Dan Haley’s recent column [Race, housing and headway, Viewpoints, June 24] acknowledges an historic truth. Trustee Wesley has made a case that, in many communities, single-family zoning became part of a broader system of racial and economic exclusion.
I do not take issue with Mr. Haley’s comments on history. However, I disagree with his logic. He conflated two issues into one.
The first question is whether single-family zoning is sound public policy. I feel strongly that this policy should be debated using evidence, projections, and analysis of what the proposal will likely accomplish before any determination is made.
The second question is, “Should this policy be approved by the voters?”
It is my understanding that Trustee Taglia is not arguing against public hearings, nor opposed to expert analysis. Neither is he against the consultant’s work or the role of the Plan Commission.
Taglia recommends that, after the reviewing consultant recommendations, after the Plan Commission has conducted public hearings, and after the village board has completed its legislative work, then would be the time for Oak Parkers to cast the deciding vote. Oak Parkers deserve a strong voice in this matter which will shape the village for generations to come.
Haley responded by defending the merits of the zoning proposal and reminding us that we elect officials to make difficult decisions. Both may be true, but they do not address Taglia’s concerns. The merits of the proposal and the question of who should make the final decision are independent issues.
Representative democracy is essential to our system of government. So is public participation, on occasion, through referendum. Some decisions are so consequential that they benefit from direct public decision-making.
Whether one ultimately supports or opposes eliminating single-family zoning, Taglia’s call for a referendum deserves to be evaluated on its own merits — not entangled with the separate debate over the zoning proposal.
Rhoda Bernstein
Oak Park