Make Pilsen a model for providing more affordable housing

I was pleasantly surprised to read your thoughtful editorial on Pilsen with its concise overview of gentrification’s ripple effects in a community.

I wanted to share two additional thoughts.

As of the 2018 Affordable Requirements Ordinance, Pilsen and Little Village now “benefit” from higher requirements: 20% of a market rate development must be set-aside for affordable units.

However, Pilsen’s 2018 ARO still only requires 10% of units to be constructed on-site, with the remaining 10% off-site, and the in-lieu fees remain woefully under the average cost to build/operate affordable housing units.

This “improved” 2018 ARO does little to encourage developers to actually construct the higher 20% of affordable units — it is lip service only.

It’s important to note that in 2005, the Pilsen Land Use Committee required a 21% affordability requirement on-site for any new developments of 10 units or more seeking a zoning change. So the “improved” 2018 ARO actually reduces Pilsen’s ability to require affordability.

Today, we are beginning to see major changes in Pilsen’s demographics and its secondary effects.

Second, community members and political and civic leaders must point Pilsen neighbors to action when the opportunity arises for affordable housing development.

Earlier this year, Pilsen-based Resurrection Project proposed a 45-unit, 100% affordable development on 19th and Racine. However, neighbors voiced their discontent with the “density” and forced a reduction to 37 units.

While the difference may seem minimal, we cannot allow communities to simultaneously complain about the lack of affordability while they reduce affordability by complaining about density, parking, (insert NIMBY reason here).

I look forward to the ARO Task Force’s suggestions and encourage them to utilize Pilsen as a living experiment, still with an opportunity to change her outcome. Catalina J. Vielma, Denver, former Pilsen resident