A YouGov poll conducted last month shows registered voters in Illinois overwhelmingly believe that the cost of renting and buying a home is a problem, think that there aren’t enough affordable homes for average folks and want the state Legislature to take action.
The poll of 806 Illinois registered voters was taken March 1-9 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points. The survey was conducted on behalf of YIMBY Illinois, a nonprofit which “advocates for abundant housing and sustainable, inclusive cities throughout Illinois.”
But the questions look legit, and the poll even tests some opposing arguments, although no questions about our high property taxes were asked.
The poll was released as Gov. JB Pritzker and others are pushing a plan to build “missing middle” residences, including multifamily developments and “granny flats” throughout the state. But proponents must overcome strong opposition from many municipal governments, which do not want to give up their control of local zoning.
Eighty-four percent of those polled said the cost of renting or buying a home was a “major problem” (47%) or “somewhat a problem” (37%). That majority held up in every state region and demographic. Even 76% of those who approve of President Donald Trump’s job performance said it’s a problem (39% major, 37% somewhat, with 17% saying it’s a minor or not really a problem). Just a reminder that subsets have a higher margin of error than the overall survey.
Another 67% of respondents said Illinois does not have “enough homes that are affordable for average people to buy or rent,” while 18% said there were enough, and 16% weren’t sure or didn’t know. Again, every region and demographic agreed with the position, including 54% of Trump approvers.
A sizable 82% said state legislators should “take action” to address the housing shortage and costs of housing in the state (49% strongly agreed and 33% somewhat agreed). Even 68% of Trump supporters either strongly (35%) or somewhat (33%) agreed, while just 20% disagreed (8% strongly).
Voters were somewhat split when asked to rate their city or town’s efforts to keep housing affordable, with 47% rating it positively, including 3% “very good,” 11% “good” and 33% “acceptable.” Another 40% rated it negatively, with 10% saying it’s “very poor” and 30% calling it “poor.” Those results were roughly similar throughout regions and all other demographics.
Perhaps the most surprising result was when voters were asked, “even if it isn’t exactly right,” which of the following came closer to their opinions: 61% said it was “more important to build more homes in my neighborhood so that people who work in my community can afford to live here, than it is to protect the neighborhood from change,” while 27% said it’s “more important to protect my neighborhood from change than it is to build more homes that working people can afford.” Even a plurality of 47% of Trump supporters agreed with building more homes in their communities so people could afford to live where they work, while 40% said protecting their neighborhood from change was more important.
Sixty-five percent said they agreed that “Building more affordable housing is more important for Illinois,” and 27% said “Protecting the character of neighborhoods from change is more important for Illinois” was closer to their opinion.
And despite a plurality narrowly approving of their local government’s ability to keep housing affordable, 65% (including 57% of Trump supporters) said “Illinois state legislators should prioritize building more homes and bringing down housing costs,” while just 18% said “Illinois state legislators should prioritize preserving the power city governments have over what types of homes can be built and where.” Another 17% were unsure.
The poll also tested various ways of building more affordable housing, and all had majority support, although all had more “somewhat” support than “strong” support.
Sixty-three percent supported allowing construction of “granny flats” or other accessory dwelling units. Sixty-nine percent supported building townhouses and small apartment buildings “on all-residential lots.” Sixty-six percent said they supported allowing homes to be built on lots that are just 1,500 square feet. Seventy-four percent said faith groups should be allowed to build low-income housing.
While the numbers don’t show voters want to give the state carte blanche, these results are much more positive than many statehouse types probably expected.
- RNUG - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 9:43 am:
I’m likely going to be the contrarian here.
While I agree there is some over regulation of housing, especially in the area of zoning, I think the more restrictive costs on housing are insurance and property taxes. Construction is a one-time cost; homeowners insurance and property taxes are annual ongoing costs.
And I’m also going to take exception to the claim of high housing prices. Outside of a few major metropolises, housing prices are pretty low in Illinois. Not Missouri or Arkansas or Oklahoma cheap, but low. Go price housing in places like North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Arizona, and California.
It’s more the cost of housing in comparison with income. Although you see wider ratios in major cities and people still manage to buy homes.
In my opinion, legislators should be looking at two things: a way to incentivize building basic homes and corporations buying up homes for short term rental businesses.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 9:48 am:
I don’t have a problem with the “abundance” policies, but I think advocates can over sell the solutions. For example, if you build a bunch of housing in the most desirable areas of Chicago, the prices can still just keep going up and up because there are lots of people who want to live there. Even if you implement the policy, you do not get the solution, lower or more stable housing costs, because there are lots of other factors in the market impacting prices. I think the State proposal is interesting, but there needs to be a more comprehensive policy approach than just increase supply.
- Senator Clay Davis - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 10:02 am:
::Outside of a few major metropolises, housing prices are pretty low in Illinois.::
Said another way: Houses are cheap where nobody wants to live.
If it’s too expensive to rent/own in the places where all the people are, it’s too expensive to rent/own, hence the numbers in the poll.
- Frida's Boss - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 10:04 am:
In Illinois, we sue the President and the Federal Government for getting involved in State affairs, because it is governmental overreach.
In Illinois, we feel local governments are not doing what we want, so we are going to force them to listen to the state and go around what the local leaders want for their own communities.
- DuPageKid - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 10:15 am:
RNUG is exactly right. The total cost of home ownership is by far the biggest issue facing normal people.
A friend recently had a job offer to relocate from St. Louis suburbs to Chicago. An equivalent home would cost 2x in insurance and 4x in property taxes, while the purchase price wasn’t much higher.
Yes, it’s a single anecdote, but stop talking about home prices and start costing about cost of ownership.
- Cole - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 10:40 am:
==Outside of a few major metropolises, housing prices are pretty low in Illinois.==
There is one major metropolitan area in the state and it houses like 80% of the state’s population. Saying “Only there” is kinda missing the point when that one place has the vast majority of the population.
- RNUG - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 10:43 am:
If you want to improve housing affordability, the Legislature should look at:
lowering insurance costs
Lowering local property taxes by increasing the State’s contribution to local schools. There have been past proposals to increase the income tax to fund this, with mandatory dollar for dollar reductions in local school levies. Alternatively, change the State income tax deduction to be a credit equal to 100% of the property tax paid on a primary owner occupied residence. The disadvantage of such a credit is it would not help renters, just homeowners. Or a third choice would be to increase the State sales tax to fund the schools, but that would likely meet more resistance than an income tax increase. Or the Legislature, in their wisdom, could cut other expenditures to fund property tax reduction.
Taxpayers (voters) will notice action on the above much more than any reductions in the cost of building new / expanded housing.
- Chicagonk - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 10:46 am:
Property taxes remain the biggest issue in the a lot of communities. A $250K home in Rock Island has an effective tax rate of 3.3%. That same home across the border in Iowa would be priced around 325K and the property tax would be $4K less a year. Home prices in Illinois are depressed because of high property taxes.
- RNUG - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 10:46 am:
== There is one major metropolitan area … ==
And if you lower the eduction portion of the property tax there, it will have a major impact.
- Nick - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 10:58 am:
===For example, if you build a bunch of housing in the most desirable areas of Chicago, the prices can still just keep going up and up because there are lots of people who want to live there.===
Not a bad point to remember, but I will say the studies that have been done show that new housing is still beneficial even in this sort of scenario. New housing tends to lower prices for older properties even in the same neighborhood; the yuppie who wants to move to Lincoln Park was always going to find somewhere to live but now they’re going for the new “luxury” apartment.
Similarly, demand is not infinite. If West Loop builds a ton of new units then those are people who would very likely have been bidding for homes/rentals in other neighborhoods. Even if the prices in the West Loop are still going up there’s still benefit for the wider area.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 11:02 am:
Frida’s Boss, local governments are literally a creation of the state.
- Chicagonk - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 11:02 am:
On insurance since I work in insurance and am very familiar with the issues, my only recommendation is to shop through an independent broker and get quotes. There are a lot of insurers writing homeowners insurance in Illinois and it is a very competitive marketplace (also why the new insurance law is misguided in my opinion). The biggest driver of insurance increases is climate change - Illinois is going to see a lot more wind and hail claims going forward then it did in the past 100 years.
- City Guy - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 11:03 am:
One issue with the cheap housing outside Chicago metro area (especially small rural towns) is the housing can be out of date and need remodeling to bring up to modern standards.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 11:16 am:
===Even if the prices in the West Loop are still going up there’s still benefit for the wider area.===
That may be true, but it is not why there is so much support. People want it to be easier to achieve their dreams.
There are plenty of goods that do not operate according to this Econ 101 supply and demand curve. I know there are lots of developers who would want to build in the best areas of Chicago too or other places. I would like to see a more comprehensive plan than just “jack up the supply of housing.”
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 11:22 am:
===I know there are lots of developers who would want to build in the best areas of Chicago too or other places===
That’s why this is focused on the so-called “missing middle” housing.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 11:31 am:
===lowering insurance costs===
Easier said than done, considering rising housing prices and the very real effects of climate change (see Chicagonk above).
As Florida and California have discovered, push insurance companies too hard on pricing and you don’t have many willing insurance companies.
- Montrose - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 12:01 pm:
The Tweet Rich included points to a big issue for people that care about housing that’s affordable to those with the lowest incomes. The point the tweeter is trying to make is “Don’t worry. No one is proposing building housing for those people.”
This is where I have trouble with (some of) the abundance folks. They care about housing issues that impact them and their friends, but actively either don’t care or actively separate themselves from the housing needs of those with the least means.
I am all for making homeownership and market rental more affordable, but do it in a way that also creates more affordable housing for everyone and doesn’t reinforce stereotypes about “Section 8″ housing just to help your abundance agenda.
- Notorious JMB - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 12:13 pm:
The other side of this is that it’s putting more strain on infrastructure. Smaller subdivision of lots, especially if they are in older, established neighborhoods, is going to result in more traffic than streets were designed for, a shortage of parking, more stormwater runoff than the sewer system was designed for (less green space for rain to soak into) resulting in more sewer backups and street flooding, more houses using the water and waste water systems than they were designed for, and more homes pulling electricity and gas than the infrastructure was designed for.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 12:23 pm:
===The other side of this ===
“Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 12:29 pm:
===but do it in a way that also creates more affordable housing for everyone===
Some would argue that by building these missing middle homes, other more affordable housing is freed up for rental/purchase.
- Dotnonymous x - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 12:33 pm:
Illinois possesses one of the oldest and most antiquated housing stocks in the United States, frequently ranked as the 6th oldest in the nation. As of 2026, over 70% of Illinois’ housing units were built before 1980, with a significant portion of the inventory dating back to the early-to-mid 20th century.
- Montrose - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 12:38 pm:
=Some would argue that by building these missing middle homes, other more affordable housing is freed up for rental/purchase.=
I don’t disagree with that, but you still need rental subsidies to reach people with the lowest incomes. The free market can’t fix a market failure.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 1:43 pm:
===especially those on fixed incomes—need more attainable options.===
Grandma and Grandpa, having spent their entire lives against legislation and zoning that would have allowed for more dense housing in their communities and railing against multi unit housing in their neighborhoods, now seek a state law that would enable them to boost their property values and draw additional income at the peak of a housing crisis they helped to create without getting input or approval from their neighbors.
Don’t get me wrong, I am very supportive of the Governor’s proposal. I just appreciate the hypocrisy coming from some folks. Especially given that this conversation has always involved dog whistles.
- Like A Bad Neighbor - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 1:48 pm:
==There are a lot of insurers writing homeowners insurance in Illinois and it is a very competitive marketplace==
Not in my experience. After my house was hit by tornado-force winds and State Farm refused to adequately address my claim (well short of the $50k needed to fix my house), I went looking for new insurance. I was told by multiple independent brokers that they could hardly find any companies that would insure my house.
The Illinois insurance market is already broken - that’s why we need to fix it.
- Mason County - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 2:23 pm:
As always it all depends on how this is done. Despite the Poll by You.gov, if one builds high density, lower cost housing in more expensive neighborhoods there will be considerable backlash. People who have paid a lot of money for their home, and to live in a less congested area, naturally (and rightfully) do not want such change. If these homes are built in areas already zoned for higher density, then the reaction should be minimal.
- Mason County - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 2:36 pm:
A huge factor in housing cots is the initial upfront Closing costs. These have grown immensely over the decades. And there has been plenty written about it but there is no change. These fees can easily be 3-6% of the price of the home. Again, it is upfront. For example, when I bought my first home in 1977 there was no appraisal fee, the bank did and there was no charge. No title insurance. I paid a small fee to run the Title but that was it. It was assumed that the Attorney doing the search knew what they were doing in the first place. Underwriting fees and processing fees galore.
And then after you buy the home some very high property taxes.
Does the cost of housing need to be addressed. it sure does. And some of this BUILD proposal may actually help. But think everything through, and make it an economic rather than a political agenda.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 2:38 pm:
=== It was assumed that the Attorney doing the search knew what they were doing in the first place===
Which is why more restrictions were put in place. Agree that the fees are high, but the title has to be absolutely rock solid.
- Mason County - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 2:56 pm:
=Which is why more restrictions were put in place. Agree that the fees are high, but the title has to be absolutely rock solid.=
Not blaming this on the State. State law does not require Title Insurance . It is the lenders and they make no effort to negotiate or handle these costs through their own legal staff. They merely pass on the bill to the consumer with no concern.
- Remember the Alamo II - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 4:06 pm:
=== No title insurance. I paid a small fee to run the Title but that was it. It was assumed that the Attorney doing the search knew what they were doing in the first place. ===
Remember the Torrens system used to be in place as well, which has been defunct here in Illinois since the 1990s. We are much more reliant on title insurance now than we were at that time.
- RNUG - Monday, Apr 6, 26 @ 6:38 pm:
== huge factor in housing cots is the initial upfront Closing costs … ==
Mason County makes a good point. One of the problems for potential homeowners is initial entry cost. I will note that nothing the State and some Counties have various loan and grant programs to address this, like the First Time Homebuyer. Once you are in the market and building equity through both payments and inflation, it’s a bit easier to trade up.
Which brings up another point or two. Someone noted that Illinois has old / substandard housing. Is it really sub-standard (as in not safe) or does it just not meet the expectations of potential entry level buyers … who have been watching all the real estate shows and may have unrealistic expectations for their first home?
Yes, very few builders are constructing basic entry level homes because of the narrow profit margins. But older stock exists, just not 5 minutes from work in a Chi-Chi neighborhood. And yes, those older homes may need to have some sweat equity put into them.