504 200,240 36,226 776,171 552,283 188,076 35,812 100% 44.6% 16.6% 12.2% 7.6% 18.5% 26.1% 0.5%
DuPage 335,621 248,762 76,839 10,020 292,537 207,956 71,388 13,193
Kane 138,998 101,739 32,162 5,097 111,496 74,514 32,662 4,320
DuPage County 219,711 106,448 36,507 25,636 16,136 34,137 50,273 847
100% 48.4% 16.6% 11.7% 7.3% 15.5% 22.8% 0.4%
Lake 225,919 168,301 47,996 9,622 183,283 129,036 44,930 9,317
McHenry 92,908 74,391 15,012 3,505 65,985 50,289 12,651 3,045 McHenry County 67,899 29,370 12,159 8,948 5,707 11,368 17,075 337
122,870 100% 43.3% 17.9% 13.2% 8.4% 16.7% 25.1% 0.5%
Will 175,524 139,311 28,231 7,982 90,488 26,445 5,937
Will County 127,180 59,072 22,590 15,991 9,746 19,204 28,950 577
Metro Area Total 3,065,091 1,875,181 1,031,744 158,166 2,798,004 1,595,187 1,024,660 178,157 100% 46.5% 17.8% 12.6% 7.7% 15.1% 22.8% 0.4%
Kane County 92,205 41,290 16,449 11,452 7,036 15,548 22,584 430
Chicago 37.6% 24.8% 57.9% 57.5% 40.5% 26.7% 58.5% 60.5%
100% 44.8% 17.8% 12.4% 7.6% 16.9% 24.5% 0.5%
Grand Total 1,474,180 258,343 363,304
Suburban Cook 30.8% 36.1% 22.7% 19.6% 31.8% 38.7% 23.1% 19.4%
100% 17.5% 24.6%

Collar Counties 31.6% 39.1% 19.4% 22.9% 27.7% 34.6% 18.4% 20.1% Source: 2000 Census data
DuPage 10.9% 13.3% 7.4% 6.3% 10.5% 13.0% 7.0% 7.4%
Kane 4.5% 5.4% 3.1% 3.2% 4.0% 4.7% 3.2% 2.4% Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income, 1999
Lake 7.4% 9.0% 4.7% 6.1% 6.6% 8.1% 4.4% 5.2%
4.0% 2.4% 3.2% 1.7% 20.0% - 25.0% - 30.0% - 35% 30% Not
McHenry 3.0% 1.5% 2.2% 1.2%
5.7% 7.4% 4.4% 5.7% 2.6% 3.3% TOTAL <20% 24.9% 29.9% 34.9% or more or more computed
Will 2.7% 5.0%
Chicago 596,060 202,901 75,443 58,951 42,030 183,735 225,765 33,000
100% 34.0% 12.7% 9.9% 7.1% 30.8% 37.9% 5.5%
Metro Area Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Suburban Cook 234,235 82,262 32,588 25,237 17,229 65,447 82,676 11,472
100% 35.1% 13.9% 10.8% 7.4% 27.9% 35.3% 4.9%
Percent Change, 1990 - 2000
Lake County 47,760 15,181 7,083 5,231 3,744 12,788 16,532 3,733
Housing Owner- Renter- Vacant 11.0% 7.8% 7.8%
100% 31.8% 14.8% 26.8% 34.6%
units occupied occupied units
DuPage County 76,702 27,796 12,772 8,903 5,855 18,758 24,613 2,618
Chicago 1.8% 9.3% -0.5% -15.7% 11.6% 7.6% 3.4%
100% 36.2% 16.7% 24.5% 32.1%
McHenry County 14,652 4,698 2,249 1,800 1,294 3,898 5,192 713
Suburban Cook 6.1% 9.7% -0.9% -10.1%
100% 32.0% 15.3% 12.3% 8.8% 26.6% 35.4% 4.9%

24.8% 32.6% 6.5% 1.2% Will County 27,825 10,492 3,829 2,923 2,007 7,017 9,024 1,577
Collar Counties
14.7% 19.6% 7.6% -24.1% 100% 37.7% 13.8% 10.5% 7.2% 25.2% 32.4% 5.6%
DuPage
Kane 24.7% 36.5% -1.5% 18.0% Source: Harris School Affordable Housing Kane County 31,837 11,323 4,653 3,546 2,547 8,408 10,955 1,360
23.3% 30.4% 6.8% 3.3% Project, “Affordable Housing in the Chicago 11.1% 8.0% 4.3%
Lake 100% 35.6% 14.6% 26.4% 34.4%
Suburbs” (Irving B. Harris Graduate School of
40.8% 47.9% 18.7% 15.1% Grand Total
McHenry Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, 1,029,071 300,051 374,757
42.9% 54.0% 6.8% 34.4%
Will June 2002), based on data from the 100% 29.1% 36.4%
Northeastern Planning Commission and the
9.5% 17.6% 0.7% -11.2% U.S. Bureau of the Census. Source: 2000 Census data
Metro Area Total

28 Appendices Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 29

 APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D:
HOUSING VACANCY RATES IN METROPOLITAN CHICAGO, 2000 AND 1990 HIGH OCCUPANCY STATISTICS FOR THE SIX COUNTY METROPOLITAN REGION

2000 Census 1990 Census

APPENDIX D
Total Units Vacancy Rate Total Units Vacancy Rate 1989 1999 Increase
Owner- Renter- Home- Rental Owner- Renter- Home- Rental Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
occupied Occupied owner occupied occupied owner Chicago
APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D
Cook County 1,142,677 831,504 1.4% 5.3% 1,042,904 836,584 1.3% 8.6% Occupied housing units 1,025,174 100% 1,061,921 100% 36,747 3.6%
Units with 1.51 or more 35,165 3.4% 49,188 4.6% 14,023 39.8%
occupants per room
Chicago 464,865 597,063 1.7% 5.7% 425,259 599,915 1.7% 9.6%

Suburban Cook
Suburban Cook 677,815 234,441 1.2% 4.3% 617,645 236,669 1.0% 6.0%
Occupied housing units 854,314 100% 912,260 100% 57,946 6.8%
Units with 1.51 or more 8,325 1.0% 19,486 2.1% 11,161 134.1%
Collar Counties 732,504 200,240 1.1% 5.2% 552,283 188,076 1.5% 6.7% occupants per room

DuPage 248,762 76,839 0.8% 4.8% 207,956 71,388 1.6% 7.9% DuPage County
Kane 101,739 32,162 1.2% 5.2% 74,514 32,662 1.2% 5.2% Occupied housing units 279,344 100% 325,601 100% 46,257 16.6%
Lake 168,301 47,996 1.1% 5.0% 129,036 44,930 1.5% 6.0% Units with 1.51 or more 1,949 .7% 5,454 1.7% 3,505 179.8%
McHenry occupants per room
74,391 15,012 1.2% 4.0% 50,289 12,651 1.5% 3.7%
Will 139,311 28,231 1.7% 7.0% 90,488 26,445 1.3% 7.6%
Kane County
All Suburbs 1,410,316 434,681 1.2% 4.7% 1,169,928 424,745 1.2% 6.3%
Occupied housing units 107,176 100% 133,901 100% 26,725 24.9%
Units with 1.51 or more 2,141 2.0% 4,427 3.3% 2,286 106.8%
occupants per room
Metro Area Total: 1,875,181 1,031,744 1.3% 5.3% 1,595,187 1,024,660 1.4% 8.3%

Lake County
Source: Harris School Affordable Housing Project, “Affordable Housing in the Chicago Suburbs” Occupied housing units 173,966 100% 216,297 100% 42,331 24.3%
(Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, June 2002), Units with 1.51 or more 2,071 1.2% 4,645 2.1% 2,574 124.3%
based on data from the Northeastern Planning Commission and the U.S. Bureau of the Census. occupants per room

McHenry County
Occupied housing units 62,940 100% 89,403 100% 26,463 42.0%
Units with 1.51 or more 330 .5% 988 1.1% 658 189.4%
occupants per room

Will County
Occupied housing units 116,933 100% 167,542 100% 50,609 43.3%
Units with 1.51 or more 844 .7% 1,403 .8% 559 66.2%
occupants per room

Six-County Total
Units with 1.51 or more 50,825 85,591 34,766 68.4%
occupants per room

Source: 2000 Census Data

30 Appendices Recommendations for Attainable Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region 31

 APPENDIX E: ! Wisconsin has also developed a Model Ordinance for a
Traditional Neighborhood Development. “Traditional OUR SPONSORS
WISCONSIN’S COMPREHENSIVE Neighborhood Development” means a compact, AS OF JUNE 30, 2002
PLANNING LEGISLATION mixed-use neighborhood where residential,
commercial and civic buildings are within close
AN OVERVIEW proximity to each other.
! Every Wisconsin city and village with more than

12,500 residents has to have an ordinance in place

! A recodification of Chapter 66 of Wisconsin’s which is similar to the Model Ordinance.
Municipal Law Statutes
! Key housing-related provisions in the Model
APPENDIX E

! Provides the framework for developing comprehen-

sive plans for communities Ordinance: Chicago Metropolis 2020 would like to recognize the generosity of
! Provides an incentive for communities to begin
In areas devoted to mixed residential uses: these foundation and corporate supporters.
efforts now
!
The number of single-family attached and
detached units permitted shall be 5 to 8+
The Commercial Club of Chicago and its Civic Committee
! Under the new law a comprehensive plan must dwelling units per acre
contain a “housing element” which will provide: !
The number of multi-family units shall be 15
The Chicago Community Trust
! An adequate supply of housing that meets existing to 40 dwelling units per acre
and forecasted needs in the local government unit !
For each affordable housing unit provided,
The Ford Foundation
! Specific policies and programs that promote the one additional dwelling unit shall be permit-
development of housing for residents ted, up to a maximum 15 percent increase in
! A range of housing choices that meet the needs fo dwelling units.
The Grand Victoria Foundation
persons of all income levels and of all age groups A variety of lot sizes should be provided to facili-
tate housing diversity and choice and meet the
The John T. and Catherine D. MacArthur Foundation
and persons with special needs
! Policies and programs which promote the availabil- projected requirements of people with different
housing needs. The Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation
ity of land for development or redevelopment of
low-income and moderate-income housing Front building setbacks in mixed use areas
! Programs to maintain or rehabilitate existing should have no minimum setback. Front Pittway Corporation Charitable Foundation
housing building setbacks in mixed residential areas
should be 0 to 15 feet for single-family attached
! Beginning on January 1, 2010, any program or action Abbott Laboratories
and multi-family dwellings, 0 to 25 feet for sin-
of a local governmental unit that affects land use shall gle family detached units. Accenture
be consistent with that local governmental unit’s com- Zero-lot-line side setbacks should be permitted American Airlines
prehensive plan, including: Aon Foundation
! County zoning ordinances enacted under State ! Wisconsin encourages all its State agencies to design Bank of America
statute 59.69 programs, policies, and investment plans to “reflect a
! City or village zoning ordinances enacted or balance between the mission of the agency and a Bank One
amended under State statute 62.23(7) number of local comprehensive planning goals includ- BP America Inc.
! Town zoning ordinances enacted or amended ing the goal to provide an adequate supply of afford- Deloitte & Touche
under State statute 60.61 or 60.62 able housing for individuals of all income levels Digital BandWidth, LLC
! Impact fee ordinances that are enacted or throughout each community.”
Ernst & Young LLP
amended under State statute 66.0617
Harris Bank
! Beginning on January 1, 2010, any county Illinois Tool Works
development plan for unincorporated territory must Kemper Insurance Companies
follow the new planning and development guidelines.
KPMG
! The State of Wisconsin may provide grants to local LaSalle Bank
government units to be used to finance the cost of McDonald’s Corporation
planning activities related to the new law.
Navigant Consulting
! Starting in fiscal year 2005-6, the State of Wisconsin Northern Trust Company
will also provide “smart growth dividend aid” to com- PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
munities which have put into effect a comprehensive Tellabs, Inc.
plan adhering to the new law and which have zoning
and subdivision regulations which conform to it. “Aid
United Airlines
credits” will also be awarded for new affordable hous- William Blair & Co. Foundation
ing units sold or rented in the year before a grant
application for smart growth dividend aid is made. (and additional private donors)
Grants shall be awarded based on the number of cred-
its a city, town, village or county receives in the year to
which its application relates.

32 Appendices
 Chicago Metropolis 2020

Chicago Metropolis 2020 is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization formed by

The Commercial Club of Chicago. Its mission is to foster
collaborative action to strengthen the economic vitality and quality of life in
the six-county Chicago region, and to help make the region one of the places
in the world where people most want to live and work.

Chicago Metropolis 2020

30 West Monroe Street, 18th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60603
312.332.2020 (main)
312.332.2626 (fax)
www.chicagometropolis2020.org

One Region. One Future .