Full thoughts, not full-throated, for debate on Comcast proposal

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Dan Haley

Editor and Publisher

Shrill is bad.

Pointless. Nonproductive. Hard on the ears and tough on legitimate discussion.

So the lady at the last village board meeting in Oak Park who spoke out of turn and lambasted the proposal for low-income housing at the Comcast building on Madison Street is officially declared, by me, as shrill. This proposal, like it or hate it, is not in any way similar to a CHA housing project.

We are too good a community to have a discussion about a controversial project, and this project on Madison is going to raise a ruckus, at such extremes.

How about we stipulate that any plan to build 51 units of housing in Oak Park for low-income people who aren't old and wrinkly is going to raise some concerns, particularly from people who live nearby? And let's also stipulate that people who spend their lives working for a group called the Interfaith Housing Development Corporation are probably pretty decent folks. And we'll extend that thumbs-up to the volunteer board members at the Oak Park Housing Authority, which is a co-applicant on this project.

Let's allow that the village board was following well-established procedure in sending this proposal to the Oak Park Plan Commission for hearings. And then let's dismiss the conspiracy theory that this proposal was held up purposely so that the plan commission hearing would fall in mid-December when everyone was distracted by sugarplums. Come on people! The village planner has already said the plan commission will likely have six separate meetings on this subject. There will be plenty of time for people to speak. The daffodils will be blooming and the Cubs will be losing before this one gets settled.

And that's fine. This is a challenging proposal in a difficult moment. We ought to take our time, study the issues, require additional factual information about the site, have the applicants pay for a traffic study, and let people speak, at length, for and against this idea.

The deliciously renamed citizen group, Oak Park Citizens for Inclusionary Housing, issued a summary of its position on the issue last week. Good PR move, and hopefully, a good substantive move, for the neighbors to be for something instead of just railing against something.

The two-page summary covers a lot of ground. This group has been working and they are, to their credit, making an effort to focus their opposition on issues and not mere fears. That said, I'd never write a sentence that puts the word "but" after "We believe in fair housing." And I was troubled by the line, the development "requires residents of all 51 units to be poor." Sure, it is low-income housing. But "poor" is a loaded word, and ought to be avoided.

There is a discussion to be had, though, about the environmental issues in converting a building that for decades served as a car dealership; there are legitimate questions about how much parking is necessary for tenants, staff and customers of the first-floor retail.

Given the village's mixed history in forcing retail into mixed-use projects in secondary locations—Ridgeland and South, South and Home—I wonder if retail is viable here.

So let's have the debate. It is a worthy one. But only if we conduct ourselves worthily.

Email: dhaley@wjinc.com Twitter: @OPEditor

Reader Comments

7 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

Mary Ellen Eads from Oak Park  

Posted: January 17th, 2011 8:43 PM

I don't think anyone is saying this is a CHA project; what we are saying is that the CHA's decades-long experience with high-density, low-income housing was a total failure. That's why CHA tore it down. Nor are we denigrating the poor. Many of us were poor when we started out in life. As to the developers, they have been at best inconsistent in their responses to questions from the community. That is far more significant than a community member "speaking out of turn," whatever that means.

W. from Oak Park  

Posted: January 17th, 2011 5:33 PM

There are enough affordable/available studio & 1BR apts in Oak Park. The true need is affordable family housing - this does not address that need and is being pushed for other purposes that truly are not about helping "poor" people.

Gabe from Oak Park  

Posted: January 17th, 2011 3:15 PM

Everyone is to ignorent to relieze some thing great. People are so disturbed by small problems that they over look every good thing that this building will bring.

OP Mom  

Posted: December 1st, 2010 10:24 PM

The thing that troubles me about this is the fact that all 51 units must house low income, poor - whatever label makes you most comfortable. Because the fact is, housing that places only people in a low income demographic into one over crowded building (51 units??) has not been successful in the past.Those who do not learn from their mistakes are domed to repeat them.

john murtagh from Oak Park  

Posted: December 1st, 2010 8:30 PM

C'mon Dan, how can you determine someone spoke in a shrill manner when you were not there. Nor was anyone else from the WM. It was the Oak Leaves that covered the story. The woman who was nervous to begin with was even more unnerved when she had to negotiate with the board to make her statement. She lost the negotiation. The President Pro Tempore gave her one minute rather than the more common three. By the time she made it to the podium she was a wreck.

Tom Scharre  

Posted: December 1st, 2010 6:05 PM

So "'poor' is a loaded word, and ought to be avoided"? What would you prefer? Differently resourced...currency challenged...monetary deficit disorder? This "poor" language of ours is being eviscerated by well-meaning folks like yourself who seem to think every inconvenient truth can be overcome with a euphemism.

Dave Heidorn from Oak Park  

Posted: December 1st, 2010 4:08 PM

True, it isn't like CHA housing. CHA has moved beyond this housing after understanding warehousing the disadvantaged was a bad idea. If we had institutions like a newspaper or representative government that heard both sides of an argument before taking a position, maybe shrill would not be needed. You prove the point, picking at a group's language when you fail to ask any tough question of the developers. And a good journalist would've defended her right to free speech at a gov't meeting.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2017

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2017 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad