A bad plan succeeds

One View

Opinion: Columns

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

John Murtagh

It was Nov. 2, 2010 at the Oak Park village board and the Madison Housing Development was on the agenda. When the development issue was addressed, the woman attempted to approach the microphone to make a public comment. She was told there would be no public comments at the meeting.

She was confused and enraged by the absence of public commentary and said so. She then debated and negotiated with the board's president pro tem. She was given one minute to speak. She identified herself as living on Kenilworth and said she was opposed to the housing proposal for the Comcast building.

While expressing her viewpoint she said: "I don't see why the Village of Oak Park needs a CHA-type building in Oak Park when all over they are tearing down CHA buildings."

During the board deliberations, board members criticized the use of the term CHA and one stated: "The term 'CHA type housing' to me is symptomatic of the rhetoric built on emotion as opposed to fact, creating images as opposed to details." The statement sounded sincere.

Now I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I thought freedom of speech in the United States had been granted to all and includes both words and acronyms. I don't recall reading in the Constitution that the Oak Park village board is allowed to modify the Constitution at will.

The event could be considered incidental and forgettable if the board were able to overlook the woman's comments. But the board could not let go. In their referral of the proposal to the Oak Park Plan Commission, the board carried its rage one step further by stating: "The board also wanted the plan commission to recognize the negativity that has been stated in the community relating this development to CHA Housing and believes it should not be allowed to percolate in the public hearing process." Only one person, the chastised woman, had appeared before the board, but that was enough to necessitate group punishment.

Some thought the board was tampering with the plan commission by attempting to compromise its view of the opposition, others just felt that the board was being fatherly and patronizing leaders. Again, the entire issue could have been forgotten except it was discovered that the board members' outrage was not spontaneous but strategic.

In January, 2010, a village board "action plan" stated, "The village should pro-actively address this issue to eliminate the potential for non-my-backyard (NIMBY) to this important project." The board approved the action plan as part of the overall plan approval.

The plan became the political platform to ensure that voices opposed to the development were silenced. The execution of the plan was masterful. Approval was received from the press, village commissions, plan commission, and village board with the acronym NIMBY attached at every step. At the end, the board used its bully pulpit to lecture the community and reprimand those whose views varied from its scheme. The NIMBYs were banished.

It is one thing to dictate the terms allowed in use at a board meeting, it is another to conduct an unsavory strategy to keep residents uninformed. I would love to say that I look forward to the board's response, but I am a realist. Their response now will not differ from the incomplete, insincere, vague, and opaque responses it gave to the community during its clumsy adjudication of the Madison Housing Development vote.

Reader Comments

93 Comments - Add Your Comment

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

Comment Policy

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: September 30th, 2012 1:11 AM

MAD HOUSING Q&A from METROPOLITAN PLANNING COUNCIL NEWS LETTER (BLOG) -- QUESTION Kisha - March 29, 2012 When will the Grove Apartments be available to move in. I currently have applications on Section-8 waiting list for Oak Park Housing? ANSWER Breann Gala on March 30, 2012 Hi Kisha and others-- Grove Apartments will not be available till fall of 2014. I'm sorry for the delayed construction. In the meantime, you are still eligible to put your name on the other regional waiting lists if they interest you. All Oak Park Housing Authority waiting list families are permitted to live in any of the developments across the region. Some one tell me again how the Oak Park people with low incomes would be given preference in occupying the Madison Housing Apartments. Take note that the apartments will not be available until fall 2014. Does anyone remember that the project got "hurry-up" review treatment by the board and Plan Commission because the developer wanted to have the project done by 2012?

alaCartoon from OP  

Posted: June 9th, 2011 9:50 PM

Laff-ordable Housing! Another possible viewpoint from alaCartoon.com http://alaCartoon.com


Posted: June 7th, 2011 8:16 PM

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition.

O P Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 7:45 PM

God still loves you.....

epic lulz  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 7:01 PM

Anyone who invokes the First Amendment to criticize criticism should be banned from publishing Letters to the Editor.

Pedophiles R Us  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 6:56 PM

"The worldwide Catholic Church is the oldest, biggest, most efficient provider of loving charity on the planet." Thank God for that!

OP Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 5:45 PM

You don't want to go there, JKDIV. The Catholic Church engaged in a worldwide criminal enterprise involving the abuse of children. Did you hear the Pope claim that some priests were actually seduced by the children? Don't lecture anyone on morals and values without condemning the actions of the Church's hierarchy and their refusal admit to their crimes and surrender themselves for prosecution.

JKDIV from Riverside  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 5:29 PM

In an age that deifies everything organic, criticism of the Catholic position on marriage and the family is supremely ironic. It's even harder to understand criticism of Catholic Charities. The worldwide Catholic Church is the oldest, biggest, most efficient provider of loving charity on the planet. If the Church didn't serve those who violate its well-defined, reason based moral teachings, it would serve no one. That Catholic Charities doesn't measure up to "Oak Parker's values" is laughably asinine. Once again, the champions of tolerance prove to be the most intolerant; nice values.

O P Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 5:22 PM

You are welcome in my church any tinm or day. Light is the only way to fight darkness. Hello

OP Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 5:17 PM

It's obvious that Catholic Charities considers themselves to be above the law. They are preaching against people who live in this community and serve as our elected officials. Why waste time dealing with this organization? Let Innerfaith and OPHA take control and send the bigots packing.

O P Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 5:02 PM

Its against the law to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The short answer is No. No one is above the law. Period. Secondly they wouldn't know what their sexual orientation is since they wont ask that. Singles will live here. Not couples.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 4:09 PM

Brian Lantz asked a very important question that deserves to be answered by the Village President and trustees. Let's see if any have the courage to say that Catholic Charities does not fit in with Oak Park's values. It might be reasonable for the board to request that Innerfaith and the Oak Park Housing Authority dissolve their partnership with Catholic Charities. Do we have indication that this organization will not discriminate against tenants due to sexaul orientation? Is it in writing?

OP Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 3:50 PM

Of course, you are right. Every trustee should speak out against the policies of Catholic Charities. I mentioned Luecke and Johnson because both have been strong advocates for LBGT rights.

O P Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 3:38 PM

Of course there are gay people who go to churches synagogues, temples etc......


Posted: June 7th, 2011 3:28 PM

But the Catholic Church doesn't like same sex partners in civil unions. Is that inclusive?

O P Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 3:25 PM

Hey OP Resident, FYI: you dont have to be gay to support or defend rights for all. I think your comment pertains to all trustees.

O P Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 3:20 PM

Jesus, Allah, or which ever God you like loves everyone. All inclusive, just like this project. Yeaaa.....thats the ticket

OP Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 3:08 PM

Trustees Johnson and Luecke need to address the discriminatory policies of Catholic Charities.

Questioning after the fact  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 2:57 PM

Is any of the counseling, etc. the tenants are going to receive from the caseworkers "faith based"?


Posted: June 7th, 2011 2:55 PM

Does CC love Muslims, Hindus and Jews too?

Brian lantz  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 2:51 PM

OK. Apparently CC as an organization loves and respects all, except for those joined in civil unions? Will that apply to the new housing project as well? Stay tuned.


Posted: June 7th, 2011 2:47 PM

Maybe the state will realize that it's bankrupt before dishing out hand outs and spare us.

O P Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 2:46 PM

God forbid, we love and respect our neighbor(s). Those religious values will hurt us all. Save us please.

Brian Lantz  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 2:42 PM

So does Catholic Charities really fit with Oak park's values? Per the Trib, today: Lawyers for Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Springfield, Peoria and Joliet are seeking an emergency injunction that would protect religious agencies who turn away unmarried couples who want to become foster parents -- including couples in civil unions.

O P Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 1:16 PM

Its official. Thanks VOP for voting for this project. It exemplifies what OP stands for and everything that is good about OP. Best of luck to Interfaith on making this a reality. I look forward to the day the ribbon is cut.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 6:46 PM

Murtagh, If you dont know the history and successes of the Res Corp, you dont know much about OP's Housing programs dating back to the 70's

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 6:01 PM

Hi Jim - I did not say that Interfaith had problems,I said that I/F and OPHA ran a PR campaign saying that, but never produced any evidence from an independent and objective source. We did receive a complaint from a southside woman. After reviewing the complaint, We felt deeply for the woman. We sent it to Interfaith. We requested that they let us know about the outcome. After 3 e-mails to Interfaith w/o reply, we sent the letter to a village official. We never made the letter public.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 5:48 PM

Jim C - Each year HUD assigns an amount of funds to each state for use in housing tax credits. The state housing then choices developments to be funded -- usually 20-25 in Illinois. The developer finds private investors who put up the money for the building. The investor gets tax credits from the IRS for participating. After ten years, the U.S. treasury pays back the initial investment. The federal government funds the vast majority of money in the developments and adds it to the nat'l debt.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 2:58 PM

JC, The monies come from investors. They intern participate in a program that then gives them tax credits(exemptions). This particular project has 7 layers of financing. None of which is the federal govt.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 12:06 PM

Please explain "indirectly financed through tax dollars".

OP Resident  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 11:14 AM

Well said OP Res. Marco, you are hardly "part of the solution". Go back and read your comments. I dont consider myself a cheerleader but someone who believes in the groups coming together to see this project move forward. I also believe in the people that can and will live just fine together. The project is indirectly financed through tax dollars but not taking monies directly from the fed bank account. The boogy man is coming.Oooooo

OP Resident  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 9:49 AM

@TRM and John--there I go again, sorry about the ill-tempered remarks. I admit I know nothing about OPHA or Res Corp projects and that Patricia was actually right. I just felt like being a jerk again. Sorry.

kathleen from OP  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 8:11 AM

Several commenters continue to state that this is private development. This is being built with our federal tax dollars and, therefore,is public funding and is NOT private funding. As taxpayers, we have a vested interest in how our precious money is spent.

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 7:30 AM

OP, I do have experience creating jobs for the working poor and helping people try to get back on their feet. I am part of the solution, Not a cheerleader like you. Soo if I tell you that certain people should not live together because they will feed off each others problems, then the village should listen. The building should have been more thought out. Would you marry the first girl that said yes to you for a date, so why take the fist proposal because it was on the table. Talk bout fear

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 7:24 AM

Jim, I have a tendancy to over exaggerate mostly to prove a point, sometimes for the humor. But yes there will be some problems. Interfaiths other building were mostly race and problem specific. This building is open to all. I feel mixing all these different problems in one building could be a mixtur for disaster for the residents living inside.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 4th, 2011 12:15 AM

John, I was not aware that Innerfaith housing developments had problems. Was this reported in the WJ or by other media? The lack of a performance audit is troubling. I wonder if a trustee would be willing to join in the discussion and explain the standards that the board applied? This is a done deal but there are still a few questions and concerns hanging out there.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 10:47 PM

murtagh, its the OPHA and the Res Corp that will be responsible for the tenants. Their track record speaks for itself. I know Patricia tried to drag them through the mud with some silly accusations that came up on the record about something and a basement. Nice Try.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 10:43 PM

TRM, You have stated from a previous post that you work with drug addicts, alcoholics, and criminals so you should be well adjusted.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 10:43 PM

Jim -- a question for you. Where did you get the information that Interfaith's housing is without problems? I followed the proposal from the start, did hours of research, and never found any assessment of Interfaith's performance that was done by an objective org. -- gov't, independent audits, etc. There PR was great, but that can be a dangerous performance standard.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 10:13 PM

I didn't intend to step you up with a one-liner, Marco. Do you have any evidence to share that Innerfaith fails to properly screen tenants? I've never read any negative reports. If there had been trouble at it's other developments; you can bet the trustees would have taken a pass on the proposal. This has been interesting and informative discussion on the subject but the idea that the building will be filled with creeps is nonsense. Innerfaith has a proven record.

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 8:24 PM

So they have a creepy screening test?

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 6:36 PM

Don't be fooled by appearances, Marco. Creeps come from all economic backgrounds and professions. They can be doctors, priests, teachers, politicians, film stars, truckers, etc.,. We know the people who will live in the Comcast development will be subjected to a fairly extensive screening process and a verifiable income source. The landlords will certainly know a lot about them before offering a lease. Innerfaith has a proven record and would not risk it's reputation by acting recklessly.

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 5:42 PM

You know what really bugs me about this project. There is going to be a guy in there who is lazy, a little bit off, unhireable living off his government check, walking around talking to your children, and creeping around at nite while you sleep. He may not have a criminal record (probably should have)but there is something very creepy about him. He may be harmless, but no-one you would like as a neighbor. Sound like anyone on this blog? There is your target resident.now add 50 more.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 5:33 PM

GPP, Any one can get this. The process is the SAME for anyone. I am not certain the outcomes are always the same , but the process is always the same. Enjoy.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 5:29 PM

Not sure I follow you Anoth OP Res.

Curious George from Oak Park  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 5:28 PM

@OP Resident (the Trustees can do no wrong OP Resident) Anyone can not buy vacant land on Madison and expect to be able to build 11 additional units than allowed, provide half of the required parking for the apartments, and no dedicated parking for the commercial space. As a matter of fact the plan commission stated that they applied standards that are being discussed, and not in the current ordinance. So not anyone can get this, just politically connected anyones.

Another OP resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 5:08 PM

People who get scammed or even suspect they're getting scammed are PO'd. Still, public meltdowns are not attractive. Good God, some of you - where is your self respect? Let the spankings and beheadings begin! hey hey, ho ho, the taxpaying people here really want to know... Or how about: If someone ran an indepth background check on you, what would they be likely to find out? Keeping secrets is proven to produce stress. So just be yourself (good) and offer it up to the gods and see what ha

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 4:18 PM

Please tone down the sarcasm and continue the discussion in a civil and respectful manner. State your case or offer an opinion without insults.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 3:58 PM

john murtagh thinks he has everything figured out and we should be so lucky to listen to his logic. Gee john, what other towns have you saved from the brink? As for the property values going down. Why would they go down? That building has been there since the 1920's. If you live on 400 S. Grove you chose to live next to a commercial district. Your values will go down or up no more than would otherwise by the market conditions.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 3:51 PM

Its private development. It was born from the developer NOT the Village. I'm sure anyone....I repeat anyone, could have approached Comcast to buy and develop their property. There is plenty of vacant land on Madison as well as many other places in Oak Park if you know anyone looking for space to develop for whatever reason you desire.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 3:51 PM

So now we know that there were no other plans to develop the Comcast building. The Plan Commission & the Village Board saw the Innerfaith proposal as the only option. Rejecting Innerfaith would have meant that the building remained vacant & off the property tax rolls. I can understand why the trustees jumped at the chance but find fault in their lack of candor. Rather than let neighbors & the community get all worked up; they should have been open and honest. Thanks to John Murtagh for the info.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 2:44 PM

Hi OP Res - The board is very adept at psych games. The shift from "facts" to paternalistic speeches and education style lectures is an open communication-dodge. Take note of their unwillingness to engage in debate with each other in public. The questions you raised were vital. Why were no buildings except Comcast considered? Why was Interfaith the only developer interested in the project? The final one which the board ignored again; Who will be living there? We have no policy direction!

J.oak park  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 2:01 PM

I look forward to the response to the posts offered by Brian Lantz. Trustee Johnson, Lueck Pope Steve Rouse of the plan commission? What do you have to say?

Brian Lantz  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 1:23 PM

According to developers as the median income nearby is about $86,000", according the Journal article. Based on data available, the US Census Bureau's American FactFinder indicates estimates the median household income of the neighborhood to be $44,069 compared with Oak Park Township's $59,183 (P53, File 3). Not $86K.

Brian Lantz  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 1:15 PM

I still don't understand the data presented. Among the findings from the Y proceedings the Trustees understood a couple years ago, the neighborhood comprising census Track 8128 was found to be as follows: Tract 8128 is the most densely populated in Oak Park; It is the most racially diverse; It is one of the poorest; Has one of the highest concentrations of rental units; and Has one of the highest concentrations of affordable housing.

Mary Ellen Eads from Oak Park  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 1:08 PM

For many middle-class citizens-and Oak Park is a middle-class, not a wealthy community--their housing equity (or what's left of it)is an important part of their net worth. To expect them to cheerfully give some of it us (and keep quiet about it) for a random bit of social engineering is absurd and elitist. And wrong.

Mary Ellen Eads from Oak Park  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 1:04 PM

I don't live near the Comcast site-I live even further east, in an area that has plenty of problems of its own. So I can't say my property values might be directly, negatively affected. My objections were to what I believe is a discredited concept-housing poor and working poor citizens in separate enclaves. However, I take exception to the complaints from some wealthy Oak Parkers that there is something morally wrong with those who are concerned about the impact on housing values. (contd)

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 10:59 AM

John, the fear that the trustees spoke out against seemed to directed at people who did not want to live near/next to a development that would provide housing for the working poor. Sadly, they lumped all of the opposition together. Some people had real concerns that the process had been gamed to make the Innerfaith proposal fit. I'm still wondering if there were any other plans for the Comcast building that the Plan Commission and Village Board could and should have considered?

John Blough  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 9:59 AM

"A development of this size should not be done unless there is a market impact analysis completed. There hasn't even been an appraisal of the property value impact and impact to nearby business." Fear of reduced property values, and lack of parking are the two reasons to oppose based on my reading of the suggested website. Are there fewer driveways and garages in that part of OP?

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 9:53 AM

Well said. I do appreciate your candor. Now lets all watch and help this project flourish from this point on. No point in crying over spilled milk. The vote has been taken and it was approved by our Village Board. The community can only help it become a better project by involving themselves. Onward and upward.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 3rd, 2011 8:11 AM

Name calling is childish, and I have been one of the worst offenders. I now realize that I have been the delusional one, making non-factual arguments and relying on my personal religious intonations to the detriment of the community as a whole. My apologies to Patricia, John, Marco and others for being... well, a jerk.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 11:53 PM

I agree with you, Patricia and felt there better options for the development of the Comcast Building. The Village Board decided to go with the proposal approved by the Plan Commission. Did the members have anything else to consider that had the expertise and potential for funding like Innerfaith was prepared to offer? What options did the trustees and commissions have which were feasible and ready to roll? The building had been vacant for a number of years. Wasn't this our best and only offer?

Patricia O'Shea  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 9:31 PM

John Blough, see www.madisonprojectinfo.com Many reasons are out there. My personal one is I believe the village could have done better. In order to get federal tax dollars we are ignoring our vision of living side to side and decades of policies that made that possible. The development even goes against the published policies of the agency managing it.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 9:10 PM

Glad to see you join with me in asking that comments be presented in a civil and respectful manner. We lose focus when attention is distracted.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 7:30 PM

Finally someone with some reason. Refreshing.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 5:58 PM

Calling someone "delusional" and "paranoid" detracts from an adult discussion. Let's treat each other with respect and refrain from name calling.

John Blough  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 4:31 PM

If the opponents to the project weren't motivated by fear, what were they motivated by?

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 3:31 PM

The boogy man better watch out.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 3:15 PM

Paranoia is treatable. No one has to convince anybody. marco- the boogy man is stalking you and is coming to get you. Watch out

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 3:02 PM

If that was only true violet. They may not allow drug addict, alcoholics, or criminal (even though they can if they want to), but they will allow people with mental illiness like this clown, which will be more of a problem than the rest. Stalk in Peace my brother!

Violet Aura  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 1:52 PM

Hey Marco, don't get your blood pressure up. OP Resident lives in his ivory tower, otherwise known as far, far away from rentals. Probably on the 100 block of Forest amid the Frank Lloyd Wrights. LOL

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 1:43 PM

Oh my gosh you are so right. I am delusional and paranoid and just feeding off my own fears. I am so glad you have reversed my opinoin. This is a great idea and everyone will be better for it. Thank you sooo much. I wish I could live in your world for one day albeit, a medicated one. Its people like you I want to get away from. If you are Oak Park then this town is doomed, loser.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 11:25 AM

Marco you're delusional- yet again. No one has said that they will put people with criminal records,drug addics & alcoholics in this building. Why do you make this stuff up? I'm sure working together for 8 hrs a day is ok, but not living in the same proximity? You are a sad case. They wont bite- trust me.

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 10:46 AM

OP, As someone who has operated a construction business most of my life, I have hired many people with criminal records, and drug addics & alcoholics. Most were the nicest and hardest working employees. From my experience, seperated good. All together in one building, very, very bad.

Jason Malley  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 10:36 AM

As a Silver Award Project, girls from Troop 42742 in Oak Park, IL created a cyberbullying awarness and action campaign for middle-school children in their community. The public service announcement we created for the community is available above and on our YouTube channel. We chose to do this campaign for our community in response these startling statistics about cyberbullying and our own experiences with receiving and/or sending hurtful messages. http://www.gs2742.sbmalley.com/

OP Resident  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 10:01 AM

Marco, Your fired.

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 9:57 AM

Have no fear! coming from the stalker.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 9:38 AM

Thank You to the Village Board for doing the right thing. Wow, poor marco. He must either be paranoid, delusional, or both. He's afraid of something that doesn't exist. I guess it will be a self fulfilling prophecy for him. The best thing for him may be to move along and then become an ex Oak Park commenter here. Ha

OP Resident  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 8:32 AM

Lueck, you're fired. Pope, you're fired. Salzman, you're fired. Idiots don't belong in public service. Pope, how about doing a Jane Byrne and move into Comcast for a year?

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 6:54 AM

Thanks for the warning Patricia, now I won't have to go to walgreens to get hit up for money, I can just walk out my front door. Can't wait to meet an aggressive one on the street, strung out looking for a fix. Lets have more conversations about parking and tree removal, but not tenant profile. What a disaster.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 2:32 AM

Thanks for the warning. We have the ability to see and solve problems before they even happen. This will be another item in which Oak Park will shine even brighter. Alienation is the exact opposite of what this board did. They included all and will allow all to live here in peace and harmony. Welcome to the neighborhood.

Patricia O'Shea  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 12:29 AM

A warning. During the process I was contacted by a resident in a current Interfaith building looking for help. I contacted Interfaith 3 times for cousel on how to respond to their resident and still have received no reply. A peak under the tent as to what we can expect I think. The incident has also been escalated to the Village to no avail so far although I still have hopes there.

Patricia O'Shea  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 12:26 AM

Ugh. I have mostly pushed all of this from my mind like a bad memory. Every time I think of the lecturing from that board and labeling of opponents as "fearful" even after all of the thoughtful research, discourse, and effort...it makes me furious. However, I'm sure the self-righteous have no idea (or don't care) how alienating their words were to those who bothered to get involved or how their self-righteous attitudes they proved that the "process" was more CYA than true community involvement.

OP Guy  

Posted: June 2nd, 2011 12:22 AM

Obivously V-O-T-E-S don't count here.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 11:11 PM

I agree with you, John. The trustees were wrong to claim that people who opposed the development were motivated by fear.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 7:25 PM

We all must live with the decisions we all make. Sometimes the decisions are made at the polling places. V~O~T~E!! CHA Style- I think not. Not even close.

OP Guy  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 7:07 PM

It's sad to see decission makers in Oak Park acting as dictators... seems to go against everything Oak Park stands for. But they approved the CHA style project, so going against OP's grain is no surprise. I wonder if these dictators will take responsibility when the project back fires on them (at the expense of residents)... probably not!

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 4:10 PM

Thats funny

OP Resident  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 3:38 PM

Was his name Marco?

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 2:54 PM

Your right OP. I wish I can sponge off the government, not pay taxes and still live in Oak Park. I knew a guy who recieved $500.00 a week for mental illness. How much do you get?

OP Resident  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 11:49 AM

TRM, Bingo! Your right. The fix was to help people...........in your back yard

The Real Marco  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 7:00 AM

Not In My Back Yard!! The fix was in.

OP Resident  

Posted: June 1st, 2011 12:43 AM

OPHA and Res Corp will make this project work.Be not afraid.

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