The Bring Chicago Home measure on the March primary ballot caused quite a bit of discourse, and survived challenges in circuit court, Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court.
But that didn’t necessarily sway voters.
Of around 311,000 votes counted March 21, about 46% approved the measure and more than 53% opposed it.
On the West Side, where issues of affordable housing and homelessness have long been impacted by a housing crisis, the measure was more popular.
In the 29th Ward, more than 49% of voted “yes” for the ballot question. In the 37th Ward, over 53% of voters approved the referendum, while in the 28th Ward, more than 56% of voters indicated they wanted Bring Chicago Home to pass.
A “yes” vote would amend the one-time transfer tax on real estate transactions in Chicago, estimated to generate an annual $100 million to fund resources for the unhoused community, like affordable housing, subsidized rentals, updating shelters and other services.
In today’s world of Chicago real estate, those who buy a property pay a 0.75% transfer tax. If passed, the referendum would place a 2% tax on properties sold for $1 million to $1.5 million, and a 3% tax on those sold for more than that. At the same time, Bring Chicago Home would decrease the transfer tax for properties sold for under $1 million to 0.6%.
This two-fold referendum sparked controversy among real estate and development groups, who successfully filed a lawsuit against Bring Chicago Home in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Cook County Judge Kathleen Burke invalidated the measure Feb. 23 because it violated Illinois law against logrolling, or combining a popular proposal with an unfavorable one so that both pass.
Among the plaintiffs were the Southland Black Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Building Owners & Managers Association of Chicago, the Chicagoland Apartment Association, and the Neighborhood Building Owners Alliance. The referendum remained on the ballots, since they’d already been printed.
But the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners appealed the circuit court’s decision, and on March 6, the Illinois Appellate Court reinstated the referendum. Plaintiffs appealed the suit, sending it to the Illinois Supreme Court, which rejected the challenge March 13. All votes for Ballot Question 1 will be counted.
For and against Bring Chicago Home
Those who are for the referendum say that Bring Chicago Home would shift taxes from working class families.
“If you are buying a million-dollar property, you can afford to pay a tax that will address homelessness or prevent homelessness, versus the working families that have had the tax burden on them for decades,” Crystal Gardner previously told the Austin Weekly News. Gardner, who’s lived in Austin for 38 years, is a deputy political director at SEIU Local 73 and a founding member of the 290 IPO, an independent political organization that organizes weekly canvassing efforts for Bring Chicago Home on Chicago’s West Side.
Danny Davis, who won the 7th District congressional seat Tuesday, endorsed Bring Chicago Home just five days before the primary election as a way to build more affordable housing. But the referendum would also make it cheaper to purchase existing housing since, according to supporters, about 93% of properties sold yearly would have a decreased real estate transfer tax.
“Folks that are interested in purchasing homes and want to remain on the West Side, they actually will benefit from this ballot referendum,” Gardner said. “Those million-dollar properties are not nestled in Austin or on the West Side.”
Others say that a lot more expensive properties exist on the West Side than expected.
“A lot of the legacy owners that are in Austin, who have been there for years providing affordable housing, their profit margins are tight,” said Ri Prasad, president of commercial real estate at Option Realty Group. “You’re taking people who have been a huge part of the community for their entire lives, and provided housing that’s adequate and in amazing condition, and you’re penalizing them because now they have to offset those costs and they have to pass it down somewhere, which is going to be to the renters.”
“I’ve gone to many of the meetings with building owners, specifically in Austin, and there’s a huge concern,” Prasad adds. “They’re saying that they’ve owned these buildings for 20, 30 years, and now that they might have to sell if this goes into effect because they’re barely hanging on.”
Conceding the referendum
The final decision won’t be official until the Chicago Board of Elections releases its results April 9.
Max Bever, director of public information at the Chicago Board of Elections, said in a video update March 19 that the number of voters this year was lower than in past years – it was the lowest turnout in Chicago for the presidential primaries in 80 years – which will affect how quickly Bring Chicago Home officially throws in the towel.
“With this low turnout that we see, if those races are close, campaigns, candidates, other officials may not feel comfortable ultimately conceding or making a decision tonight,” Bever said Tuesday afternoon, specifically mentioning the citywide referendum question.
“While tonight’s election results are disappointing, we are nowhere near the end of our journey,” organizers of Bring Chicago Home said in a statement March 19.
“But whatever the final count, one thing is abundantly clear tonight: how determined our opponents are to continue profiting from displacement and inequality.”
Jeff Baker, CEO of Illinois Realtors, also issued a statement addressing the ballot question during the evening on election day.
“Whatever the result, this is not a time for celebrations. Everyone in Chicago deserves housing stability – this is what the 17,000 realtors throughout the city advocate and work for every day,” the statement read.
As one of these realtors, Prasad said that there’s a better way to address the issue of homelessness, like Chicago’s zoning regulations.
“We have one of the most strict codes in the country,” Prasad said. “Maybe we need to look at that instead to open it up, to take away a few of the bureaucratic processes to make sure that people are investing in communities and building more affordable properties. I just think taxation is not the way to go about it.”