Yes on Comcast redo

Opinion: Editorials

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Editorial

By a 6-2 vote, the Oak Park Plan Commission last week supported the proposal to convert the derelict Comcast building on Madison Street into affordable housing. It was the right decision, and it followed a thorough and legitimate vetting process. This is an example of how Oak Park's governing process is supposed to work. We're confident that the village board chosen in April will affirm the plan commission recommendation.

This is a solid project backed by credible nonprofits with strong local ties. Oak Park has a proud history of support for affordable and supportive housing. This project will add to that tradition.

Opponents of the project, and they are largely immediate neighbors of it, have legitimate questions about parking and the required retail. Beyond those issues, we believe they overreacted badly.

Reader Comments

19 Comments - Add Your Comment

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

Comment Policy

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: April 19th, 2011 1:48 PM

Plan Com recommendation on the Madison Avenue Housing Development and Fact Finding still hasn't been made public despite the big announcement on March 17 (Happy St.Patrick's Day) that they voted 6-2 on some twenty recommendations. Since the board has selected May 16 as it meeting date and the planner said that the board would like to move it up May 9, shouldn't we know their findings by now? NO info from village?, Try HTTPS://

muriel schnierow from River Forest  

Posted: April 12th, 2011 5:27 PM

The real answer is to get to underprivileged children at the preschool level. they can be taught so much at that time and then we wont need to clump them together in deserted buildings and have to worry. there are a disproportionate number of young people misbehaving .Now to do that the Fed Govt has to raise taxes on billionaires and not cut head start.. Am i off subject> i sure hope so.

kathleen from OP  

Posted: April 12th, 2011 4:55 PM

I am opposed to this project and I don't live nearby. I am sick of zoning variances, inadequate parking, and developers who need taxpayer funding! This project is definitely not noted in the Madison Street master plan. This project is not good for Oak Park -- trustees please, please vote "NO".

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: April 12th, 2011 1:06 PM

Madison Housing Recommendations have still not been publicly announced a month after the vote by Plan Commission. I can understand the fact-finding report but why so slow on the actual recommendation? Need info on the proposed development, try

Mia Lu  

Posted: March 11th, 2011 11:39 AM

@ Student from Oak Park: I am a woman of color and I oppose this building. I also have concern regarding the education you are receiving in Oak Park schools. You poor, misguided little thing.

Spell Checker from River Forest  

Posted: March 10th, 2011 11:00 PM

Re: Student from Oak Park. I'm ignorance sense benefits college Louisiana actually You have to know how to spell to get into college !!

Student from Oak Park  

Posted: March 10th, 2011 10:30 PM

Im tired of white peoples ignorence on this topic. I'm only 14 and I have more sence on this topic then some of you. This project benifits many people and your all to worried about your property value. I cant wait till I go to colledge in a poor area like D.C. or Lousiana and actualy live and make friends with people who deserve to complain. People like all of you are the ones that make me want to move away. Not to mention I'm white and I support diversity 100%.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: March 10th, 2011 12:04 PM

Was the WJ too busy writing snappy editorials to report that the Sertus Hotel has been given another extension to find money. There was nothing in the WJ about the board's decision and no flash e-mail. That's strange since a house fire in Forest Park received a flash. Trib Local covered the story. As a side note, Is there a money problem in the Madison Prop? Nah, Uncle Sam will pay the $15M--maybe. Interfaith should be forced to provide a Surety Bond. Woops, think I am misbehaving again.

Mia Lu from Oak Park  

Posted: March 10th, 2011 11:03 AM

WJ editors are low in the media pecking world and lack social capital. Naturally, they wish to subvert others in order to justify their position. The Comcast redo forces the lesser classes to congregate together in a segregated area. When the WJ editors drive by, they can feel better about their own positioning. No on Comcast redo. No on shaming low-income individuals.

Dave of Oak Park from Oak Park  

Posted: March 10th, 2011 10:18 AM

Of course, the writer has never lived by low income housing. He's stuck in years of Oak Park happy talk his ilk keeps spouting without confronting real issues. A wonderfully diverse place, though we can't bother to address our kids' achievement gap. A place for business, though we can't figure out how to attract them like Berwyn and Forest Park do to our borders. A family place, with anti-family taxes. Now more SRO housing without a care about the impact. Badly? Badly thought editorial?

MO Money  

Posted: March 10th, 2011 10:03 AM

Done Deal. Both the VMA and the school board candidates have agreed to support each other's money grabs. It is all about the no bid legal, construction bonding, lending, insurance, real estate and surety bonding. Too much money. Cannot be stopped. Sorry, You lose sucker.  

Posted: March 10th, 2011 10:01 AM

Would canceling my subscription due to the one-sided coverage on this issue from The Wednesday Journal also be an overreaction?

Oak Park Parent from Oak Park  

Posted: March 10th, 2011 9:45 AM

This is an ill-conceived plan; at a cost of $330,000 per unit--just over 500 sq. ft--it is a waste of taxpayer dollars during these troubling economic times. How many homeowners in Oak Park are underwater right now? What about our underfunded schools? We have enough vacant one bedroom apartments to help those in need immediately. Hopefully the Board will not approve this in April.

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: March 9th, 2011 6:41 PM

Dear Editorial, Re: The Low Income Housing Project on Madison Thank you for the scolding. Those of us who object to the project, I should say those of us who think that building a Low Income Housing Project (or as you so gently put it - "Comcast Redo") is more than a parking and retail issue should be ashamed of ourselves. Why? Because!!!

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: March 9th, 2011 1:00 PM

Either the WJ has 1)no knowledge of the way OP Govt works or 2)amazing insight into board members pre-meeting votes. If it is #2, it is not insight that has appeared in the paper. The PlanCom vote is ADVISORY. Only the BOARD has a vote. As far as saying that opponents to the Mad. Prop. overreacting badly, what choice did they have. The WJ publisher endorsed the proposal before the first public meeting was even held. Without an objective press to vet the proposal, residents had to fill the gap.

Patricia O'Shea  

Posted: March 9th, 2011 12:24 PM

"We believe they over-reacted badly" LOL

J.Oak Park  

Posted: March 9th, 2011 8:03 AM

I do not live near the comcast building and I do not think the interfaith project is good for that site or good for Oak Park. I do think that the VMA and the Madison Street Coalition have done little to improve Madison in any way(other than more fast food joints) and is desperate to do something, even if it is unwanted by the village citizens. I have read many posts about the project, and I think I can recall two post for it and hundreds against it. Vote on April 5.

What now?  

Posted: March 9th, 2011 5:58 AM

I know right? What a clusterf*&(!! I beginning to think that the people in charge are completely incompetent. But I guess it is our on fault. They are ELECTED officials. The D97 election is uncontested this year, so yeah-can't do much about it now.

I Have an Idea from Oak Park  

Posted: March 9th, 2011 5:50 AM

Can the tax hike that District 97 wants be based on my property values AFTER they build this Cabrini Green-style housing development in my neighborhood? Or does the botched referendum language on the ballot not allow that? What an interesting situation -- the school district wants money and purports to be protecting my property values while the planning commission has decided to lower my property values by approving a questionable development without basic safeguards for the neighborhood.

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

Classified Ad