On Nov. 20, the Skokie Village Board voted to reject a proposed ordinance that would have required future residential developments and renovations to provide affordable housing units.
The ordinance lost in a 3-4 vote, with Mayor George Van Dusen and Trustees Edie Sue Sutker and James Johnson supporting it. The ordinance would have required that new developments, additions, and renovations with more than 11 housing units have at least 5% of the units be in the affordable range.
The ordinance would have operated on a tier system. Developments with between 11 and 150 units would have been required to have 5% of their units in the affordable range. Developments over 150 units would have been required to have 7% of those units affordable, and if they used TIF financing, 10% of the units would have needed to be affordable, per the ordinance.
Affordability was defined in the ordinance as rent no more than 31% of the income of a renter earning between 60% and 80% of the area’s median income.
If a developer did not designate enough affordable units, they would have the option to pay a fee towards a fund established for owners of smaller dilapidated buildings to get matching funds to renovate the structures.
At the Nov. 20 meeting, residents who felt the resolution did not go far enough and residents who felt that Skokie did not need to do more to provide affordable housing were present to give their two cents.
Jason Amrani, a resident and real estate developer, said the current market has made construction expensive and that adding an affordable housing requirement would have made it too difficult for developers. He suggested that the village board should consider implementing the ordinance when the economy gets better, in addition to lowering the requirements for affordable housing units.
According to Van Dusen, Skokie has 19.9% of its housing units marketed as affordable, more than Evanston’s 17.5% and many of the North Shore municipalities, which have rates between 2% and 10%.
“If we really want to become the capital of affordable housing on the North Shore, as we are looking to be, if you move forward with this ordinance — then let’s take it to a (referendum) vote,” said Amrani.
After the vote failed, with Trustees Keith Robinson, Khem Khoeun, Alison Pure Slovin, and Ralph Klein rejecting the vote, Van Dusen said he was sorry the ordinance didn’t pass but was hopeful that it could come up again in the next year.
“The point of the matter was that the economy right now is very difficult for development, and you want an ordinance that will (regulate) affordable housing, but at the same time, is going to help incentivize or not discourage development. I thought this ordinance found that balance,” said Van Dusen.
Van Dusen said he would want to reintroduce the ordinance when the economy improves. He sees the ordinance as the first step to Skokie having an inclusionary zoning ordinance, a measure that would ensure that Skokie has enough affordable housing.
Activist and founder of the group Skokie Neighbors for Housing Justice Gail Schechter told Pioneer Press that she was glad that the Village Board rejected the ordinance because she thought it did not do enough to help bring in more affordable housing. She said that the vote doesn’t mean that Skokie is against affordable housing, but that the proposed ordinance was “bad” and that SNHJ even advocated for a “no” vote.
Schechter said giving developers an opportunity to opt out of providing affordable housing units by paying a fee would have defeated the ordinance’s purpose if it meant that no new affordable units would have been built or designated. Instead of having the fees go to renovating existing apartments, Schechter said she would rather have those funds go toward creating new affordable housing units.
Schechter said she would have wanted to help those who earn 60% of the area’s median income or less, and that people who earned 80% of the area’s median income would have income around $75,000.
“These are not the people who need the village’s help,” she said.
“Skokie has traditionally been a multi-income town,” said Schechter. “The scary thing is in the last 20 years or so, it’s been skewing toward the affluent because of new developments that have prioritized, you know, higher income people and smaller households.”
