I am increasingly concerned about the number of consequential financial and land-use decisions Oak Park is considering at the same time. We are discussing major changes to single-family zoning. We are considering a new TIF district along Roosevelt Road, potentially including the former Mohr Concrete property. At the same time, Oak Park faces property-tax pressures and possible levy increases.
Why are we moving so quickly on so many fronts without first understanding how these decisions interact?
I am personally opposed to creating another TIF unless the village can demonstrate convincingly that it is necessary. A TIF is not free money. It commits growth in property-tax revenue within the district to redevelopment purposes for years and can affect revenues available to overlapping taxing bodies.
The Mohr property deserves special attention, but its history raises an important question. The site has not suffered from a complete absence of private-sector interest. After Mohr Concrete ceased operations, the property went under contract more than once, was purchased in 2022, and attracted proposals including apartments, a hotel, and a gas station complex.
That does not mean the site is easy to redevelop. It may present legitimate demolition, environmental, infrastructure, or financing challenges. But if those challenges are part of the justification for a TIF, identify them, quantify them, and explain why targeted assistance to that property would not be preferable to a broader, decades-long TIF district.
We have been here before. In 2014, Oak Park considered a Roosevelt Road TIF, a Special Service Area, and a Business District. The village ultimately chose a Business District rather than a TIF.
Before revisiting a TIF 12 years later, residents deserve to know what changed. What did the Business District accomplish? Where did it fall short? Why would an SSA not be appropriate? Could ordinary capital spending, grants, loans, targeted incentives, or site-specific assistance accomplish the objective with less long-term fiscal commitment?
The board should compare these alternatives side by side and ask: Who pays? Who benefits? How long does the commitment last? What happens to the tax base and other taxing bodies? What measurable development is expected? Most importantly, would that development occur without the subsidy?
Meanwhile, we are also considering zoning changes whose fiscal consequences remain uncertain. Additional development may broaden the tax base, but it may also increase demands on infrastructure and public services. No one presently knows whether additional revenues will exceed those costs.
That is why the responsible approach is not simply to slow down. It is to broaden the analysis.
Do not begin with a TIF and then look for reasons to justify it. Begin with the problem Oak Park is trying to solve. Examine every reasonable financing mechanism. Compare the costs, risks, benefits, and long-term consequences. Then choose the tool that produces the strongest public return.
Robert Milstein
Former village trustee