In Illinois, Gov. JB Pritzker has proposed one of the most sweeping statewide zoning overhauls in the Midwest. In his February State of the State address, Pritzker unveiled the Building Up Illinois Developments (BUILD) initiative, which would establish statewide zoning standards to legalize “missing middle” housing types—duplexes, triplexes, accessory dwelling units and other small-scale multifamily structures long restricted in many cities.
The proposal also includes roughly $250 million in funding for affordable and mixed-income housing, along with measures to standardize impact fees and streamline local permitting processes. The stated goal is straightforward: increase housing supply by removing local regulatory barriers that constrain it.
Within a day, the Illinois Municipal League publicly objected. The League, which represents cities and villages across the state, warned that state-imposed zoning standards could erode local authority over land-use decisions. For many local officials, zoning is not simply a technical code. It is a core expression of municipal self-governance.
The clash is not new. But Illinois offers a clear, contemporary example of the tradeoffs at stake.
At its core, the BUILD proposal embraces a premise gaining traction in statehouses: local zoning has become a statewide economic issue. When high-demand regions restrict multifamily housing, the effects ripple beyond city limits. Workers face longer commutes, employers struggle to hire and statewide affordability deteriorates.
“Missing middle” housing refers to modest-density buildings that fit within existing neighborhoods—two- to four-unit structures, courtyard apartments or small multiplexes. These forms were common before mid-20th century zoning reforms separated uses and capped density. In many jurisdictions today, they are either prohibited or subject to discretionary approval processes that increase uncertainty and cost.
From the governor’s perspective, legalizing these forms by right reduces friction in the housing market. Standardizing impact fees—charges levied on developers to cover infrastructure costs—adds predictability. Streamlining permitting timelines reduces carrying costs that can make smaller projects infeasible. The $250 million funding component signals that the state is not relying on deregulation alone.
From the local government perspective, however, preemption raises several concerns.
First, land use is intertwined with infrastructure capacity, school enrollment projections and neighborhood planning processes. A one-size-fits-all mandate may not account for localized constraints. Second, cities rely on zoning as a bargaining tool—trading density allowances for public amenities, design standards or infrastructure contributions. By-right standards can reduce that leverage. Third, political accountability for neighborhood change remains local, even if the mandate originates in state capitols.
These tensions reflect a broader governance question: when does a statewide housing shortage justify limiting municipal discretion?
Other states have answered that question in different ways. Some have set minimum density standards near transit. Others have legalized accessory dwelling units statewide. Illinois appears poised to consider a broader framework that combines legalization, fee reform and funding.
For local leaders elsewhere, the lesson is less about Illinois’ specific bill text and more about the trajectory of state involvement.
First, housing supply has moved from a niche planning issue to a macroeconomic priority. Governors increasingly frame zoning reform as workforce and competitiveness policy. That reframing expands the coalition for state action.
Second, state preemption rarely arrives in isolation. It is often paired with funding incentives, technical assistance or infrastructure support. Municipalities that engage early may shape implementation details, even if they cannot block the broader shift.
Third, resistance grounded solely in “local control” may prove insufficient. State legislators tend to ask whether local autonomy has delivered adequate housing outcomes. Where the answer appears to be no, the political case for preemption strengthens.
That does not mean local concerns lack merit. Implementation will matter. Clear definitions of by-right approval, reasonable timelines and allowances for genuine health and safety constraints can mitigate conflict. Transparent fiscal analysis of how standardized impact fees affect municipal budgets will also be essential.
The Illinois debate underscores a structural reality: zoning authority is a delegation from the state. States created municipalities and retain the power to redefine that delegation. In periods of perceived crisis, that authority becomes more apparent.
For cities nationwide, the prudent course is neither reflexive opposition nor passive acceptance. It is preparation. Local leaders can audit their own zoning codes, identify unnecessary barriers and demonstrate credible supply strategies before state intervention becomes inevitable.
If Illinois moves forward with BUILD, it will test how far a large state can go in reshaping local land-use authority to address housing scarcity. Other states will watch closely.
The larger takeaway is simple. When housing affordability becomes a statewide concern, zoning rarely remains a purely local one.
What Missouri can learn from Kansas’s budget crisis