THE CHICAGO REHAB NETWORK
DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT
DISPLACEMENT
TASK FORCE
BACKGROUND PAPER
The Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement
June, 1995
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement
The Nathalie P. Voorhees Center is an applied research and professional assistance unit
of the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at
Chicago. Its mission is to improve the quality of life for all residents of the metropolitan
area through assisting organizations and local governments in efforts to revitalize the
many and varied neighborhoods and communities in the City of Chicago and its suburbs.
Project Manager: Patricia A. Wright ([email protected])
Project Authors:
John J. Betancur
Michael Leachman, Loyola University
Anne Miller
David Walker
Patricia A. Wright
Production: Patricia A. Wright
We would like to thank the many people who agreed to be interviewed for this report. We
would also like to thank the following people for reviewing and commenting on earlier drafts:
David Ranney, Sheila Radford-Hill, Maureen Hellwig, Raul Raymundo, David Hunt and Doug
Gills.
Support for this project was provided by The Chicago Rehab Network and the Nathalie P.
Voohrees Fund. This report was also funded by the University of Illinois at Chicago
Neighborhoods Initiatives Community Outreach Partnership Center Grant of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
Section One: Background (Page 1)
Introduction
Outline of Paper
Rationale
Definition
Causes
Options for Intervention
Displacement in Chicago
Process and Mechanisms of Displacement
Section Two: Development Without Displacement Strategies (Page 6)
Federal Strategies
City of Chicago Strategies
Strategies from Other Cities
Section Three: Case Studies (Page 27)
West Town
South Armour
Pilsen
South Loop
Near West Side
Woodlawn
Section Four: Concluding Remarks (Page 47)
Appendix
List of Contacts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Chicago Rehab Network (CRN) requested the University of Illinois at Chicago Center for
Urban Economic Development (UICUED) and the Nathalie P. Voorhees Neighborhood Center
to participate in their Development Without Displacement Task Force.
The CRN organized a task force of representatives from communities undergoing
gentrification and displacement, government officials, business interests and researchers. The
task force had as its goal to develop a series of policies for the City of Chicago to guide
community development without displacing the existing residents and businesses who reside in
communities that need reinvestment.
Staff from UICUED, VNC and a Policy and Research Action Group (PRAG) intern assigned
to CRN, formed a research team and did background research on how other cities have
alleviated or prevented displacement and gentrification. The research team also looked at the
policies and programs at the federal level and City of Chicago programs that were being
implemented. In addition, the research team analyzed the background research available on
this topic. The following report summarizes the work of the research team for the task force
members and others interested in this important issue.
In this paper, we have outlined approaches, policies, strategies, or programs addressing the
issue of development without displacement. Can we find ways to redevelop communities for
their current low-income residents? Can we find ways to include the costs of displacement in
redevelopment? To answer these questions we have compiled a list of programs and strategies
that have been used in Chicago and other cities. In addition, we have included a section on
case studies of Chicago communities that have been fighting displacement. In these case
studies, we have put the strategies in a context to show how different communities and
situations call for different strategies. In the last section, Concluding Remarks, we try to show
a way forward by discussing how a combination of strategies are needed with an overriding
policy that views development without displacement of low income residents as a serious
urban issue.
Back to Table of Contents
Section One: Background
Introduction
The Chicago Rehab Network (CRN) requested the University of Illinois at Chicago Center for
Urban Economic Development (UICUED) and the Nathalie P. Voorhees Neighborhood Center
to participate in their Development Without Displacement Task Force.
The CRN organized a task force of representatives from communities undergoing
gentrification and displacement, government officials, business interests and researchers. The
task force had as its goal to develop a series of policies for the City of Chicago to guide
community development without displacing the existing residents and businesses who reside in
communities that need reinvestment.
Staff from UICUED, VNC and a Policy and Research Action Group (PRAG) intern assigned
to CRN, formed a research team and did background research on how other cities have
alleviated or prevented displacement and gentrification. The research team also looked at the
policies and programs at the federal level and City of Chicago programs that were being
implemented. In addition, the research team analyzed the background research available on
this topic. The following report summarizes the work of the research team for the task force
members and others interested in this important issue.
Back to Table of Contents
Outline of Paper
In this paper, we have outlined approaches, policies, strategies, or programs addressing the
issue of development without displacement. Can we find ways to redevelop communities for
their current low-income residents? Can we find ways to include the costs of displacement in
redevelopment? To answer these questions we have compiled a list of anti-displacement
strategies that have been used in Chicago and other cities. In addition, we have included a
section on case studies of Chicago communities that have been fighting displacement. In these
case studies, we have put the strategies in a context to show how different communities and
situations call for different strategies. In the last section, Concluding Remarks, we try to show
a way forward by discussing how a combination of strategies are needed with an overriding
policy that views development without displacement of low income residents as a serious
urban issue.
Back to Table of Contents
Rationale
Redevelopment of residential areas is often synonymous with the replacement of its low
income tenants and uses with higher income ones. As real estate, businesses, institutions, and
other elements in the community are upgraded, property values increase, real estate taxes are
assessed at a higher value, codes are enforced, and infrastructure is improved. Other multiplier
impacts and ensuing waves of investment further increase the cost of living in that area. The
costs of redevelopment are recovered via higher rents or sale prices for property; speculation is
attracted; previous businesses tied to lower income residents cannot afford the new rents.
Desirability of the area as a place to live attracts higher income residents who not only demand
better accommodations but also require other retail. The result of the process is the out-pricing
of former residents.
Displacement is usually not considered an issue in the re-development process. Most people
see the need for development. In a market society, place of residence is dictated by what is
available and what households can afford. Neither the public sector has included this matter in
the public debate and the search for policies, nor do developers feel the responsibility to
address it. Displacement is either viewed as an unintended impact, a necessary evil, or a result
of the natural dynamics of the market--the allocation of each parcel of land to its best possible
use. Households are on their own. They have to play the market: win, loss, weigh their options,
and make their choices according to what they can afford. Developers are acting to maximize
returns within the terms of the law. For this, they cut costs, minimize or control risks, and go
after "the right tenants." Responsibility for the social impact of their actions is not a concern.
As long as the law does not demand this, they are not obligated to do anything. Besides, they
have the lobbying power to fight against changes and for better conditions. In a competitive
economy and society, they can always hold society hostage by claiming that they will take
development to places where they can best maximize returns and away from those adding
claims and costs on them.
Meanwhile, households have to absorb the costs and hardships associated with relocation.
Housing markets in low-income areas are often tight. As a result, either people have to settle
for worse conditions--smaller spaces, worse locations, or incur higher permanent expenses in
housing. There are many other expenses associated with relocation such as the search and the
cost of moving. And there are extreme social costs and hardships: loss of support institutions,
disintegration of survival networks, friendship and family networks, changing schools, and
political linkages. Low-income households are particularly sensitive to such costs because of
their lower mobility and their more limited ability to participate in the market.
Efforts to deal with displacement have been limited. They have been generally restricted to
development projects that had direct public funding. Even in these cases, their success is
highly questionable. Assistance in urban renewal projects was largely limited to placing people
in public housing. In other cases, financial assistance was absorbed by higher rental costs
elsewhere. Cases such as Lake Meadows-Prairie Shores, Presidential Towers, and others in
Chicago suggest that the benefits of these projects accrue in large proportion to the middle
class whose attraction is a function of the project's success. The record of publicly subsidized
projects in providing low-income housing has been dismal.
At the same time, development produces many hidden and indirect costs for the
public--infrastructure, tax abatements, land write-downs. These costs are not included in
discussions between government and the private sector. Certainly, there is no requirement that
such projects provide low-income housing or include the costs of relocation of low-income
populations. Instead, the public has to assume these costs either through assistance to displaced
households or through the problems associated with their relocation--increasing disinvestment
and crowding in low-income communities, among others. Loopholes in the law, poor
supervision by public agencies, and other factors have helped developers escape requirements
and avoid compliance.
The bottom line is that, no matter how private, redevelopment always requires public approval
and assistance. It may include land condemnation, zoning changes, building permits, changes
in density, capital improvements, new infrastructure, tax re-assessments, land write offs,
planning, etc. In this sense, the public sector has the ability to pre-empt it, slow it down, limit
its scope, intensity, and displacing impact; promote it, accelerate it, support it, or facilitate it.
Back to Table of Contents
Definition
For the purpose of this paper, displacement refers to development that forces people to move
from their current residence. Examples of this include land clearance or investment that makes
housing unaffordable for current residents. It can be direct or indirect. Displacement is direct
when it requires the move of current residents (vacating buildings, land clearance). Indirect
displacement refers to actions that displace people through their impacts (raising taxes and
rents). The most typical form of displacement affects low-income people when their residences
are torn down or when improvements make their current locations unaffordable.
Back to Table of Contents
Causes
Displacement can be caused in many ways. We want to emphasize here public or private
development that results in the displacement of current residents. Such is the case of the
decision to build a stadium in a residential area or the decision to tear down low-income
housing for construction of a university. Similarly, it may be caused by redevelopment activity
that leads to the replacement of current low-income residents in a neighborhoods for higher
income ones in the same space. Lastly, redevelopment of an area may cause displacement in
another via price increases.
One of the leading forms of redevelopment today is gentrification. Gentrification results from
transformation of a community from a lower to a higher income. Current residents are
out-priced via tax or rental increases, speculation, higher property values, pressure,
comparatively sizeable offers for their homes, historical designation, or inability to bring their
properties up to code.
Back to Table of Contents
Options for Intervention
Intervention may seek the relocation of those displaced in a comparable, if not better
residential area. It may include compensation. It may give people a choice as to where they
wish to move and the means to do it. Alternatively, it may try to stop or prevent displacing
forms of development.
Back to Table of Contents
Displacement in Chicago
In Chicago, redevelopment of the central area and of other selected communities often under
the leadership of institutions such as universities and hospitals, operating with the full support
of the public sector, has replaced many low income areas for higher income ones. By intent
and definition, urban renewal and conservation achieved this in places such as the Near North
Side, Lincoln Park, Hyde Park, the Hull House, and the Near South (Lake Meadows, Prairie
Shores, Chicago Commons, Michael Reese and IIT). Other projects including extensive land
clearance such as highway construction, the White Sox Park and the United Center have
produced the same result. Most recently, gentrification has transformed traditional working
class communities such as Lake View and Wicker Park into areas for upwardly mobile
households.
The extent and intensity of displacement has not been measured. Those affected have been
forced to absorb the costs. Communities have often mobilized to oppose displacement or to
demand compensation. However, every community has had to wage its own struggle against
formidable obstacles. Recently, community coalitions have been formed to tackle these issues
comprehensively, to develop policies, and to form common fronts. City Hall has never made
this into a central issue, has addressed each case separately, and has lacked the will to deal
with this problem in any meaningful way. The challenge of communities and the public is to
raise this from a local matter affecting a group at a time, into a comprehensive interest and
goal.
Perhaps the most important factor to mention here is that these development efforts have
ignored low-income residents. Their presence is viewed as a nuisance and their removal as a
blessing. Meanwhile, redevelopment was facilitated by the low acquisition price of
low-income areas and the large profits that came with their replacement with higher income
tenants and uses.
Back to Table of Contents
Process and Mechanisms of Displacement
Displacement is carried out in many ways. The simplest one is when the area is scheduled for
clearance and residents are asked to move. This is often done on short notice. In this way,
residents do not have time to organize, mobilize, and resist the move.
Displacement takes many other forms. People are charged higher rents. Buildings are
scheduled for gut rehabilitation. Taxes are increased substantially and owners cannot afford
them. Code violations are enforced, owners lack the means to fix them, and have to sell.
Disinvestment deteriorates buildings to the point that they are no longer livable. Buildings
change ownership and the new owner decides to replace the current tenants. Units are
converted into smaller spaces or into larger ones and rents are raised. Current owners or
residents are pressured to sell through constant calls, threats, offers they can not easily turn
down. Arson and other mechanisms are used to scare people away, and to clear land for
redevelopment.
Gentrification is the most recent case. Displacement here is long term and assumes many open
and hidden forms. Some of them are mentioned above. Others include assistance from
aldermanic offices and public entities and individuals, zoning changes, housing conversions,
historic landmark status, speculation, recruitment of higher income groups, formation of
organizations among gentrifiers to push low-income people and uses out and to increase the
value of their investment, and substantial capital improvements.
Many efforts have been developed to address some of these issues. They are listed below.
Many of them are piecemeal or limited. They often address only one of the elements of
displacement, leaving others untouched. What is generally lacking, is a comprehensive policy
framework. Strong and concerted actions on the part of communities and their representatives
certainly could make a difference as everybody is pursuing the same goals, is including this
issue in every development efforts and is looking to build a comprehensive framework to
attack the problem. This requires political will, consistent pressure, and synchronization of
actions under a single goal.
Back to Table of Contents
Section Two: Development Without Displacement
Strategies
In this section we discuss a variety of strategies that have been used at the federal, state and
city levels of government. In addition, we have a section on strategies used in other cities
which includes not only strategies used by city governments but also by community groups in
other cities and in Chicago. From the start, we should be clear that almost all of the strategies
that are now federal, state or local laws were only passed and implemented because of
community struggles, protests or lobbying. Whenever possible, we give the history of the
strategy so we can all understand how these strategies have been developed over time.
Back to Table of Contents
Federal Strategies
The following section outlines the federal programs and regulations which can be used as
strategies or tools to alleviate or minimize the displacement of residents due to federally
funded initiatives.
1. One-for-One Replacement
This federal mandate states that for every federally subsidized housing unit that will be
destroyed, a new housing unit must first be built to replace it. This regulation was passed
during the Reagan administration. It was pushed by public housing activists to preserve
public housing and prevent public housing authorities around the country from selling or
tearing down units. Currently, the Chicago Housing Authority has developed a policy to
tear down many of the high rise developments and replace them with scattered site units.
According to existing federal regulations for one-for-one replacement, they must first
build replacement scattered site units before they can destroy the high-rises. (Contact:
HUD & CHA)
2. The Uniform Relocation Act
The Uniform Relocation Act provides aid to those individuals being displaced by
federally funded initiatives. It requires that displaced families be given services which
include referrals to comparable and suitable replacement homes; payment for moving
expenses; and replacement housing assistance which enables the family to either rent
with rental assistance payments (based on the difference between what they are presently
paying and the market rate for a similar unit; it last approximately 42 months) or buy a
suitable replacement home with down payment assistance. This Act was a direct result
of community protests against Urban Renewal in the sixties. Initially, Urban Renewal
programs did not require any relocation benefits. Only after community groups in
several cities protested the unfair displacement of residents, did the Relocation Act
become part of federal law and procedures.(Contact: HUD)
3. (CDBG) Community Development Block Grant Laws
There are laws working within CDBG funding proposals that work in conjunction with
the Uniform Relocation Act. These laws were introduced by Congressman Barney Frank
in 1988 and 1989 in an effort to strengthen the guidelines for CDBG funding. The laws
mandate that every CDBG proposal should have an anti-displacement plan.(Contact:
Larry Yates and Rikki Spears of the Low Income Housing Information Service/
Washington D.C.)
4. "Section 8"
While Section 8 is a rental assistance program for low income families it also has been
used as a tool to assist families displaced as a result of federal initiatives and also as a
tool to preserve affordable housing units in areas experiencing reinvestment. Certificates
which are given directly to the family or individual allow them to find another housing
unit, to replace the unit that they are losing due to the reorganization of the public
housing authority or to development funded by federal programs. Families being
displaced by federal initiatives are usually put at the top of the list for this benefit. For
the family who qualifies for this program but is not being affected by a federal funded
displacement scheme it is usually a wait of several years before a certificate is obtained.
An official at the City of Chicago's Department of Housing states that there is a 65,000
to 75,000 backlog of those who want Section 8 Certificates. Project-based Section 8
housing development was a tool used by many not for profit developers to preserve
affordable housing in their communities. This program attached the rental subsidy to a
specific housing unit. The family who occupied this unit had to qualify as low income
according to the federal guidelines. This program has been cut back drastically over the
years and presently is being threatened with elimination by the Congress. (Contact: CHA
/ HUD)
5. Housing Tax Credits
With the reduction over the years in Project-based Section 8 and the 1986 changes in the
tax laws related to housing syndications, more and more developers have had to rely on
tax credits to rehabilitate or build low income housing. Low income housing tax credits
were established by Section 252 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to replace traditional tax
incentives for investment in low income housing which were eliminated by the same
law. Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 permits taxpayers to claim tax
credit on their federal income tax returns for qualified expenditures for low- income
housing units placed in service after December 31, 1986. There are two approaches:
either 70 percent for non-federally subsidized new construction or substantial
rehabilitation, and acquisition cost; or 30 percent for federally subsidized new
construction or substantial rehab. Both require a set-aside requirement of at least 20
percent. A project's units must be rent-restricted and occupied by tenants with annual
incomes of 50 percent or less of the area's median gross income with some variations.
Tax credits also require an Allocation Plan which should be developed by state agencies
such as Illinois Housing Development Authority. The Plan provides a blueprint for the
process the agency will use to accept applications from potential applications and how
they will be evaluated. This must all be approved as part of a public hearing process.
Pressure could be applied to groups to provide anti-displacement measures within their
selection process of potential applications. However, we found no examples of this kind
of selection process in other cities or states. (Contact:Illinois Housing Development
Authority)
6. HOME Program
Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 created the HOME Program.
The HOME program and funds have a number of rules and regulations which can effect
the anti displacement of low-income residents. "A proposed Final Rule" is one such
regulation which requires that the affordability of HOME funded projects be preserved
for the remaining useful life of the property, or a lesser period consistent with sound
economic principles. As it stands now affordability for the rehabilitation of rental units is
required for only five years if less than $15,000 in HOME funds is invested per unit; for
only ten years if the amount is between $15,000 and $40,000 per unit; and for only 15
years if the amount is more than $40,000 per unit. For those projects which involve new
construction, affordability must be maintained for only 20 years. Presently, there is
political action which is attempting to increase the time periods and have the existing
times be minimums. (Contact: HUD and information provided by Federal Register)
7. Low Income Housing Preservation Act 1995
This act amends the 1986 Internal Revenue Code by providing tax incentives to
encourage the preservation of low income housing. The focus of the act is to save the
approximately 240,000 subsidized Sect. 221 D and Sect. 236 projects which are
currently coming to the end of their term. In the next five years another 900,000 units
will also be ending their term. It is an attempt to stop the private owners of these
developments from prepaying their mortgages to get from underneath the federal
requirements. As a strategy, this act provides for the maintenance of existing affordable
units which, if not preserved, could mean a significant displacement of people unable to
afford the increased rents of these units without the federal subsidies. (Contact: Larry
Yates and Rikki Spears of the Low Income Housing Information Service/ Washington
D.C. also see the Federal Register)
8. Community Reinvestment Act 1977
This act requires federal agencies that supervise financial institutions to encourage them
to help meet the credit needs of their communities, including the needs of low and
moderate income families and individuals. It requires the supervising federal agencies to
assess a financial institution's record of community service especially when the financial
institution is filing for an expansion. The act requires that the bank and savings
institutions prepare a CRA statement for each of the communities it serves. The CRA
has been used as an anti-displacement strategy by community groups when they have
organized and negotiated a CRA agreement with the banks or savings institutions in
their community. Many of these agreements have provided more affordable and
accessible financing for investments in their community.
The Joint Planning Council (JPC), a coalition of low-income housing groups in New
York City, is currently developing an organizing drive that would fight for important
changes in CRA. As currently written, The CRA gives credit to banks whenever they
provide loans in low and moderate income communities. So, banks get CRA credit even
when they provide a loan which benefits high-income residents, as long as the property
is located in an area which qualifies as low and moderate income. Obviously, these sorts
of loans only encourage gentrification to occur. JPC will be fighting to change CRA so
that banks are judged on the effect that their loans have on low and moderate income
people. Now, they are judged solely on the fact that they made a loan, even if it caused
displacement or gentrification. (Contact: Woodstock Institute, Chicago)
9. Empowerment Zones
The Empowerment Zone concept is a Clinton Program which is attempting to rebuild the
urban environment with the combination of economic development and social programs.
The idea of Empowerment Zones grows from the enterprise zone concepts of the
Republican Party. The Clinton Administration has developed the concept of enterprise
zones a step further with the inclusion of social programs. Empowerment zones work in
a similar fashion to the enterprise zone where firms would get wage tax credits for any
worker who lives in the zone boundaries. Firms would also get other tax incentives as
well as the ability to float bonds. Residents within the zone as well as businesses would
have the opportunity to seek waivers of different state, local, and federal regulations.
Nine (six urban and three rural) empowerment zones have been chosen. Each
empowerment zone will receive $100 million in funding and an estimated $250 million
in wage tax credits over a ten year period. Chicago was chosen as one of the cities to
receive an empowerment zone. The zone includes the neighborhoods of Kenwood,
Pilsen, Near West Side, West Garfield, Austin and Little Village. The empowerment
zone could potentially aid these communities with economic development, social
programs and other incentives. All of these amenities should aid in the development of
these areas without displacing the indigenous residents.
Back to Table of Contents
City of Chicago Strategies
Based on our interviews with present and past City of Chicago officials in the Department of
Housing and the Department of Planning and Development, the City of Chicago has no
policies outside of the federal regulations and policies we have already discussed to alleviate
displacement when development occurs. This is particularly true when the displacement is
caused by market driven forces. We have included below a description of how the city
implements federal policies, City programs that could be viewed as preventing displacement,
and other City strategies which were mentioned in our interviews as anti-displacement.
1. Uniform Relocation Act (City)
The City of Chicago implements the federal Uniform Relocation Act. The City enforces
it on CDBG funded projects and also on projects that are funded with City dollars
outside of CDBG funding. The city is in charge of providing the necessary services
involved in the relocation. According to Department of Housing records, the department
has assisted in 712 relocations between 1990-95. These relocations have been
predominantly residential (606). Low income households have been 89% of the
households needing relocation assistance. In addition, 53%(319) of the relocated
households have been low income female headed households and 192 have been female
headed households with children. The Relocation Unit has 8 staff members.
(Contact:City of Chicago Department of Housing, Household Services Division)
2. Low-Income Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District
According to the 1994 annual report of the City of Chicago's Department of Housing,
the city created its first Tax Increment Financing district for the development of
affordable housing. This project located at 45th and South Martin Luther King Drive
created 96 units as part of the Phase V development of the Paul G. Stewart Homes. The
TIF allows the city to use the money generated from the tax increment on the vacant lots
for development within the ( TIF) district. They are then able to use this money to do
such things as write down the bonds or provide additional financing for the project.
(Contact: Department of Housing)
3. "Hands Off" Approach
This strategy describes a one time "hands off" approach the city took during the
negotiations between the United Center developers and the Interfaith Organizing Project
community organization. It is the opinion of one city official that this strategy worked on
the Near West Side. The City backed away and essentially informed the stadium
developers that nothing would get built unless some type of agreement could be
hammered out between the stadium developers and the community. This enabled the
community to deal directly with the private developers to negotiate a plan to alleviate the
displacement of residents and have the developers provide other benefits (ie.jobs,
improvements) to the community.
4. Community Development Corporations
This strategy has not been supported strongly by the present City administration.
According to the Chicago Rehab Network's analysis of Department of Housing's (DOH)
fourth quarterly report, the City does not support CDCs as much as it supports for profit
developers in the production and preservation of housing units. With more support, such
as more funding for operating expenses, land conveyance, and improving the
development financing and approval process, CDCs would be in a better position to
improve neighborhood conditions and alleviate possible displacement of residents.
DOH recently changed the manner in which it provides money to CDCs for general
operating funds. Money for general operation is no longer available through CDBG
funding. All CDCs are eligible for the Capacity Building Program. This DOH program
provides grants for CDCs to improve their organizational capacity by hiring consultants
or attending conferences, retreats, or training sessions. Funds for general operation are
available only through HOME monies to CDCs that are certified by HUD as Community
Housing Development Organizations (CHODOS). (Contact: The Chicago Rehab
Network)
5. The Creation of "Redevelopment Areas"
After the demise of the Urban Renewal programs of the past, the Community
Development Commission was created to maintain many of the same powers. The
Community Development Commission has the ability to name an area a Redevelopment
area or a Conservation Area. The difference between the two is that a Conservation Area
does not require that the area be found to be slum and blighted. Both these designations
require City Council approval. For both these designations, there must be an approved
redevelopment plan. Once the plan is approved, land can be purchased and sold by the
City below market rates. This land then comes under the control of the City, and thus
gives them the ability to create affordable housing and monitor for displacement.
(Contact:Department of Planning and Development)
6. Chicago Plan Commission
In its 87th year,the Chicago Plan Commission plays a principal role in the initiation and
review of the City's long range planning goals. The Plan Commission exercises final
authority, subject to judicial review, with respect to all public and private improvements
along the lakefront and within the immediately adjacent neighborhoods and commercial
areas. The Commission has nine members appointed by the Mayor and nine ex-officio
members including the City Commissioner of Planning and Development and the
Zoning Administrator. The Plan Commission reviews all major development projects in
the City, major zoning or land use changes, the industrial corridor planning and the
Conservation or Redevelopment Area designation. All of their recommendations are
reviewed by the City Council who has final approval. Although the Commission plays
an advisory role, it could have considerable power if it adopted policies which were
sensitive to development without displacement. (Contact: Department of Planning and
Development/ Chicago Plan Commission)
7. Chicago Abandoned Property Program (CAPP)
CAPP is a program created due to the outcry of community residents concerned with the
abandoned buildings in their neighborhood. The program was initially run by the
Department of Buildings but then was transferred to the Department of Housing. This
Program outlines a process whereby abandoned buildings can be acquired and
transferred to individuals, private and non profit developers interested in rehabilitation
for affordable housing. The program focuses on vacant 1-6 unit buildings and requires
that the buildings be tax delinquent, open and unsecured to qualify for the program. A
list of CAPP eligible buildings is published each quarter and interested developers fill
out applications requesting the buildings.. The applications are reviewed by a
mayor-appointed sub-committee who makes recommendations to the City Council for
their approval. The process from application to receiving clear title from the City takes
12-18 months. Community groups who have used CAPP are concerned about the length
of time it takes to obtain ownership of these buildings. Since 1991, 133 CAPP buildings
have been acquired and transferred to an owner who plans to rehab the property. There
are another 220 properties in the process of being transferred. There has been 49 vacant
lots transferred from City ownership to an eligible buyer. (Contact: Department of
Housing; Developer Services Division)
8. Heat Receivership Program
The Heat Receivership Program is designed to preserve affordable housing that may
otherwise become vacant if a building is not sufficiently heated. The Program allows the
City to intervene in housing court cases where multi-family buildings are insufficiently
heated during the winter months (November - April). The Court then appoints a receiver
to make the needed improvements and restore heat to the building. They act as an
interim property management company for the multi-family building. During this
process they collect rents and make the necessary improvements. The receiver's costs in
making these improvements are reimbursed by the Department of Housing in exchange
for a lien in the full amount of the improvements. This program works well in
preventing displacement due to poor upkeep of many multi-family buildings. It provides
residents with legal action to deal with those landlords who do not maintain their
property. It enables residents to stay in these units rather than relocate. (Contact:
Department of Housing, Real Estate Services Division)
9. Housing Abandonment Prevention Program (HAPP)
HAPP is another program established to preserve multi-family buildings in danger of
abandonment. This program has more flexibility than the Heat Receivership Program
because it allows for a court-appointed receiver to make emergency repairs to a number
of code violations and deteriorating conditions, such as; replacing the roofs, electrical
systems, and porches. The department of Housing, through the Community Investment
Corporation, provides the funds needed to make the emergency repairs and stabilize
those building until permanent improvements can be made. A lien is placed on the
building by the City for the costs of the repairs. The lien can then be foreclosed by the
City, thus making the building available for transfer to a developer for further
rehabilitation and management. This developer can be either a for profit or a not for
profit as long as they have the means and the know how to take responsibility. The
program simply puts buildings in the hands of those who want to maintain them and who
are committed to preserving housing. (Contact:The Department of Housing; Real Estate
Services Division).
10. Tax Reactivation Program and Special Sales
The Tax Reactivation Program provides a mechanism for the City of Chicago and Cook
County to return tax-delinquent buildings and vacant land to the tax rolls and provide
affordable housing. In this program, the City makes a non-cash bid to the County for tax
delinquent property on behalf of a developer who is applying for the building and/or the
vacant land. The County issues the City a Certificate of Purchase which can be
converted to a tax deed once the owner's period of redemption has expired. The deed is
then transferred to the pre-identified developer for rehabilitation or new construction on
the vacant site. The Tax Reactivation Program has a formal application that developers
must complete before being selected and the process generally takes between 18-24
months. It is up to the developer to investigate and find those vacant parcels or
buildings, usually with 7 units or more, which are tax delinquent. Once this task is
completed they can then begin the formal application process. Since 1989, 161
properties have been transferred through the Tax Reactivation Program and another 35
properties are still in process. In addition, there have been 81 vacant lots transferred
through this process. (Contact: Department of Housing, Real Estate Services Division).
11. Court-Ordered Relocation Unit in Department of Human Services
This unit will assist tenants who have been evicted to apply for CHA housing or to find
shelter space. The unit will also refer tenants to other city programs, which may benefit
them. Finally, according to administrators at the Department of Human Services, a "very
small budget" is available to cover the costs of relocation for tenants who are severely
destitute. The small relocation budget is not documented or advertised because of fear
that the department will be overwhelmed with requests. (Contact: Department of Human
Services)
Back to Table of Contents
Strategies from Other Cities
In this section we list the strategies we found being implemented and discussed in other cities.
We compiled this listing from existing research and information, plus, whenever possible, we
did telephone interviews with activists and government officials in other cities to find out what
additional strategies were being implemented. If we found an example of the strategy being
used by a Chicago community group, it is discussed in a separate Chicago section.
1. Community Land Trust
A community land trust is a private non-profit corporation created to acquire and hold
land for the benefit of a community. It also provides secure affordable access to land and
housing for community residents. Community Land Trusts essentially take land off the
market by restricting speculation, absentee ownership of land and housing, and
preserving the affordability of housing. The first option, if residents choose to sell at a
controlled appreciation price, goes to the Community Land Trust Board. Ownership of
the land enables the CLT to develop policies which must be agreed upon by those
interested in the area before a long term land lease can be signed.
Burlington, Vermont offers a good example with the Burlington Community Land Trust
which has made 102 housing units in Chittenden County.(Burlington Free Press 6/90,
Contact: Burlington Community Land Trust.) Another example exists in Atlanta where
the South Atlanta Land Trust(SALT) bought nine house sites in its minority
neighborhood which was experiencing deterioration. Using various funding sources
from both public and private sector, SALT homes were renovated and sold to
low-income single women. Title to the homes is held by SALT and the sales agreement
limits equity appreciation which eliminates speculation. (Contact: Community
Information Exchange, South Atlanta Land Trust, Atlanta, GA)
Chicago Examples: The Chicago Acorn (Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now) chapter has used the land trust strategy. Acorn bought foreclosed homes
from HUD, hired local contractors to rehab them, and either sold or leased with the
option to buy to families in primarily the south side Englewood neighborhood. For some
of the homes, the families also participated in the rehab with sweat equity which further
reduced the rehab costs. The Acorn Land Association was established whereby the land
association held the deed to the land and leased the house for 99 years. The lease is
renewable and the land association has the first option to buy back the house. The buyer
will receive what they paid for the house plus compensation for any improvements made
on the house. There is a no appreciation clause in the land contract. There are 50 homes
participating in the Acorn Land Association. Acorn combined the land trust strategy
with the lease with option to buy strategy which gives the lessee 3 years to decide
whether to buy the house. All of the payments during this 3 year period go toward the
payment of the house at a preset price.
The Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) and several large Chicago banks
participated in the financing for the homes. These funders ended up liking the land trust
strategy because it was another interested "party" which would care if the owner
defaulted on the mortgage. In addition, the land association's first option to buy also
gave more assurance to the financing institutions that an organization was standing by to
either assist the owner or buy the property in case of default. Two other groups in
Chicago have used this strategy or are in the midst of organizing a land trust. They are
People's Housing in Rogers Park and Erie House in West Town.
2. Non-Profit Ownership
According to the National Congress for Community Economic Development there are at
least 2,000 Community Development Corporations (CDCs) across the country that have
developed and own 320,000 units of affordable housing. These CDCs , many of which
are in Chicago, use non-profit ownership to control housing and other property in their
communities. By putting housing units in non-profit ownership it is essentially taking
these units out of the market and preserving them as affordable units. One CDC in
Richmond, Virginia, adopted a strategy where they went about buying property on every
block in their community. The non-profit then had some control over speculation and
development since they own property on every single block. The CDC can then decide if
they would like to sell the property or hold on if they believe a proposed development
could displace residents. This could also be described as a land banking strategy.
(Contact: Larry Yates of the Low Income Housing Information Service Washington
D.C.)
Chicago Examples: The Chicago Rehab Network represents 32 CDCs in Chicago that
own and manage over 10,000 units of affordable housing.
3. Community Land Banks
Land banks work in a similar fashion to community land trust, but it is a strategy that
can be short or long term. It is different than the Community Land Trust which is only a
long term community ownership strategy. For example, in Baltimore, residents were
faced with the potential of a superhighway going through the Fells Point neighborhood.
The Southeast Community Organization organized residents in an effort to stop the
deterioration of absentee owned buildings. The group formed a land bank which was
financed by foundation funding. Through the land bank, they purchased the homes of
these absentee owners, rehabbed the buildings and sold them outright to members in the
community or they offered a lease-purchase arrangement. The city also provided low
cost loans for renovations. Eventually 110 properties were land-banked throughout Fells
Point. (Contact:Community Information Exchange, South East Community
Organization/ Baltimore, MD)
4. "Squatting" as a Political Action
In an effort to obtain more money from the city to build affordable housing , the
members of the Boston/ HUD Tenant Alliance decided to using squatting as a strategy.
They used the Copley Square Development as their target and set up white sheet tents on
the exact sites where they felt housing was needed. The city eventually gave in because
of the negative pressure from the press and provided the group with a multi unit
subsidized building. This aided in obtaining affordable housing and also directed
attention to a specific area where the grassroots agency felt there should be affordable
housing. (Contact: Boston HUD Tenant Alliance, Michael Caine)
Committees of Social Self-Management in Moscow, Russia, have also used squatting,
picketing, and blockading of luxury housing developments to call attention to the
shortage of affordable family housing. Likewise, in cities around the world, squatting is
one of the most popular strategies to force reallocation of land and housing to the needy.
Chicago Examples: A group called the Mad Housers assisted homeless people by
building small huts with a heater, cooking and sleeping accommodations. These huts
were then placed on railroad property. The City of Chicago at first tolerated the huts and
the squatting on railroad property. But then, the City decided to evict the dwellers and
destroyed their huts. The City insisted that the dwellers either seek shelter in public
housing or in overnight and transitional shelters.
5. Eminent Domain Powers for Non-Profits
This strategy gives community organizations eminent domain power to acquire vacant
land and buildings in their neighborhood. The Boston group, the Dudley Street
Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI), is the most famous and only example of a group in the
U.S. acquiring this local power. Like many urban communities the residents of the
Dudley Street area found themselves surrounded by many vacant buildings and land.
They banded together to do something about the redevelopment of their area. As part of
a comprehensive planning process, DSNI wanted land stewardship over time for their
community. DSNI formed a separate corporation, Dudley Neighbors, Inc. which is a
nonprofit community land trust that will acquire land and build affordable housing,
commercial, parks, and other needed community facilities. Dudley Neighbors, Inc. also
became the corporation which was designated with the eminent domain powers. It has a
board with a majority of residents along with representatives from the City of Boston,
their State representative and City Councilor. Since receiving the power of eminent
domain in 1988, DSNI has received financial help from the Ford Foundation to buy
much of the land needed to do their housing development. Thus far, 300 housing units
have been built because the community has planned and organized to get eminent
domain powers. (Contact:Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, Boston, Mass .)
6. Class Action Law Suits
In Addison, Illinois, a group of residents have filed a class action suit against the City of
Addison. The suit claims that the City of Addison is using the designation of a Tax
Increment Financing District (TIF) to displace most of the Latino families of the area.
The court case is still pending.
Chicago Examples: There are two recent examples in Chicago of community groups
using class action law suits to fight displacement in their community. First of all, the
South Armour Square Neighborhood Coalition has filed a class action civil rights suit
against the White Sox, City of Chicago, State of Illinois, and the Illinois Sports Facility
Authority which claims that the choice of the location of the new White Sox Park was
racially motivated. The court case is based on evidence that the ball park could more
easily have been located to the north and west of its present location and displaced less
people. However, the people living to the north and west were white families. In this
case, the remaining community residents are asking for the rebuilding of their
community which was lost due to the relocation. This would involve 178 homes and 12
businesses.
In another case the Henry Horner Mother's Guild has a class action suit pending against
the Chicago Housing Authority which claims that the CHA intentionally allowed
residents of Henry Horner to live in unsafe and dangerous housing. This court case has
been an important leverage for Henry Horner residents to have a say in the
redevelopment plans for Henry Horner and also a say in whether each resident or family
wants to stay in the area or take the option of moving to another CHA development or be
given a Section 8 certificate.
7. Limited-Equity Housing Cooperatives/ Leasehold Cooperatives
A limited-equity housing cooperative is owned by the residents, with resale restrictions
built into the deed or other government documents to limit the value or the potential for
inflation in the value of each member's share. The tenants of a privately owned building,
when faced with the prospect of its sale or conversion to higher-income cooperatives or
condominiums, will often form an association to purchase the building. They can then
turn it into a limited-equity or leasehold cooperative. In a limited-equity housing
cooperative, each member owns a share in the value of the building and land. Leasehold
coops generally own and hold title to the land but give the developer ownership of the
building through a long-term lease. The terms of the coops allow the leasehold
cooperative to control management and future use of the building.
In Minneapolis, West Bank Homes, developed jointly by a for-profit developer and the
West Bank Community Development Corporation, is a leasehold cooperative
comprising 65 homes. The $4.5 million project is financed through a number of private
and public funding sources. The project grew out of the protests of renters when the city
was planning extensive demolition to make way for a high-rise housing development.
The new development would have destroyed the nature of the neighborhood.. The West
Bank Community Development Corporation will receive a 40 percent share of the
residuals from the eventual sale of the property and has a right of first refusal at time of
sale. These benefits will be transferred to the residents' cooperative to help them
purchase the buildings.(Contact:Community Information Exchange, West Bank CDC,
Minneapolis, MN)
Limited equity cooperatives are a form of ownership and control that has been used in
many cities in the United States and Europe. In Oslo, Norway, more households are in
cooperatives than are home owners or renters in the private market. Since 1988, many
Oslo cooperatives have converted to individual ownerships with less restrictions on the
deeds. (Contact: Norwegian Building Research Institute)
Chicago Examples: Chicago has the second highest number of cooperatives in the
United States with over 4,000 units, which is second only to New York. Chicago has
dealt for many years with cooperatives especially those concerned with equity or limited
equity housing cooperatives. One good example is the London Town Homes, 700 units
of housing on the south side.
Leasehold Cooperatives have been much harder to obtain for the Chicago area. One of
the primary reasons behind this is that Mayor Daley's administration has refused to make
any loan commitments for cooperatives, which eliminates the ability to receive Tax
Credits. Other states, such as Minnesota, have been successful with leasehold
cooperatives because they have specific laws that enable them to receive loans for this
particular type of endeavor. The closest Chicago example would be the St. Clair Homes
which is managed by the Covenant Development Corporation. In this example the CDC
is the owner and the residents of St. Clair Homes have a lease on the property.(Contact:
Mutual Housing Network)
8. Lease-Purchase Home Ownership Arrangement
Under a lease purchase-arrangement, a house needing rehabilitation is purchased and
repaired by a non-profit organization or other organization. It is then leased to a lower
income family or individual at an affordable rent. This family is given the first option to
buy the home after an arranged period. During this entire process, the renter is putting
money aside and rebuilding credit in hopes of having a down payment for the home and
securing their own mortgage. This strategy allows families who would otherwise be
unable to afford or qualify for a mortgage to become homeowners and also stay in the
area. It helps local residents remain in the community since the residents of the area
would be given the first option to apply for the arrangement. This could also work for
new construction.
In Cleveland, Ohio, the Cleveland Housing Network was founded in 1981 by the
Famicos Foundation to renovate deteriorated housing throughout Cleveland. The
foundation has helped to keep acquisition and rehab cost low. CHN receives donations
of property, acquires abandoned buildings and then repairs them to meet city codes. The
families are carefully screened and are usually picked from the area or an adjacent
community. To date CHN has produced housing for more than 600 families, with a total
property value of more than $20 million.(Contact:Community Information Exchange
1988, Famicos Foundation/ Cleveland Housing Network, Cleveland , Ohio)
Chicago Examples: The Lawndale Christian Development Corporation has been using
the Lease-Purchase Home Ownership arrangement. In addition, Acorn Housing
Corporation has also used lease-purchase along with the land trust to facilitate more
families being able to become home owners.
9. Equal Development or Balanced Growth Ordinance
In San Francisco, Boston, and Santa Monica, progressive coalitions have successfully
created and implemented laws which links downtown development to the support of
neighborhood economic development.
In San Francisco, the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO)
successfully lobbied for the passage of the Office Affordable Housing Production
Program Ordinance in the mid-1980's. This ordinance required developers who built
downtown office space to place money in an affordable housing pool. The exact amount
required was determined by a formula based on the square footage of office space being
developed. During the high-rise construction boom, this pool generated $27 million for
affordable housing in the city. In the last few years, though, downtown office
construction has ceased due to economic downturn and no new money has been
generated.
CCHO also succeeded in winning passage of a similar ordinance which required
downtown developers to pay into a funding pool for child care and another for jobs. The
rationale it used in winning these ordinances was similar as that used to win on
affordable housing. Downtown developers were building office space which was
attracting higher income people to the area. In a tight real estate market, lower income
people were forced to move by both rising prices and direct displacement. Light
industries that employed lower income people were also being forced to leave. The
ordinances were necessary compensation to those people whose lives were negatively
affected by downtown development. Both these ordinances are asking developers to pay
impact fees for their developments. This is an approach used more commonly in
suburban areas. When a developer wants to do a major development the local
municipality does an impact analysis on how this development is going to affect public
services including such things as schools and parks. The developer is asked to include
some of these costs in his overall development.
Chicago Example: There was an effort under the Harold Washington Administration to
do a similar thing here in Chicago. It was called Linked Development and the
Washington Administration set up a task force to study how it could be implemented.
Similar to the SanFrancisco ordinance, downtown developers would be assessed by the
square foot to provide funding for neighborhood development efforts. There was strong
opposition by the downtown development community and the idea was abandoned as a
strategy by the Washington administration.
10. Local "one-for-one replacement" Ordinance
These ordinances are modeled after the federal mandate but are used in a variety of
forms at the local level. In New York City, an umbrella community organization called
the Joint Planning Council (JPC) won a one-for-one replacement agreement from the
city which affected only their particular neighborhood on the lower east side of
Manhattan. This agreement required any developer who purchases city-owned land or
property and develops it for higher-end use must fund the creation of the same amount
of low-income housing units in the same neighborhood. Since this law went into affect,
no luxury development has occurred in the area. JPC says that the real estate market in
general collapsed in the city at the time they won passage of the agreement. Market
decline, they argue, has caused the dearth of upscale development in the area.
In Seattle, local community organizations including The Tenants Union won passage of
the Housing Preservation Ordinance. This required any landlord in the city who
demolished low-income housing to replace the same number of units or make a
contribution to the State Housing Trust Fund. This ordinance was struck down by the
state supreme court three years ago as unconstitutional.
According to John Huerta of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, California's
Mellow Act requires that any time affordable housing located along the Coastal Zone (a
strip of land running the length of the state's coast) is destroyed, it must be replaced one
for one. New affordable housing may be built within three miles of its original location.
11. Local measures which pay costs of tenant relocation
In Seattle, the city implemented a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance in 1990. This
ordinance applies to tenants of any property which undergoes any of the following: (1)
demolition, (2) substantial rehab, (3) change of use, and (4) removal of government
restrictions. Only low-income households, defined as 50% of the county's median
income, can receive benefits. Under the ordinance, the city provides $1071 to each
tenant for relocation. Until June 1993, landlords were required to match this amount. A
pending court challenge by a landlord coalition, though, caused the local Department of
Housing and Human Services to suspend this requirement. If a tenant can document that
they had to pay more than $1,071 to relocate, however, the city will pay them up to $500
extra. Landlords are also required under the ordinance to provide 90-day notice of the
pending eviction to tenants.
Staff at the city housing department say that the ordinance, as initially written, was a
burden on small-time owners. Also, they complain that tenants often don't fill out the
necessary forms correctly or at all. In 1993, there were 339 units in Seattle deemed to
fall under the ordinance. Half of these were income-eligible. In 1992, 320 units were
affected, but only 25 were eligible. Finally, in 1991, 491 units were affected and 154
were eligible. (See also federal guidelines established under the Uniform Relocation Act
which require tenant relocation payments in the federal programs section of this report)
12. Rent Control
Rent control laws restrict rent increases, either city-wide or particularly in gentrifying
neighborhoods. Some allow rent increases only in certain circumstances, such as when
ownership of the building is transferred. Many of the laws also limit the size of the
increase. Regulations in New York City, for example, restrict landlords' ability to raise
rents. Last year, for example, rents could only be raised 2%. The law in New York City,
though, allows landlords to raise rents higher if they've made a significant capital
improvement to the building. Activists in NYC also complain that tenants whose rent is
raised beyond the legal limit wait for long periods as their case is passed through the
bureaucracy. The law applies only to buildings larger than three units.
The Rent Stabilization Ordinance in San Francisco provides for a similar level of rent
control. While activists feel that its passage has played a significant role in limiting
displacement, significant loopholes allow for abuse of the ordinance. For example,
homeowners can evict existing tenants if a relative moves in. Many owners arrange for a
relative to live with them for a short period, thereby evicting the tenant and, after the
relative moves out, legally jacking up the rents.
13. Zoning and Land Use Controls
Just as some suburbs limit the influx of lower income and minority people through
restrictive zoning regulations, some activists have fought for zoning and land use
controls which limit the influx of development associated with gentrification. In San
Francisco, activists won passage of Proposition M, which put a lid on office
development in the city and mandated over-riding guidelines for the Master Plan (San
Francisco's overall land use and zoning plan). [Note that in Chicago we don't even have
an equivalent of the Master Plan.] Proposition M mandated zoning and land use changes
which encouraged the preservation of affordable housing, neighborhood-serving retail
and service, and blue collar intensive industrial uses. The proposition passed its third
time on the ballot.
The passage of Proposition M was followed in September 1990 by a rewriting of the
Master Plan Residence Element in accordance with the demands of the activist
community. In addition, community organizations in several San Francisco
neighborhoods fought for specific zoning and land use changes in their neighborhoods
which implemented the planning principles laid out in Proposition M. The local CHAS
was written to encourage the creation of affordable housing which benefitted households
earning less than 25% of the PMSA median income.
San Francisco activists also won passage of the Residential Hotel Conversion Ordinance,
which prohibits most conversions and, for those that are allowed, mandates one for one
replacement housing.
In Seattle, the city passed the Downtown Housing Maintenance Ordinance. This
ordinance restricts the ability of speculators to leave residential rental housing in "good
shape" sitting empty.
14. Limit Condominium Conversions
Condominium conversions directly reduce the supply of rental housing and often signal
the full-scale introduction of gentrification into neighborhoods. Restrictions on
condominium conversions, then, attempt to directly forestall the process. The Council of
Community Housing Organizations in San Francisco fought successfully for such
limitations, which were written into the city's Master Plan for zoning and land use and
implemented in several neighborhood zoning changes. The changes were fought, of
course, by development lobbies throughout the city.
The Pennsylvania Economy League (PEL), a state-wide housing and economic
development research group, counsels against the use of anti-displacement strategies that
restrict the development market. The PEL, after conducting a national survey of
anti-displacement strategies, found that those strategies which restricted the market often
discouraged any development at all from occurring in deteriorated neighborhoods. PEL
urges the use of strategies which encourage low-income development without restricting
the flow of the open market. Examples of strategies which PEL encouraged are support
for Community Development Corporations and the creation of low-income cooperatives
and other home ownership opportunities.
Chicago Examples: In Chicago, current law requires that property owners who wish to
turn their rental apartment into condominiums must provide at least 120 days notice to
tenants. If a given tenant's lease expires within the 120 day notice period, the tenant has
the right to stay through the 120 days. If their current lease runs longer than the 120
days, tenants may stay until the lease expires. Tenants who are over 65 years old, blind,
or unable to walk without assistance must be given a 180 days notice. In addition, the
property owner must offer the tenant the option to purchase their unit. That is, the tenant
has the right of first refusal. They also have the right to match any offer the property
owner receives for their unit, up until the time that the unit is actually sold. (Contact:
Metropolitan Tenants Organization)
15. "Security of Tenure" Laws
These laws provide assurances to lower income and long-term residents that landlords
cannot evict them easily, often by providing a minimum period of notification before
eviction and by giving tenants an appeal process. In Seattle, landlords are required by
the Tenant Relocation Ordinance to provide low-income tenants 90-day notice if they
are going to be evicted.
Chicago Examples: In Chicago, the Metropolitan Tenants Organization (MTO) is
currently organizing to change current law regarding this issue. At present, landlords do
not have to give any reason for refusing not to renew a tenant's lease. The burden to
prove that the landlord's refusal to renew is illegal falls completely on the tenant. MTO
wants landlords to be forced to disclose their reasons for not renewing a lease. Only
certain reasons would be acceptable.
16. Increase taxes on vacant buildings, vacant lots, and parking lots to discourage
speculators
The Tenant Union in Seattle submitted a proposal to the City's Mayor which, in part,
called for taxes to be increased on vacant land and buildings and parking lots. All three
of which are held by speculators. This idea originally arose when a local CDC wanted to
purchase a vacant building located in the downtown area. In researching the building,
the CDC found that the assessed valuation of the property was approximately one-fourth
of the asking price. Had the assessed value, and hence the property taxes, been higher
over the years, then the building's owner would have been less likely to let the property
sit vacant and deteriorate. The CDC argued that the City would not have been burdened
with a vacant property and the housing units would have been available to tenants in the
city. The Mayor refused to adopt this policy, claiming that speculators would not be
discouraged by higher property taxes. Arlen Olsen, an organizer with The Tenant Union,
thinks that the general mood against raising taxes influenced the Mayor's decision. Olsen
and other organizers plan to continue working on this strategy.
17. Property Tax Relief
These programs, often known as "circuit breakers" were especially popular in the late
1970's and early 1980's. They set ceilings on the amount of property taxes that certain
people, usually the elderly and homeowners have to pay.
Chicago Examples: The State of Illinois Department of Revenue administers a program
which provides grants to individuals over 65 years old and disabled persons. Program
applicants are eligible if their income is under $14,000 annually per household
regardless of family size. The amount of the grant is calculated based on the household's
income and the amount of the property taxes paid. Renters eligible under the criteria
listed above also may receive grants.
The Cook County Assessor's office runs programs which help senior citizens with
property tax relief. The Senior Homestead Exemption provides an exemption based on
the value of the property which directly reduces the senior's property tax by $200 to
$250 annually. All people over 65 years are eligible. Secondly, the Senior Citizen Tax
Freeze Homestead Exemption freezes senior property taxes at the 1993 level. Only
households earning less than $35,000 annually are eligible. This income level applies to
the household who the senior lives with not just the income of the senior. In addition, the
Assessor has a homeowner's exemption for owner-occupied 1-6 unit buildings. There is
a $450 cap on this exemption.
18. Rent Subsidies
Rent subsidies take a variety of forms, from Section 8 certificates to direct subsidies to
renters in selected apartment buildings. They seek to put money in the pocket of lower
income renters, which will allow them to compete in the housing marketplace. In some
gentrifying neighborhoods, though, rents have increased to a point that undercuts the
competitive advantage of the subsidies. Landlords, in addition, often avoid tenants with
vouchers.
19. Low-Income Tax Increment Financing Districts in other Cities
Tax Increment Financing districts have been used for many years in California to create
low-income housing. Once an area is designated "blighted," then property tax increases
are caught by a Redevelopment Agency which must spend at least 20% of the money on
low-income housing creation. In Chicago, when the city names an area "blighted," the
Department of Planning and Development then has authority to (1) acquire land and
property in the area, using the power of eminent domain if necessary, and (2) sell off
land and property in accordance with its redevelopment vision for the area. There are no
guarantees written into the law that assure a certain percentage of the development will
benefit indigenous or low-income people.
In San Francisco, low-income TIFs have generated $40-45 million in affordable housing
production in the last five years. Only not-for-profit CDCs are eligible to use this source
of financing.
Chicago Examples: Last year, the City of Chicago used, for the first time, a low-income
TIF to create 96 units of low-income housing. Other TIFs, such as the $104 million one
implemented in the South Loop contain no guarantees that existing or low-income
residents will benefit.
20. Right of First Refusal
Through these policies, property owners who plan to sell their property must first offer
to sell it to tenants or community development corporations. A "right of first refusal"
policy that would cover all private market buildings in gentrifying neighborhoods has
not been implemented anywhere in the country. Even in Seattle, where activists suggest
the use of these policies to fight displacement, private market interests are likely to block
any attempt to create ordinances along these lines.
Some government-supported mortgages, though, provide an important opportunity to
implement "right of first refusal" plans. Many properties, for example, were provided
low-interest mortgages by HUD in the 1970's. The mortgages are now eligible under
their original terms to be payed off, which would free the owners to gentrify the
properties if they wish. The Organization of the Northeast led a fight in Chicago which
assured that tenants of an Uptown apartment building received the right of first refusal.
The tenants now manage the building.
Mortgages held by Freddie Mac may provide a similar opportunity. Northwest Bronx
Committee and Clergy (NBCC) in New York is currently fighting Freddie Mac to force
the mortgager to more carefully review the mortgages it provides to discourage
speculation. NBCC argues that many of the mortgages Freddie Mac provided in their
neighborhood were over-priced and therefore encouraged both speculation and mortgage
default. NBCC is not fighting for Freddie Mac to implement "right of first refusal"
policies in properties that default, but the experience of community organizations on the
HUD properties suggests the use of these policies as a potentially effective solution.
Chicago Examples: Property owners who choose to convert a rental building into a
condominium must grant tenants the right of first refusal to purchase their units. (See
strategy # 14 on Condominium Conversions.) Chicago's Bickerdike Redevelopment
Corporation, a nonprofit corporation, uses a version of right of first refusal to assure that
properties they develop do not facilitate gentrification in the neighborhood. Individuals
who purchase a single family home developed by BRC must sign a re-purchase
agreement which requires them to sell the property back to BRC if they wish to sell in
the first 10-15 years. If they chose to sell within this time frame, they must accept an
annual appreciation rate of no more than 5% annually.
21. Support Planning processes which empower local residents to determine course of
development.
In all major cities surveyed, residents and local community organizations have had to
fight to assure that their concerns would be considered before development progressed.
In Atlanta, the only anti-displacement strategy local activists can report are settlements
that developers have negotiated with community residents when a large project causes
significant, direct displacement. The building of the Olympic stadium, for example,
caused 50 homes to be destroyed. The local community negotiated for 75 replacement
homes to be built. Clearly, though, such settlements hardly constitute an
anti-displacement policy. Some activists argue that when major developments such as
stadiums or university expansions are proposed, city government should refuse any
support until the developer reaches an agreement with the community.
Effective organizing is clearly needed if such planning is to become reality. The Council
of Community Housing Organizations in San Francisco, whose member groups now
own as many rental housing units as the local housing authority, see the organization of
tenants as key to their overall efforts to place neighborhood planning in the control of
local residents. CCHO was able to gain enough control of the local planning and
development agency, so that their members had oversight on planning decisions in
particular neighborhoods. Community groups in all other cities surveyed do not have
such power.
Planning decisions in Redevelopment Areas in Chicago are currently overseen by a
mayor-appointed board of commissioners, none of whom are low-income residents of
neighborhoods burdened by displacement. There is no formalized process which
provides local neighborhoods with the power to determine the course of planning in their
area.
22. Subsidize Home ownership Programs
These programs, currently popular, provide education and economic support which
helps lower income families to purchase their own homes. Subsidies are provided
through a variety of means, including directly subsidizing purchase prices, waiving
certain development fees, and limiting down payments. Some for-profit banks, in
addition to city administrations and not-for-profits, have initiated programs along these
lines.
Chicago Examples: The New Homes for Chicago Program operated by the City's
Department of Housing provides $20,000 purchase subsidies and fee waivers to buyers
who earn up to 115% of the city's median income. Nonprofit CDCs which develop New
Homes for Chicago may choose to lower the income standard. In 1994, the program
funded the construction of 92 new units.
23. Registration of Homeless Populations
In the city of St. Petersburg, Russia, the city administration has set up a registration of
all homeless people so that it can have a better idea of the housing shortages for all
individuals and families in need.
24. Renter Advocates and Advisors
In the city of Berlin, Germany, a non profit group called S.T.E.R.N. which stands for
Careful Urban Planning is one of the main contractors of the Berlin Senate to work with
tenants in districts which are experiencing reinvestment and displacement. The Berlin
Senate pays S.T.ER.N. to hire advocates and advisors to work with the tenants. These
advisors inform the tenants of their rights and assist them in negotiations with the
developers and owners of buildings in the area.
25. Tenant Modernization Program
Also in Berlin, there is a program which S.T.E.R.N. developed with tenants which
allows tenants to make their own improvements to their apartments. The tenant is
involved in the assessment of what he/she wants improved in their apartments. The
program first requires the approval of the owner of the building.
Chicago Examples: Tenants are allowed under the law to make repairs in their
apartment and then deduct the cost of these repairs from their next month's rent. To do
so, a tenant must first provide written notice of their intention to their landlord and allow
the landlord 14 days to complete the repair. Also, there is an expense cap which limits
the amount which can be deducted in this manner. Until recently, the cap was $200 per
month. Thanks to the efforts of local tenants groups the cap has been extended to $500
per month.
Back to Table of Contents
Section Three: Case Studies
To illustrate how some of the strategies in the previous section have been used by different
community groups in Chicago to fight displacement, we offer the following case studies.
1. West Town
Description
West Town is a community on Chicago's northwest side which is 62% Latino,
28% White and 9% African-American. There are 34,368 total units and 65% of
the units are renter-occupied. There are 44% of the renters paying more than 35%
of their income for housing. The 1989 household median income is $19,236. This
means that half of the households make less than this amount. West Town's
median value for single family owner-occupied homes increased 211% from 1980
to 1990. This is in the top five of Chicago community areas which experienced
increased value over 200%. These escalating home prices are due to a number of
factors. First of all, West Town is in close proximity to the downtown area with
excellent public transportation and high way access. Rising housing prices to the
east in areas like Lincoln Park and the Near North have driven many buyers
further west. The housing stock in West Town is very sound with attractive
Victorian features and there is enough racial and economic diversity to make
many investors feel comfortable.
In addition, West Town has a history of being a well organized community which
has curtailed deterioration in the area. Association House and Erie House are two
social service agencies that have been part of the neighborhood since the turn of
the century. Community residents came together and formed the Northwest
Community Organization (NCO) in 1962 which operated strongly until a few
years ago. A number of churches in the area also formed the Center for
Community Development and Leadership. Several community development
corporations are established in the area including the Bickerdike Redevelopment
Corporation, LUCHA, and Hispanic Housing. For the most part, these CDCs
develop and manage affordable housing units in the area. All of these mentioned
organizations are committed to improving and developing the area without
displacing the current residents. In contrast, there is also an organization of
residents who are committed to improving the area but without this concern for
existing residents. This organization, The Old Wicker Park Committee (OWPC),
has been very aggressive about opposing publicly subsidized affordable housing
in the area. According to the most recent numbers compiled by Latinos United,
UIC Voorhees Neighborhood Center and the Statewide Housing Action Coalition,
there are presently 3,447 units of publicly subsidized housing in the West Town
community. This is 10% of the total housing units.
Strategies Used
Over the years the West Town residents and its organizations have used a variety
of strategies to improve the area without displacement. First and foremost, the
West Town residents have maintained a number of organizations which facilitated
bringing residents together to discuss the future of the neighborhood. Being a well
organized community has helped residents resist the many threats of displacement
despite the rising home values. The following are a listing of the strategies used in
West Town.
1. Increased home ownership
In the sixties, NCO worked with community residents to use federally
subsidized mortgages to buy single family homes in the area. NCO worked
with 100 families to become home owners. More recently, local CDCs are
working with the City of Chicago's New Homes for Chicago program to
build new single family homes in the area and market them to local
residents.
2. Established CDCs and promoted non-profit ownership
There are several CDCs working to provide affordable rental units for
residents. These CDCs have boards controlled by community residents.
These CDCs have used a number of federal financing strategies like Section
8 project based developments, tax credits, Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) and HOME dollars to develop quality units and rent them at
levels affordable to the local residents. Through several decades of doing
development in the community the CDCs have accumulated several
thousand units of housing. This housing is controlled by the community
through the CDCs and is using federal dollars to preserve and keep these
units out of the private market. Many of these developments consequently
are providing rent subsidies to residents.
3. Limited Equity Cooperatives and Land Trust
There is a limited equity cooperative, Noble Square, in the area which was
converted by the residents from a federally subsidized rental development to
a cooperative . It is 482 units. In 1991, Bickerdike Redevelopment
Corporation worked with the residents in one of their 51 unit developments
to establish a limited equity cooperative. More recently, Erie House has
organized a group of residents interested in working together to develop a
limited equity scattered site cooperative development. It is being planned
for 40 units on scattered sites throughout the community. The land targeted
for this development is a combination of city owned and privately owned
property. Erie House would like the city to donate the land or discount the
price so that the cost of the development can be kept as low as possible. Erie
House is working with BRC to accomplish this cooperative development.
They have met with some resistance from new investor residents. In the
February, 1995, primary elections a referendum was put on the ballot to
stop the development. Erie House and its supporters worked hard to
promote and educate the voters as to the purpose of their development. The
referendum was lost by the opponents of the cooperative development.
4. Community Planning
As part of its organizing efforts over the years, the residents and
organizations of West Town have also seen the importance of having a plan
and vision for their community. Over the years they have completed
numerous plans and studies to assist them in their efforts to improve their
community. Most notably, in 1973-75, NCO sponsored a comprehensive
plan for the area which is still used to measure success and progress. A
newly formed community coalition is currently undertaking another
comprehensive planning effort.
Conflicts and Problems
Despite the efforts of residents and organizations, West Town continues to have
housing and other problems. As many as 40% of the households are making less
than $15,000 a year which makes it difficult for households to afford decent
housing and address their other needs. There are still over 3,000 vacant lots in the
neighborhood and over 700 buildings in housing court for city code violations.
The age of the housing stock also creates problems with lead poisoning cases
which is shown in the over 1,200 reported cases in children under 5 years.
But at the same time that many of the residents are struggling to afford the area
there are a number of households moving into the area which have the income and
resources to fix up the housing. There are 10.9% of the households making more
than $50,000 a year. The presence of these higher income households has created
conflicts about West Town's future. Clearly, through the actions of the OWPC and
the groups who supported the referendum against the cooperative there are many
residents who want the area to have less poor people. Even many housing activists
are saying that West Town is "saturated" with subsidized housing. What is this
saturation point? As the numbers show, approximately 10% of the housing units in
West Town have some sort of government subsidy.
Other Strategies for Consideration
1. It is important for West Town residents to continue to organize and plan for
the future of the neighborhood. Since NCO has discontinued, there needs to
be some discussion of what new or old organization should take its place to
bring people together to discuss important community issues.
2. As part of this community discussion, there needs to be a better
understanding about how much subsidized housing should be maintained
and increased in the community. An important question is who will control
and manage this subsidized housing so that it is integrated and part of the
community.
3. The City of Chicago land policy should be revised so that areas of the city
that are trying to maintain an affordable housing stock amidst escalating
land values should be allowed to buy city land at below market prices.
4. There needs to be a renewed commitment to rent subsidies, especially,
project-based as well as tenant based at the federal level.
2. South Armour
Description
South Armour is a community located just south of the new Comiskey Park, home
of the Chicago White Sox. It is a small community of 1,500 residents, all
African-American, who either live in the Wentworth Gardens public housing
development or the TE Brown Senior Citizen building. TE Brown is a federally
subsidized 202 development owned and operated by the Progressive Baptist
Church. The median 1989 income is very low, less than $7,000, because most of
the households receive public aid or social security. 82% of the households are
headed by women. Many of these households are older women living alone; 43%
of the population are over 55 years old and more than a quarter are over 65 years
old.
Back in 1987, residents of South Armour formed an organization to fight the
relocation of Comiskey Park. For two years the residents organized and attempted
to negotiate with the City of Chicago, White Sox and the Illinois Sports Facility
Authority to modify their plans for the new stadium so that housing and stores in
the South Armour community would not be destroyed. Despite their efforts,
Comiskey Park was relocated directly south of its previous location and the South
Armour community lost 178 privately owned housing units and a 12 community
businesses. As a result of community action, the homeowners and businesses were
offered an agreement to select among three options. This offer was made and
negotiated by the Illinois Sports Facility Authority (ISFA) which is a government
body set up to own and operate the new Comiskey Park. Appointments to ISFA
are made by the governor and the mayor.
The ISFA offered a settlement to owners and renters based on a supplemental
appropriation from the State whose original appropriation contained no provisions
for resident relocation. The homeowners negotiated a settlement plan with ISFA.
The first option consisted of a cash settlement for the house amounting to the
appraised market value plus a $25,000 incentive payment. The second option
involved the relocation of the house to another site and a $2,500 cash settlement.
The third option provided a new house or two flat, paid for by ISFA, that would
cost the homeowner no more than his or her old mortgage payment or nothing if
the mortgage had already been paid off. Renters were offered a cash settlement of
$4,500, relocation assistance, and a moving allowance of $500. Under the "quick
take" powers given to ISFA, the homeowners, renters and businesses had to enter
into a contractual agreement with ISFA by September 15, 1988 in order to receive
relocation assistance. If agreements were not reached by October 15, 1988, ISFA
had the authority to take title to the property and negotiate compensation later.
Most of the homeowners and renters settled before September 15th but a number
of the businesses went to court to fight for additional compensation for their
properties. All of the properties were vacated by March of 1989 to make way for
the bulldozers.
When the leadership of the homeowners and businesses decided to settle with the
ISFA, this split the community. Most of the homeowners formed another group to
negotiate with the ISFA while other residents, mostly from Wentworth Gardens
and TE Brown continued to fight the relocation of the stadium. After two years of
organizing and attempting to negotiate with ISFA to modify the site plan and
respond to the demands of the residents who were going to have to live with the
stadium on their doorstep, the residents filed a federal lawsuit on February 9,
1989. The law suit has 49 plaintiffs from the neighborhood and charges that the
stadium site was selected in violation of the civil rights of the members of the
community. The court case is still pending.
Strategies Used
In this uphill battle to save their neighborhood the South Armour residents used
several strategies.
1. Organizing and Mobilization of residents and supporters from across the
city to take a stand against displacement
The South Armour residents had numerous demonstrations at the old
stadium during the baseball season, at City Hall, and at the offices of the
ISFA. They also testified at the Chicago Plan Commission hearings and at
ISFA Board meetings. One memorable community meeting was when the
residents held a mock funeral for the community at the local school. Many
residents testified at the mock funeral and told their stories about growing
up, raising families and making friends over the years in the South Armour
community. A letter campaign was also organized to build support from
other community groups from across the city to stop the relocation.
2. Negotiating relocation benefits from a quasi-public authority
Due to the efforts of the South Armour residents organizing to bring
attention to the unfairness of the "quick take" powers delegated to the ISFA
and the lack of notice and due process to the residents who were going to be
displaced, an additional $10 million was added to the ISFA budget for
relocation benefits.
3. Filing a Civil Rights Class Action Suit
When it was clear that the organizing and demonstrations were not going to
change the minds of the Mayor, White Sox, Governor and ISFA Board
members, the residents decided to file a law suit. The suit was filed initially
to stop the destruction of the houses and businesses. Once the demolition
was completed, however, the suit was about reparations and the rebuilding
of the community.
The case presents the argument that the relocation of the stadium to the
north would have caused less displacement of homes and businesses.
However, relocating the stadium to the north would have meant the
displacement of white families. The case is still pending in federal court.
The community residents filed the law suit to protect their rights as
residents of a community under attack from government and the private
sector. For many community organizers filing a lawsuit is a strategy of last
resort. It was also here. However, it is hoped by the residents to use this
strategy to call attention to the injustice of what happened to them and to
use the court case as a way to keep the community together in a rebuilding
effort. The pending law suit undertaken by the South Armour community
highlights the importance of community residents to have some control over
the physical development of their community. Despite the formidable
opponents of the White Sox Corporation, City of Chicago, and the State of
Illinois, the residents of South Armour are fighting for their right and the
right of all community residents to have a say over their physical
environment.
4. Community Planning
Throughout the organizing efforts to save the community , South Armour
residents did a number of planning projects to help them strategize about the
future of the area. In 1988, the community residents worked with the UIC
Voorhees Neighborhood Center to do a strategy plan for the area given all
the possible scenarios of change. This strategy plan led the residents to a
decision to apply for a community planning grant from the City of Chicago
to prepare a study for a commercial shopping center for the area. This
proposed shopping center is meant to replace the stores that were displaced
by the new stadium. The feasibility study was completed in December,
1994, and the residents are now preparing to assemble a development team
to assist them in the implementation of this development.
Conflicts and Problems
When the South Armour community found out that their area was targeted for
displacement for the new White Sox Comiskey Park, it was a community of
working class African-American families, public housing residents, and Senior
Citizens. It was a community in which for many years, the residents had created
an atmosphere of security and trust among these different income and age groups.
When the seniors found out that the homes adjacent to their senior housing
development would be torn down many of them worried about who would watch
out for them as they made their way to the bus stop to go shopping downtown or
to the doctor. It was a close knit community that unraveled under the pressures of
the many powerful interests in government and the private sector who wanted
their land. There is only so long that a community can stay together when
government uses its powers like "quick take" and eminent domain to take over a
community. In addition, offering the property owners the options under a very
tight deadline split the community. The property owners became frightened that
they would lose everything if they did not negotiate within the designated time
frame.
This case illustrates the divisions in our society that exist among property owners,
renters, public and subsidized housing residents. Eventually, ISFA realized it had
to offer some deal to the owners in respect for their property rights. Renters were
treated as lesser citizens and the rights of the public housing and residents of
subsidized senior housing were ignored. It is these latter two groups, however,
who have had to deal with the traffic jams, parking and exploding scoreboard of
the new stadium.
Other Strategies for Consideration
1. Quick take and eminent domain powers of the state should be more strictly
limited to projects for the common good of all citizens. These projects
would include public transportation, affordable housing, education,
government and public health facilities. Sports stadiums and other
enterprises whose benefits and wealth go primarily to privately controlled
corporations and enterprises should be excluded.
2. When private developers displace residents, businesses and other
community facilities they should be held financially accountable for the full
cost of the displacement. Criteria and standards of compensation should be
established and enforced by the government.
3. Pilsen
Description
Pilsen is located on the lower west side of Chicago, just south of the University of
Illinois at Chicago campus. The population is 45,654, with 88% Latino,
predominantly of Mexican heritage. There are 12,340 households and 35% of
these households make less than $15,000 a year. The median income is $20,571
compared to the city's median, $26,301. 8.4% of the households make over
$50,000 a year. Pilsen is home to some of the oldest housing in the city. Many of
the buildings are over 100 years old and date back to before the Chicago 1877
Fire. The area suffers from overcrowding. There is 28% of the units that have
more than one person per room compared to the City's, 8.8%. Also, 65% of the
units are renter-occupied. Pilsen has a large network of community organizations,
social service agencies, churches and schools. Pilsen is a well organized
community which has taken the lead in many community improvement efforts.
Such as, parents in Pilsen were leaders in the School Reform movement and also
played a role in instituting Community Policing in Chicago.
There are two CDCs operating in Pilsen. Eighteenth Street Development
Corporation specializes in commercial and industrial development but also has
done some housing development. Up to a few years ago, it had the oldest and most
highly respected construction training program in the city. The Resurrection
Project (TRP) is a church based development group which has built nearly 100
units of new housing in the area. This housing was built through the New Homes
for Chicago program which is a home ownership program. TRP is involved in
other issues besides housing development. In 1994, it opened up a family center
which provides 180 children with day care. Residents from the community were
trained to be the day care workers for this new center.
Pilsen is located within one mile of the downtown area and also within a few
blocks of the University of Illinois at Chicago campus. This has created some
development pressures on the area. In addition, there is a local private developer
in the area who owns large numbers of housing units mostly in the east side of the
neighborhood. This developer rehabs the buildings and markets the units to artists
and professionals. With the escalating cost of lofts and apartments on the north
side, Pilsen has been seen as a more attractive area to many urban professionals
and artists. Development pressures have also increased in the last year because the
university bought and cleared the Maxwell Street area which previously had been
a buffer area between Pilsen and the university. Now, the university owns and
controls the property right up to 16th Street. This is Pilsen's northern boundary.
The South Loop development of upscale housing has also reached 16th Street at
Pilsen's eastern boundary.. There is also speculation that if Chicago is given
permission from the state legislature to have a casino development, one of the
most likely casino sites will be directly east of Pilsen along the Chicago River.
Strategies Used
Since the seventies, Pilsen has been under development pressures from the north
from the University of Illinois at Chicago's expansion plans and on the east from
the South Loop development. As a consequence community groups in Pilsen have
tried a number of strategies to preserve the neighborhood as an affordable and
decent place to live for the present residents.
1. Community Organizing
Pilsen residents and organizations have often been active participants in
coalitions to resist displacement and redevelopment schemes from outside
the area. In the sixties, Pilsen Neighbors Community Council resisted Pilsen
being designated an urban renewal area. In the seventies, Pilsen groups like
Casa Aztlan and El Centro de la Causa played an active role in the Coalition
of Central Area Communities to demand citizen participation in the Chicago
21 Plan. This was a master plan co-sponsored by the City of Chicago and
the Central Area Committee of downtown corporations. In the eighties,
Pilsen groups were part of the Chicago 1992 Committee which stopped the
plans for the 1992 World's Fair because there was no community
participation in its planning. So, going back to the sixties, Pilsen has
developed a reputation as a community which will organize quickly to
protect the rights of its residents.
2. Planning
In 1975, in response to the Chicago 21 Master Plan, Pilsen groups
coordinated by Pilsen Neighbors Community Council, prepared a
comprehensive plan for the area. Eighteenth Street Development
Corporation (ESDC) was one of the many results of this planning process.
Since that time, ESDC has sponsored several planning efforts to improve
the industrial, commercial and residential areas. Most recently, the many
groups in Pilsen came together to plan and put together a proposal for the
1994 Empowerment Zone designation. Pilsen has been designated part of
the Empowerment Zone in Chicago and the successful planning efforts of
the groups made this happen.
3. Home ownership
The CDCs in Pilsen have been aggressively pursuing this strategy for the
last few years. The Resurrection Project (TRP) has built nearly 100 single
family and two flats in Pilsen through the New Homes for Chicago
program. Likewise, ESDC and Pilsen Neighbors have also used this
program to develop new townhouses and single family homes for purchase.
All of the CDCs have targeted their marketing of these units to local
residents. TRP offers housing services to residents interested in becoming
home owners and assists residents in this process.
4. Strong Cultural Identity of Community
In the early seventies, the Brown Berets, a Chicano Nationalist group, took
over one of the settlement houses in the community and renamed it Casa
Aztlan. Casa Aztlan became a cultural center which housed the muralist
movement through the seventies and eighties. Artists based at Casa Aztlan
painted many murals depicting the cultural and historical significance of the
Mexican people that are found throughout the community. In 1987, the
Mexican Fine Arts Museum was established on the west side of the
neighborhood. This museum has gained a national reputation for its exhibits
and cultural events. The museum has become a important part of the
community's identity.
Conflicts and Problems
Despite the strong community identity, presence of community organizations and
other institutions, there are a number of conflicts and problems that still need to be
addressed. The age of the housing stock is a serious problem which means that
many of the residents live in substandard conditions. While the yearly loss of
housing stock is smaller compared to other communities, any loss exacerbates the
already overcrowded conditions in the area. Unemployment and
underemployment are pervasive, especially among the youth. The high school
drop-out rate at the local high school is near 50%. There is a great deal of
competition for land in the neighborhood. Most of the city owned empty lots have
been designated for the New Homes for Chicago program. There is a need for land
to be used for recreational purposes because the park land is very inadequate
compared to other neighborhoods and national standards. This competition for
land puts pressure on the industrial area where there is large vacant properties.
However, there is a need to preserve the industrial area for job-producing uses.
Other Strategies for Consideration
1. A loan program similar to the federal 312 Program needs to be aggressively
marketed to property owners in Pilsen. This would be a program with low
interest rates (1-3%) and long term (30-50 years) to insure affordablity to
the present residents. This program would be marketed as a program to
bring buildings up to code, especially emphasizing health issues like lead
paint abatement, upgraded plumbing, safety issues like electrical wiring and
adequate fire exit and sustainabililty related to energy conservation.
2. An affordable housing conservation district should be established in Pilsen.
This district would require that whenever a building transferred from one
owner to another there would be a code assessment whereby the new owner
would have to correct all code violations. This would be accompanied with
an offering of the low interest, long term loan described above.
3. Home ownership should continue to be supported with the addition of
alternative ideas like limited equity cooperatives which might open
opportunities to families with more limited incomes.
4. Pilsen CDCs should also increase their ownership in the area to secure more
long term affordable rental units in the market.
4. South Loop
Description
The South Loop was one of the first areas of Chicago to experience the urban
cycle of prosperity, decline and renewal. The historical landscape of the area is
being transformed, shaped by Chicago's transition from an industrial to a
post-industrial, service oriented economy. Abandoned warehouses that serviced
the Loop are being converted to upscale condominiums and vacant railroad yards,
once the lifeline of the city, have been transformed into secluded upscale
residential communities. This recent surge of private development has exacerbated
existing racial and income segregation patterns, with public housing concentrated
to the south (Hilliard Homes and Ickes) and upscale homes concentrated to the
north. For example, the population of the census tract that includes Hilliard
Homes at Cermak and State Street, is 93% African American with 65% of the
households with incomes below the poverty line according to the 1990 census.
While the median family income in the Loop was $71,525 (an increase of 54%
since 1980), the median income in the Near South Side was only $7,576 (a
decrease of 41% since 1980).
City politicians, planners and developers, motivated by revitalizing the central city
and increasing the tax base of the city, first envisioned the development of a
residential community geared toward middle and upper income professionals
working downtown on vacant railroad land in the Central Area Plan in 1958 and
the Chicago 21 Plan in 1973. Beginning in the early 1980's private developers
aided by public subsidies for infrastructure improvement have realized these
plans. Over 1,400 single family homes and town homes make up the
suburban-like enclaves of Dearborn Park Phase I and II.
To further stimulate the redevelopment of the South Loop, the City of Chicago in
April of 1990 passed a tax-increment financing ordinance to aid the private
development of Central Station. Burnham Place, now home to Mayor Daley, was
the first residential phase of this 72-acre mixed-use development plan, adding
nearly 200 homes and infrastructure to this former railroad land. Again in August
of 1994, this TIF district was expanded to stretch west to State Street, north to
Congress and south to Cermak, making up to $105 million in city-guaranteed
bonds available for area improvements.
Strategies Used
Currently a community struggle is taking place over the development of the South
Loop. Since the late 1980's the Chicago Affordable Housing Coalition (CAHC)
and the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) have targeted the area to
demand that scarce public resources be directed to low-income communities as
opposed to subsidizing the profits of private developers. CAHC through a direct
action campaign did apply pressure so that the city in its first TIF agreement
required the developer of Central Station to develop 20 percent of the housing
units for low and moderate income residents. However, no affordable units have
been developed to date.
Since the expansion of the Central Station tax increment financing district in 1994,
this community struggle has evolved into the "South Loop Campaign for
Development without Displacement" spearheaded by the CCH and CAHC. The
campaign is focussed on ensuring that the public resources are directed toward
preserving the area as a mixed-income community so that current low and
moderate-income residents and businesses share in the benefits of the
redevelopment and are not forced out of the community due to rising land costs.
The campaign includes the following economic development and housing goals:
set aside of 20 percent of all new housing for low and very low-income
families,
preserve and improve existing low-income housing in the South Loop, with
an opportunity for non-profit developers to rehab and manage single room
occupancy hotels,
mandate that the developers of Central Station act on the mandate to set
aside 20 percent of the units for low and moderate-income tenants,
support and preserve South Loop small businesses, and
set aside 50 percent of all jobs created by South Loop development for
women, minorities and homeless Chicagoans.
The campaign has employed many strategies in order to pursuit the above goals:
1. Direct Action and Public Relations
The Campaign has consistently and successfully used direct actions such as
rallies, and marches targeting the Mayor's office with strategic use of media
to communicate their demands to a larger audience and raise the political
stakes. Leading up to the 1995 mayoral elections, weekly vigils outside the
Mayor's home in the Central Station development and a rally at City Hall
initiated a series of negotiation meetings with City officials, which are
currently underway.
2. Community Planning
In response to the lack of community input into the planning of the TIF
district, the South Loop Campaign initiated a community planning process
in the fall of 1994 to counter the one-sided private development forces now
dominating the area. A series of outreach activities to community groups
including tenant organizations, churches, the South Loop School, and
businesses culminated in a community planning forum in January 1995
attended by over 70 people. Working groups who focused on housing, jobs
and economic development, community services, and schools came up with
recommendations that supported maintaining and preserving the ethnic,
economic, social and physical diversity of the area. One of the
recommendations was to develop a democratic community organization to
provide the basis to implement and expand upon the ideas from the day.
3. Preservation of SRO's/Community Development
One of the focal points of the campaign has been the struggle over the
destiny of the existing Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels. Over the last
three decades there has been a dramatic loss in the number of SRO hotel
units, which have traditionally provided permanent housing for low wage
workers and pensioners. Currently over 700 SRO units remain in the area,
down from 4,000 units in 1961.
Recently, a local development corporation made up of local churches
submitted a proposal for funding to the city to rehab one of these SRO's, the
St. James Hotel, located between the upscale developments of Central
Station and Dearborn Park at Wabash and Roosevelt. Despite the project's
wide community support which even included the Near South Planning
Board, the city rejected the proposal and plans to raze the building to make
way for commercial development as part of the TIF redevelopment plans,
motivated by the "highest and best use" of the land.
Although the struggle over the future of the existing SRO continues,
Lakefront SRO is making plans for new construction of a SRO Hotel in the
South Loop, with the support of City financing.
Conflicts and Problems
The turf battle waging in the South Loop raises tensions between class interests
and familiar debates of urban renewal or urban removal. The city's planning
efforts dating back to the 1957 development plan have been directed and
implemented by business and real estate interests with the financial backing of
government and have done little or nothing to protect the interests of current small
businesses and low-income residents. The strong market forces of gentrification
raging in the South Loop, the City's lack of commitment to affordable housing in
the area, and the opposition of the many middle and upper income residents of
Dearborn Park and Central Station to low-income housing present many
challenges to preserving a mixed economic and racial community. Due to these
challenges, it will continue to be important for the Campaign to build broad-based
support locally and city-wide and to continue a direct action campaign.
Other Strategies for Consideration
1. City should provide city-owned land and resources to non-profit developers
in South Loop and city-wide. Non-profit developers should be encouraged
to target the South Loop to explore developing mixed-use and
mixed-income development, following up on the alternative community
plan. Organizing pressure should continue to be targeted to leveraging city
resources and land to support these efforts.
2. TIF legislation should require a) the creation of community planning boards
to oversee and make decisions regarding the use of TIF dollars and b) a plan
for 20% set aside for affordable housing and community jobs.
3. The city should have a policy of prohibiting the conversion or demolition of
SRO hotels unless there is a one for one replacement either through
legislation or land use and zoning plans.
4. The South Loop Campaign should work toward building a strong
community based organization to represent the interests of existing small
businesses, low-income residents and community institutions such as the
churches and schools. This organization would provide a constituency for
organizing, monitoring agreements with the city resulting from negotiations,
and implementing the community plan.
5. The South Loop Campaign should be strategically linked to and supported
by a broad-based campaign (i.e. the city-wide Development without
Displacement Campaign) to pressure the City to commit public resources
and city land to ensure permanent affordable housing and mixed-income
developments.
5. Near West Side
Description
The Near West Side is located directly west of the downtown area. The smaller
area we are focusing on for this case study is the neighborhood surrounding the
new United Center, home of the Chicago Bulls and Blackhawks. Its boundaries
are Kinzie to the north, Ashland to the east, VanBuren to the south, and Western
Avenue to the west. The population of the area is 8,937, 99% African-American.
This part of the Near West Side has not yet recovered from the 1968 uprisings
following the assassination of Martin Luther King. Much of the community is
blocks and blocks of vacant land. There are, however, blocks of very solid brick
two and three flats throughout the community. The residents who have remained
are long time residents who are very committed to staying in the area. 60% of the
residents have lived in the area for more than 10 years.
The Henry Horner Homes, a large public housing development, is part of the Near
West Side community. There are 1,761 housing units in Henry Horner but only
899 units are leased. The rest of the units are boarded up and vacant. The 899
occupied units are 27% of the households in the area. In addition, there are two
Section 8 housing developments that were built in the late seventies and early
eighties which are on the southern edge of the community. These two
developments house 800 families and senior citizens. The median income of the
area is very low, $5,484 due to the fact that many of the families are on public
assistance or social security.
The largest landmark is the Chicago Stadium. The stadium has played an
important part in efforts to rebuild the community. When the owners of the
Chicago Stadium made plans to build a new stadium in the community, the
churches in the area led an organizing effort which resulted in an agreement with
the owners to not only build a new stadium but to assist the community in its total
renewal.
The Interfaith Organizing Project led the organizing and successful negotiations
with the owners of the Chicago Stadium. They supported the homeowners in their
negotiations to have replacement homes rebuilt in the community and they worked
to make sure residents got jobs during the construction of the stadium. IOP also
formed a community development corporation to spearhead the redevelopment.
The CDC, The Near West Development Corporation was incorporated in 1993.
The CDC assisted in the building of the replacement units for residents displaced
by the stadium, recently completed a 16 unit rental apartment building, and is
planning to build 75 new two flats in the next few years. The NWSDC is also
making plans to do commercial development along Madison Avenue. Members of
the NWSDC worked to locate Argo Bank in a temporary building on Madison
Avenue and are planning to have the bank anchor a shopping center development
in the next few years.
While the residents who live in the privately owned buildings in the area have
been negotiating with the owners of the Chicago Stadium for redevelopment of
the area, the residents of Henry Horner have also been organizing and negotiating
with the Chicago Housing Authority about the future improvement and
redevelopment of Henry Horner. In 1991, a group of Henry Horner residents filed
a law suit against CHA and the federal department of Housing and Urban
Development to call attention to and remedy the poor conditions and
mismanagement of the Horner buildings. This law suit has played an important
role in giving the tenants leverage with CHA in their redevelopment of the
buildings. CHA has applied for federal monies to tear down two of the Horner
buildings and rehab units in two other buildings. Because of the law suit, Horner
residents have been able to negotiate with the CHA to have each resident polled as
to whether they want to stay in the area, move to another CHA development or
receive a Section 8 voucher. As part of the negotiations, the CHA is planning to
build 280 new housing units within the Near West Side to replace some of the
units being torn down. A resident oversight committee will be established to
insure CHA residents will have input into decisions that affect their lives.
According to the Legal Assistance Foundation attorney, William Wilen, who
represented the tenants in the law suit, "Residents will have veto power over each
and every phase of the plan."
In addition to all these changes and redevelopment, the new stadium, the United
Center, is going to be the site for the Democratic Party convention in 1996. The
City has set up several task forces to work on improving the area before the
convention. These efforts have concentrated public resources but also increase
development pressures on the area.
Strategies Used
1. Organizing and direct action
The Interfaith Organizing Project with other community groups in the area
organized and led a very successful campaign of demonstrations,
community meetings, and negotiations to make sure residents had a say in
the future of the area and were given the option to have their homes rebuilt
in the area.
2. Community Planning
When the Near West Side residents began negotiating first with the Chicago
Bears and later with the Wirtz family who owned the Chicago Stadium, they
realized that they needed a community plan to counteract any plans or
projects that these outside interests had in mind for their community.
Consequently, the Near West Side went to the City of Chicago as part of its
organizing efforts and asked for and received a planning grant to do a
comprehensive plan. This plan has been updated and is used by the CDC
and other community groups as a blueprint to assess programs and projects
as they are presented to the community by the City or other developers.
3. Class Action Lawsuit
The Henry Horner Mother's Guild, a group of women who lived in the
Henry Horner Annex, filed a law suit in 1991 with the assistance of the
Legal Assistance Foundation. This law suit was initially filed to bring
attention to the fact that the CHA was the worst slum landlord in Chicago.
But, as things developed since 1991, the law suit has given the Horner
residents leverage in deciding the future of the whole Horner redevelopment
under the leadership of CHA President Vince Lane.
4. CDC ownership of land and rental property
The Near West Side Development Corporation has developed a 16 unit
rental property near Adams and Hamilton. The area is 31% vacant land.
Most of this land is city owned. The NWSDC is negotiating with the City to
transfer ownership of much of the city owned property to the CDC in order
for the CDC to have more control over the area's development.
Problems and Conflicts
For the last few years the Near West Side has been under a great deal of
development pressure. First starting with the failed attempt of the Bears to build a
stadium there, later with the relocation of the Chicago Stadium and more recently
with the plans to redevelop the Henry Horner Homes and the coming of the
Democratic Convention in 1996. Thus far, community residents have held
together. But any community under this much development pressure over time
will experience some divisions within the community. Recent meetings
concerning the redevelopment of Henry Horner and the possibility of as many as
280 new scattered site units being located within the Near West Side area have
raised concerns among some property owners in the area. The planning and
management of these scattered site units with community participation and control
will be very important to the success of this effort.
Other Strategies for Consideration
1. Establish mechanisms for community control of Near West Side
development
The City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development should work
with the NWSDC and other area community groups to develop a model in
the Near West Side for community participation and control in planning and
development. The history of the Near West Side's efforts in organizing and
planning is most similar to the experiences and work of the Dudley Street
Initiative in Boston. In Boston, the local community group shares eminent
domain power with the City of Boston and the state government. It is
recommended that the Near West Side as it was the first Strategic
Neighborhood Action Project (SNAP) continue to be the area where new
ideas and programs are initiated to foster neighborhood improvement and
community participation and control to maximize success.
2. Integrate economic development initiatives into the housing development
and planning of area
Support the efforts of Near West Side groups to integrate economic
development and job training into the redevelopment of the area. The
United Center has established an economic development fund to help local
residents and businesses start or expand their businesses. Other initiatives
which promote educational and training programs to improve the job
readiness of residents should be promoted and established.
6. Woodlawn
Description
Woodlawn is located on Chicago's lakefront, just south of the University of
Chicago campus. The population is 27,473, a drop of 40% from the 1970
population of 53,814. Racially, the community breaks down as follows: 96%
African-American and 3.2% white. A full 53% of the 10,456 households in
Woodlawn earn less than $15,000 annually. The median income in the area is
$13,680, only slightly more than half of the $26,301 that is the city's median. 46%
of the population are children under 18 and 16% are seniors. 46% of the
households are paying over 35% of their income on rent.
Woodlawn has undergone significant disinvestment over the last twenty years.
Between 1970 and 1980 the community lost 6,437 units of housing to demolition,
abandonment, and arson. From 1980 to 1990, another 2,638 units were lost. Of the
remaining 13,109 units, 55% is considered deteriorated. In 1973, there were 777
units of SRO housing in Woodlawn. In 1993, only 160 were left. According to the
1990 census, 25.4% of all the properties in the community are vacant lots and half
of these are owned by the city. In 1991, private lenders provided 96 loans totaling
$3.8 million to Woodlawn project. In the same year, Lincoln Park received 1,697
loans totaling $306.6 million in investment.
There are four major community development organizations in Woodlawn: The
Woodlawn Organization (TWO), a community organization known especially for
its work with Saul Alinsky in the 1960's to halt local Urban Renewal efforts;
Woodlawn East Community and Neighbors (WECAN), an organizing group
recently involved in a variety of development efforts; Covenant Development
Corporation, a CDC; and the Fund for Community Redevelopment and
Revitalization (a.k.a. The Fund).
The Fund has generated both enthusiasm and controversy in Woodlawn. Created
largely through a three-year, $1.2 million grant from the MacArthur Foundation,
the Fund operates in both Woodlawn and Kenwood/Oakland, the community just
north of Hyde Park and the University of Chicago. The Fund has launched a
massive redevelopment effort designed to attract middle-income people to the
neighborhood. In Woodlawn, the project focuses upon an eighteen-block area
from Cottage Grove to Dorchester, and from 61st to 63rd Streets. In total, the
Fund plans to construct 265 single-family homes and 65 townhouses as part of a
ten-year, $45 million effort. The homes will include three bedrooms and an
attached garage and will sell for between $110,000 and $140,000. The first set of
eight townhomes were sold in a cluster on contiguous lots and were built through
a partnership of the Fund's development arm, the Woodlawn Preservation and
Investment Corporation (WPIC), and for-profit Thrush Development. The
Chicago Tribune claims that these were "the first eight non-subsidized private
homes built in Woodlawn in the last forty years." The lots were purchased for
$500 from the city.
Much of the impetus for the project derives from Bishop Arthur Brazier, who
heads the Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn. Brazier chairs the Fund and
WPIC. In a recent article in N'digo, Brazier claims, "I have almost as many
members in my congregation as there are people in Woodlawn. There are 14,000
people in Woodlawn, and I have more than 10,000 members in my church."
According to Mattie Butler, the Executive Director of WECAN, however, only a
small number of the congregation actually live in Woodlawn.
The Fund's redevelopment efforts also include plans for 250 low-income
apartment units in nineteen buildings. Six buildings housing 117 units affordable
to a low-income population have already been completed. The Fund points to
these projects as proof of their interest in the long-term economic integration of
Woodlawn. WECAN activists and others worry, however, that the large-scale
displacements of low-income residents is imminent, given the scope of the
reinvestment efforts aimed at middle-income people, compared to the Fund's
relatively minor focus on current low-income residents.
The Fund also seeks to improve the local schools and youth recreation
opportunities and to increase public safety in the neighborhood. A former Chicago
policeman works full-time for the Fund on public safety issues. He works in
cooperation with the University of Chicago's private security force, which is larger
than the city's district police department.
The city established the Woodlawn Redevelopment Area in June, 1992. It is
bounded by Dorchester and Cottage Grove, from 61st to 64th streets. The
Redevelopment Area designation allows the city to design a rehabilitation plan for
the area and provides important tools that allow for the implementation of that
plan. As stated in the plan itself, "The City of Chicago shall employ a
comprehensive program of land clearance, redevelopment and rehabilitation as
described under Redevelopment Plan' in chapter 2-123-010 of the Municipal Code
in the project area. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, acquisition of
real property and vacant land, relocation of occupants, demolition of dilapidated
structures, site preparation, site improvements, vacation and/or dedication of
streets and alleys, assemblage of land." Using these powers, the city acquires land
in Woodlawn and seeks its redevelopment, usually by selling it to a developer
who intends to develop the parcel in a manner in accordance with city goals.
Provisions in the plan require new developments to provide one parking space per
unit created. They also require that the property not exceed four stories and hold a
maximum of fifty units. These provisions may ward against the creation of
low-income rental housing. The plan aims, though, "to provide against the rental
units for low- and moderate-income households," and "to provide relocation
assistance to those households and businesses displaced by redevelopment
activities."
Two other Redevelopment Areas established in the 1960s, one located between
67th and 71st streets and Blackstone and East End Avenues and the other located
between 62nd and 64th Streets and Kenwood and Dorchester, remain in effect
today.
Recently, First Chicago and Cole-Taylor have opened branch banks in Woodlawn.
Strategies Used
Woodlawn activists have struggled against many development forces in recent
history. Local community organizations have fought the encroachment of the
University of Chicago. They have sought to counteract the public and private
disinvestment in their community, but now, struggle with the specter of potential
gentrification. In defending their community, Woodlawn activists have employed
a variety of strategies, the most prominent of which are listed below.
1. Organizing and direct action
TWO is famous for its organizing efforts to halt the massive Urban Renewal
plans of the sixties. Reknowed community organizer Saul Alinsky worked
for TWO at the time. More recently, WECAN fought for an increase in the
number of firefighters assigned to the area and organized against negligent
landlords in Housing Court.
2. CDC rehabilitation of rental housing
The Fund's development arm, WPIC, has created 117 units of rental housing
affordable to working class people, as mentioned above. WECAN is
currently developing a 64 unit Single Room Occupancy Hotel building,
which will house formerly homeless along with tenants paying market rents.
TWO has also been involved in housing development. Finally, the Covenant
Development Corporation is a CDC primarily devoted to the development
of affordable housing.
3. Programs aimed at improving the general quality of life
The Fund is active promoting youth recreational activities, improving public
safety, and advocating for the improvement of public schools. TWO sits on
a board with representatives from the Fund and other local groups which
oversees after-school recreational programs.
4. Self-help Programs
WECAN developed and runs a food cooperative and a job training program.
WECAN also assists existing residents to form housing cooperatives in the
neighborhood.
Conflicts and Problems
The creation of the Fund, with its well-funded plans to attract middle income
residents to Woodlawn, has generated significant controversy in the
neighborhood. WECAN and other Woodlawn activists are particularly concerned
that the middle income investment being generated by the Fund's projects will
cause displacement over time. WECAN argues that development efforts should
focus on improving the quality of life for existing residents. If this occurred,
WECAN argues, additional investment would be spurred with less threat of
displacement of existing residents. Fund supporters argue that middle income
investment will spur the area's revitalization in a way that low income investment
will not. "No community can survive for any length of time with any acceptable
living standards if it is populated by nothing but poor people," says Bishop
Brazier.
The disinvestment of Woodlawn since 1970 has generated a good deal of mistrust
amongst the remaining residents. They witnessed the destruction of their
neighborhood as private and city funds dwindled to a trickle and building after
building fell into disrepair and was torn down. Recent evidence of a renewed
interest by private lenders and the City, as a result, is often viewed with a measure
of cynicism.
Other Strategies for Consideration
1. Use city owned properties in neighborhood to develop housing that serves
the income range of Woodlawn residents in need of affordable housing
The city should use its considerable control and ownership of land in
Woodlawn to assure that development proceeds without the displacement of
current low income residents. Under current city law, the city is not
obligated to assure that a certain percentage of the units created in the most
recently created Redevelopment Area are affordable to area residents. In
Woodlawn, the city could set a limit whereby a certain percentage of the
units created will be affordable to people in the area.
2. Establish local planning board
The City should support the creation of a local planning board which would
oversee all of the redevelopment efforts currently under construction and
those planned for the future. WECAN recently initiated the creation of a
local board, including representatives from TWO, the aldermanic office, and
a resident from every block in the Redevelopment area. This board will
review any new development projects. The city should support the
representative nature of this board and its authority.
Back to Table of Contents
Section Four: Concluding Remarks
Redevelopment in Chicago has been synonymous with displacement. City Hall has
followed the lead of downtown corporate interests and the real estate industry in a
redevelopment drive that produced one of the biggest construction booms in the nation
between 1950 and 1980. Residential communities along the lake front and around the
CBD have been part and parcel of this work. As a result, low-income pockets or
communities standing in the way were and continue to be removed.
City Hall has not taken the initiative to protect the interests of low-income residents.
Had it not been for the organized efforts of communities and displaced groups, policy
makers would have paid no attention to displacement. As our case studies demonstrate,
the work of these groups has proven that displacement can be effectively addressed. The
success of such efforts, however, has been limited by piecemeal strategies and weak or
non-existent policies and the lack of a strong, unified public voice. Three main elements
are crucial to remedy the present situation.
1. Public pressure is needed to develop a City of Chicago Development Without
Displacement Policy.
There is no indication that the City government will make this into a priority. Only
strong community pressure will get the City government to respond. Community
groups and others interested in the fair development of our city should urge the
City government to adopt a policy that requires that each and every redevelopment
proposal in the city include a plan addressing displacement.
2. An assessment of current City Programs should be done to determine how
these programs can be best utilized to stabilize communities and minimize
displacement.
There is a need to review existing policies and pay special attention to their
implementation. One-for-one replacement clauses should be built into every
publicly subsidized project. In each case, mechanisms including strong
community participation should be established to monitor implementation.
Relocation assistance should be considered a redevelopment cost. Public and
private developers should guarantee those displaced comparable units in
comparable locations. Publicly assisted developments such as the South Loop Tax
Increment Financing District should have minimum requirements of low-income
housing. The South Loop Campaign suggests 20% as a figure that would not be
threatening to the community.
Special attention needs to be paid to using city owned land to develop mixed
income communities. Tax reactivation and receivership should be more
extensively used to preserve affordable units. Aldermanic offices should find ways
to work with community-based organizations and use existing City programs to
develop plans for anti-speculative use of vacant lots, abandoned properties, and
buildings undergoing disinvestment.
The Community Development Commission and the process for establishment of
Redevelopment Areas should be reformed. In each case, a strong local voice
should be included. Only as far as impacted citizens are made part of the decision
making process can their interests be fairly represented. In short, the development
process should be democratized so as to give everyone the opportunity to be part
of the process. Only in this way can we guarantee a process of redevelopment that
is fair to everybody.
3. New strategies should be adopted to further the City's efforts in its
Development without Displacement Policy, particularly in low-income
communities.
The many strategies we found in our research should be thoroughly discussed and
considered for usage in Chicago. We would suggest that these new strategies
include the monitoring for a fair distribution of capital investment to all city
neighborhoods. Adequate public services should be given to all areas, regardless
of income. Loans and investment to keep property in low-income neighborhoods
in decent shape are needed to address the cycles of disinvestment that devastate
communities. Incentives for development and upkeep of affordable housing and
increased home ownership efforts are needed. All of these actions depend on the
ability of communities to organize themselves and garner the support of local
not-for-profit organizations for implementation and local control.
The WWW version of this paper was created in early 1997, and placed on the Voorhees
WWW page on 22 February 1997. Please inform Patricia Wright of any corrections that
are needed for this version.
Back to Table of Contents
Appendix
Contact List
ACORN, Chicago
117 West Harrison
Room 200
Chicago, Illinois 60605
312-939-7488
City of Chicago
Department of Housing
318 South Michigan
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312-747-9601
Department of Planning and Development
City Hall, room 1000
121 North Lasalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602
312-744-4190
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless
1325 South Wabash, room 205
Chicago, Illinois 60605
312-435-4548
Chicago Housing Authority
22 West Madison
Chicago, Illinois
312-791-8500
Chicago Local Initiatives Support Corporation
547 West Jackson, 6th floor
Chicago, Illinois 60661
312-360-0800
Chicago Rehab Network
53 West Jackson, room 742
Chicago, Illlinois 60604
312-663-3936
Community Information Exchange
1120 G. Street NW, suite 900
Washington, DC. 20005
202-628-2982
Cook County Assessor Office
118 North Clark
Chicago, Illinois
312-443-7550
Council of Community Housing Organizations
409 Clayton Street
SanFrancisco, California 94117
415-863-6566
Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative
385 Dudley Street
Roxbury, Massachusetts 02119
617-442-9670
Erie House
1347 West Erie
Chicago, Illinois
312-666-3430
Famicos Foundation/Cleveland Housing Network
7049 Superior Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44103
216-431-3461
Illinois Housing Development Authority
401 North Michigan, suite 900
Chicago, Illinois 60611
312-836-5200
Interfaith Organizing Project
1617 W. Washington
Chicago, Illlinois 60612
312-243-3328
Joint Planning Council
61 East 4th Street
New York, New York 10003
212-228-8210
Lawndale Christian Development Corporation
3825 West Ogden
Chicago, Illinois
312-762-6389
Low Income Housing Information Service
1012 14th Street, NW, suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005
Metropolitan Tenants Organization
2125 West North Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60647
312-292-4980
Mutual Housing Network
2125 West North Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60647
312-278-4800
National Congress For Community Economic Development
1875 Connecticut Avenue,NW, suite 524
Washington DC 20009
202-234-5009
Near West Development Corporation
216 South Hoyne
Chicago, Illinois 60612
312-738-2280
Organization of the Northeast
5249 North Kenmore
Chicago, Illinois 60640
312-769-3232
People's Housing
7510 North Ashland
Chicago, Illinois 60626
312-262-5900
South Armour Square Neighborhood Coalition
237 West Pershing Road
Chicago, Illinois 60609
312-548-8453
South Atlanta Land Trust
87 Thayer Avenue,SE
Atlanta, Georgia 30315
404-577-6017
South East Community Organization
10 South Wolfe Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21231
301-327-1627
Statewide Housing Action Coalition
202 South State Street, room 1414
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312-939-6074
S.T.E.R.N.
Koepenickerstr.154a
12437 Berlin,Germany
Fax 49 30 61000331
Tenants Union
3902 S. Ferdinand
Seattle, Washington 98118
206-723-0500
Contact: Arlen Olson
The Resurrection Project
1818 South Paulina
Chicago, Illinois 60608
312-666-1323
United Way of America
701 North Fairfax Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2045
703-836-7100
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Region 5, Chicago Office
77 West Jackson
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312-353-6236
Western Center on Law and Poverty
3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208
LosAngeles, California 90010
213-487-7211
Woodstock Institute
407 South Dearborn, suite 550
Chicago, Illinois 60605
312-427-8070
Back to Table of Contents