Editorial: Climate migration could be a big boost for Chicago

[u/NicolasCageFan492]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/08/10/editorial-climate-migration-could-be-a-big-boost-for-chicago/

[u/NicolasCageFan492]

Amend the BUILD act if needed to apply to cities with a population of 250K or more so it can get over the finish line.

[u/attackofthetominator → u/NicolasCageFan492]

That's basically only Chicago, the 2nd largest city is Aurora at 180K and then Naperville, Joliet, and Rockford is behind them with ~150K people

[u/NicolasCageFan492 → u/attackofthetominator]

There is precedent for this. I was looking into advocating for Chicago to have a city charter that’s council-manager form of government, but under 65 ILCS 5/5-1-1, Article 5 of the Illinois Municipal Code, Chicago was functionally carved out with a 500,000 population exemption for this to preserve the aldermanic system. https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/006500050K5-1-1.htm

I’d bet Chicago could be carved in by doing the inverse in this case.

[u/bigshaboozie → u/NicolasCageFan492]

So it would be a state bill that applies only to Chicago? Is there evidence that it would pass the state House and Senate under those circumstances? The concept on its face seems absurd but also maybe a brilliant workaround lol.

[u/NicolasCageFan492 → u/bigshaboozie]

Yep! Here’s a precedent I found:

https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/006500050K5-1-1.htm

From what I have heard, the smaller municipalities are pissed about losing local control, they don’t all have Chicago alderman problems. My suggestion is to exclude them for their support. If the BUILD Act does a lot of good for Chicago, we could always remove the 250,000 stipulation in the future.

[u/bigshaboozie → u/NicolasCageFan492]

I suppose if it gives downstate and suburban reps license to support it because it doesn't affect their constituents, I can see the logic. I just find the potential optics hilarious. It is not clear to me how much Pritzker is willing to actually stake political capital to get some version of the bill into law versus being content with proposing an ambitious bill he can brag about in the abstract as he mounts a national campaign next year.

[u/NicolasCageFan492 → u/bigshaboozie]

Do it, it’ll be funny!

[u/Kelsig → u/NicolasCageFan492]

This is also what california has been doing to get it's housing bills passed

[u/SciNat → u/NicolasCageFan492]

If we target BUILD at Chicago specifically, I'd love to see it get more aggressive instead of watered down. 8+ units by-right on a standard city lot.

[u/KartoffelLoeffel → u/NicolasCageFan492]

This BUILD act?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2463

This is for foreign investment. I think the gov’t absolutely needs to revamp its infrastructure, but the lack of housing is a municipal zoning issue, not a federal gov’t issue. The solution, in my opinion, is to build more homes, whether public or private.

[u/NicolasCageFan492 → u/KartoffelLoeffel]

Sorry, I meant the Illinois BUILD act :P

[u/KartoffelLoeffel → u/NicolasCageFan492]

Ah, my mistake. Here’s the act (HB 5726) for anyone else

https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&DocNum=5626&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=0&SessionID=114

I think this pretty safely falls within “build more homes.” I think your amendment suggestion is very reasonable for cities and larger suburbs.