What was the village board thinking when it approved paying $7.5 million in hard-earned tax dollars to buy the Colt building and another structure from Taxman? If you thought the $10 million Whiteco subsidy was a bad idea, this $7.5 million is only the down payment on the board’s quixotic project to “save the Colt.”
If the new board had any mandate after last April’s election, it was to stop village subsidies to developers. Yet trustees Baker, Brady, Brock and Milstein (the “Milstein Majority”) have inexplicably handed out big cash to Taxman with much more to come.
The cost of development poker is steep, particularly for the novice. The Milstein Majority will learn how steep when developers respond to their Colt Request for Proposal (RFP). Developers are in business to make money. They will be happy to turn the Colt into a glistening white elephant if the village foots the bill.
This government takeover of private property for redevelopment is an interesting concept for trustees whose stated intent is to slow development. Trustee Geoff Baker boasts on his website that his day job as a lawyer is spent derailing such projects. “To date, Geoff has successfully stalled projects worth over $400 million,” including “large scale commercial developments.” We will see if Baker can now manage a commercial development.
I credit trustees Ray Johnson, Greg Marsey and David Pope for voting against this silliness. Marsey, who ran for village trustee with Baker and Brock, deserves special mention for not going along with the Milstein Majority.
Speaking of Milstein, I want to say a nice word about Bob. Bob and I rarely agree on anything, particularly on development issues. I’m pro and Bob?#34;until his recent $7.5-million Colt gambit?#34;is against.
Nonetheless, Bob was my gracious inquisitor at a recent village board meeting where I reviewed a 2003 report from the village’s Affordable Housing Committee. Our committee had found that affordable housing in Oak Park is in good shape but needs some tweaking.
Over a 10-year period, rents in Oak Park increased at less than the rate of inflation, even in the midst of major condo conversions. During the same period, the percent of low- and moderate-income people purchasing homes in Oak Park increased from 19 to 25 percent of all buyers?#34;fueled, no doubt, by an ample supply of low-cost condos.
Our committee recommended encouraging development of housing appropriate for seniors (ie. buildings with elevators and covered parking) because Oak Park is losing seniors at a rate greater than the region. We encouraged the development of affordable three-bedroom apartments which are scarce (perhaps by encouraging the expansion of first-floor, two-bedroom apartments into the basement below).
We also recommended that the board increase its support of temporary housing for homeless families in PADS. I cannot imagine a better use of our affordable housing dollars. Milstein spoke in favor of all these proposals. Good for him. But if he felt the pressing need to spend $7.5 million of the taxpayers’ money, I wish his majority had funded an affordable housing trust fund and forgot about the Colt.
