Editorial: City Council makes fitful, but important progress on Chicago's housing woes
There isn't one silver bullet that will make the situation better, and the City Council on Wednesday was faced with two such proposals. One advanced, and the other was delayed.
Aldermen approved an ordinance that makes it simpler to waive mandatory parking rules for developments near public transportation, a move that could lower costs and increase housing availability. Some experts say such reforms can boost homebuilding by 40% to 70%.
But aldermen deferred a measure to allow so-called granny flats, also known as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), in all 50 wards, postponing a vote. Several years back, the city launched a pilot program in five zones across Chicago to allow for these smaller units, built on the same property as a primary residence.
First the good news: Softening parking requirements near transit appears to be a winner. Research from the Sightline Institute, a think tank in the Pacific Northwest, finds that fully flexible parking produces two to three times more new homes than encouraging granny flats or expanding apartment construction near transit. Hopefully, we'll see that kind of result from the council's action Wednesday.
We were hopeful to see more movement on granny flats, but we don't believe Wednesday's deferral was the final word. This page has been a consistent supporter of the concept, believing that granny flats, done sensitively, can add to our housing stock without disrupting neighborhoods.
To be sure, there hasn't exactly been a stampede of ADU development in parts of the city subject to the pilot program — just over 370 units have been added in four years. Ald. Bennett Lawson, 44th, who has long championed this issue in City Council, said during the hearing that 'we know from the pilot that very rarely do you see two on a block.' That's not a lot.
But ADUs are part of a toolkit that needs as many implements as possible to reverse the housing trends that are making it too expensive to live in too many parts of the city.
Yet there clearly still is substantial aldermanic resistance. Many aldermen are concerned that this proposal takes away their ability to control how development works in their wards. Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, called it 'the first step to doing away with zoning in the city of Chicago' during the July 15 zoning meeting.
'You can keep it in your community, not mine,' Beale said. 'To have this done by right without aldermanic approval, I don't know what alderman in their right mind wanna give up that authority. I don't know who would want to do that.'
To be sure, Beale isn't just a naysayer — he is clearly a passionate advocate for his constituents. During the meeting, he also told of his fight for tax credits to develop 300 units in a vacant building in his ward. It's obvious that Chicago's housing shortage is being plagued by many issues.
We acknowledge the valid concerns of bungalow belt aldermen who are worried about granny flat construction changing the character of their neighborhoods. In some parts of California, residents have complained that ADUs have become 'granny towers' that are taller than the primary structures. Those concerns should be addressed in the ordinance.
We think Lawson and others working on the proposal have done a good job of trying to add sensible guardrails, and they should continue to do so. For example, in single‑family districts, building a granny flat would require an administrative adjustment from the zoning administrator, adding oversight without the cost and complexity of a full City Council zoning change. We think it's also worth noting that under the proposed change, these structures couldn't be used for short-term rentals such as Airbnb.
Much of the resistance surely stems from Johnson's push at the outset of this debate to legalize development of ADUs by right throughout the city. That overreach — a direct attack on aldermanic prerogative, which City Council members zealously protect — undermined the trust now needed to forge a compromise.
But by all appearances, the tone has shifted, and those championing ADUs, including the mayor, are open to negotiating.
Housing is a complicated issue, and it's human nature to be protective of your neighborhood. But whether you're Team YIMBY or Team NIMBY, you have to agree that the city must do more to boost our housing stock. In our view, ADU advocates should be open to reasonable conditions, but the city shouldn't give aldermen carte blanche to wholesale bar the construction of granny flats.
There's still lots work to be done on housing reform. But aldermen made progress Wednesday. Let's keep it going.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
5 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
AI Will Replace Recruiters and Assistants in Six Months, Says CEO Behind ChatGPT Rival
Aravind Srinivas, the CEO of the ambitious AI startup Perplexity, has a clear and startling vision for the future of work. It begins with a simple prompt and ends with the automation of entire professional roles. 'A recruiter's work worth one week is just one prompt: sourcing and reach outs,' Srinivas stated in a recent interview with The Verge's Decoder' podcast, a prediction that serves as both a mission statement for his new AI-powered browser, Comet, and a stark warning for the modern knowledge worker. His company is at the forefront of a new technological arms race to build not just a smarter search engine, but a true AI agent. Think of it as a digital entity capable of carrying out complex, multi-step tasks from start to finish. According to Srinivas, the most natural place for this revolution to begin is the one tool every office worker already uses: the web browser. And the first jobs in its sights are those of recruiters and executive assistants. For years, the promise of AI has been to assist, not replace. But the vision Srinivas lays out is one of replacement by a vastly more capable assistant. He describes an AI agent as something that can 'carry out any workflow end to end, from instruction to actual completion of the task.' He details exactly how Comet is being designed to absorb the core functions of a recruiter. The agent can be tasked to find a list of all engineers who studied at Stanford and previously worked at Anthropic, port that list to a Google Sheet with their LinkedIn URLs, find their contact information, and then 'bulk draft personalized cold emails to each of them to reach out to for a coffee chat.' The same logic applies to the work of an executive assistant. By having secure, client-side access to a user's logged-in applications like Gmail and Google Calendar, the agent can take over the tedious back-and-forth of scheduling. 'If some people respond,' Srinivas explains, the agent can 'go and update the Google Sheets, mark the status as responded or in progress and follow up with those candidates, sync with my Google calendar, and then resolve conflicts and schedule a chat, and then push me a brief ahead of the meeting.' This is a fundamental re-imagining of productivity, where the human role shifts from performing tasks to simply defining their outcomes. While Comet cannot execute these most complex, 'long-horizon' tasks perfectly today, Srinivas is betting that the final barriers are about to fall. He is pinning his timeline on the imminent arrival of the next generation of powerful AI. 'I'm betting on progress in reasoning models to get us there,' he says, referencing upcoming models like GPT-5 or Claude 4.5. He believes these new AI brains will provide the final push needed to make seamless, end-to-end automation a reality. His timeline is aggressive and should be a wake-up call for anyone in these professions. 'I'm pretty sure six months to a year from now, it can do the entire thing,' he predicts. This suggests that the disruption isn't a far-off abstract concept but an impending reality that could reshape entire departments before the end of next year. Srinivas's ambition extends far beyond building a better browser. He envisions a future where this tool evolves into something much more integral to our digital lives. 'That's the extent to which we have an ambition to make the browser into something that feels more like an OS where these are processes that are running all the time,' he says. In this new paradigm, the browser is no longer a passive window to the internet but an active, intelligent layer that manages your work in the background. Users could 'launch a bunch of Comet assistant jobs' and then, as Srinivas puts it, spend their time on other things while the AI works. This transforms the very nature of office work from a series of active inputs to a process of delegation and oversight. What happens to the human worker when their job functions are condensed into a single prompt? Srinivas offers an optimistic view, suggesting that this newfound efficiency will free up humanity's time and attention. He believes people will spend more time on leisure and personal enrichment, that they will 'choose to spend it on entertainment more than intellectual work.' In his vision, AI does the drudgery, and we get more time to 'chill and scroll through X or whatever social media they like.' But this utopian view sidesteps the more immediate and painful economic question: What happens to the millions of people whose livelihoods are built on performing the very tasks these agents are designed to automate? While some may be elevated to the role of 'AI orchestrator,' many could face displacement. The AI agent, as described by one of its chief architects, is not merely a new feature. It is a catalyst for a profound and potentially brutal transformation of the white-collar workforce. The future of work is being written in code, and according to Srinivas, the first draft will be ready far sooner than most of us think.
CBS News
6 minutes ago
- CBS News
Maury Ettleson, Chicago area auto dealer known for Celozzi-Ettleson Chevrolet and its iconic commercials, dies at 93
Chicago area auto dealer Maury Ettleson, known by generations of Chicagoans for his TV commercials alongside business partner Nick Celozzi for their Elmhurst, Illinois Chevrolet dealership "where you always save more money," died last week. Ettleson passed away peacefully on Wednesday, July 16, at his home in north suburban Lincolnshire, his family wrote in a published obituary. He was 93 years old. Ettleson told the Chicago Tribune in 1992 that he grew up in the Wicker Park neighborhood, near the iconic intersection of Milwaukee, Damen, and North avenues. Ettleson co-founded Celozzi-Ettleson Chevrolet with Celozzi in 1968. The dealership thrived throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, and was known as "the biggest Chevrolet dealership in America." In their fondly remembered commercials, appearing side-by-side often in colorful suits or sweaters and ties in line with the fashions of the times, Celozzi and Ettleson would trade lines as they stood side-by-side or each showed off various vehicles in their inventory. "At Celozzi-Ettleson Chevrolet, in Elmhurst, at York and Roosevelt Roads," Ettleson would say at the conclusion of each commercial, before the pair each held up sheaves of cash and said in unison, "Where you always save more money!" Crain's Chicago Business reported at one point that Celozzi-Ettleson spent $1 million per year on television advertising, and to great success. At one point, Celozzi and Ettleson even parodied themselves in a Pizza Hut commercial, waving sheaves of pepperoni instead of cash as they touted Pizza Hut, in unison, "Where you always get great pepperoni!" The Pizza Hut commercial also featured the late Elmer Lynn Hauldren as the Empire Man of Empire Carpet ad fame. Celozzi and Ettleson sold their dealership in 2000, according to published reports. Ettleson's son, Mike Ettleson, followed his father into the auto dealership business. Ettleson's published obituary noted that he was a supporter of the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation, and an avid tennis player, baseball fan, and book and music lover. He was married for 68 years to his wife, Ruth, who died this past March 17. A memorial service for Ettleson is planned for Monday.
Forbes
6 minutes ago
- Forbes
No Tax On Tips Explained
TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump (C) shows his signature on the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" at the ... More White House in Washington, DC, on July 4, 2025. US President Donald Trump signed his flagship tax and spending bill on July 4 in a pomp-laden Independence Day ceremony featuring fireworks and a flypast by the type of stealth bomber that bombed Iran. Trump pushed Republican lawmakers to get his unpopular "One Big Beautiful Bill" through a reluctant Congress in time for him to sign it into law on the US national holiday — and they did so with a day to spare Thursday. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / POOL / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) Should gratuities be tax-free? That's the premise behind the 'No Tax on Tips' provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Starting in 2025, tipped workers will be able to deduct up to $25,000 from their taxable income—though not from payroll taxes. It is an applause line with broad political appeal, especially among workers in tip-heavy industries like hospitality. But, just like the overtime deduction, this isn't strictly speaking a pure tax cut—it's a narrowly tailored deduction that chooses winners and losers and comes with a host of administrative headaches. While it may seem like relief for low-wage workers, under the hood it is quite a bit more complicated. What No Tax on Tips Does To start, the 'no tax on tips' provision of the OBBBA, Section 70201, isn't a tax exemption—it's a deduction. Specifically, it is an above the line deduction of up to $25,000 for tips received in the course of ordinary employment, as long as they are voluntary and properly reported. Like the overtime deduction, this one is also temporary: it applies through tax year 2028. It is also gated. Tips must be reported on a W-2 or other IRS-recognized form, and the job must be one that customarily receives tips—the Treasury Department will be issuing guidance fleshing out that latter bit. If you work in hospitality, you will probably qualify. If you're a flyfishing instructor collecting Venmo payments and occasional cash thank-yous, maybe not. The deduction doesn't apply to automatic service charges, like those mandatory 20% gratuity tack-ons for large parties. The deduction is also completely unavailable to anyone working in Specified Service Trades or Businesses (SSTB), which is an exclusion category that includes lawyers, financial advisors, and any job where the key asset is skill. Whether employees of SSTBs are also excluded remains an open question. As with the overtime deduction, this one phases out for higher earners—specifically those with modified adjusted gross income over $150,000 for a single filer or $300,000 for joint filers. The tips also remain subject to payroll taxes, so this isn't a full tax holiday but is instead a narrow, federally blessed deduction for some earnings stemming from very specific kinds of labor. Who Benefits From No Tax on Tips? The political pitch is pretty simple: this is for the hardworking bartender, waiter, or barista trying to make their paycheck stretch over an ever-increasing cost of living. But, as with the overtime deduction, the real story lies in the actual tax math—and who has enough income to fully benefit. More than 4 million Americans work in tipped occupations, but many of them earn too little to owe federal income tax in the first place. Between the standard deduction and other credits, a huge share of tipped workers—many single parents and part-time employees that could most benefit—already have zero income tax liability. For them, the deduction is a mirage. As a deduction, it does not generate a refundable credit if it brings an employee's taxable income below $0. Thus, the real winners are middle-income workers in full-time, tip-heavy jobs who report all their tips by the book. A bartender earning $35,000 in wages and $15,000 in tips might save $2,000 or more per year on their tax bill, assuming proper reporting. But that is a narrow slice of the labor market: not too poor to owe tax, not too rich to phase out, and perfectly tax-compliant. There is another catch in that, to claim the deduction, both the worker and, if applicable, their spouse must have valid Social Security numbers. That rules out many immigrant workers, particularly those in mixed-status households. Equity and Distortions At first glance, 'no tax on tips' reads like a gesture of economic respect to service workers. In practice, it is a policy that distorts how compensation is structured and who gets rewarded for what kind of work. In short, it picks winners and losers. Two workers earning $50,000 a year could face very different tax bills depending on whether some of that income came as tips. And yet, tip income and wage income each spend equally. This violates basic horizontal equity—the principle that similar taxpayers should shoulder similar tax burdens. As with the overtime deduction, the tips deduction doesn't say 'work matters;' it says how you get paid matters more than what you get paid. Employers now have a new incentive to lean into tip-based compensation, and lower base wages. This disincentivizes employers from providing stability for their workers and could put more workers at the mercy of customer generosity. Some employers may even reclassify service charges or performance bonuses as 'tips'—pushing compliance boundaries in the hope of creating deductible income for workers. At the same time, workers will face the opposite pressure. The more they can convert income into voluntary tips, the more tax they avoid. That's not just an incentive for dishonesty; it's an invitation to creative classification and perhaps a shift in employment. In a gig economy already rife with precarity and underreporting, this could widen the gulf between what workers earn and what they disclose. While the policy may feel like a reward for hustle, much like its overtime cousin, it quietly erodes the wage floor, complicates enforcement, and pushes a compensation model that depends on customer generosity rather than employer obligation. Policy Tradeoffs and the Politics That Drive Them The 'no tax on tips' provision may cost less than the overtime deduction—early estimates suggest perhaps as little as just tens of billions of dollars—but it still represents a diversion of public funds. Every dollar spent subsidizing voluntarily-reported tip income is a dollar not spent in service of raising the minimum wage or providing a refundable benefit that can assist the broader service economy. Instead of lifting wages systemically, Congress is opting to privilege a narrow slice of income for a narrow subset of workers, conditioned on proper paperwork. Politically, however, it is bulletproof. You don't lose elections by giving tax breaks to waiters. It polls well, headlines even better, and offers lawmakers an easy applause line to show support for the working class. Most importantly, it asks nothing of employers. And yet, no one wants to admit what 'no tax on tips' really is: a tax code preference for irregular, customer-subsidized income over salary; a subsidy for volatility over stability; and an incentive for gratuities at the expense of guarantees.
