As Oak Park debates a sales tax rebate for the long-vacant former Marshall Field and Borders building at 1144 Lake St., neighbors are right to ask: “Are we rewarding neglect or making a smart investment?”
The skepticism is understandable. Rebates can appear to subsidize private interests, especially after more than a decade of vacancy. But research from groups like the Upjohn Institute shows that when incentives are carefully designed, they can be the difference between a dormant property and a thriving community anchor.
This building is not a blight — it’s a historic landmark with structural challenges that have kept it inactive. The owner is now committing $4 million in renovations to bring in Barnes & Noble, a project that will restore property tax value, generate new sales tax revenue, and provide 60 local jobs. Crucially, the village’s rebate only draws from new sales tax revenue that doesn’t exist today. Without the project, Oak Park gains nothing.
Still, such incentives must come with safeguards. To protect the community, the village should ensure that:
- Rebates apply only to new sales tax revenue.
- Payments are tied to actual renovation and sustained occupancy.
- The deal is capped and time-limited ($2 million over 20 years).
- Claw-back provisions apply if commitments aren’t met.
- Transparency allows residents to track results.
With these conditions, the rebate is not a payoff — it is a performance-based investment that aligns private dollars with Oak Park’s public interest. Done right, it turns a beautiful but idle landmark into a productive, long-term asset for the village.
Reference: Timothy J. Bartik, “What Standards Make Sense for Economic Development Tax Incentives?” W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, April 4, 2024.
Robert Milstein
Oak Park