The financial feasibility report from the village’s own consultant screams that the proposed zoning changes will never — ever — succeed in its stated goal of “affordable” housing. The report should have been the death knell of the whole project. What is most surprising is what the report did not do: induce a single proponent on the board to move to withdraw the entire program. But we live in a new era of politics: never admit a mistake. Keep plowing right down the same ineffective or harmful path.
By FOIA request I obtained 324 emails to the board from June 26 to July 26. I tallied them on two issues: a referendum, and whether to eliminate single-family zoning. Though the referendum was rejected by the board, the letters are still a gauge of public sentiment. That is because nobody urges a referendum in order to vote for something that is already going to happen anyway; it’s in order to vote “no.” Of the 271 emails addressing a referendum, 98% were in favor. That it represented their opposition to elimination of single-family zoning was confirmed by the 186 that expressed a view: 94% opposed. The people are never going to stand for this.
In what world does government enact laws that almost the whole community opposes, and that are designed to fail? Yet the board has plowed ahead. The most telling tale on its designs involve “stealth 6-flats everywhere.” The theory of the case was: increased density is the key to affordable housing. And the most dense option is replacing houses with 6-flats. The first consultant’s recommendation was for 6-flats “of right” on virtually all lots with houses as the salvation of Oak Park. But even proponents on the board seemed shell shocked, asking how many lots were affected, and for a map showing it (which they never got). But they voted in favor anyway.
Instead, its consultant divined that the board did not want what it had just voted for, and soon issued new recommendations deleting the whole provision. So what was the original? Gaslighting? A snowjob? We don’t really need 6-flats everywhere? The consultant even published handouts claiming it was all about 4-flats, except near major transit stops, but with an obscure reference: “or providing affordable units.” That was a nod to a new stealth provision in the fine print. It allows 6-flats everywhere now zoned as single-family, on condition an owner keep two units at rents well below market.
But the financial consultant never accounted for that, its study having assumed market rate rentals, and it had concluded that 6-flats were not financially feasible even then. So reducing rents for two units by, say, 40%, could only make matters worse. That missing money would obviously come from somewhere: the village of Oak Park. A subsidy forever? Where would it get the money? A plan commissioner astutely asked the same question. What’s more, the latest recommendation expands the transit zone for 6-flats to include all houses within 1/8 mile of a bus line. The chairman rightfully commented: that’s the whole village (more or less).
It is now up to the Plan Commission, to the extent it can, to put a stake in the heart of this vampire.
Frank Stachyra is an Oak Park resident and a retired attorney.