Others have written that single family zoning has historically been a method of exclusion. Oak Park has long been recognized for its efforts to preserve racial and ethnic diversity and, I believe, few would live here who were antagonistic to this concept.
Those who have voiced objections to eliminating single-family zoning aren’t worried about who will live next to them but rather what will be built next to them, and its impact on density, parking, home values and the ambience of the neighborhood. Central Oak Park has held most of the two flats, courtyard buildings and other multi-unit rental and condo options, which Journal columnist Josh VanderBerg says comprises more than half our homes. The various neighborhoods of Oak Park have a consistency and throughout the village there is a spectrum of housing options and costs.
In reviewing census data, including data from previous Wednesday Journal articles, Oak Park has about 53,000 residents. Our white population has diminished from 76.9% in 1990 to 61.5% currently. Our black population was 18.5% in 1990 and 17.7% currently … relatively stable. Our Hispanic population rose significantly from 3.4% to 9.3% and multiracial population from 2.8% in 2000 to 9.3% currently. Our high school has about 3,400 students … 56% white, 20% Black, 12% Hispanic, 9% multiracial and 3% Asian. This would seem to speak against concerns that our diversity goals have been adversely impacted. We don’t have the data to justify a radical change in our housing plan.
In addition to concerns over diversity there has been a call for more and varied housing, affordable and even subsidized housing, to provide for those of more modest incomes. How will this occur physically or economically? Where will these buildings go? Will there be knockdowns? Will there be village, county or state funds or grants? Would the village exert eminent domain?
What would incentivize a developer, whose projects are normally profit-motive-driven? Would there be restrictions on who qualifies to be an owner or renter? What role would the village play in managing all this and at what cost? All the features of Oak Park that make it desirable have driven up housing costs and taxes. We are positioned well on the spectrum of Chicagoland suburbs. We are relatively affluent. What is the goal to be achieved in eliminating single-family zoning and what negative impact might it have? Attempts at this elsewhere have not always succeeded in increased affordability.
My overwhelming concern on this and other issues is how and when residents’ voices will be heard. When is an issue so consequential that it demands public input be sought and would have some consequence? The dividing line shouldn’t be monetary … tax hikes and bond issues. An issue like leaf collection, in spite of the marketing campaign that said otherwise, was in reality off-loading a longtime budgetary expense onto the public and has had a huge impact on our time, money and the appearance of the village. It was a mistake and its presentation a charade. A unified public sentiment was voiced and no one listened. In contrast, the Park District of Oak Park tried to sell the concept of the Ridgeland Pool conversion and hired consultants to help, but through referendum was defeated by 75%. I believe a referendum on leaf collection and likely the single-family zoning change would have the same result.
Our trustees are charged with setting policy, exerting fiscal responsibility and maintaining the “health” of the village. What is best for the village will never meet everyone’s expectations and it can’t be run by referendums; however, with the most consequential issues that impact all of us our voices should be heard and it would be nice not to feel ignored.
Michael Goodman is a resident of Oak Park.