Chicago Housing: Lessons from New York’s Veto Shift
While New York City voters recently moved to dismantle council members’ veto power over housing developments, Chicago appears to be doubling down on a similar practice. This divergence highlights a critical debate about the future of affordable housing and local control in the Windy City, particularly concerning Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs).
Understanding Chicago’s ADU Dilemma
Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) encompass modest housing types like coach houses, attic apartments, and garden apartments, which were historically common in Chicago. These homes traditionally offered moderate-cost, unsubsidized housing and facilitated multi-generational living. However, a 1957 law banned new coach houses, and subsequent legislation made adding attic or garden apartments nearly impossible.
A Brief History of ADUs in Chicago
In 2020, the Chicago City Council took a step forward by re-legalizing ADUs in five pilot areas. The initial goal was to evaluate data and consider citywide implementation by 2024. However, that deadline passed, and a contentious fight ensued, culminating in a compromise that granted individual aldermen the power to decide ADU rules for their respective wards.
The Problem with Hyperlocal Control
This outcome is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it creates excessive red tape and introduces duplicative processes, opaque delays, and arbitrary rejections for residents wishing to invest in their communities. Instead of a streamlined, citywide approach, Chicago now has 13 distinct ADU zones, nearly triple the original five pilot areas, each with its own specific regulations.
Exacerbating Geographic Inequality
Chicago is notoriously one of the most geographically unequal cities in the country. Decades of research, including reports by the Shriver Center, Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance, and the Metropolitan Planning Council, pinpoint the city’s long-standing tradition of allowing neighborhoods to “opt out” of providing affordable housing as a significant contributor to this imbalance. Whether it’s subsidized homes or more modest apartments, individual rejections accumulate over time, creating vast disparities across Chicago neighborhoods.
Federal Scrutiny and Dropped Suits
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) previously acknowledged this pattern as problematic. In 2023, HUD found that the City Council’s practice of deference to hyperlocal rejections of new housing violated federal fair housing law, creating illegal impacts on Chicagoans of color and other protected classes. One key demand for resolution was a citywide ADU expansion. However, HUD dropped its suit in August, and the City Council subsequently passed the ADU ordinance that re-established the very practice HUD had deemed a violation.
New York’s Bold Move: A Contrast
In stark contrast, New York City recently held municipal elections where voters decisively opted to strip City Council members of their veto power over housing, especially affordable housing. This move was driven by a desire to cut “too much red tape,” “too many delays,” and “too many opportunities to say no.” New Yorkers voted to fast-track publicly financed affordable housing, expedite review processes for smaller projects (from seven months to 90 days), and create an appeals board for rejected affordable housing proposals.
Comparing Housing Approaches: Chicago vs. New York
| Feature | Chicago’s Current ADU Stance | New York City’s Recent Housing Reform |
|---|---|---|
| Aldermanic Veto Power | Maintained/Expanded (individual aldermen control ADU rules) | Eliminated (voters stripped council members of veto power) |
| Regulatory Approach | Hyperlocal, fragmented (13 ADU zones, potential for more) | Streamlined, citywide (fast-track & expedited review) |
| Focus | Local discretion, potential for delays and rejections | Increasing affordable housing, reducing red tape |
What’s Next for Chicago?
Given the challenges, it may be time for Chicago voters to directly address this issue. Could Chicagoans support measures similar to New York’s? This could include initiatives to fast-track publicly financed affordable housing everywhere, expedite review processes for smaller projects, or establish an appeals board for cases where affordable housing is rejected by the City Council. Proponents argue that housing is a public good, and its location affects everyone.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What are ADUs?
ADUs, or Additional Dwelling Units, are secondary housing units on a property, like coach houses, attic apartments, or garden apartments. They typically offer moderate-cost, unsubsidized housing. - Why were ADUs restricted in Chicago?
A 1957 law banned new coach houses, and later laws made other ADU types difficult or impossible to add, limiting new construction for decades. - What is the main issue with Chicago’s current ADU policy?
The current policy grants individual aldermen significant control, leading to a fragmented system with varied rules across neighborhoods, increased red tape, and potential for arbitrary rejections, hindering affordable housing development. - How does this affect fair housing?
Historically, allowing neighborhoods to opt out of affordable housing has contributed to geographic inequality and segregation in Chicago. Federal authorities previously identified this practice as a violation of fair housing law. - How does New York City’s recent decision compare to Chicago’s?
New York City voters chose to eliminate city council members’ veto power over housing, aiming to streamline development and increase affordable housing, a stark contrast to Chicago’s renewed emphasis on local aldermanic control.
As Chicago grapples with its housing crisis, the example set by New York offers a clear path toward prioritizing accessible and affordable housing for all residents, potentially bypassing the current hurdles of hyper-local political discretion.
Chicago Doubles Down on ADU Veto Power
