More than 5 decades ago, Open Communities was founded by a group of neighbors and interfaith leaders who sought to break down barriers of segregation and create more inclusive communities. That work takes many shapes – we support people who have experienced discrimination in housing, provide education on fair housing rights, assist people facing foreclosure or eviction, and support renters to become homeowners to build generational wealth through 1-on-1 and group housing counseling. Much of our work is done outside of the public eye.
However, our values often call us to engage in public policy discourse when these issues impact our most marginalized community members’ access to fair and abundant housing. The discussions are hardly simple; housing policies only exist in a constellation of other laws, and the complexity can lead to unintended consequences.
Often, answering the question of whether a particular policy should be adopted begins with “yes, and…” Whether zoning reform should be undertaken to increase density and housing choice is one such question. This subject tends to trigger strong emotion, and understandably so – the very shape of our communities is at stake. At the state level, House Bill 1814 proposes to essentially eliminate single-family zoning (as has been done in Oregon, California, Maine, and elsewhere), allowing for greater density through infill on large lots. The City of Evanston’s proposed zoning reform is similar, it would allow for up to four dwelling units per lot by right in every residential zone.
That phrase, “eliminating single-family housing,” raises hairs for some, and a predictable chorus begins building. There will be no parking. Monstrosities will block our sunlight. Our historic neighborhoods will lose their character. Opening more land to developers will not create affordable housing.
First, as a civil rights organization, we would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge that restrictive zoning tactics – such as single-family-only zoning and minimum lot sizes – were, in large part, engineered and utilized across the country explicitly as tools of racial exclusion.
Scholar Christopher Silver notes that when directly racialized zoning policies were outlawed by the Supreme Court in 1917, segregationists turned to urban planning:
The nation's planning movement, not just its Southern branch, regarded land use controls as an effective social control mechanism for Blacks and other "undesirables." According to H. L. Pollard, a prominent Los Angeles land use attorney, "racial hatred played no small part in bringing to the front some of the early districting ordinances that were sustained by the United States Supreme Court, thus giving us our first important zoning decisions."
While we acknowledge that most opponents of zoning reform today have legitimate concerns about congestion, change, and affordability, it behooves us all to continually examine just how successful our modern exclusionary zoning regime has been at solidifying racial segregation and inequality. Supporting it only compounds the problem.
Perhaps most importantly, we also see that zoning reform is working across the country. Academic studies seem to bear out the expected effects of supply and demand, which is to say that even new, market-rate development generally has the effect of decreasing nearby rents, or at minimum, slowing rent growth.
Planner and author M. Noland Gray points out that, through the process of “filtering,” even so-called “luxury development” eventually leads to relieved pressure on local prices. This is especially true of more dense development; Nolan and his UCLA colleague Shane Phillips point out that:
“in every housing market in North America, a typical condo will cost a quarter to half as much as a single-family home.”
Single-family homes, it turns out, are the real luxury housing. But we should not expect that we can increase density and call it a day – other tools must be leveraged to increase affordability, especially for the lowest-income families.
Simply put: Open Communities supports zoning reform as a necessary condition to increase housing supply…and, because we do not trust the housing market alone to solve all our collective woes, we advocate for the following:
Strengthening and enforcing fair housing laws.
Bolstering inclusionary housing ordinances (as Evanston’s city council has recently done).
Increasing implementation of Community Benefits Agreements.
Repealing caps on unrelated persons living together in a dwelling.
Allowing for tenant groups and/or vetted nonprofit entities to have a first right of refusal on multifamily building sales.
Investing in permanently affordable models like community land trusts.
Passing stronger renter’s rights such as a right to counsel, just cause for eviction, and rent stabilization.
The list goes on and can become intimidating, but we cannot lose the forest for the trees. Currently, our team is drawing the line between the need for more housing abundance and the responsibility to protect vulnerable residents from displacement.
One way we've worked to protect renters’ rights is by educating policymakers about important updates necessary to bring Evanston’s Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (RLTO) in line with Cook County’s ordinance. As a result of these collaborative efforts, renters now have new rights in Evanston that went into effect on January 1, 2025. Open Communities is proud to be partnering with Metropolitan Tenants Organization, the YWCA Evanston/North Shore, Connections for the Homeless, the James B Moran Center, Evanston Latinos, and other groups to present Evanston Renters Coming Together on March 13th, an event meant to educate renters on their new rights and activate the community on renter’s issues we still need to address. Learn more and RSVP here.
With sufficient focus and deliberation, we can build more inclusive communities. Updating our policies and practices is an important next step. We just can’t leave out the “and…”.
