At a board retreat hosted off the regular meeting schedule, Chicago Transit Authority Board members and staff focused a large portion of the morning and early afternoon on transit‑oriented development and how the agency should position itself going forward.

Board members and staff said CTA faces both legal constraints and internal policy limits when it tries to use or hold land for development. Kara Bader, vice president of strategy and innovation, briefed the board on three recurring barriers: statutory restrictions in the MTA Act, Federal Transit Administration rules linked to federally funded assets, and CTA’s own procurement policies and procedures (PP&Ps). “If we own a lot we have to basically be using it for providing transit,” Bader told the board, explaining how the enabling statute limits CTA’s ability to acquire or hold property for purely non‑transit uses.

The nut of the discussion was practical: how to pursue equitable TOD given those constraints. Bill (last name on file), who leads CTA planning projects, reviewed recent site work and lessons learned. He said the agency has moved between different approaches — from “sell the parcel at market value” models to more hands‑on corridor planning — and that the agency’s experience includes both failed attempts and more collaborative efforts. “We failed on a site, and we had to get in and actively manage how we release that so [developers] can be able to benefit,” he said, describing an earlier ground‑lease RFP that could not proceed without additional city funding commitments.

Board members repeatedly pressed staff for options rather than abstract problems. Director Roberto Roquejo and others urged CTA to be more proactive and visible, not just “at the table” but a leader that convenes developers, community groups, and city agencies to assemble financing and zoning support. Several directors noted prior legislative work: staff recalled that CTA’s 2024 lobbying included objectives to expand flexibility in the MTA Act and other authorities. Staff said the agency has begun those conversations with the regional transit authority and city planning staff.

Staff gave examples of different TOD approaches on CTA‑owned parcels: the 2525 N. Kedzie site (where an initial RFP failed then was restructured to include city housing supports), the 43rd Street Green Line parcels (where a private developer later drove investment), corridor‑level planning around major investment projects (RPM), and other smaller remnant sites on the Green Line and near 95th Street where city coordination is under way. Staff also described how the FTA now allows more flexibility on disposal for affordable housing in some cases but said application of the guidance is still evolving for CTA projects.

Board members asked staff to return with concrete options. Directors requested an explicit set of choices showing tradeoffs and resource implications — for example, what staff could do within current procurement rules, what would require new state legislation or an intergovernmental land transfer, and what additional staff or budget would be needed to pursue more active land management or a modest development program. Several directors emphasized equity and community partnership as priorities for any TOD approach.

Ending: Staff agreed to fold the board’s feedback into the strategic planning process and to develop a set of TOD scenarios with recommended guardrails, resource estimates and legal analyses. The board also signaled interest in convening private‑sector developers and city planning partners to accelerate feasible projects and explore tools such as discounted land transfers to enable deeper affordable housing on CTA‑adjacent sites.