Is “greenlining”—the overapplication of environmental restrictions—strangling urban economies? In cities like Chicago, redundant studies, bureaucratic fees, and costly regulations have turned a laudable environmental movement into an obstacle to economic progress. This raises the question: Is “green” the new “red” for redevelopment?

Greenlining describes the excessive use of environmental policies to delay or block property redevelopment under the guise of preserving environmental harmony. Critics say this approach stalls economic opportunities and locks properties in bureaucratic limbo for years. Worse still, it enables a system where political insiders may later bypass restrictions to acquire properties under more favorable terms.

A recent report highlighted 2,700 houses and commercial properties in Chicago stalled by environmental issues. These properties sit unsold and undeveloped, ensnared in a costly and lengthy process of government inspections and reviews. While environmental preservation is critical, the reality is stark: the “green tape” applied to these properties halts development, suppresses tax revenues, and adds layers of fees developers are unwilling to pay.

The process is riddled with inefficiencies. Developers interested in acquiring properties must navigate redundant environmental assessments, additional inspections, and bureaucratic costs. According to one report: “Chicago’s policy for ‘environmental review’ policy is unnecessarily burdensome for two reasons. First, City Hall must sort through its thousands of acquired parcels and determine potential sources of contamination. Given this, it’s no surprise that a significant number of those properties require further environmental review before being sold to developers. Second, even for available land, the city forces prospective buyers to pay twice: once for the property and then again for the environmental assessment.”

To make matters worse, developers must enroll properties into Illinois’ Site Remediation Program, a process that comes with its own fees and bureaucratic hurdles. The state, of course, collects its “cut” of the process, creating another layer of expense.

The outcome is predictable: developers walk away. The city loses tax revenue as properties remain vacant and urban revitalization stagnates. As one industry veteran said, “You want this property to build on? Pay for this study and then that study. Oh, and by the way, you must also enroll in some state environmental program, for which you must write another check.”

In the 1970s, redlining—discriminatory lending and zoning practices—was weaponized to limit economic opportunities for communities of color. Today, critics argue that greenlining is playing a similar role under a different guise. Excessive environmental policies block property redevelopment, prevent market-driven growth, and keep idle land off the tax rolls.

The situation in Chicago illustrates this tension. Thousands of properties have sat dormant for decades, stalled by redundant requirements that duplicate federal and state environmental standards. Some properties have remained idle for over 50 years, a consequence of policies that critics say prioritize short-term bureaucratic fees over long-term economic gains.

By contrast, cities like New York and Los Angeles have adopted more streamlined approaches to selling vacant land. Their policies minimize unnecessary reviews and enable quicker redevelopment, which generates tax revenue and stimulates local economies.

The hidden costs of greenlining are profound. First, cities lose significant tax revenues by keeping properties off the market. Each year a property sits vacant, the city forfeits potential revenue that could fund schools, infrastructure, and public services. Second, developers, weary of dealing with burdensome fees and bureaucratic hurdles, take their investments elsewhere.

The consequences are especially damaging in a city plagued by economic challenges. Chicago’s new mayor, Brandon Johnson, seems to recognize the problem. His proposed “Cut the Red Tape” initiative aims to simplify the redevelopment process and return properties to the tax rolls. The mayor’s efforts acknowledge that excessive bureaucracy is slowing economic recovery. However, whether these reforms will gain traction remains to be seen.

The irony of Chicago’s greenlining policies becomes apparent when considering the city’s environmental reality. Despite its stringent environmental reviews, Chicago consistently ranks as the most rat-infested city in America, outpacing New York and Los Angeles. The logic seems paradoxical: idle properties awaiting cleanup do little to improve environmental conditions while simultaneously burdening the local economy.

Cities must decide whether excessive environmental fees and restrictions are the right tools for generating revenue. For many, the answer is clear: Streamlining the process and offering developers reasonable incentives would accelerate redevelopment, increase property values, and inject critical funds into municipal budgets.

Critics of greenlining suggest it is more than just bureaucratic inefficiency. In some cases, environmental restrictions are weaponized to delay redevelopment until politically connected buyers emerge. By layering properties with costly reviews and requirements, cities can effectively sideline developers. Later, these restrictions may be quietly removed for the “right” buyer.

They argue that the system perpetuates a cycle in which properties remain idle for years until a preferred developer steps in to acquire them under favorable terms. This alleged favoritism only exacerbates Chicago’s reputation for inefficiency and corruption.

Protecting the environment and fostering economic growth are not mutually exclusive goals. However, cities must recognize when well-intentioned environmental policies become obstructionist. In Chicago’s case, the evidence is clear: Excessive “green tape” has stalled redevelopment, driven developers elsewhere, and deprived the city of much-needed revenue.

Streamlining environmental reviews, eliminating redundancy, and reducing unnecessary fees would allow cities to balance environmental stewardship with economic progress. Developers could invest in vacant properties, neighborhoods could see revitalization, and cities could enjoy increased tax revenues.

Cities must ask themselves: Are environmental policies meant to protect public health, or are they tools of stagnation? The answer lies in striking a balance—maintaining rigorous but efficient standards that encourage redevelopment rather than stifling it.

Until then, cities like Chicago will remain mired in green tape, with thousands of vacant properties and opportunities for growth left unrealized. Environmental policies should reflect both economic pragmatism and environmental stewardship. Anything less risks turning a good idea into yet another barrier to progress.