1840 N. Marcey Update
17 January 2025
Many of you have heard about the 1840 Marcey development and I want to clear up the distortion of the facts and reasoning behind the recent request for compromises on the project. At no point has my office rejected development on this site outright. On the contrary, along with neighbors and neighborhood groups we have asked for sustainable development with the developer building affordable housing, and paying their required share of taxes and not laying those tax burdens on you as a taxpayer.
Sterling Bay and the Johnson Administration are now asking us to sign off on a property tax abatement for the entire property, that would put the entire property tax burden on you as a taxpayer for the first three years, with annual abatements for the next thirty years. This low affordability law was enacted by state legislators without thinking about the impact on local taxpayers. The numbers for these two buildings thrown out by Sterling Bay at the latest meeting simply don’t tell you, the taxpayer, the real impact on your tax bill. If it were built as apartments, using Sterling Bay’s own math, it would be a more than $100 million dollar property tax increase on the rest of the property taxpayers, and if it flips to condos, you could pick up hundreds of millions more over the thirty years of tax reductions for the developer. If that is multiplied by each new development, our tax bills will skyrocket outside the normal budget process. I brought this up to the municipal finance people this week, and talked about the impact on our City budgets. It would be a backdoor tax raise that would last for decades to come. We have also reached out to the County Assessor to get their input on the impact to your tax bill.
Leading up to the 2025 budget, I heard from people all across the City asking us to avoid a property tax hike at all costs while this Administration pushed for a $300 million tax increase. We responded and, like years past, have tried to hold the line on property taxes as best we can. In this Marcey scenario, you are being asked by the developer to foot the bill. Yes, there would be some taxes paid, but the proportion is far less than you would have to pay on your home, your business and ultimately as a renter. As this has become the norm for many new developments, you would watch as your property taxes increase in order to pick up the percentage not carried on new projects.
The developer demands all the benefits of a Transit Oriented Development but ignores the TOD parking requirements. The large level of off-street parking guarantees significant increases in traffic congestion in an area already struggling with gridlock. Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) are supposed to be approved with no parking or far less than what this proposal demands.
Additionally, the developer wanted to send the affordable units off site into some other neighborhoods, not building them on their development, which often means the affordable units are not built. While they compromised in response to the feedback of neighbors and my office that all of the affordable units should be built on-site, you still pick up the tax bill.
After the area was redistricted into the 32nd Ward last year, we held the first community meeting and took significant input from neighbors and the community group RANCH Triangle. Neighbors pointed out the need for a compromise on the project including a reduction in height, parking, and adding affordable units onsite per the city code.
This area is a buffer area per the North Branch Framework Plan. There was never an assumption that towers would be built here, unlike the Lincoln Yards site that has sat undeveloped for over five years, despite having ALL of the zoning and building entitlements given to Sterling Bay under the Emanuel Administration. Contrary to the fake rage being thrown around about no development in the area, we have actually worked with the City and developer several times to advocate for new designs, new businesses, and new development on Lincoln Yards. It is now in Sterling Bay’s court to proceed with the development they have already been given permission to build.
On Marcey, we have engaged in the work of reaching an effective compromise between the preferences of developers, the financial feasibility of projects, and the concerns of the community. The community proposal asked for at least an eight-story residential building with up to 400 units, including 20% affordable units on site, and a reduced demand on vehicles. This would have still allowed for a mixed use development in the area yet would have maintained some connection to and respected the context and character of the surrounding neighborhood. The response was that this was completely unacceptable because it didn’t meet the developer's bottom line.
I want to thank the neighbors and RANCH Triangle for their continued efforts to build an inclusive, transit, pedestrian and bike friendly, mixed-use neighborhood that has not said no to development, but has continually asked for balanced development that includes affordable housing. We will continue to work with the developer to get a development amenable to taxpayers and the community.