Given Chicago’s shortage of housing, we were glad to see the ordinance permitting the expansion of accessory dwelling units, sometimes known as coach houses or granny flats, come into effect at the start of this month.
The expanded ordinance more than doubles the number of parcels eligible for ADUs, “by right.” While ADUs are now allowed broadly in multi-unit and some commercial areas, single-family expansion applies in 34 wards.
Stopping the NIMBY-esque banning of ADUs is a blow to restrictive red tape and we applaud the mayor for that. But we could have done without some of the rules that will infringe on the rights of those building them.
If you are coming up with two units — perhaps your family has two grannies — one of them better not be too well-off. Those units have to be deemed as affordable housing, which means you can’t charge the actual market rent, thus disincentivizing the development of high-quality units in higher-priced neighborhoods with plenty of room. Not only does your rent have to be “affordable,” as monitored by the city, but you also have to rent to “qualified” tenants, meaning people who make no more than 60% of the area median income. And the units have to stay that way for 30 years.
Don’t even think about putting even a single unit on Airbnb. No can do, even if they are fine 20 yards away.
Developers of large buildings long have dealt with these rules, or found creative ways to pay off their existence, but they hardly have had to deal with a 50% requirement. And these rules sure expand the definition of “developer.”
Even in the case of larger developments, we think the market does a great job of regulating rent, as long as city bureaucrats get out of the way of limiting supply and healthy competition.
It could have been worse; the “affordable” label could have been slapped on even a single new ADU in every part of town. Still, the city should not be in the business of telling ordinary Chicagoans how much rent they can charge, no matter their expenses or desires, or limit their choice of tenants for decades to a particular economic group. Not only is it backdoor rent control, but it uses the city’s control over zoning to social engineer in such a way that impinges on a property owner’s rights. A city is not a condo association.
All this stuff does is hamper the very thing the city needs to make happen: increase the pool of housing.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].