TAKE THE CITY SURVEY TODAY! Evanston Housing "Strategies" Examined

Proposed Strategies 

1. PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS

1.1 Extend the affordability periods of subsidized affordable housing 

SUPPORT. Go further. Make all AH permanent or don’t subsidize it at all. Otherwise you face endless catch-up as formerly affordable units go market rate.

1.2 Sustain existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) 

SUPPORT. But how? Property taxes are a huge non-discussed culprit in this plan. So are more hidden regressive taxes. City and school spending are part of what makes Evanston unaffordable. Adding residents and increasing demand for services will not lessen this dilemma.

1.3 Establish a “one-stop shop” of housing rehabilitation resources 

SUPPORT with a qualification. OK if it can be done affordably. Evanston has not shown the ability to run most programs efficiently.

1.4 Expand shared-equity homeownership models, including land trusts and limited equity cooperatives 

STRONGLY SUPPORT. Yes

1.5 Establish an Acquisition & Preservation Fund 

NEUTRAL. ONLY if strong resident/taxpayer oversight, otherwise invitation for insider deals and overspending

1.6 Establish a joint call for housing project funding 

TEND NOT TO SUPPORT. Jargon. “Citywide call.” What does this mean? Top-down, technocratic. Fraught with likelihood of bulldozing residents with ideas all put together behind the scenes.

1.7 Explore instituting a housing impact fee 

SUPPORT to extent it is genuine “exploration.”Interesting, warrants investigation. More of our planning and approvals should look at impacts. However, the practice has been to not do this forthrightly.

1.8 Explore an anti-deconversion policy 

SUPPORT. This is under-discussed and is a significant nationwide cause of loss of housing stock. OTOH that’s capitalism, plus a conversion to SFH eliminates need for one more house. Needs more investigation as to how big a problem it is in Evanston and if it is aggravating or relieving pressure on other housing.

1.9 Explore the creation of a transfer of development rights program 

DISFAVOR. OK to “explore” but the Plan is a skewed presentation that only discusses “pros.” “Cons” are that TDR privatizes airspace that should be part of the commons, maximizes overall density and crowding citywide, creates taxable transactions or assets, and is a potentially unlawful delegation of legislative power. How would it work? Unanimous? Majority (against wishes of one homeowner on the block?) Fraught with problems. Also, City would need to include the homeowner-oriented groups it has excluded from this planning process in any exploration.

1.10 Support policies for adaptive reuse 

SUPPORT. Yes.

2. CREATE NEW HOUSING

2.1 Redevelop City-owned properties (“underutilized city-owned properties”) 

DO NOT SUPPORT. No community consensus for selling off parks or other assets.

Evanston is already low in public space. 6th ward and that part of 7th west of Green Bay has no community center at all and has to travel to another neighborhood, relying on remaining N side assets such as Noyes and Civic Center. City should be leveraging, not selling off, assets. More residences increases demand for city services.

Some properties are “underutilized” only because City has made foolish and suspect decisions to neglect and/or abandon them for more costly shiny-new-thing alternatives such as the rented “Civic Center” that is designed to prevent public gathering.

2.2 Partner with religious institutions to redevelop surplus property

NEUTRAL. Faith-based groups can be great partners. Avoid 1st amendment and politicization. Beware church-state crossing lines. Should neither be pressure nor slush/side-deals.

2.3 Develop an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) financing and technical assistance program

DO NOT SUPPORT. Should not subsidize an inherently unaffordable option. ADUs offerIf you have to subsidize, this implicitly recognizes that ADUs are financially inefficient. Also many forms don’t fit in to any neighborhood. Sociology and economics hasn’t been explored. Nor how you make hundreds, or a couple thousand, retirees or low-income owners into landlords. Plunging in without study.

2.4 Strengthen the inclusionary housing ordinance to maximize affordable unit creation

DO NOT SUPPORT as phrased. Not if results in loss of tax dollars and exaggerated density. Should not be only goal. Has to be balanced against fiscal and other goals. And the way in which it is “maximized” has to include this. 20% Tier 3 is a bad deal for local governments.

(Hidden in “strengthen the ordinance” even though it has nothing to do with that): “may also explore taking a small equity stake in Inclusionary Housing Ordinance projects, which could generate an ongoing revenue stream”

City should absolutely not become a housing authority until safeguards established over out of control spending and non-transparent insider dealing. Not typical for a city this size to manage housing, altho it is not impossible and direct AH project may be fastest to greater volume.

2.5 Update the zoning code to facilitate housing development and allow different housing types

DO NOT SUPPORT. Weasel words. False premise. We already have “different housing types.” Housing is allowed under most zoning categories. What this “strategy” means is eliminating diversity of neighborhoods and the option to choose to live in a single-family neighborhood. The idea that zoning has inhibited development is a historical falsehood; getting built out did that, and zoning preserved livability while Evanston grew to 75,000-80,000. Mass confiscation of zoning expectations from dozens of neighborhoods and thousands of homeowners is a mistake and historical wrong on multiple levels.

2.6 Streamline the entitlement and permitting processes

PARTIALLY SUPPORT. Process is already tilted toward developers. 

Note this strategy and discussion completely fails to identify a single step that allegedly slows things down too much. Makes no sense unless identified. Continual vague statements about “broken” or “difficult” zoning and suggestion that permitting is inefficient. What are you going to reduce to “streamline”? Notice to neighbors? QC inspections? Vetting PD applications that even now are not filled out accurately?

Is this anything but a transfer of rights from residents to developers?

City lacking inspection capacity is more of a problem.

2.7 Explore employer-assisted housing programs

NEUTRAL/SKEPTICAL. Subsidies distort markets and may raise prices overall. “Partnerships” can inhibit independent judgment.

3:  Protect vulnerable residents from displacement “The City of Evanston is particularly well-positioned to lead on anti-displacement efforts. With on-the-ground knowledge of local conditions, direct relationships with community partners, and the authority to set housing policy, the City can tailor strategies to the needs of its most vulnerable residents.”

All this is true with exception of “on-the-ground knowledge of local conditions” because City has internal deficits of such knowledge (many staff and consultants don’t live here) and, to be blunt, studiously and systematically attempts to exclude such input from those who do have such knowledge, and when groups offer such input, discounts or even discredits it, and sits back silently while special interest supporters spew hateful stereotypes and disparagement that discourage people from even participating in Evanston civic affairs. If that were not so, this would be a laudable statement.

Fails to mention taxes and rising land values which are each a #1 culprit. Major omission.

3.1 Expand fair housing education and enforcement

MILDLY SUPPORT. Education and enforcement are good things in the abstract but what is the evidence of need? How many actual complaints do we get? No foundational evidence that this is a significant problem. I favor philosophically but $ may be better spent elsewhere.

3.2 Establish housing provider mitigation fund

DO NOT SUPPORT. Sounds like economic nonsense. Taxpayers subsidizing destruction of rental property by bad tenants? Homeowners functioning as the risk pool for such tenants? Inequitable on its face.

3.3 Create an asset building / financial counseling program

MILDLY SUPPORT. Yes if can be done efficiently. Little precedent for that. Not impossible. Web and AI should be leveraged.

3.4 Update building code to reduce the cost of construction

SUPPORT. Yes. Fact: 1000 pages is too much. The IBC appears nowadays to be a jobs program for inspectors and the trades. The IBC, more than zoning, is what needs overhaul.

3.5 Expand impact of rental registration program

SUPPORT, with qualifications. Yes. But optional for small landlords. Last thing you need is 1000 new small landlords under a gvmt program.

3.6 Diversify and expand anti-displacement funding sources

MILDLY SUPPORT. Subsidy increases housing prices. Look at conservation.

3.7 Explore local hospital housing investment partnership

???  Show me the numbers. Unsupported assertions. This seems very wishful thinking. Needs to be more than a handout to “frequent flyers,” although, in fact, just plain money does solve some problems.

3.8 Explore just cause eviction policy

TEND NOT TO SUPPORT.  Make every lease perpetual? Add lawyers with experience to this “exploration.” I don’t dismiss the idea out of hand, but Evanston already has nearly the strongest tenant protections there are.

What about financial protections and individual freedom? Tenancy isn’t a life entitlement.  Put just cause into employment before housing.

This would tend to increase price of rentals by increasing the risk and reducing the attractiveness of being a landlord. It also would undercut the idea of ADU tenancy; huge risk to a small landlord.

Worth “exploring” but only if actual exploration rather than typical result-first, hearing-for-show.

3.9 Explore rental assistance expansion

NEUTRAL. Subsidies increase costs of a product or service for all. So rental assistnce actually tends to make housing mmore expensive. OTOH vouchers can be a most direct and efficient form of assistance. With less bureaucracy.

3.10 Improve promotion of current City and partner housing resources

NEUTRAL. ? Vague. More info is good. City should not be playing favorites.