If Not Residents First, Then Who?

𝗜𝗳 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗪𝗵𝗼?

I recently had a public encounter with a village trustee who suggested that my primary reason for opposing the parking lot sale was to discourage low-income residents from moving to Shorewood.

𝗔𝘂 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗲.

As I have become more engaged in the issue of the North Oakland parking lot, my objections have expanded through research and analysis. But let me address the trustee’s challenge directly: Shorewood currently has no formal housing support for individuals with mental health challenges or those in recovery. To my knowledge, there is only one unofficial recovery house in the village. I would gladly welcome such a facility next door to my home and would be eager to volunteer there.

I also believe subsidized housing programs can sometimes become a 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 while delivering benefits inefficiently, relative to the 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 involved. This particular project would provide the developer with more than $3 million in village, state, and federal indirect and direct funds. Additionally, the notion that the village lacks affordable housing is often overstated. According to the village’s 2020 Comprehensive Housing Market Study and Needs Analysis, 64% of rental units meet the “low-income” threshold, 12% meet the “very low-income” threshold, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟭𝟳% 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗮𝘀 “𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲.”

My initial concern, however, was the way the parking lot was sold. The developer proposed a price of $333,731. Trustee Stokebrand made a 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝗯𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, and this was soundly voted down. Available information suggests the property’s value may fall between $1.1 million and $1.5 million.

Further research uncovered additional history. In 1981, the village determined that North Oakland faced a serious parking shortage and created the North Oakland Parking Assessment District (from Lake Bluff to East Kensington). The village spent $226,201 to purchase land and construct a 49-space public parking lot. Nearby property owners were then assessed special taxes for 20 years, based on proximity and parking needs, to cover the cost. Let me repeat that - - 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝘁.

I am working to prevent this development because it’s in the wrong location, and it’s a bad deal for taxpayers.

At that time, a 1981 report documented 𝗮 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝟯𝟮𝟬 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀 in the district. Since then, conditions have worsened: there are now approximately 15% fewer off-street parking spaces and 25% more housing units. The district alone includes 284 rental units along Oakland Avenue between Lake Bluff and East Kensington Boulevards. I have yet to identify a person in village government who disputes these facts.

The parking lot proposal, combined with the subsidized housing project, is like peeling back an onion - - there are many layers, and we likely have not yet reached the core. 𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻, 𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗱 “𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮 ‘𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀-𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’ 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁.”

𝗜𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁?