​𝗦𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝟱𝟰𝟮 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀: 𝗡𝗼 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗬𝗼𝘂

In the past year, a trustee remarked that “only seven emails of opposition were received” regarding the village’s proposed affordable housing projects and the sale of public parking lots.

Why would the trustee be surprised? The village’s process for inviting public comment on policy and development is deeply flawed. From first-hand experience, I can say that the village board appears to prefer a resident population that is 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁 when it comes to village business.

The North Oakland Parking District is a special tax assessment district created in 1981 to build the public parking lot at 4450 North Oakland. By my estimate, the district includes approximately 𝟱𝟰𝟮 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀. That figure is based on an inventory of 284 apartment units multiplied by an average rental household size of 1.91 persons.

Despite this sizable affected population, the village has conducted virtually 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗰 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴. Aside from one trustee reportedly calling a few nearby business owners to ask about the loss of parking, there is no evidence of any effort to contact district residents. I have spoken with people who regularly park in the lot; none have received notice from the village. The only forum where renters were able to speak was a public meeting hosted by Affordable Shorewood on December 10, 2025.

This brings us to the broader issue of public participation. Village Ordinance 155-12 specifies the order of business at trustee meetings, placing “Citizens to Be Heard” early in the agenda, after the presentation of accounts. I attended a meeting where this item was deliberately pushed back - - seemingly as punishment for those who showed up.

Ironically, public comment is not guaranteed under state statute, so residents are fortunate it exists at all. Yet there is a troubling catch: the agenda describes this item as “for matters not on the agenda.” In other words, 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗵𝗶𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴. There is no village ordinance which specifies this; I don’t understand why we are blocked from speaking.

I also believe the requirement that speakers publicly state their address functions as a form of tacit intimidation. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺. I could find no legal requirement for this disclosure. Jurors, for example, are not required to publicly state where they live. Likewise, trustees are not required to provide their home addresses.

At one time, local newspapers regularly covered village board actions. That coverage has largely disappeared and has not been adequately replaced. While the village sends emails to subscribers and there is engagement through social media, these channels are insufficient for meaningful civic participation. Renters, in particular, are likely the most disconnected from village news.

Contrast this with the outreach conducted by Affordable Shorewood. To reach the 542 residents of the North Oakland Parking District, volunteers posted flyers in every apartment building lobby. When weather permitted, flyers were placed on cars in the public lot. Homes on Cramer and Bartlett were also canvassed.

When trustees glance at a sparse audience or count a handful of emails, they interpret silence as endorsement. In reality, it reflects a lack of outreach compounded by the collapse of local journalism. 𝗜𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀. Robust reporting is what keeps trustees accountable and focused on residents’ needs. I have even been scolded by a trustee for centering those needs.

That is what happens when leadership operates in isolation from the real challenges of being a Shorewood resident and taxpayer. Of course there is also much joy in living here.

Today, the 542 residents of the North Oakland Parking District are being asked to “suck it up” regarding the loss of 49 parking spaces, in addition to the 320 spaces already required by village code but never provided. This reflects a careless, and frankly callous, approach to governance. We can do better as a community. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼? Sign up at AffordableShorewood.org and let your trustees know your thoughts: https://www.villageofshorewood...