Public Housing Land is Not for Sale 

Chicago Lawyers’ Committee and Our Partners Challenge CHA Land Lease to Billionaire-Owned Soccer Team Dismissed, but CHA Accountability Campaign Continues 

Lawsuit Dismissal, and Coalition Efforts 

Our lawsuit seeking to challenge the Chicago Housing Authority’s (CHA) plan to lease public housing land to a billionaire-owned soccer team was dismissed in court in October, but Chicago Lawyers’ Committee and our clients remain committed to the fight for affordable housing and fair land use.  

The Coalition to Protect CHA Land, Chicago Housing Initiative, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center filed a federal lawsuit challenging HUD’s approval of CHA’s plan to lease this land. Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights represented these organizations along with National Housing Law Project, Legal Action Chicago, and pro bono attorneys from the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP.   

This is not the first time CHA leased public housing land to private entities for purposes other than housing. Our clients sought to challenge HUD’s practice of approving these plans during a time when the City of Chicago is grappling with an affordable housing crisis. CHA has been promising for decades to rebuild and revitalize housing for families that were displaced in the 2000s due to the “Plan for Transformation” that demolished most of the city’s public housing. Despite CHA’s proclamation that it has replaced all the units destroyed under the Plan for Transformation, CHA failed to replace more than a fifth of the units they promised (ProPublica). 

The Coalition to Protect CHA Land consists of many families and individuals that were impacted by the Plan for Transformation and the CHA’s ongoing failure to rebuild long-promised housing. The coalition is continuing to advocate for public and affordable housing to be rebuilt on CHA land so that families can return to their communities.  

Barriers to Affordable Housing 

According to the City of Chicago and CHA, the lack of public control of land in well-resourced areas is a critical barrier to the development of affordable housing in Chicago (City of Chicago). This is why Chicago Lawyers’ Committee and the coalition are calling for a moratorium on the use of CHA land for uses other than housing – because the lack of available land is a leading barrier to affordable housing development. ('That land was promised to us' - Chicago Reader)) 

Unlike other housing authorities in the country, the CHA is deregulated under the controversial Moving to Work program (Chicago Tribune), which allows CHA to operate with less federal oversight. Unfortunately, this has resulted in CHA failing to lease up available public housing units in high opportunity areas while thousands of families sit on the wait list (Block Club Chicago). 

Demolishing public housing has also been proven repeatedly to have increased inequality in our city (Chicago Booth Review). CHA demolished a significant amount of housing over the past 20 years, making them uniquely situated to be able to rebuild 19,500 public housing units (Faircloth List) under a provision known as its Faircloth Authority (Faircloth FAQ (hud.gov)). Despite these known barriers, CHA has focused on allowing its land to be used for other purposes rather than keeping their promise to rebuild public housing in this city. 

ABLA Homes Development Lawsuit 

The focus of this lawsuit takes place in the Near West Side neighborhood at the former ABLA Homes development. This plot of land has not been redeveloped as promised for more than twenty years. HUD approved the CHA’s plan to lease the 23 acres of public housing land to the billionaire owned Chicago Fire Football Club for the construction of a private soccer training facility.  

This land is in a rapidly gentrifying area known for its wealth of opportunities, including critical resources like healthcare and public transportation. HUD failed to consider the impacts this proposal would have on Black families and people with disabilities and did not conduct the necessary civil rights review before approving this deal. 

Emily Coffey, director of equitable community development and housing at Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, criticized HUD's actions, stating, "Rather than conducting the required civil rights review, HUD violated its mandate to follow and enforce civil rights laws." She also pointed out that the CHA's proposal would exacerbate the affordable housing crisis and perpetuate racial segregation by denying low-income Black families and individuals with disabilities access to valuable neighborhood resources. 

On October 20th, Judge Durkin dismissed the lawsuit stating our clients did not have legal “standing” - meaning they did not specify how they would be “harmed” by the CHA’s plans to lease this land and that any harm is “entirely speculative” therefore requiring the case to be dismissed. Read the full decision here. HUD has still not completed a civil rights review and CHA has not shared where or when affordable housing will be built in this area.  The ruling, however, did not reach the merits of the underlying claims. The decision did not endorse HUD’s approval of CHA’s actions without a full review of the civil rights implications. HUD and CHA have a duty to comply with civil rights laws and to affirmatively further fair housing.  

“Though the CHA is years behind on its commitments, “the Court cannot force the CHA to fulfill its prior plans to develop more housing units on ABLA land,” the judge wrote.” (Block Club Chicago).  

Looking Ahead, Commitment to Accountability 

Despite not receiving the decision we hoped for, this lawsuit represents a significant step in the fight for affordable housing in Chicago. HUD and CHA must be held accountable for their duty to further fair housing and rebuild the affordable housing they have been promising for more than 20 years. Chicago Lawyers’ Committee will continue working with our clients to explore alternative avenues to challenge these systems and to ensure that affordable housing remains a priority for our city.  

Previous
Previous

PEER IL Response to Governor Pritzker’s FY25 Budget Address

Next
Next

The Hogan v. Airbnb Case: Challenging Discrimination in the Digital Era