The City Council decided last week to send the Sweet Home Chicago affordable housing ordinance back to a joint Housing and Finance committee — almost a month after the ordinance was voted out of the same joint committee against the wishes of Mayor Richard M. Daley.

There are now three versions of legislation that would set aside revenue earmarked for tax increment finance, or TIF districts, for affordable housing, including a new ordinance introduced at the council meeting by Ald. Walter Burnett (27th).

Burnett, sponsor of the original Sweet Home Chicago ordinance, hopes to have the City Council approve his latest measure in the council’s next full meeting, in mid-January.

Burnett says that the negotiations have progressed and that the impasse is mainly about one sticking point — whether there is a goal or mandate that 20 percent of TIF money goes to affordable housing.

In response, the latest version of the ordinance splits the difference — 10 percent of all TIF money is mandated for affordable housing and it should be a goal that another 10 percent go to affordable units.

“We have introduced a new ordinance that took in everything that the administration asked for except we kept the mandate,” Burnett said.

South Loop Ald. Robert Fioretti (2nd), a central negotiator on behalf of Burnett’s ordinance, is optimistic.

“I think that for once we are seeing some serious progress for this ordinance to pass,” Fioretti said.

Susan Massell, spokesman for the city’s Department of Community Development, says that the Daley administration is still reviewing Burnett’s latest ordinance.

Vociferously supported by a coalition of nine community groups and three labor unions, the idea behind Sweet Home Chicago is that annual collections for TIF districts are an untapped resource to deal with both the foreclosure crisis and an overall decline in affordable housing stock. This year the city generated $520 million overall in TIF revenue, but typically only about 3 percent of TIF collections go toward affordable housing.

Burnett unveiled the Sweet Home Chicago ordinance in March. It languished in the Housing and Finance joint committee until committee members approved it 13-8 on Nov. 15. At that point, though, the Daley administration intervened, sending the message that unless Burnett negotiated, the ordinance would either be voted down on the council floor or vetoed by the mayor.

Ald. Patrick O’Connor (40th), the vice-chairman of the finance committee, worked with the administration to offer an alternative ordinance that would make the 20 percent set-aside a goal, not a mandate.

Burnett and other Sweet Home Chicago supporters opposed the goal language and did not want O’Connor’s alternative voted on by the full council. Burnett then announced he would bring O’Connor’s ordinance, the old Sweet Home ordinance, and a new ordinance back to the joint committee.

Burnett thinks that the dust could settle by the next full council meeting Jan. 13.

“We could come with an agreement with the city over the one we just introduced,” he said. “If we can come with an agreement, the council will vote down those old ordinances.”

Underlying the saga is not the Daley administration’s opposition to more affordable housing, but concerns about changes in the TIF program. TIF property tax money is kept within one of the 166 respective TIF districts to be used for any development project.

The mayor and the aldermen who preside over each designated TIF district have total discretion on the money’s use. Ellen Sahli, the first deputy commissioner for the city’s Department of Community Development, noted in City Council testimony in November that, “Each TIF creates flexibility and we need to look at what each community needs.”

Despite the mayor’s position, council members and affordable housing advocates have not seriously considered waiting until Daley retires in May to vote the ordinance into law.

‘The next mayor is going to have a handful of issues just in selecting the next cabinet,” Fioretti said. “I think we’re awfully close to an agreement and have found common ground — that’s at least the feeling I have as of today.”

---

By Matt from Dearborn Park
Posted: 12/22/2010 8:06 PM

Concerned Citizen is 100% correct. TIF financing is used primarily for infrastructure improvements that will lead to new business development, housing, or something else. The city has many programs for affordable housing using primarily Federal and State grants. As for "I want my free.." sorry. As much as I think this ordinance is misguided, I cannot subscribe to your silly conservative "everyone is getting something free" attitude-unless you're referring to Bush tax cut extension?

---

By I want my Free Handout from South Loop
Posted: 12/19/2010 0:35 AM

Alderman controlling the purse strings? Are you bleeping kidding me? This is the most obvious patronage scam of the last 15 years and is the Alderman forming their own "Hired-truck scandal like" deal. Keep taxing the middle class with massive property taxes, and the affordable housing will be plenty. More Free Stuff Government from a bunch of nitwits. Here is a tip for affordable housing, if you can't afford it, don't live in the neighborhood. Put the money into capital and real jobs.

---

By Concerned Citizen from Old Town
Posted: 12/16/2010 3:55 PM

The purpose of a TIF is to finance public infrastructure, land acquisition, demolition, utilities and planning costs, and improvements such as sewer expansion and repair, curb and sidewalk work, storm drainage, traffic control, street construction and expansion, street lighting, water supply, etc. A TIF should usually only last 20 years, or enough time to pay back the bonds issued to fund the improvements. It’s a form of reverse venture capital borrowing all this money against future public tax dollars. The Sweet Home Chicago ordinance will be used to pay developers sitting on empty inventory in the 27th Ward and other Wards, not infrastructure improvements. It does not make sense to use “mandatory” in the language of the ordinance since a TIF is temporary. This ordinance would allow Alderman to reward their coalitions/supporters with private goods (e.g. cash in the form of annuity payments, etc.). “Sweet” is right; especially, for the Alderman who vote for this to increase their constituency base and the developers in the Wards with too much empty inventory needing cash, unbelievable. Why not let the banks take control of the inventory and then the city can buy REO for a fraction of the cost they would otherwise payout to the developers. Most of that TIF money was diverted from Chicago Public Schools and should be their money anyway. And people wonder why children in China and India are surpassing children here in education and skill set.

---

By WestLooper from West Loop
Posted: 12/16/2010 1:29 PM

I don't like the one-size fits all approach. In some TIF districts, affordable housing may make sense. In others, it will make less sense. I'd rather have my alderman not be restricted in how the money is used. I may want the money used 100% for some other purpose, like a new park, a new school or something besides "affordable" housing.