In the Feb. 22 Wednesday Journal [Viewpoints], the Village Manager Association said they “support balanced and sensitive economic growth.” This is something on which the Village Citizens Alliance (VCA) and VMA totally agree. But there are some differences on how to develop DTOP. The VMA is appalled that the VCA/NLP trustees take seriously Oak Park voters’ desire that they improve upon the terrible DTOP development hand dealt by the outgoing VMA board.
Even more importantly, the VMA and VCA have vastly different views on the appeal of Oak Park to new businesses and development. The VMA stated, “Other developers, businesses, and investors are watching and listening. They will see or hear or talk about this turn of events and take their ideas, their money, and … tax dollar generation elsewhere.”
Trustee [Robert] Milstein correctly characterized the VMA as purveyors of a “gloom and doom” view of Oak Park. The VMA and the Civic Council lack confidence in Oak Park. They believe if we don’t genuflect before Taxman and Whiteco and give them millions in subsidies, Oak Park will be left with nothing.
In contrast, the VCA vision is that Oak Park is an attractive place for businesses and developers. The VCA believes that by changing to an open, level playing field for investors Oak Park will attract competition among developers so Oak Park will actually have choices. In fact, there is currently a case in court alleging that the Trapani administration didn’t allow a competitor to bid against Whiteco.
In a few months, Oak Parkers will know whether the VCA/NLP vision of an attractive Oak Park is realistic; or whether the VMA is correct that more mediocre, architecturally challenged Taxman shops and Whiteco behemoths are the most Oak Park can expect.
Tom Ard, Jo Ellen Davey-Cohen, Terrie Rymer, Bruce Samuels, Frank Vozak
Village Citizens Alliance
