parliamentary maneuver<\/a> to delay a vote.<\/p>\n\u201cWe\u2019re gonna pass something in September, whether it\u2019s his version, my version or a combination of the two,\u201d Lawson, 44th, told the Tribune Monday.<\/p>\n
Lawson\u2019s proposal would legalize additional dwelling units, banned citywide in 1957, in much of the city. The measure would limit the number of units that can be built in areas zoned for detached, single-family homes to one, two or three units per block each year.<\/p>\n
Quinn filed a motion Monday with City Clerk Anna Valencia to hold a vote on his own ordinance. His version would force aldermen to opt in to allow additional units to be built \u201cby right.\u201d That would give aldermen final say on whether or not an additional dwelling unit could be built in their wards.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think the opt-in gives my residents more of a say,\u201d Quinn said. \u201cI like to think that I know the 13th Ward better than Ald. Lawson does. And what\u2019s good for the 44th Ward on the North Side isn\u2019t necessarily good for the residents of the 13th Ward or the Bungalow Belt.\u201d<\/p>\n
The push for a vote comes with the sides \u201cat a stalemate,\u201d Quinn said. To sweeten the pot for aldermen on the fence \u2014 including several Black aldermen who also represent Bungalow Belt neighborhoods \u2014 the Southwest Side alderman added a new requirement that contractors building additional dwelling units use apprenticeship programs.<\/p>\n
Several construction unions, including the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 and the Chicago Laborers\u2019 District Council, are backing Quinn\u2019s proposal and lobbying aldermen to vote for it, he said.<\/p>\n
Lawson said he has been lobbying aldermen on the fence for weeks. Top Johnson aides were confident they had the votes to pass Lawson\u2019s version in July after adding in the per-block limits. The mayor\u2019s administration declined to comment on the ordinances Monday.<\/p>\n
There are \u201clegal questions\u201d about Quinn\u2019s opt-in proposal, Lawson said. He pointed toward a now-dropped investigation from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development into whether or not aldermanic prerogative, a City Council tradition that typically gives Chicago aldermen the final word on zoning decisions in their ward, results in housing discrimination.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can\u2019t have one rule for development in one place and then a different rule in another based on political values and considerations,\u201d said Lawson, whose ward includes one of the five zones where such units have been allowed since the 2021 launch of a pilot program.<\/p>\n
But Quinn disagreed that his opt-in would lead to discrimination. Instead, he argued, it \u201cpromotes hyperlocal conversations.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked what he says to critics who argue Chicago government must cut red tape blocking housing development, Quinn said his ward is already \u201cbusting at the seams.\u201d And the \u201csuburb in the city\u201d feel that residents value in his ward could be put at risk if additional units bring more people into residential areas, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve built six schools in 15 years,\u201d Quinn said. \u201cWe\u2019re at capacity right now.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A long-running fight over whether Chicago should broadly legalize outlawed coach house \u201cgranny flats\u201d and basement units is…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":211938,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5124],"tags":[64,960,5404,5386,1818,1370,50,80,4329],"class_list":{"0":"post-211937","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-chicago","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-chicago","10":"tag-cook-county","11":"tag-il","12":"tag-illinois","13":"tag-latest-headlines","14":"tag-news","15":"tag-politics","16":"tag-real-estate"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115172510465910339","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211937","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211937"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211937\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/211938"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}