As Oak Park considers major changes to residential zoning, I am asking both of you to explain as clearly as possible what you believe these changes are intended to accomplish and how residents should judge whether they succeed.
Trustee Straw, you once said that this was a place where you were interested in being “more disruptive.” I would like to understand exactly what you meant.
Were you referring to disrupting the existing zoning classifications, reducing the number of residential districts, changing parking or density requirements, or altering the physical pattern of Oak Park neighborhoods? If a less disruptive approach could substantially increase housing choice and affordability, would you support it? If not, why is greater disruption necessary?
More importantly, what measurable benefit do you expect that additional disruption to produce? How many new housing units would represent success? What types of units? At what prices? Five or 10 years from now, what evidence should residents examine to determine whether the disruption you supported was justified by the results?
Trustee Wesley, you have argued that single-family zoning has contributed to racial and economic exclusion and that merely changing terminology without changing the underlying structure would be inadequate. I understand the history you are describing, but I would like to know what measurable outcome you expect from changing that structure.
If single-family-only zoning is eliminated, should residents expect greater racial integration in neighborhoods that are now disproportionately white? Should we expect more Black homeowners or renters, more working-class households, more young adults, retirees, or middle-income families? Should housing prices or rents become more affordable?
And if those changes do not occur, would you conclude that eliminating single-family zoning was insufficient to accomplish the objectives you identified? What other policies would then be necessary?
I would ask both of you the same broader question: What does success look like?
What evidence demonstrates that the zoning changes you support are likely to produce the outcomes you seek? What are the possible effects on infrastructure, schools, parking, taxes, historic preservation, existing affordable housing, and neighborhood character? How should those consequences be weighed against the anticipated benefits?
These questions are not arguments against change. They are questions about responsibility.
If Oak Park is going to alter a residential zoning system that has existed for generations, residents should know what specific problems each change is intended to solve, what evidence supports the proposed solution, and what measurements will be used afterward to determine whether it worked.
I believe Oak Park can acknowledge the exclusionary history of housing policy while still asking whether a particular reform will actually produce affordability, opportunity, and integration. Those are not contradictory positions.
Before we decide how much disruption is necessary, we should understand what that disruption is intended to accomplish. And before we are asked to accept major changes, we should know how, years from now, we will be able to say with confidence that those changes succeeded.
Robert Milstein
Former trustee, Oak Park