The tradeoffs in local government are brutal.
For example, Evanston residents are passionate about climate action, affordable housing and our small businesses. And rightly so! Climate change is arguably the biggest challenge facing humanity, affordable housing is a matter of economic justice and a necessity for Evanston to retain the socioeconomic diversity that is core to our identity, and unique small businesses give our town its local charm.
Unfortunately, sometimes these priorities are in conflict. Climate considerations require us to shift away from natural gas, but not all small restaurants feel ready for that transition. Sustainability-motivated requirements can raise construction costs, making housing less affordable. And building affordable housing is very costly, potentially increasing property taxes and making businesses less competitive.
As mayor, much of my job is striking a balance between these competing priorities. But what if I told you that sometimes, by thinking differently, we can avoid tradeoffs altogether?
We’ve launched Envision Evanston 2045, a communitywide project to overhaul our comprehensive plan and zoning code. We’ll be making big decisions about how to use Evanston’s land — what our town should look like, what gets built where and more.
Our “not in my backyard” rules place strict limitations on density. They say that buildings can’t be too tall, individual lots can’t be too small and you can’t have multi-unit residential structures in most places.
Imagine if we wrote a set of “yes in my backyard” rules. First, that would let the supply of housing expand, which is the best thing we can do for affordability. Second, it would let more people live in denser arrangements, especially near mass transit — that’s great for climate because dense multifamily housing uses less energy, and the more people who live in walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods, the less we drive. Finally, by increasing the residential population of our commercial districts, it would provide local businesses with the resource they need most — customers.
In other words, we have an opportunity to get beyond the agonizing balancing act with a transformational win-win.
Well, almost. It’s true that we can overcome the tension among sustainability, affordability and economic development. But to do that, we have to confront another tradeoff: the one between change and the status quo.
We’re talking about big changes here, and let’s be honest. That can be scary. I get it — I love our community, and I hate the thought of losing what makes us special. This feeling goes well beyond one town: According to the psychological principle of loss aversion, the pain of losing something is far stronger than the joy that comes from a comparable gain.
Evolutionary biologists posit that loss aversion might even have been key to our survival as a species, helping us avoid extinction-level calamities that lurked throughout prehistoric life. In other words, loss aversion is deeply ingrained in who we are and where we come from.
Because it’s natural to find big changes scary, governments have a responsibility to be cautious and thoughtful when making them. That’s one reason the American political system has so many checks and balances. They minimize the risk that government will thoughtlessly lurch into a giant decision.
Here’s the problem, though. We’ve gone too far. Our democracy, meticulously designed to avoid moving recklessly, has evolved to a place where it can hardly move at all. Over the years, interest groups have grown better at pushing back against any change that makes them nervous, and politicians have learned that it’s safer to duck tough decisions than to take bold action. The most recent Pew Research Center survey on American political attitudes shows that only 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working extremely well or very well. They see a world with big challenges and a government that is too stuck to tackle them.
I think about this during the rare moments such as the Envision Evanston 2045 project that provide the opportunity to advance multiple priorities simultaneously. Yes, change is hard. Yes, we have to pause and think carefully before acting. But then we must be willing to act, not just to preserve what we liked about the past but also to build what we need for the future.
Daniel Biss is the mayor of Evanston and a former member of the state House and Senate.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
