I’m writing to challenge some assertions made in Dan Haley’s July 19 column [Legends pass, local politicians are dying a slow death, too].
While no “Oak Park Revolution” seems imminent, many current political arguments do center on the very real likelihood of changes which, if not dealt with effectively and soon, will result in Oak Park becoming far different from the community the leaders of the 1960s and ’70s worked so hard to create and maintain.
It’s very true that inappropriate development posed little threat 30 years ago. It’s also true that historic preservation was less of an issue then because developers weren’t much interested in replacing a community that had evolved nicely over more than a century with whatever junk would maximize short-term profit.
Oak Park’s recent success has created challenges just as real and important as those of the 1960s and ’70s. We can have our current political debates because Oak Parkers then chose to take control of their destiny and do things that weren’t market-driven. If we don’t want Oak Park to become just another generic gentrified enclave in which only the very well off can live, we need to act to take control of our collective destiny once again.
Oft-repeated commitments to diversity ring pretty hollow if we welcome only those who can afford a $500,000 home (or condo or townhome) or can pay Whiteco’s high rents. A commitment to preserving our outstanding architecture and beautiful neighborhoods also rings hollow if preservation regularly gets subordinated to claimed rights to build whatever makes a few people the most money.
Many other communities, around Chicago and elsewhere, have chosen to more effectively balance irreplaceable character and developer profit and seem to be doing just fine.
I’d personally hope that today’s Oak Parkers (the people who really should run the government) share at least some of my views about keeping community character and true diversity. Whether they do or not, the controversies of the day need to be faced and discussed honestly before we find ourselves, through simple inaction, in an Oak Park we don’t recognize and perhaps don’t much like.
Raising important issues and trying to get citizens to think about them and act is, I believe, necessary to democracy and not just the unfortunate, inconvenient result of people with poor self-esteem trying to get noticed.
Gary Schwab
Oak Park
