Red, Black, and , all you goddamn n****s. Don't talk about Trump.
Don't talk about Trump!
Hey, Matt.
Zapata
to the chamber.
Good afternoon, everybody.
I
will ask
everybody in the chamber to please take a seat.
We're going to be starting the meeting soon, but I want to reiterate
the importance to listen to one another.
We will not be tolerating any insults.
We will not be tolerating any insults in the chamber. So I want to preface by that.
So I want to welcome everyone to the first May meeting
of the Committee on Housing and Real Estate of the City of Chicago.
The time is 12:46, and the meeting is called to order.
Today, we'll be holding
subject matter hearings, especially in the collaboration with the state and federal
governments. So I do appreciate everybody who making the time on
these topics that have been of discussion, and now we
can formally take them on the council.
We'll now have a roll call to establish quorum. Vice Chair Mitchell.
Vice Chair Mitchell present. Alderman Espada.
Alderman Espada present. Alderman Dowell.
Alderman Dowell present. Alderman Robinson.
Right on time.
Alderman Robinson present. Alderman Quinn.
Here. Alderman Quinn present. Alderman Taylor. Here. Alderman Taylor present.
Alderman Tavares.
Not present. Alderman Scott. I think
she's in on Zoom. Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Burnett present. Alderwoman Rosana Rodriguez Sanchez.
Present. Alderman Quezada. Present.
Alderman Villegas.
Not present. Alderwoman Metz.
Present. Alderwoman Clay.
Not present. Alderwoman Anna Happenworth. Not present. And Alderwoman Hadden.
Thank you, Alderwoman Hadden. That give us 12 members, including the chair,
so we have established quorum. We have the Rule
59 request from-
Skip.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yeah, we got to-
Yeah.
And then, sorry. Let me recognize some people on the...
Yeah. So the Rule 59 request from Alderpersons
Harris, Moore,
and Scott, and Fuentes. Can
we get a motion to recognize them please? So move by Alderman Quezada.
All those in favor say "Aye." All those opposed say "Nay." In the opinion of the
chair, the ayes have it. We have formally Alderwoman
Scott and Alderman Moore, and we'll wait for Alderman Harris
when she joins.
Alderman Scott is here.
Who is that? Oh, yes.
Yes, here.
Yeah, we recognize you, Alderwoman Scott. Yep.
Yep. Alderman Moore and Alderwoman Scott, we both have you confirmed for the
quorum.
Today we have-
Thank you. Alderman Moore. Present.
Thank you, Alderman. We can hear you loud and clear.
We have five-
Did you call Alderman Michelle Harris?
Michelle Harris is here.
Oh, excellent. Alderwoman Harris, we have you.
Thank you.
Today, we have five speakers.
All right. So
again, please, if you have not been called to speak, we are not
going to tolerate any faulty language.
So now we're going to start with Princess Shaw, the first speaker,
from Light Up Lawndale on the West Side long-term recovery.
Thank you.
And next we have Mr. Tywan Sims.
Good
afternoon. I'm here to have a conversation in regards
to the flooding that happened back in 2023.
We still have many people that have mold and are living with mold in their
basement, both on the south and west sides of Chicago, and certain
wards that are aldermen that are here today.
I think I would ask the aldermen to make sure that they check in on their
seniors, because a lot of them are not able to get those things out of their
homes. The most important reason why I'm here is because one of
the things that we've been noticing with doing the work for the last three
years is that the homeowners' insurances have been going through the roof.
Not only going through the roof, but then also they have been getting dropped.
So that disqualifies them for a lot of city
programs that are out here that we're steady advocating for because they don't
have insurance. So I'm not sure what we can do, but there needs to be
some type of regulatory system put in place, just like what they're trying to do
with the car insurance, it needs to be with the homeowners insurance as well.
Because they're constantly taxing these people out of their homes.
And then one of the disqualifying factors in what the insurance companies are doing
are beginning now to fly drones over these homes.
So now they're looking for things and nitpicking with people that have had
insurance for 30, 40 years, not putting in one claim, and then once they do
decide to put in a claim, they're dropping them, and then they're no longer having
insurance. So now that leaves them at a disadvantage.
So if you have a flood or a fire or anything of that nature
in your home, now you don't have any help. Right?
And then a lot of times what ends up happening is like, "Oh, well, you should have
had insurance," not knowing the backstory. Right?
And so we have to get away from that as human beings.
Not just the aldermen, not just a regular person, an advocate like myself, but get
away from the simple fact that, hey, this is a human being.
There's got to be something that happened to cause them to be at this state or
stage in their lives. Thank you.
Next we have Mr. Tywan Sims.
Byron C. Joe Lopez. I think what is
unacceptable,
not speech, but behavior from representative, the city
representatives, 50 alderpeople sit in this room.
So on April 16th, 2025, I was falsely arrested
downstairs. When I was coming hereFor the housing
joint meeting, Housing and Finance, Ms.
Dowd,
over the green. But the day before, I had spoke at the 15th at the
Housing
Committee. But for me,
I'm not going to address y'all. Pat Dowd, Emma Mitts,
Lamonte Robinson, Mark Mitchell, you all
represent wards that people like me come live
in.
These wards are in a degradated state, these wards are in a
divested state, and it's a continuum.
There's no work being done. There's no
advocacy. There's no representation from you all.
And do you know how I know it? Because you all have allowed for these people to
enforce one year illegal enforcement, as I came screaming out to
y'all,
as I've talked to it, addressed it.
So that's my first constitutional liberty violated, my
fourth constitutional liberty violated, my fifth constitutional liberty
violated, my 14th constitutional liberty violated, all
under y'all watch. These people have shown foundational Black
Americans that they have power through y'all representation, that they're
going to put us away through y'all
because y'all have not shown backbone, because y'all have not shown
representation. No steel.
We Black Americans aren't weak, as I said before.
We not confused.
We not lazy.
Y'all got it mixed up.
The representation, Ms. Taylor,
our children, fifth and fourth in math.
What is it? The evidence-based funding being cut, not only $43 million,
but still they trying to cut it more, knowing that that money or
that provision takes care of foundational Black
Americans, those marginalized communities, those underserved communities, as
y'all like to say.
And I'm still homeless, Byron Sigio Lopez.
For one year, I have had no help. When I came
to you all, this committee,
you all have heard me speak
to my issues of housing, to the issue of my child, the case
23D79597, where they are now trying to have me take a competency
test.
All of these enforcements illegally, for what reason?
Can you all help me now that I'm back in this room addressing
this? Byron Sigio Lopez,
Housing and Real Estate. I'm still
homeless. There's no shelter been
given. There's no consideration, yet you've housed how many illegals?
Thank you for your comment. Next, we have Zoe Lee.
Good afternoon.
This last month, I have spent
about $10,000 in Airbnbs
and--
because I can't find the affordable housing that y'all be fighting for.
And as y'all know, the city of Chicago unlawfully
demolished my family's building, and y'all just refuse
to make that right. So I got to go from Airbnb to
Airbnb,
to the nice hotels. I stayed at Hoxton. Shout out to 27th Ward.
A nice hotel over there. But you've been
the chairman for-- since I've been outside protesting,
and you think you're going to Congress, and you can't
even figure out how you can get, what, two
people housing?
I
shouldn't even be here.
But the fact that I'm still here because you guys are in the
wrong,
and you guys try to make it out like it's my fault, like I'm the
troublemaker, I'm the problem. I came to y'all because y'all are
public servants.
As a taxpayer and as a person who takes a oath
and says that they're going to do things for the community and for the people,
that's why the reason why you're supposed to be a politician, not a
celebrity. None of you guys can figure it
out.
But you guys can sit and lie about
Trump taking voting rights. He's not.
You guys can sit here and talk about gas prices is up,
but Biden let 22 million illegals over here that we're still paying for.
Gas was super up. No war.
The war was on us when y'all bringing these 22 million illegals over
and putting them in our community. They got housing.
But I can't get housing. I got to pay $10,000.
Because of my credit?
Because of my background?
These illegals came over here, we don't even know nothing about them.
And they can get whatever they want.
It's
funny to me. But
we going to make sure y'all are out of office.
I've been here for y'all whole term.
Y'all have literally done nothing.
Nothing.
My last name is Marsh Lee. My
mother is a Marsh, Chicago. My
cousin was Terry Hiller.
Is Terry Hiller. And I see that my cousin, who's a police
officer, may be getting fired because of a PPP loan.
All the money that y'all stole. We don't even have police.
Thank you. Next is Mr. George Blakemore
Where are the people? Where are the Black people?
Where are the Hispanics? Where are the
whites? Where are the Asians? Why is
it that we just have four or five Black
people here today?
But we got Black aldermen.
Did you inform your constituents?
Do you educate your constituents?
Do you help your constituents? No.
But you want to blame it on the big head white man, Trump.
These nappy head,
big nose, big lip, and black booty people
are our enemies. Some of them are our enemy.
They look like us, but they're doing our
enemy's work. They're all Democrats,
and they have gotten out of public housing.
The federal government have gotten out.
Trump just didn't get out of it.
Public housing, and then you're going to put
Walter Burnett or his son in.
Trump, please, I'm so glad you sent that
man from Washington, DC.
Oh, yes.
I'm so glad.
So did you know,
George Blakemore,
I guess you deserve the government you get, and you get the government you
deserve.
They look like me.
And another thing, I took a shower, old funky
George.
Uh-huh.
Took a shower, and uh-huh, and he got on nice,
clean clothes. You can look good, you can speak good,
you can smell good, and be a piece of doo-doo.
Oh, yes you are.
I can smell you, and it's funky now.
I'm talking to the Black ones.
You're funky now.
I don't smell with my nose, but my sense, the way you carry
yourself, it's funky.
Dress good, look good. There's something inherently wrong with
our Black aldermen. Black faces
in high places selling Black people out.
You have fallen in love with the enemy. Leave me alone.
Get away from me.
Get the hell away from me. I still got minutes here. Leave me alone.
Leave me alone. That's not yours.
Why would you come up to me? Stay away from me.
Stay away from me. They drug me out like a Georgia slave.
You stay away from me. Stay away. Hey,
stay.
Thank you. Our last
speaker is Ms. Jessica Jackson.
You better get the hell away.
Nobody...
Okay,
so
seriously.
So the Committee on Housing and Real Estate.
So this morning, I woke up to a newspaper article in the
Chicago Tribune where it's featuring
Chicago Flips Red, me, Zoe, and Danny.
And in particular, it's based on Commissioner
Stamps
going to the Chicago Tribune to talk about the
fact that when we come to the podium
at the Cook County Commissioner's meetings, how she feels
harassed. Now, here's the thing,
Chairman
Byron Sigcho-Lopez. We need to nip this in the bud, wouldn't you say?
I say nip it in the bud.
You
wrote a letter here for me on June 5th, 2024,
and you wrote this letter to the public administrators on my
behalf, because you were talking about the fact that they were
illegally bothering my property, that the squatters was in there,
and they needed to make them get out so that I could fix my property.
And we all know that that's what this is about.
So for Commissioner Stamps to get mad because I
make a comment about her behavior, the fact
that she flung her hair at me, that false hair at me, and all I
said to her, "She need to catch that kitchen." So BDB,
go to her
and tell her the truth about my case.
She knows, like all those other Cook County Commissioner knows.
Him, right there in the pink Psalm shirt.
He was the commissioner when I would be up there talking about my case.
Go find your girl, Stamps, and tell her to
back off.
Tell her to go to Pernody Prepwickle, you too, Sigcho-Lopez,
and tell them to settle my case.
Pat Dowd, you know what it is. You can sit here and act
like you don't hear me, when you know doggone well this
fake division that you have between the county and the
city as it pertains to property, you know that you all duties
overlap. That's the reason why you and Michael
Scott gave this Property After Death seminar on Saturday,
April 11th, 2026, where you all talked about how to protect
your property in death. When you're sitting there watching me, knowing that the
Cook County public administrators, with the help of JB
PriesterWhich is the reason why you all won't talk about it,
because Pritzker is the one that appoints these public
administrators. And he reappointed Louis G.
Apostle, Thomas Leon Weber, Tina Lastropolis, Leah
Jubakowski, having full knowledge that they're stealing our property.
Now you going to go to Commissioner Tamara Stamps, and you going to let her
know, if she don't want some more, because she want the smoke, here
it is, until you all settle my case.
Tell them to leave me alone, give me my money, and stop-
Thank you. This
concludes our public
comment. The committee has received also three written public
comments that were emailed and included in your packets today.
I appreciate everybody who has joined us for public comment, and I hope
that we can now listen to each other on the order of business.
Today's hearing will be purely informational. No vote will be taken.
We will update the committee on specific measures in Springfield and
the US Congress pertaining to housing
and the effects on our homeowners in Chicago.
We'll have two portion of this hearing today, the first focusing on
SB1486 and
HJRCA0021,
with updates from our legislative guests and a member of Illinois
PIRG,
an advocate for consumers and consumer protection.
The second will focus on the HELPER Act, a proposal in
the US Congress seeking to establish an FHA-backed
home loan
product for first responders and educators.
Each speaker will be given approximately five minutes each,
and then followed by a Q&A.
In the city of Chicago, we see housing as a human right, and in the
last three years, we have the Committee on Housing and Real Estate to focus
on the matters important to people across the city.
We have moved legislation to help address the numerous challenges
that people across the city are facing when it comes to housing
across the spectrum, from emergency shelter programs,
affordable rental initiatives like Green Social Housing and other
tenant-centered pilots, to new innovative programs under the
Tribe Block Builder platform that look to foster creation of
new housing for Chicagoans across the city.
Still, in our ward offices, we continue to hear the difficult times
that everyday folks are having in keeping their homes.
And to continue to make ends meet,
we must find ways to support them
all, and to find ways to collaborate across the different
levels of government, in despite of the differences.
Two key issues have been tracking for some time now that puts
Chicagoans in danger of foreclosure,
as homeowners insurance rates and property
taxes have been skyrocketing, and
it's urgent that we find help and relief.
And specifically today, we invited legislators from Springfield to provide updates
on two measures that have components that will help address those key issues,
property tax relief
and homeowners insurance regulation.
On the back end of the hearing, we have invited group advocates who are seeking to
help more homeowners, in particular, those who seek public
service as their mission and who have been struggling in today's
homeownership's landscape.
We'll begin the hearing from our legislative partners.
We appreciate that they have taken a busy time.
We know that they're in session in Springfield.
Joining us in Zoom,
we have Representative Ford
as well, and in person, we have Director Abraham Scar
from the Illinois Public Interest Research Group, PIRG.
We'll be given, like we said, at least five minutes
each, and then we're going to go to Q&A.
Ford, I know that Representative Ford has a busy schedule.
Can you hear us, Representative Ford? Maybe we can start with you.
Thank you very much, Chairman and members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before your committee. I just want to give a brief update
on what we was fighting for in
Springfield as it relates to property tax relief.
We had HJR Constitution Amendment Number
21, which would place a constitutional amendment on the ballot
that will have a surcharge on billionaires and
millionaires. And it started with anyone that
made a net of $1 million revenue.
And we would use the $4.5 billion to
provide a form of property tax relief
for the homeowners that
is in need. We know that the property tax
rates are not quite where it should be when you talk
about how we tax homeowners.
This does not fix the problem, but it would have
provided immediate relief for homeowners, and we would've been
able to
collect revenues in about $4.5 billion.
What we've learned from CODFI is an estimated
3% surcharge on a net income of over
a million dollars would generate the $4.5 billion, and it
would only
impact
about 33,000 Illinoisans. Illinois
almost has about 13 million people, so this
surcharge will only impact
about 33,000 tax filers in the
state. As of today,
May 3rd was thedeadline for
us to have a constitutional amendment placed
on the Illinois ballot for November 3rd.
This measure did not pass the House and the Senate.
So what the House
Speaker and the President of the Senate is
doing, we're working as a caucus to figure out ways to provide
property tax relief immediately without
a constitutional amendment. We're also
working on the insurance. I heard one of the constituents
speak about insurance rates being so high.
I think Princess was there testifying, talking about how
insurance rates are out of the roof.
And so we actually passed legislation that would
actually put some regulations
around insurance companies, and making
sure that there is a notice to all the
homeowners
60 days prior to renewal date
for increases. So what we've learned from
testimony in Springfield is that advocates say that
insurance companies increase premiums
without notice. So the language that's in the bill that's working
in Springfield
prohibits any company from imposing a renewal
premium increase of more than 10% for fire
extended coverage insurance, which is what we call homeowners
insurance, unless the company sends by mail or
electronic to the named insurer a
notice of the increase at least 60 days prior.
And this notice requirement only applies to policies issued
or renewed after July 1st,
2027. So it's not retro, and so we're working to see if we
could do anything to stop the
notices not being
given to homeowners in advance so that they could budget their
finances.
Thank you, Representative Ford. I think Senator Guzman is
also on the line from the Senate.
I'm not sure if she's still...
Are we still-- We're trying to move her.
Yes, Ald-
Prince rate, did that pass? I didn't hear.
Oh, Representative Ford, can you ask the
question while Representative, I mean, Alder Mendell.
Yes. Hi, Representative Ford. Did the
homeowner insurance legislation pass?
That passed the House, yes. And I think that it's going to go back to the Senate
for some concurrence. And I think I see the senator
there to figure out where it's
at at this time. But it did pass the House.
Thank you.
Thank you, Representative.
And hi. Good afternoon, State Senator Graciela Guzman.
And I think just to pick it up from Rep.
LaFord's
statement, it is correct. It's coming back to the Senate on concurrence,
and we're taking a look at the changes that were made in the House to figure out
how to move forward.
I think what we can say thus far, there has been a pretty robust conversation.
I think Rep. Ford alluded to this in his comments, but a ton of
feedback from consumer protection advocates, SOS,
AARP, other folks in terms of helping shape this on the proponents
side. On the opponents, there has been a lot of industry feedback
about mostly the points that center around the reduction of
competition, increasing costs,
premium increases, mostly things in that space.
So happy to stay in touch with folks as we move through that process.
But as Rep mentioned, the hope is that we will be able to
concur this and pass it into law.
Thank you, Senator.
If
you want to
add anything else, Senator, before we go to Abraham, and
then we're going to go to Q&A for any other questions from the committee.
Anything else?
Sure.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, I'll just be really light with my updates, since I think you already have
received quite a bit on
the constitutional amendment efforts that took place in our
legislature. I think the only update that I would pick it up from there
is that the fight for revenue is still on at the state, and so
there's a universe of at least five or six different
options that include things like a digital ad tax,
closing corporate loopholes, decoupling Illinois
from federal corporate tax cuts, other kinds of loopholes in
general that our general assembly is discussing as it
figures out what it could mean to cobble all of those sources together
as revenue to help fund much of what we expect will occur through
H.R.1, but just other needs that municipalities and other regions across
our state need. So that's presently the state of play on the
revenue. I think we are also eagerly awaiting some
analysis from CGFA. They will come back after tax
day with the state forecast on revenue, and so we're
awaiting what that tells us as well.
But just to say that the conversation on revenue is not dead.
We still have revenue proposals that we should be looking at as we
really think about how do we bolster where our state is prior to some of
the H.R.1 impacts and other things that we really should be funding.
Thank you, Senator.
Now we have in person the director of PIRG,
Abraham Schar.
Thank you.
Chair Lopez, Vice Chair Mitchell, honorable members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity
to testify today. My name is Abe Schar. I'm the director of Illinois PIRG.
Illinois PIRG is an advocate for consumers, advancing solutions to problems that
affect our health, our safety, and our well-being.
For the last four years, I've led the Illinois Coalition for Insurance Reform,
advocating for policies like those included in Senate Bill
1486.Rep Ford already spoke to this.
I want to add one piece of context about what's in the bill, and
one more additional comment on the alderwoman's question earlier.
Along with the notification requirements, the legislation will
state that rates shall not be excessive, inadequate, or unduly discriminatory,
which is a standard that doesn't exist in Illinois law so
far, and create a process for the Department of Insurance to
review rate hike requests and reject or modify them if
they fail to meet that standard.
And in terms of process, the Senate actually passed a similar version of this bill
in the fall that only covered homeowners insurance rates.
The House has sent over a version that covers both auto and homeowners, and we
think it makes sense to cover both with these types of reforms.
And I'm going to make four basic points with the rest of my testimony and be happy
to discuss this further with the committee.
The first point is that currently it is legal to charge excessive home and
auto insurance rates in Illinois.
Every other state and other parts of the Illinois Insurance Code have
boilerplate language that rates shall not be excessive, inadequate, or unduly
discriminatory, but not for property and casualty insurance in Illinois.
This means that insurers can raise rates whenever they want by however much they
want, and the Illinois Department of Insurance has no power to reject or modify
those rate hikes. It's important to remember that for many Illinoisans,
these are not discretionary products.
If you own a car, which many people must to access education, employment, or
healthcare, the state requires you to purchase car insurance.
The state does not require homeowners insurance, but mortgage lenders
do, and it just should not be legal to charge excessive rates for an
essential mandatory product.
Point two, rate review will help moderate rate hikes but not
eliminate them.
Rate increases are driven by the risks insurers are covering and their
losses.
Rate review does not make those go away, but they can help moderate
rate hikes and protect consumers.
And Illinois' experience with car insurance rates during and coming out of the
pandemic is a useful example.
In the first year of the pandemic, Illinoisans were driving much less, meaning the
risks of driving were lower, even for those who are still on the
road every day. Yet despite this decline in risk, car insurance
premiums did not decline in proportion.
Insurers did eventually offer refunds, but
according to analysis by the Consumer Federation of America, even after those
refunds, insurers in Illinois took home a pandemic windfall of
$896 million, or $99 per
policyholder on average.
And then in the years that followed, insurance rates in Illinois shot up through
frequent substantial rate hikes.
We released research that found that just in 2022 and 2023,
the top 10 car insurance companies by market share raised Illinois
rates by almost $2.4 billion. So you see this
imbalance. When premiums needed to decrease, insurers dragged their
feet and did not appropriately compensate consumers.
But when the time came to raise rates, they did so quickly and aggressively.
In states with more robust consumer protections, consumers fared much better.
And these are basic consumer protections that virtually all Americans enjoy and
that Illinoisans do not yet, but they do deserve.
My third point is that homeowners rates are rising sharply and will
continue to.
So Illinois homeowners insurance premiums increased by 50% between
2021 and 2024, rising from an annual average
of roughly $2,000 to $3,000. And there's only one other state in
the entire country that saw a sharper increase over that time.
Now, this is before the 2025 State Farm rate hike that alone
increased rates by more than half a billion dollars, impacting roughly
one-third of policyholders in Illinois.
We should only expect these rate hikes to continue because the threats to
property continue to get worse. Extreme weather is growing more
frequent and more severe, and it's not just wildfires and
hurricanes. The biggest cause of catastrophe loss for Allstate
over the past decade has been hail, wind, and
tornadoes, the type of weather events that impact us here in Illinois.
So again, rate review can help moderate these rate increases, but it's not going to
stop them. The only way to address this growing
and significant problem is to address the underlying risk.
First and foremost, this means taking meaningful action to reduce climate warming
pollution.
But other policies Illinois should pursue include getting better data from insurers
to understand climate risk, providing incentives to homeowners to mitigate
risk, and shoring up the state-sponsored insurer of
last resort.
And then my final point is that insurance companies use socioeconomic
factors to set rates, and this produces discriminatory
and absurd results.
Members of the committee may be aware that insurers use things like credit scores,
zip codes, and education levels to set car insurance rates.
And because of this, drivers in minority neighborhoods routinely pay much
higher than drivers in more affluent and whiter communities.
It also leads to absurd results like drivers with good credit
but a DUI conviction paying less for car insurance than safe
drivers with poor credit.
It's less understood, however, that these dynamics also exist in homeowners
insurance.
Research from the Consumer Federation of America found that a typical Illinois
homeowner with a low credit score will pay
$2,122 more each year, more
than double the price for their insurance premiums than otherwise identical
neighbor with a high credit score.
It also looked at these issues across the country and found that a
typical homeowner with low credit score in the safest part of the
country, that is in the first percentile of disaster risk
by their area,
can expect to pay the same as an otherwise identical homeowner with a high credit
score who lives in a much, much riskier area, the
71st percentile for disaster risk.So again, this means it's often
more expensive to have a low credit score than it is to live in
an area with high disaster risk.
With that, I'll conclude my comments, and thank you again, and happy to discuss
this further.
Thank you, Abraham. Before we open it for questions, we did
invite a handful of the insurance companies
to join the
hearing, but we did not hear back from any of them.
Also want to acknowledge Representative Lilian Jiménez
was unable to hear. She meant to come, but she was not able to make it last minute,
but we do appreciate both Senator Guzman and
Representative LaShawn Ford for their advocacy in Springfield, and I do
think it is important and is an issue that every single
ward is dealing with. With that, now I'll open up for
any questions for Abraham. Alderman Taylor.
Thank you, Chairman. Is it possible for us to get ward by
ward insurance rates for homeowners
and car insurance rates? I think
I agree with we need to do something probably, I guess,
on the state level. I don't know that we have home rule to do something
locally.
But I'm concerned based on what Princess said about
people, you got a flood and now I lose my insurance.
I can't control flooding.
And so is there a way for us to get some real data
about insurance costs across the city?
We know what it's going to look like, but to see it in writing I think is
important for us.
It is possible to get some of that data by zip code.
Mm-hmm.
We'd have to do some calculations to try to estimate it then by
ward. But that's possible. I don't have it handy, but I'd be happy to
follow up with you.
For homeowners insurance, A and IV?
I believe so, yes.
Sure.
I'm familiar with it. We don't typically do that.
You typically have to purchase it from a company that does market
analytics, and the Consumer Federation of America, who we referenced a couple of
times, does a lot of this type analysis, so they will occasionally purchase that
data, and I know they've done it. Well, they did it actually both for
home and auto. So they should have access to some of that, and I'd be happy to
follow up with them and see if we can share it.
I'd also point out that flood insurance is often different.
It's typically not covered by a standard homeowner's insurance
policy, and I know that's a rising problem here in Chicago and will continue,
as I was saying earlier, is going to be a problem that we can
expect to continue as we experience more extreme
flooding and rain patterns. So that's something that I would
encourage the committee to also be looking into further.
Chairman, is it possible for us to get the inspector general to start to look at
some of that data?
Because I'm concerned
that
flooding is not any fault--
A lot of times it's not on the homeowners.
Most of the times it's on the city, because we get people to do streets, they don't
do them right, and we never correct the issue.
And so you got a senior who loses their home
insurance because of flooding that they have no control over.
And then making sure that we look at what type of support the city
is giving.
Princess talked about seniors losing their
homeowner insurance because of flooding. They have no control over that.
I want to know what we did and what was the amount of money we spent to
mitigate to help some of those seniors
with flooding. And then did they get dropped from those insurance
companies because of flooding that happened that they have no control over?
Yeah, we're happy to work maybe with PIRG on that and also with the Office of
Inspector General.
How do we support legislation in Springfield on a city
level to get-- Because I do agree, every time
a season change, it looks like the insurance, homeowners and car
insurance, goes up, especially on the south and west sides.
We know what the data going to look like. It's not a guess.
I want to see it in writing, and then like
while I know we don't do this, and maybe we should,
push homeowners to certain insurance. Same thing with car insurance.
When you try to get a quote for either one,
you get 1,000 different things, and you
don't know if those insurance companies are really good insurance
companies. Are they valid? And so that is another thing
that I feel like we don't take the responsibility of.
People pay their car insurance and then when they get into an accident, they
dropped or because you didn't get liability.
What are we doing to protect consumers and when it comes to
homeownership?
So I would encourage members of the committee to contact their state
senators and encourage them to support this legislation.
It
is not as strong as we would like and as versions of legislation we've
supported in the past, but it would be a meaningful improvement and a
first step. Illinois is, of course, home to State Farm and Allstate, the two
giants of property and casualty insurance, and that's why we're in this
unique position in the country without these basic consumer
protections. And my concern is, as
I mentioned earlier, there's a version of this that's passed the Senate, and
there's a version that passed the House, and they can both right now claim, "We've
taken action on this."
And they haven't done anything.
They haven't actually passed a law that's going to the governor's desk.
So,
I'm optimistic that the Senate will pass it, but I wouldn't count on it.
And I would, to the extent you have relationships with state senators, it would be
good for them to hear from you that you think that this should not
get
ignored during the rest of the session for the next four weeks or so.
I certainly would hesitate to encourage any
specific insurer for any customer.
It is good advice to shop around and to look
for different options. The reality is most people, myself included, don't want to
shop around every year for insurance.
There's a just incredible inertia there, and that's whyState
policy is important, but consumers who want to can shop
around, and that can be a way that they can get a better deal for their
rates.
That's not what we tell consumers.
We tell them, "Get insurance." We don't care what it costs, who it is, and
what... We just tell them, "Get insured." And that
does not seem fair.
My next question is,
what state are we looking at that has
good policy or legislation
around insurance
that looks like Chicago? Too often, when we are trying to do
something new, we compare it to a state that does not compare to the
state of Illinois. And so what states are we looking at to see where they've done
some good legislation?
So among consumer advocates, California is considered the gold standard.
Now, the insurance industry will hold up California as a boogeyman and say it's
unworkable and whatnot, but I think the record is pretty clear that it's
served, for the most part, served consumers in California quite well.
One of the reasons why they have such a strong policy is that it was approved by
the ballot,
and so consumers had the chance to directly weigh in.
And so that's generally considered the strongest, most
consumer-friendly
regulatory regime in the country.
And I'd say the other basic-- We don't need to adopt all
of everything that's in the California code, but one thing that I think would be an
improvement, even over what's included in the current
legislation in Springfield, is what's known as prior approval.
And with prior approval-
What's known as what?
Prior approval.
Okay.
Basically, this means that when an insurer files a rate increase,
it has to go through regulatory review before it can go into
effect. And it requires that every filing go into
regulatory review. What is on the table in Illinois is it would
be totally up to the discretion of the Department of Insurance whether or
not they will review-
The Department of who?
The Department of Insurance. That's the state regulator in Illinois.
Never heard of it.
And so yeah, they would have complete discretion.
Now, I'm confident with the current department leadership that they will exercise
their discretion well, but I don't think we should leave it to the discretion
of the leadership of the Department of Insurance.
I think we should have more of a standard that all, or at least the vast
majority of rate increases go under regulatory review.
What should be on this referendum?
I'm sorry?
What do you think should be on the referendum?
Well, we don't have the capacity to quite do that here in Illinois.
But-
We can do it in the city.
Oh, potentially, yeah. But I don't know that
I believe that this is a-
Sure, if all we put up is, do you want to see your home insurance or your car
insurance go down? I'm sure we-
I assume that would do quite well at the polls, yes.
I
do think that this policy in Springfield would be a
meaningful step forward in the right direction.
To strengthen it, I would think that they should adopt prior approval, as
I was just discussing. And then the other thing to do would be to go after
the use of these socioeconomic factors in rate
setting.
Right now, the legislation would create the standard that rates shall not be
unduly discriminatory. There's some discrimination baked
into this because person A and person B have different risk profiles,
and that's discriminating just to tell the difference between any two people.
But what they're not supposed to do is to discriminate by race and gender
or any of the protected classes.
Which we know they do.
Which they do, yes, through these factors that don't have to do with the actual
risks involved. And so we've had legislation sponsored by
Representative Will Guzzardi that would just lay out 15
rating factors and say, "You can't use these."
And we think a policy along those lines would also be good to
adopt.
What are the top five?
Credit score is the one that does most of the work, or credit-based scores, credit
information.
And then I don't know after
that what has the biggest impact, but things like-
Let's say you age and zip code
... Age, zip code, education level, marital status.
People can often-- People-
So everything that you already know that
already hurts our community we'll continue to use to say whether
you should or should not get insurance?
It's not to say whether you should or should not, but it's the price you'll pay,
and you'll pay a lot more.
This puts me in a mindset of saying, "Let's just X out
insurance altogether and see what y'all do."
And that
hurts people when they actually have something they need to fix, or they
have flooding, or it's a hurricane, a tornado.
But it's like these insurance companies are getting over because we have nothing in
place.
And if I may, the other problem with it, obviously, there's problems with
discriminatory impacts, that we shouldn't abide by that.
But it also sends the wrong price signals to people.
Car insurance should incentivize
people to be safer drivers. That's good for them and it's good for all of us.
I mostly ride my bike, and I would like there to be safer drivers on the road.
Right now, the way to improve your
car insurance rates is to improve your credit score,
not to become a better driver.
Same thing-
Can you do--
So let me just tell you how that does not make sense.
You're talking about a country that just got out of COVID, and so we would actually
use somebody's credit score to say whether or not they should be insured or not?
Is there something that we're doing to set a base in Illinois for insurance can't
be over this? I am tired of us playing the
game of we're doing something, but the something doesn't get us the
results. And so are you all having conversations about making insurance
at a certain age, regardless of your credit, this, that?
Is there some conversation around that?
Yes. And we've been advocating for that.
That is not what's included in the current legislation, but-
Then we need to stop doing that because we just playing games, we wasting people
time, and it's not getting us what we actually need for our communities.
And so we should be having conversations right
now. As a matter of fact, we always-- y'all pick the wrong time to do stuff,
because we should've done this during election cycle.
And I guarantee you, we could've got everything we needed for homeowner insurance
and car insurance. Thank you for entertaining me. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Taylor. We also, for the record,
we invited the Department of Insurance too, but they were not able to make
it.
And I think that speaks volumes about the need for advocacy, and make sure that
we're paying attention to these important issues that affect a lot of homeowners.
I will have Alderman Espada and then Alderman Dowell.
Alderman Espada, and welcome from paternity leave, too.
Thank you so much.
The red carpet has been rolled out.
Abe, I'll be super brief.
I'm assuming that the insurance bill that we're talking about is SB1486?
Correct.
Looking at the ILGA website
is a bit confounding.
So my sympathy to my friends in the State House.
But there seems to have been so many amendments that simply cleared out everything
after the enacting clause.
I'm wondering if it's possible, through the chair, to be provided the most
up-to-date text that passed the House, that passed the
Senate. And then
furthermore, if there's a one-pager, I think that would be most
helpful in responding back to our state senators and representatives
on this.
I'm happy to help with the bill language.
I think DUI will probably be the Department of Insurance.
I don't have a fact sheet on it, but I'm sure they do.
And I appreciate Chairwoman Dowell confirming that it has not, in fact,
passed the Senate yet.
It'd be
out of line for me to ask more questions before fully understanding the matter at
hand, so I appreciate, however, the primer on the
material and the hearing today. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. Alderman Dowell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Scar, thank you for being here.
And
Alderwoman Taylor, I appreciate your line of
questioning this morning. I have one question.
Annual rental, when you renew your lease,
that usually goes up between 3% to 5% every year.
That's pretty typical.
What is the thinking behind a 10% increase
on the homeowners insurance?
Oh, you mean in terms of the notification?
Yeah.
That was not a policy we advocated for.
I think it was originally came from the State Senate, and it was something
that they decided was a meaningful enough increase
that they wanted to set a standard that homeowners should be notified.
I don't know that there's anything more behind it than that.
Okay. So it's not that--
and I guess the insurance people aren't here.
Do you know what the typical annual increase is for?
Well,
I know that between-
Home insurance
... 2021 and 2024, Illinois
homeowners insurance rates went up by 50% on
average. So that's between 15% and
20% per year.
That is way, way too much.
All right. Thank you. You answered my question.
Thank you, Alderman Dowell.
Are there any additional questions by committee members?
If
there are no more further questions, I do want to emphasize again that
Senate Bill 1486 has not passed, so I do want to encourage
council members to advocate to your local
state senators to make sure that we have at least
some relief. Oh, Alderman Taylor, sorry.
Is there something we can do on the city level to push the state?
Besides passing a resolution perhaps, or
contacting, not that I know of, but I'll ask the national folks I work with to see
if there's other cities that have taken action.
Yeah. I was just going to say because if we waiting on the state,
they could've been done something.
This-
Yep
... this is not just happening, and
what we're doing is killing the middle class. Y'all know that, right?
We are literally killing the middle class, because not only did we go on property
taxes, then insurance go up for things that they can't control.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Taylor. And again, there's some
things that we can do in terms of advocacy right now that the Senate
and House are in session. So advocating for at
least some urgent relief. I think that the numbers that,
and I want to appreciate, Aram, thank you so much for joining us.
The numbers are staggering. If between 2021 to
2024,
homeowner insurance rates have increased
by 50%, this is the kind of policies that are hurting the small
homeowners. We also see on a regular
basis flooding and other
issues that are affecting people throughout the city.
Just recently, I want to highlight a
constituent who came to our office and basically had
their homeowners insurance hijacked just because per
the insurance company, and it's sad that the insurance companies have not come to
committee to at least explain some of these
policies, but basically, their policy changed because
according to the socioeconomic factor that they described to the constituents,
that the neighborhood was not safe.
That is one of the arbitraryfactors that
they use to increase
homeowners insurance also by approximately 50%.
So it is urgent that we contact our legislators, and we look
forward to work with PERC, Alderman Taylor, any other housing committee members
to see and look at all options that we can look into the city
council to hold these insurance companies accountable.
In a time where people are barely making ends meet, we see
insurance companies making record profits, and it is something
that must be a call for action.
Without any other questions, or Alderman Mitts, before we close on this section, go
ahead.
Yeah, I just wanted to mention that
I myself have gotten kicked out of the insurance company for flooding.
You heard me mention five times. And just before
the 2023 flood occurred,
they had sent to renew my insurance, but as soon as that flood hit, they
took it out and put the date back so it wouldn't
affect the day of the insurance.
The games that they're playing when it come like
downzoning in certain areas, just because of where you
live, you're paying more insurance just because of where you're living
at.
Mm-hmm.
And it doesn't make any sense. But the insurance companies have never been able
to-- We've tried to get them here before.
It's not the first time-
Mm-hmm
... that they've turned that down.
Mm.
But
it's something that the city need to do, or the state, in order to look
at how they are regulating, how they are calculating these payments.
I guarantee you that they are overcharging folks
on these bills and how they're collecting insurance.
You can't
keep insurance,
and then nothing is being done to help you to keep it.
And yes, I agree with Princess because
I do know what we're faced with.
Mm.
But we're still working to help families out
there.
Mm.
We're still working to help families.
It's not going to be a quick fix, and I knew that from
2023.
Mm.
When everybody else was sitting in the sunshine around here, we was flooding.
Mm.
The worst flood ever for the city of Chicago and our community.
I knew that's not going to be a quick fix. So we live with it every day.
Every day and struggling. And yes, peoples are losing their
home. Folks are dying because of it, and we are still
seeking help.
The help is slow.
But
something is being moved, moving the needle a little
bit. Not as fast as we want it to, but it's being moved.
I think that the city, if we have other program
that can come in and help,
we'll be grateful for the help that we can get out there.
I
hate to even think about it. It's a disaster.
Do you realize that breathing, your asthma, and all those things
that you deal with comes from
the mold? Do you know what? The foundation.
And then they got nerve enough to go up on the taxes on us-
Mm-hmm
... and not give us no help. My God. But
those issues are all the county, city, state, everybody need to be
engaged in how we are trying to really help the
homeowners and not so much as helping themselves.
Mm.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Mitts, and that's a great note to
end. I think it's urgent that we find that advocacy between
state, city, county. So I urge council members to contact
your state representatives and look at the, again,
SB 1486 and any other effort. I think we look forward to
working with PERC.
Thank you, Abraham. And we'll be working on this issue.
We're following up, and again, this is an important week.
If you cannot go to Springfield or you can make a call, this is
important to the constituents that are really hurting right now.
Thank you, Alderman Mitts. I appreciate you sharing the difficulties on the West
Side especially. With that,
we're going to
go to the next
subject matter hearing. And thank you again, Abraham,
appreciate it, and we'll look forward to
respond to questions through the chair.
Now we're going to shift to our next guest.
They're our guest from the Hill. Joining us
today are Sam Royer, founder of Salute
Home Loans, principal drafter.
Tim Sommerfeld, president of Emergency Medical Services Labor Alliance,
EMSLA. And Mya Harris-Cameron, director of the
Reserve Component to Assist
with also any questions on this bill.
They're going to be speaking to the Homes for Every Local
Protector, Educator and Responder, the HELPER Act, so that
council members can familiarize as well.
This is a
House of Representatives bill, and we are grateful to have
our guests via Zoom. Can you hear us?
And maybe we can start with Sam.
I can. How are you, honorable council?
Can you hear me okay?
We can hear you. Thank you, sir.
Yeah. Well, thank you for having me. I'm sorry that I look a little casual today.
We actually have some firefighter events where
I'm at to honor firefighter appreciation day.
So number one, thank you for having us.
The HELPER Act, Homes for Every Local Protector, Educator, and
Responder. If you can see from my big flag over here, I'm a Marine Corps
veteran. So I am fortunate enough to have the ability to buy
a house with no money down and no monthly mortgage insurance for my
service to our country. Now, very honestly, I've never served in
combat. I did serve four years honorably.
However, as you have in Chicago, many firefighters, police
officers, teachers, EMTs, and paramedics, they're on the
frontline in a different way every single day.
Taking care of your children, taking care of unfortunate situations that
happen in the community. So what we did was a couple of years ago,
we presented to Congress and the Senate, to a couple different
members about starting something so that these individuals
that serve in our community would have the same benefits that military member
and veterans have. So that is where the HELPER Act came about.What
we're trying to do is right now we have 25 members of the United States Senate on
the bill. Actually, one of your senators has already joined on.
In the House, we have a little under 130 members, and what we're
trying to do now is get as much advocacy as possible
from letters of support from city councils, from mayors, from sheriffs,
from others that serve in our community, so we can go back to those legislators
and say, "Listen, here in the city of Chicago, in Illinois,
everywhere around, people are crying out that affordability and
housing is just at such a critical point." Everything
I just heard from all the community members that just spoke,
housing insurance, taxes, things right now are
inflated and everywhere. I'm actually standing in the state of Florida.
I'm from Pennsylvania, and I know Pennsylvania is having a major
housing crisis. Here in Florida, it's a little bit different.
We actually have some houses that are on sale.
However, our insurance costs are just skyrocketing.
So this is something that we appreciate bringing to the
council. I'm going to yield now to Tim, who
actually has tried to go through a couple different programs that are out there
that look really good, and they look great on paper, and they give
legislators a lot of talking points, but the effectiveness is not
there like the HELPER Act is. So I yield to you, Tim.
My name is Tim Sommerfeld.
I am the president of the Emergency Medical Service Labor
Association,
and I'm also a active paramedic in Cleveland, Ohio.
And a couple years ago, I went to try to buy a house using the Good Neighbor Next
Door program. Unfortunately, that program is broken.
It's a great idea giving teachers, educators,
paramedics, firefighters, police officers, assistance in buying a
home.
But
there's a couple of key things that are wrong with it.
It only applies to homes that
are foreclosed upon by HUD, and they have to be on a special list.
Do you guys know how many homes there are right now in the entire United States
that are on this list? We just checked it this morning.
Anybody want to take a guess?
No? Okay. There are three.
None in Illinois,
none in Ohio, none in Florida. There are three in the entire nation that meet the
requirements of the Good Neighbor Next Door program.
So the HELPER Act would fix some of that.
It would go ahead and allow these
affordable loans to be applied to any home, not just a
foreclosed home. And that's important because another thing I experienced is when I
went and looked at these HUD homes, a lot of them had been stripped.
Somebody got the key. They had no electric, they had no plumbing.
And I'd like to think I'm a pretty good paramedic, but I'll tell you, I'm
a crappy plumber, okay?
We need to make sure if we're realistic about this, we want people to utilize this
program. If we want first responders and teachers to be able to live in the
communities that they serve, we need to give them a product that
is competitive, that allows them to come home from work and go to
a home, not come home and be a contractor.
Yeah. And if I could just say a couple things also to Tim's point.
So this program costs taxpayers, guess how much?
Zero dollars. That is the craziest part about this whole thing
is that this is not a subsidy. We're taking and going into
communities saying, "Hey, we need governmental money to go out and lend
money." In fact, it's kind of the opposite.
We talked about insurance a little while ago.
You guys have talked about homeowners insurance, right?
The FHA, which this program would be under, the FHA has been
around since 1934, and the FHA's mission was to
promote home ownership. What it does, it collects premium from
all the different people out there that get FHA mortgages.
Now, the HELPER Act would still have a portion of a
premium being paid to a fund that currently in
the United States,
or call it the piggy bank of the United States, there's $190
billion sitting in that fund. So the likelihood, even
though foreclosure rates in some areas of the country are going up a little bit,
the likelihood of that fund going belly up, let's call it,
is very unlikely. And if you think about the individuals, somebody brought up
COVID. We're just coming out of COVID, or we have for a little while
now. But no matter if there's an economic downturn or a pandemic, guess
who keeps their jobs? Teachers, firefighters, EMTs,
paramedics, police officers, right?
So this is something that we truly need as much support as we
can because unfortunately, it doesn't matter what side of the political party
you're on, some legislators just aren't listening.
And as much as they're talking about affordability on a national stage,
this bill, if you present it to them, they have to either
say yes or no. Because at the end of the day, if they say no,
then they're really not doing what they said they promised their constituents in
fighting for affordability and fighting for those people that serve on the front
lines like Tim and others, right? But then if you can
present it in a way that, "Look, guys, this costs you zero, but you're helping
your community servants," it's a win all the way around.
And that's where we've struggled a little bit, and this is why this meeting, we're
so thankful. Maya Harris with the Reserve component, her group in
Washington, I'm a Marine, but I'll just
say they're like a Navy SEAL unit that just really has gone out and tried
to get this thing done, and they've made mountains.
Somebody brought up a one-pager. Our one-pager is more than five
pages now. That's how much support, and we would love to have your council as part
of that
one-pager that maybe it'll push it over to six pages.
So with that-
And-
... I yield to any questions.
And real quick, just before we jump to questions, this also helps out your EMS
system. I think in Chicago, like in many cities, the EMS
system is stressed.
They're some of the hardest working first responders out there.
AndWhat we found scientifically is that
a lot of our first responders, especially our EMS providers, can't afford to
stay in the field. The average EMS provider only spends eight years in the field
and then moves on to something else,
largely because they can't
achieve the American dream. They can't afford a home, they can't afford
schools, they can't afford things like that.
So the problem is when they leave, they take
their experience with them. There are studies that show that paramedics that have
more than two years of experience have better clinical outcomes, adjusted for
everything else, just from that experience.
So this doesn't cost the city of Chicago anything.
This doesn't cost the taxpayers anything.
This is a method to recruit and retain first responders, which will lead to better
medical service out of the hospital, in the community,
while at the same time doing something for your city employees.
So thank you.
Thank you. Questions, Alderman Taylor?
So thank you both for your testimony.
I don't think this is anything that people would be against.
My question would be, who is this helping?
We know in the city of Chicago that most of the firefighters here and the
teaching
system does not look like some of the folks in this city council.
And so while we want to keep, because this
is another way to keep our middle class, I don't think this would be
anything we disagree with, but we want to have a conversation about who
this is actually helping and looking at the data of folks who would actually
benefit from this. That make sense?
Now when you say who is it helping, if you don't mind me asking, what do you mean?
Are you talking about the-
Racially, Black, Brown, that's what I'm talking about.
I can-
Well, I'm a Marine.
Yeah, I'm a Marine, and I personally don't care what somebody looks like.
And I think these organizations, be it teacher, not organizations,
but firefighters, police officers, the man or woman that's serving next to them,
I
travel the country a lot, and it's something that this has
no boundaries as far as who is it to affect in a
positive way, be it what color your skin is.
So-
So then I don't know how to answer this.
So-
I know the VA home loan doesn't care what nationality you are or what color
your skin is. All it cares about if you served or you didn't serve.
That's all it matters.
And I can speak a little bit to that, too.
One thing that is different about the HELPER Act is it requires people to spend
four years in the profession, and then they can get the loan.
This is so that people don't come in and just get a teaching card or take an EMT
class and try and use it as a pathway to a home.
You're helping your existing city workforce.
And I've been with Cleveland EMS now for going on
19 years, and I have seen this be a pathway
to the middle class for many of the fellow people who were born and
raised in the city and maybe didn't enjoy
all the opportunities that others have had.
Public service,
at least in my experience, at least in my city, and I imagine it's true in Chicago
too, can be a true pathway to the middle class, and yet as soon
as people get into that middle class,
they're walking away from it. They're going to nursing school, they're going to
other things simply because they can't afford to live in the communities that they
live, because they're not making enough money unless they work obscene amounts of
overtime or a second job or things like that.
This is just one way that we want to give our EMS
providers the opportunity to achieve that American dream, to achieve that upward
mobility
regardless of where they may have come from.
If that makes any sense.
I'd like to address the gentlewoman's question.
So the number of Black women who are
teachers across this country, there are so many.
In fact, I actually spoke at
the annual legislative conference for Delta Sigma Theta
Sorority Incorporated on the HELPER Act because of
how many Black women that are anchoring
households or are part of
co-parenting households. In my own
family, I can tell you, my parents had to take out a second
mortgage to put my sisters and I through
school
because
if they hadn't had to take out a second mortgage on their
home to put
us through school, it would have made an immense contribution to
our family.
So the number of Black women teachers, the number
of Hispanic women teachers, the number
of Black police officers,
firefighters, EMS, that are all leading families.
And the fact is, is that
if you don't have to put a down payment on a home, on your first home,
you can put it towards so many other things right now,
and
that will make a difference in people's lives.
So
born and raised in this city of Chicago.
Before I was in government, I was an organizer, and so
I'm addressing the elephant in the room because won't nobody else do it.
At the end of the day, we know what our fire department and what our police
department looks like. We know what our school system look like.
And the majority of the folks there are not Black and Brown folks.
Let's be honest. What I would want us to do is look at some data.
This is not me saying that I wouldn't support it, but I want us to have an honest
conversation about who we're talking about moving up to the middle class.
Well, that-
I want it to be for everybody to have opportunity.
Understood.
And so while I don't care who saves me, I don't care who puts the
fire out of my house, we also know that in the city of Chicago,
our departments don't represent what our city
actually looks like. We like a third, a third, and a third.
That's not what the fire department looks like.
That's not what the police department. That's not what a lot of this looks like.
And so us having data and being honest
about this program actually helping folks who are in the space,
but making sure that we're making an effort, too.
Because in the city of Chicago, it's easier to become a
EMTthan it is to actually be a firefighter.
That's in Chicago.
Mm-hmm.
So this was-
But here, here's the other thing about the HELPER Act.
You're now giving a benefit, so it possibly will bring more people
into the field. Because I know as a Marine, I didn't leave the Marine Corps and
say, "Ooh, now I get to buy a house cheaper." I didn't realize the benefit was even
part of it. Also, ma'am, just so you know, so-- And I feel bad
that I don't remember his full name, but he was a big man and his name was
Diesel, and he's a firefighter in Chicago.
And I met him at a credit union organization because he's part
of Chicago Firefighters Credit Union, him and his wife.
His wife's a firefighter as well. And when I talked to both of them, she just
ran, I think, a marathon, actually. They were amazing.
And all I remember is when I talked to them about the HELPER Act at the
event we were at, they were stoked.
They were excited about it because of the fact now actually Firefighters Credit
Union is working with a mortgage organization I know that does honor
firefighters. So it doesn't-- This is not-- And
this is a boundary-less type of thing, and I understand that we want to
make sure that everybody is served equally.
But personally speaking, because I did serve my country,
I could care less what anybody looks like.
If we can get people into housing, no matter where their background is
from, that's what's important to us.
And if we can bring more people in and actually retain those individuals
that are quality individuals for a city, it makes the city stronger.
And I can tell you, I just had a cop in my office that just quit the sheriff's
department because he had to drive an hour round trip to come
and go to work. And when he's working a 12-hour shift and then he has to drive,
so making it a 14-hour shift, it is not safe for him or his family, so he had to
quit the job. That's just a side note,
but it's something that really this benefit should help with recruiting,
retention, and so many other things.
And I'll also now-- I'll end with this.
So the program, the HELPER Act,
would establish, would-- It has an authority of five years.
And it could be seen as a test case for these group of
community servants for 100% home loan
financing, and that's super important.
Right now,
we've already seen 100% financing works with
USDA rural development loans. We've seen it work with FEMA
disaster recovery loans, and we've seen it work for
veterans VA home loans. So,
when we look at this subset of community servants
that have earned this type of benefit because of what
they have given to our communities by keeping us safe, by
educating our children,
it further underscores that 100%
financing can work with everybody, and it can expand
outward. But we have to have the government, federal government has to have a
test case, and they have to see that it works.
And so this is a way that we can increase public safety
because cops and firefighters and EMTs are working in the
communities that they serve in,
and decreasing call times for EMTs and paramedics, for
example. And additionally,
opening the aperture for 100% home loans for everybody.
Yeah, that's kind of not how it works, the City of Chicago, because you have
police officers and you have firefighters who are not
allowed to live or be in a firehouse in their
own communities. And so my question is just around how we're going to
make sure, A, people know about the program-
Mm-hmm
... and then how we're going to make sure that folks are actually staying in those
communities. Because you can help them buy a home.
How long are they supposed to stay in those homes?
There's not a li-- Any loan, FHA, VA, or conventional, there's no
limit with regard to how long you're required to stay in a home.
A grant program, there's requirements depending on the state that you're in,
the municipality. This is just basically taking what FHA has
already created since 1934, expanding on it
so that we can try and help people achieve homeownership.
So if they choose to buy that house and a year and a half later they move to a
different place, you can't really control that, and that's not something we want to
do. I mean, that's how you look at just life in
general. I wouldn't be standing where I am today if I didn't have that
first opportunity to buy that house, which was
$99,500. Now it's over
$300,000. So, I mean, luckily, I had a VA home loan back
then that I could actually attain that, and I think I was 22 years old at
the time. So, we're just trying to open up opportunities, ma'am.
It's not-- We're not trying to create a whole different
world. We're just trying to take these individuals that tirelessly
risk their lives or are serving our children, our most
precious gift, to say, "Look, we're going to have your back as a government and
finally do something so that you can achieve that a little bit more
affordably." That's it. So...
So through the Chair, can I get the data on who they've helped,
kind of what the program has done in the
past?
Because I'm sorry, I haven't seen the legislation.
I'm going purely off-
Yeah, no problem
... you all's testimony. So I would want to see some of the data. Thanks, Chair.
Well, there's no past because it's a brand-new program.
There's nothing like this that's ever existed.
That's why this is very grassroots.
So we don't have data from the past because a loan like this doesn't exist.
I can give you VA data as far as how it's served since 1944.
This hasn't been done in another state?
Yeah. What's that?
This hasn't been done in other states?
No, this is not a state program. This is a federal program.
It's a federal-
This is basically FHA being federal.
So back in the day, we used to have programs that would help teachers if they
wanted to stay in the comm-
Yep
... we would have something like that.
Yeah.
You all had to get data from somewhere. Is there some data that we can see?
So-
Well, I guess, what kind of data are you looking for?
Are you looking for
the VA home loan as the example? Because VA is the one that we really carbon
copied this by.
Mm-hmm.
Are you looking for certain data points-
Mm-hmm
... of what VA has done?
Sure.
VA is, I know off the top of my head, 30 million people VA has served since
1944. Are you looking for demographics?
Whatever the military member is, that's who they served.
As long as they served honorably and they didn't get kicked out and have a
dishonorable discharge, there's certain different data points as far as
how much time they had to serve. With the HELPER Act, it's four years.
We got that data from the International Association of
Firefighters, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National
Educator Association. They like the four-year culmination.
But as far as people that have been served with anything like this
statewise, like I said, I'm from Pennsylvania, I live in Florida, we have
grant programs, but even that, it's normally based off your
time and service with that organization being police, fire, and so
forth.
So in order to come up with this legislation-
And I'm not trying to skirt around anything, it's just, yeah, there's nothing
really to give-
So in order to come up with this legislation, you used data.
That's what I'm asking for. You used data to realize that the programs that we
either have or do not have are not enough, and what people actually-
Yeah
... need. So I want to see that data.
I can be real personal. I came up with this program because I sat across from cops
that couldn't buy houses, and me being a Marine veteran and me being able
to buy, unlike them,
I just had a struggle. So I just lobbied Congress and said, "Hey,
let's try and put something together." I put this together based off what VA has
done in the past. We carbon copied it.
We even got the four definitions from what Tim talked about, the Good Neighbor
Next Door program. Teachers, cops, firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics
is actually from existing legislation, which Tim clearly said
doesn't work, and it really hasn't, because in 29 years of doing mortgages,
I've never done one Good Neighbor Next Door program.
And as you can see, I work with a lot of different organizations that are led
by service.
So I'll give you whatever I can, or we will as a
group. But really, we just looked at what's already existing in
legislation, Good Neighbor Next Door.
We took what VA was, we pulled the best of it, and we laid out a
bill that said, "Here you go." And I just know it doesn't cost money because
FHA is self-funded by the borrowers it serves.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Yeah, no problem. Thank you for all your questions. It was awesome.
Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you very much. Any additional questions?
Otherwise, appreciate our guests for today.
We definitely will follow up with some of the requests by the
chair, and it's important that we continue to find solutions at the state and
the federal level to address the affordability crisis across our
cities in the country.
This concludes our hearing today.
As a quick reminder, I want to make sure that people know that our next
regular Housing and Real Estate Committee meeting will be on Wednesday, May
13th at 12:30 in Room 201A.
I hope to see you all next week. I encourage, again, everybody to continue
to advocate in Springfield. We heard from Senator Guzman, the conversation around
revenue in particular is still
open. And with
the millionaire surcharge not moving forward, I do think it is important that we
look for alternatives. There being no further business before the committee, can I
get a motion to recommend approval to adjourn? It's a move by Vice Chair Mitchell.
All those in favor say aye. All opposed say nay.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
The meeting on housing and real estate is officially adjourned.
Thank you, and you have a great day.
Yeah, I vote by proxy, Mike.
I vote.
Okay.
Three
zero.