Earlier this year local writer Ted McClelland argued that Chicago should merge with surrounding suburbs. This is an idea many suburbs contiguous to the city should actively consider.
Inner-ring suburbs in America today are increasingly facing significant challenges reminiscent of urban neighborhoods a generation ago: declining population, increasing poverty, and fiscal distress. But in some respects these problems are even more difficult to address than those previous urban ones. The most important reason may be the most overlooked: Big cities are the focus of significant political and media attention, suburbs are not. What happens in Chicago, for good or ill, gets talked about and written about. Suburbs are often overlooked.
Inner suburbs face multiple problems. Many have older housing and commercial buildings that are in need of repair. Much of this is in the form of small midcentury housing or strip malls that are out of favor in the market. Big cities, by contrast, have neighborhoods with many types and ages of buildings, which means they fall in and out of favor at different times. But an entire suburb can easily find itself out of favor in the market and facing big redevelopment liabilities.
Many suburbs were also built as bedroom communities. They have housing and retail, but not major regional assets like big cities have. Chicago has distressed neighborhoods, but also the prosperous Loop business district, major universities, attractions like the lakefront parks and museums, etc. It has assets to build on economically, and the resulting tax revenue can be used to help distressed neighborhoods. Suburbs without these advantages can be left stranded to draw on only their own declining tax base.
Merging with Chicago can't miraculously produce prosperity, but it can address some of these problems. It would align the fate of these suburbs with a high profile politician who is on the hot seat for getting results. They would become part of a city with more diverse neighborhood types and building ages. And they could draw on the economic engine of the Loop to help fund services.
Chicago has its own problems to be sure, but the future of the city and suburbs are linked. Look at what happened to the reputation of St. Louis in the wake of Ferguson. As with the St. Louis area, the problems of inner-ring suburbs in Chicago intersect with race. Black residents have been leaving the city and often moving to these places. This pull is understandable. Blacks have often been cut off from the American Dream of homeownership and the white picket fence. But they now sometimes face a similar dynamic as what happened when they previously moved to formerly off-limits city neighborhoods. The white population is leaving or dying off and investment is drying up at the same time the bills are starting to come due. But in this case the remaining residents are isolated in an independent municipality without access to the powerful tax base of the Chicago Loop, and can too readily be neglected by regional and state leaders.
I highlight the case of Dolton and Calumet City in my new Manhattan Institute report "Mergers May Rescue Declining Suburbs." Dolton was listed by Bond Buyer magazine as one of five municipalities that may go bankrupt. Its property tax rate is double that in the city. Calumet City, meanwhile, is not a distressed community yet, but has traditionally relied on a mall and car dealerships for tax revenue, both of which are facing economic headwinds. I picked these two municipalities simply to highlight two regional examples. Many other communities in the Chicago area could potentially benefit from a merger now or in the future.
Mergers are hard to pull off politically because communities rightly value their independence. To get voters to agree to merger, the state will likely have to provide a carrot in the form assistance to fund transition costs and potentially capital improvements or other investments in the suburb being merged. Any merger must also preserve or improve services and tax rates in the suburb in question while likewise not degrading urban services. But the option of merger should be on the table and given strong consideration in light of community trends and other possible courses of action. There are definitely tradeoffs to be made, but local leaders should understand that not merging will come with its own downsides, costs, and risks.
This piece originally appeared in Crain's Chicago Business
______________________
Aaron M. Renn is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor at City Journal. Follow him on Twitter here.
This piece originally appeared in Crain's Chicago Business