The failure of this referendum is similar to getting a bounced check back, except as is so often the case, Johnson already spent the money

Brandon Johnson vows to start fighting after ‘Bring Chicago Home’ referendum falls way short, will try harder next time
But under repeated questioning after Wednesday’s City Council meeting, the mayor refused to say exactly what he would do to continue that fight. Nor would he say whether he would try to search elsewhere for more revenue.
By Fran Spielman





Mayor Brandon Johnson answers questions from reporters Wednesday after a City Council meeting. The mayor insisted that despite the apparent failure of a referendum to help Chicago’s unhoused population, he would continue the fight.


Anthony Vazquez/Sun-Times

Complete coverage of the local and national primary and general election, including results, analysis and voter resources to keep Chicago voters informed.

A defiant Mayor Brandon Johnson vowed Wednesday to keep fighting for a dedicated revenue source to combat homelessness and warned anyone who might assume that one defeat will make him put the brakes on his progressive agenda to “buckle up” for a rocky ride.

One day after his signature referendum authorizing the City Council to raise the real estate transfer tax on high-end property transactions appeared to go down in flames, Johnson insisted there are “a lot more yeses” still out there in neighborhoods most impacted by the housing crisis, and he needs to “continue to organize to make sure that we’re bringing our neighbors along who may not be as impacted by this issue.”

Though tens of thousands of mail ballots have yet to be counted, and the race had not officially been called by the Chicago Board of Elections or The Associated Press, supporters on Wednesday were resigned to the fact that the ballot measure appeared all but dead.

“There’s not a fight we have … taken on that we won’t have the ability to win,” Johnson said. “The last I checked, the people of Chicago are still very much committed to addressing and solving this issue. So I’m very much committed. The fight still goes on.”

But under repeated questioning after Wednesday’s City Council meeting, Johnson refused to say how or when he would continue the fight for the estimated $100 million in annual revenue he had hoped to generate to help homeless Chicagoans.

Nor would he say whether he would try again to place the referendum on the ballot in November or later and simplify it to make it easier for voters to understand or search elsewhere for more revenue.

He would only say he was constrained by ethics rules that he said prevented him from campaigning for the "Bring Chicago Home" bid.

“I believe that the 68,000 people who are unhoused deserve a champion — and they got one," he said. But "there were some limitations on how I could engage in this moment. That was frustrating. … I wanted to campaign more. ... I’m a gamer. Heck yeah, I wanted to be out there. … I wanted the ball."
RELATEDProgress report? Election brings mix of cheers and tears for Chicago progressives
What you need to know about the ‘Bring Chicago Home’ referendum

Nor does this mean his progressive agenda is in trouble, he insisted.

"If anyone believes that one issue that we still have to address is going to cause me to put the brakes on my agenda — well they missed the City Council today because we are moving forward with the $1.25 billion bond deal that’s going to invest in people because that’s what I promised that I was going to do, and that’s what I’m doing, and that’s what I will continue to do. So guess what? Buckle up.”

Mayoral communications director Ronnie Reese said Johnson was told city officials cannot campaign for or against any referendum question with city resources on city time.



The Building Owners and Managers Association and other real estate and business interests mounted a furious campaign, first in the courts, then through television commercials, urging voters to reject a plan they said would raise rents.

The $2 million-plus campaign also questioned Johnson's handling of crime and the migrant crisis and asked voters whether they were prepared to give the mayor $100 million to spend without specifying exactly how he planned to spend it.

Johnson called it “cowardly” for real estate interests to try to make him the central issue.



Tents line both sides of an encampment on the 1100 block of South Desplaines Street during a brutal cold snap in January.


Referendum supporter Ald. Maria Hadden (49th) said those opponents can't just walk away now.

“They put a lot of money into opposing this, and so what are their ideas?” Hadden said Wednesday. "They say they want to serve Chicago? I would love to see them come to the table.”

Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd), one of the most outspoken opponents of "Bring Chicago Home," called Tuesday’s referendum results a “repudiation of the new brand of, 'first-we-get-the-money' socialism."

With nearly all precincts reporting — but tens of thousands of mail-in ballots distributed and not yet returned — the "no" votes on the referendum stood at 53.7% to 45.3% voting "yes."

Hopkins said in their attempt to use a slight tax decrease to sugarcoat a massive tax increase, United Working Families, the Chicago Teachers Union and the progressive unions behind the referendum underestimated what he called the “inability for people to comprehend the language on the ballot.”

“You’re faced with this block of indecipherable text. If you were either unaware or hadn’t really formed an opinion at that point, you’re much more inclined to vote `no.’ ... I really think that was a factor in this. It’s the longest referendum question I’ve ever seen on the ballot," he said.

Veteran political strategist Delmarie Cobb agreed the multipart question left voters confused.

"Part of what was questionable was the wording of it. What they need to do is try to see if they can reintroduce it during another election," Cobb said. "But he has to do a better case by wording it correctly on the ballot and assuring voters that is what this money is going for. That was the one issue I kept hearing over and over — that, 'I’m not sure that’s where this money is going to go.'"