I read Josh VanderBerg’s recent column, “Everything Is Housing,” [Viewpoints, July 9] with great interest and considerable agreement. His sense of urgency is not misplaced. We are both deeply concerned about the housing crisis in Oak Park and Illinois more broadly. I share his belief that housing lies at the heart of many of our most urgent social problems — homelessness, educational inequity, segregation, and even climate change.
Where Mr. VanderBerg and I fully agree is on the premise that our current housing policy is outdated and inadequate. The system is broken, and too many of our residents are being priced out of the communities they love. We also agree that the practice of exclusionary zoning — particularly single-family zoning — has long contributed to racial and economic separation. These are undeniable truths. I respect VanderBerg’s clarity in stating them, and I commend his call to build more housing as one part of the solution.
But while we stand on common ground in diagnosing the crisis, we differ in how we prescribe the cure.
VanderBerg rightly sees housing as a root cause. He makes a strong case that restrictive housing policies are linked to a wide range of social ills. His argument — bold and data-driven — points to housing supply as a fundamental lever of justice. His tone is insistent, even urgent, as he pushes for rapid expansion of housing stock, including in communities like ours.
Where I diverge is not in principle but in approach.
I believe that VanderBerg’s vision, if implemented without key affordability safeguards, may unintentionally worsen the very inequalities he wants to solve. Without guarantees — such as inclusionary zoning, income-linked unit set-asides, or enforceable affordability standards — new development can attract higher-income residents, increase property values, and displace the very people we are trying to support. We cannot assume that simply increasing the number of units will ensure access for those in greatest need.
I do not subscribe to a “not in my backyard” philosophy. I welcome thoughtful development. But I lean toward an equity-first model: any increase in density must be accompanied by structural guarantees of affordability. Otherwise, the change may primarily benefit the affluent and leave behind the low-income families, seniors, and working people that both VanderBerg and I hope to protect.
He emphasizes scale and momentum. I emphasize balance and guardrails. He sees policy inertia as the chief barrier to justice. I see the lack of enforceable protections as our greatest risk. His voice is an important one, rooted in moral clarity. Mine is grounded in cautious pragmatism. Both are necessary.
Perhaps what this debate reveals is that we are not opponents but counterparts — representing two wings of the broader housing justice movement. One side urges rapid reform to reverse entrenched injustice; the other seeks to tether that reform to equity protections to avoid repeating past mistakes. Both perspectives deserve a seat at the table.
The question now is not whether we should act, but how. We have research on both sides. What we need is dialogue that moves us forward — not just boldly, but wisely. Perhaps in that middle ground we can design policies that are both ambitious and equitable, that build more housing and build it right.
Let’s have that community discussion.
Robert Milstein is a former Oak Park village trustee.
