Concerning the 49th Ward Rental Improvement Fund

By Brian White

I am pleased to see the 49th Ward Rental Improvement Fund getting attention, though I am disappointed at how far afield things have gotten, due largely to the overcharged rhetoric of Alderman Moore. His email on January 19 opposing the Rental Improvement Fund, in which he wrongly declared that advocates wish to TIF the entire ward for low‐income housing, illustrates how Ald. Moore’s so‐ called progressive politics divide our community rather than bringing us together to address our problems. The message also comes almost immediately on the heels of an earlier email in which he praised a proposed citywide mandate to amend more than 160 existingTIFs, at considerable legal expense and disruption to existing community development plans, to fund low‐ and very low‐income housing. Is Alderman Moore unable to see the hypocrisy of opposing the RIF as being too inflexible and focusing too much on affordable housing, even as he champions a proposal that would restrict the use of ALL TIFs and which would redirect a minimum of 20% of funds in ALL TIFs for low‐income housing?

As a candidate for 49th Ward Alderman, I am offering concrete strategies to address jobs, housing, and schools. For the past 10 years, I have witnessed and tried to combat the traditional “development‐by‐ displacement model.” I have advocated for practical policies to promote balanced development and contribute to sustainable diverse communities. I have been a strong advocate for accessible housing, improved fair lending and fair housing policies, stronger foreclosure prevention tools, and reforms to community association regulations. In the campaign, I have also promoted strategies for improving Howard Street by harnessing interest in green jobs, guiding the development of Clark Street, and increasing community involvement in our community schools. (See www.brianwhite2011.org).

The 49th Ward Rental Improvement Fund addresses three interconnected issues that are present in our community and the city:

1. 2. 3.

TIFs are created with limited community involvement and lack strong community controls. TIFs can be used to preserve and create affordable, mixed‐income housing, but rarely are. Development boom‐and‐bust cycles leave renters and landlords susceptible to tremendous economic pressures that are especially harmful in communities like ours, where rental housing makes up such a large part of the housing market.

The RIF addresses each of these issues.

It was created by community groups, with considerable feedback, modification, and discussion, over a period of more than 18 months. Alderman Moore was a part of much of this discussion from Day 1. Ironically, he convened a Task Force in November 2010, complaining that advocates had not provided sufficient opportunity for community review and discussion. I declined to participate in the Task Force, because I preferred to wait until independent consultants retained by Lakeside Community Development Corporation had completed their report. Now that the report is complete and available for public review (see the complete report at http://www.ajustharvest.org/organizing‐for‐justice/). Insteadof allowing his Task Force to convene or even have time to look at it, Moore declares his opposition to the RIF. So what exactly was the purpose of having the Task Force?

Moore also felt it necessary to direct people to access the report contents on a blog sight, rather than provide the report in his email. Was that because he would not have to acknowledge that he had the full report or be held accountable for having to explain why his communication is clearly contradicted by the actual report. When I am Alderman, I will happily convene an independent Task Force and continue the open and transparent process we initiated in early 2009, when the RIF was first proposed.

Alderman Moore distorts the contents of the report to paint its findings in a way sure to incite panic, but not at all useful for fostering the kind of thoughtful discussion our community deserves. For example, Alderman Moore says the consultant’s report provides evidence the RIF would not meet the lenient standards of a TIF. In fact, the report makes clear:

Based on a preliminary assessment, the full Study Area appears to solidly meet the age threshold that 50% or more of the structures be 35 years of age or older. Pending a more detailed eligibility study, the Study Area and subareas A and B have a strong presence of two eligibility factors: 1) Excessive Land Coverage/Overcrowding of Structures and 2) Lack of Community Planning. Another factor, Inadequate Utilities, may provide a third factor. However, because of the overlap between Excessive Land Coverage/ Overcrowding and Lack of Community Planning, it would be preferable to have the presence of an additional eligibility factor. Additional analysis should be considered to evaluate the concerns regarding the But For condition as it applies to each Study Area.( underlining added) – Page 7.

The TIF statute also requires that it is not enough for the factors to be present. They must also be reasonably distributed. The report makes clear these factors are present, but additional survey work down to the parcel level is required to determine whether and to what extent they are reasonably distributed. The report further says:

A stronger case for factors that are identified above as present to a limited degree may be achieved by drawing one or more smaller TIF project area boundaries. Under these circumstances, as many as 5 factors could be found sufficiently present to qualify as a conservation area. Potential qualifying factors include: deterioration; excessive vacancies; excessive land coverage/overcrowding; lack of community planning; and/or lagging or declining EAV (underlining added) – Page 4.

The report justifies moving ahead and establishes a framework for the next stage of evaluation.

The RIF will have strong and binding community benefits. Alderman Moore dismisses advocates’ commitment to core principles of transparency, accountability, and community control, which are central to the proposal, because advocates have not operationalized all the details. In fact, we have models for all of these things and are confident that we can operationalize them. Ironically, the criticism comes from someone who launched Participatory Budgeting, which had never been operationalized in the United States and which had to be modified after the fact because of inherent failings in the process (see http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chicago‐participatory‐budgeting‐rogers‐park‐joe‐ moore/Content?oid=2421483). The whole point of going through the evaluation and discussion is to ensure we get the details right. We’re 18 months in, so I can hardly see where one would think we are trying to rush something through.

It uses a TIF to address an immediate and long‐term need for sustainable and affordable rental housing. Recent boom‐and‐bust cycles have caused Rogers Park to lose nearly 20% of its Hispanic population and 20% of its African American population in the last decade. Rogers Park has a foreclosure rate that is nearly worst in the city. During the last 4 years, much less the last 18, Alderman Moore has done nothing to address these issues, nor does he have a plan to address how to avoid them in the future. Empty promises and vague commitments will not work. People deserve to see a concrete plan.

The RIF is also a useful tool for linking the interconnected issues of jobs, housing, and schools. By generating funds for ongoing capital improvements, the RIF can help sustain jobs in the building trades and especially in the green economy, as buildings are updated and upgraded. By providing reasonable grants in exchange for 10‐year commitments to moderately priced and affordable housing, the RIF helps meet the rental housing needs of low‐ and moderate income rental households long into the future, reducing displacement and encouraging renters to deepen their community ties. By helping to reduce student mobility and family stress, it can contribute to improved educational outcomes in our schools. It will also help the thousands of small and non‐subsidized landlords, who pay taxes on a sizable share of property in our community, but are generally excluded from accessing the benefits of many government housing programs. We should not lose sight of the fact that the largest tax subsidy in housing is the federal tax exemption provided to homeowners for mortgage interest and property tax payments. We should also recognize that stable, more efficient rental housing is to everyone’s benefit, whether you live in a rental building or live next to one.

Alderman Moore argues the RIF would divert funds from other services. The entire amount will be invested back into the community, thus increasing the stability and value of everyone’s property. In short, it is a sound investment in our community. Alderman Moore’s concerns did not prevent him from approving other TIFs in the ward. He also fails to mention the city’s poor fiscal shape is due to a litany of bad policy decisions, such as selling off parking meters for a pittance, which he supported.

The current debate, if one can call it that, argues about the trees and misses the forest.

What advocates have asked for and what I am committed to continuing is to collect information to study and refine the proposal. The sticking point is and has been how to have a thoughtful, well‐informed process that answers as many questions as we can. Alderman Moore’s counter‐protest at the recent Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day Event, hosted by Northside POWER, was indicative of the poor faith he has demonstrated throughout this process. In typical fashion, the Alderman is attacking the motives of the organizers and spreading a series of false and misleading statements that have justifiably inflamed many people. In truth, Moore is simply seeking to divert attention from his own foot‐dragging and lack of leadership to move this process forward and or show progress on a long‐standing community issue.

Alderman Moore suggests I want to spend $450,000 to conduct an eligibility study. This figure reflects the upper bounds of a full eligibility study, assuming we conducted a full eligibility study covering the largest area possible. Assuming we create the RIF in an area noted on Map A in the report, we will generate anywhere from $15.8 million to as much as $44.8 million. Assuming the study did cost $450,000 to complete, there is a return on the investment of 35:1 to nearly 98:1.

Alderman Moore and I were provided costs estimates of proposed eligibility studies from the consultants. These showed the first phase of the eligibility study for the larger area might cost $80,000. It would also likely provide sufficient data to define the final RIF boundary area more narrowly. Since subsequent study costs are driven largely by notice requirements, a smaller boundary area would result in less overall cost for the study.

Additional data may also justify amending the RIF proposal to include additional uses beyond housing, including repairing our community’s aging infrastructure and/or helping to train residents for jobs retrofitting buildings. In short, the type of flexible purposes encouraged by city officials, while still providing significant community benefits. Alderman Moore could have shared that detail, but $80,000 is far less useful to inflame public opinion than $450,000. It is worth noting that this is information he had in his possession and which was shared with him well in advance of his inflammatory email.

When considering the costs to develop something with such significant implications, consider other current uses of taxpayer funds. For example, we are currently spending $89,000, or $267,000 over three years, to subsidize free overnight parking for 123 lucky souls at the Loyola Park. That decision was made as part of a closed‐door deal between Moore and Tim Mitchell at the Chicago Park District, with no community discussion. There is zero return to the taxpayers on those funds. (We are subsidizing people to drive, at a time when we should be encouraging people to use transit, car‐share, or ride a bicycle).

I am arguing that for much less, we can develop a thoughtful and innovative strategy to help thousands of households and hundreds of landlords, who pay much of the property taxes and support many of the local businesses, here in our community. We can also create an innovative model for how TIFs should operate to protect community benefits and provide community control.

The 49th Ward needs to get past the divide‐and‐conquer, us‐against‐them mentality that has limited our ability to plan for the future and instead, harness the rising tide of community development to lift all boats. We should avoid snap judgments and inflammatory rhetoric and truly commit to having the kind of open and transparent planning processes people need, so they can make informed decisions about important policy issues. We also need to demand that our elected officials be accountable for what they have done and what they will do going forward.

Our ward can be a shining example of how thoughtful and progressive people join together to build a more sustainable and diverse community. When I am Alderman, it will be.