Like many Oak Park residents, I support the goal of maintaining a diverse community and expanding affordable housing options. However, I am increasingly concerned that the language used to describe “missing middle” housing softens the reality of the level of development being proposed and leaves its long-term consequences for the village insufficiently examined.
Development is a normal part of any thriving community, and Oak Park has benefited from recent projects that strengthened our downtown and supported local businesses. My concern is not development itself, but the possibility that broad zoning changes could trigger a wave of development that would be difficult to undo and could negatively affect homeownership, our schools, taxes, traffic, parking, and the character of our neighborhoods.
I recently revisited a Wednesday Journal article outlining four zoning options for expanding missing-middle housing. After reviewing the details, it was clear these proposals represent significant and radical changes to existing single-family neighborhoods. None of the options struck me as measured or cautious.
Rather than implementing village-wide zoning changes, Oak Park should consider a more incremental approach. The village could designate two to four targeted areas, on both the north and south sides, near schools and public transportation. Changes could be piloted there, with outcomes carefully evaluated before expanding the policy further.
Another serious concern is the role of private equity. If single-family zoning is eliminated, what safeguards would prevent investment firms from purchasing homes in bulk and replacing them with high-end, multifamily rental units? Developers are incentivized to maximize profits, and without strong protections, affordability could quickly be lost.
At this point, I am not convinced there is a clear strategy to ensure that new housing would remain genuinely affordable for both renters and prospective homeowners. Any solution must be implemented carefully and deliberately, without risking irreversible changes that could turn our village into an extension of Chicago rather than the unique community so many of us value.
Oak Park can and should address affordability. But it must do so in a measured way that balances growth with preservation, inclusion with stability, and innovation with caution.
Matt Cotten
Oak Park
