September 27, 2003

BY ALEXANDER SHARP

In the near future Chicago aldermen will take a decisive step in shaping the city's future. They will vote on whether to adopt ''set-aside'' legislation that would require developers to set aside a certain portion (the percentage is negotiable) for low- and moderate-income individuals and families.

Some think the decision is only about affordable housing. But it's about a lot more than that: It is about whether Chicago will largely be a likeness of its past in terms of racial segregation and economic stratification, or whether the city will establish a new pattern of inclusive diversity.

Make no mistake about it: The issue of ''affordable housing'' is important on its own. At the very time when the Chicago Housing Authority is tearing down a huge failed experiment and is itself struggling to produce the needed number of replacement units, it is critical that city leaders make wise and just housing decisions.

This is occurring, of course, at a time when we are seeing a stunning revitalization of housing, at least in selected parts of the city. New and renovated apartments, condos, lofts, townhouses and homes are abundantly available for those with the means to buy or rent.

But it is exactly in this ''feast and famine'' situation that we run the danger of resegregating and restratifying the city.

A solution is available. More than 40 religious leaders from neighborhoods across the city have forwarded an ''open letter'' to the City Council urging aldermen to adopt ''set-aside'' legislation. That would be a step in the direction of a racially and economically inclusive city.

Critics of this proposal have raised some false fears. The naysayers charge that developers would decide not to do business in Chicago. That hasn't happened in other thriving metropolitan areas that have set-aside provisions (Boston; Boulder, Colo.; Fairfax County, Va.; Irvine, Calif.; Montgomery County, Md., and Santa Fe, N.M., for example). Moreover, incentives provided by a city can reassure the hesitant developer. In a market economy, developers will build and renovate (and will sell and rent) when a profit can be realized. Tax revenues to the city will not diminish either, since the assessed value of any property is based not on its own sales price but on comparative values. Further, any loss in taxes from one area would be redistributed among all properties comprising the tax base.

Will there be a subsidy from the public for ''set-asides''? That's a possibility, although not a certainty. If so, the question would be whether the goal of inclusive diversity as a public good is worth the relatively small cost. We subsidize many programs that serve the common good: parks, plazas and historic preservations. We have just seen enormous subsidies at public expense to support the renovation of Soldier Field.

The absence of ''set-aside'' housing policies is, in truth, a vote for keeping and intensifying public policies that promote racial segregation and economic stratification in Chicago. A vote in the City Council in favor of ''set-aside'' housing policies will signal a readiness to meet the moral challenges of metropolitan leadership in the 21st century.

Alexander Sharp is executive director of Protestants for the Common Good.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.