Pritzker’s BUILD Plan Would Turn Your Church Property Into a Zoning Loophole

Written by David Curtin

If someone told you Illinois was the top state in the nation for people leaving and that we also have a severe housing shortage, you’d probably be puzzled.

That doesn’t make sense. But it’s really quite simple. Unlike surrounding states, Illinois has managed to shrink its economy, place devastating energy and tax policies on its citizenry, and spend billions to attract an influx of illegal migrants who need housing.

So when hundreds of thousands of people leave Illinois (and their housing) for other states, it is only a drop in the bucket compared to those huge waves of disastrous policies engulfing Illinois.

Never fear. The politicians who created this mess have an idea to fix the housing shortage.

The idea: Give the state politicians more control over local communities’ zoning.

The governor’s “Building Up Illinois Developments,” or BUILD Plan, is a package of bills intended to increase housing construction by overriding local zoning rules. One part of the package, Senate Bill 635, specifically targets property owned or controlled by churches and other religious organizations.

Supporters have given the idea an appealing name: “Yes in God’s Backyard.”

Under SB 635, an established church or other faith-based organization could allow multifamily housing, supportive housing, group homes or mixed residential-commercial developments to be built on its property “by right.” That phrase is important. It means the project would not need local zoning approval. What could go wrong?

The legislation would permit buildings as tall as six stories. Our locally elected city council members would all be in straitjackets. They could not require public hearings or discretionary design reviews. They certainly could not require special-use permits or planned-unit-development approval.

And if local officials failed to act on a completed application within 60 days, the project would be automatically approved “by operation of law.”

Supporters portray this as empowering churches. But it’s a way for developers to hopscotch over local zoning ordinances by using church property to build. And developers have a much different mission oftentimes than the church members.

But don’t worry. The state politicians know what’s best. In fact, the church would not even have to construct or operate the housing. The bill expressly allows a private development partner to do so under an agreement with the religious organization.

To make matters worse, the special zoning waivers would apply whether or not the church continued operating a sanctuary, school or ministry on the property.

So here’s how that would go… Developers could approach churches—particularly smaller congregations facing declining attendance or financial pressure—with promises of new revenue. A congregation might sign a long-term agreement without fully understanding the financial, legal and spiritual consequences (there are no local review guardrails, after all).

Once the project moves forward, church property could be transformed into a large commercial housing project largely beyond the control of church members and their surrounding community.

Of course, the devil is even further in the details. You guessed it. The bill raises serious religious-liberty questions.

Housing constructed under the act would be subject to the Illinois Human Rights Act. SB 635 specifically states that a faith-based organization may not engage in unlawful discrimination in renting, leasing or making the property available. Illinois law includes sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status and other classifications.

Would a church be able to operate housing consistently with its teachings about marriage, sexuality and family life? Could it establish conduct rules reflecting its religious beliefs? Would accepting public financing add further restrictions? The bill does not speak to those potential conflicts.

There are tax consequences as well. Churches would give up their religious-use property-tax exemptions. It might qualify for a charitable exemption, but only when used exclusively for charitable purposes and not leased or operated for profit. A church entering an agreement with a private developer could therefore find part of its property placed on the tax rolls.

Now churches have provided housing and charitable assistance for centuries. When a congregation prayerfully decides that housing advances its mission, government should not place unreasonable obstacles in its way.

But SB 635 goes much further. It uses religious property as a vehicle for overriding local zoning, removing public hearings and opening the door to six-story developments operated by private partners.

It places churches at the center of commercial real-estate deals while exposing them to tax, liability and religious-liberty concerns.

And municipal leaders across Illinois have objected that the proposal would weaken their ability to consider infrastructure, traffic, public safety and neighborhood character. Those concerns deserve to be heard—not dismissed as “red tape.”

As of now, SB 635 has not become law. While it stalled after passing the Illinois Senate Executive Committee, it will undoubtedly return next session under a new number, carrying the same poison. Simultaneously, the companion bill, HB 5626, remains a threat in the Illinois House. Make no mistake: this agenda to erode local sovereignty and subvert church autonomy is not dead—it is merely waiting for the next opportunity to strike.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state senator, state representative and Gov. Pritzker, urging them to reject the BUILD Plan or any attempt to turn church property into a zoning loophole. Tell them to protect local control, religious liberty and the mission of our churches.

Church property is consecrated for the worship of Almighty God and the furtherance of the Gospel, not for the convenience of state bureaucrats. We must reject this attempt to turn our sanctuaries into pawns for Springfield’s social engineering agenda against our local communities.