NIMBY neighborhood groups in famously citizen-activist suburbs like Evanston and Highland Park had better take a close look at SB2111, the transit bill that awaits Gov. JB Pritzker’s signature.
Most media attention has been on how the so-called “fiscal cliff” facing transit agencies would be solved. (The answer is through repurposing the state road fund, increasing tolls on tollways and a likely 0.25-percentage-point increase in sales tax in Chicago and Cook County. For the record, we’re good with the first two and believe the last one should not happen.)
But tucked in SB11 is a new regulation that would stop many neighbors who already struggle to park their cars from objecting to the building of new high rises without any parking spaces.
More Top Picks Jbl Clip 5
To the delight of our vociferous anti-car lobby, the bill includes the People Over Parking Act (always be on guard for these Orwellian names). This was introduced earlier this year by Rep. Kam Buckner, a Chicago Democrat, and is designed to prevent municipalities or other local entities from imposing parking requirements on new construction located close to public transportation. People can take the train, the argument goes, so requiring parking spaces would only encourage the carless to acquire one.
That’s reasonable on its face. There certainly are buildings, especially in the city and especially where the residents are young, where the only thing that needs parking are bikes if a CTA station is just a few feet away. We’ve long seen good sense in that. Furthermore, the need for parking on the first three or four floors has ruined the look of plenty of good high-rises and also has a detrimental effect on life on the street outside. We believe people should be encouraged to use transit.
As we read the bill, no official municipal entity could make such a demand once this bill takes effect on June 1, assuming Pritzker signs it, which he says he will. A developer could choose to provide that parking voluntarily, of course. But if a city tried to reject a building explicitly on the grounds of insufficient parking, it would fall afoul of a new state law.
The problem here is that encouraging people to use transit does not mean that they will. And while trying to make it harder to drive and park is a cornerstone of transit activism in Chicago, the reality is that some folks, especially in suburbs, have lives that require them to drive and park a car near home. Their needs also have to be considered, given the myriad limitations of our transit.
Should state law be trumping local regulations here?
That’s a debate worth having, especially since People Over Parking defines proximity to transit in very broad terms. We’re not just talking about a five-minute walk to the “L.” If a building is near a street where one or more buses run, that counts, even if the buses only run regularly at rush hours (an outdated notion). That will mean ordinances imposing parking minimums are toast in downtown Evanston and Highland Park and many other suburbs.
In practice, of course, few developers will build a high-rise in downtown Highland Park without parking, given the absurdity of the notion that the Metra station is able to get everyone where they want to go. But it can no longer be required.
We think Gov. Pritzker should consider unintended consequences before he signs the bill, which could use better tailoring to suburban needs and surely needs a local appeal process at the minimum. An amendatory veto might be in order. After all, many of those NIMBY groups worried about their precious existing parking are composed of his core supporters.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this editorial omitted digits from the relevant bill’s number; it has been corrected above.