MIMBY Oak Park believes the process can be improved to promote well-planned developments that enhance the unique character of Oak Park while providing the renewal and development it needs to continue thriving in the decades ahead. The current process leaves residents’ voices out until it is often too late. Outside of 11th hour protests, residents rarely have a chance to share their interests in the development process which leaves residents feeling disenfranchised. These protests, if they are successful, leave developers and Village staff feeling bruised and discouraged.
A new process is needed for meaningful engagement from development-proposal inception to project completion. The interests of residents, developers, and Village government rarely match up perfectly, so a new and better process would honor each group's interests and produce more win-win outcomes making the usual adversity, controversy, and unpredictability far less likely.
We specifically want to see the process change to include:
Residents early and throughout the development process including construction and completion.
The notification period to be extended beyond 15 days.
The notification to be to the whole Village, not only neighbors within 300 feet.
Density and more housing units have been presented by the candidates with no firm numbers on how to achieve both. From WORLDPOPULATIONREVIEW.com based on the 2024 census data, Oak Park lost 1,149 in population between 2022 and 2024 to 51,282. For 2024, the average family size is 3.08 people with the average household size at 2.27 persons. More telling is the average density at 10,911 people per square mile. In comparison, Chicago and Evanston are at 11,584 and 9533 respectively, while Berwyn and Cicero are at 13,718 and 13,590 respectively. So, the question becomes how dense Oak Park should be and how is that target attained?
As an example, to match Chicago’s density, Oak Park would need to develop an additional 1,330 housing units. That number presents quite a challenge. Are we talking about a lot of high rises, a myriad of smaller multi-unit buildings, conversion of single-family homes into two and three flat buildings, or a combination of all of the above. Existing home conversion may allow opportunities for “missing middle” and affordable housing. Conversions should be restricted to certain lot sizes so that livable units can be developed while keeping a structure that meets the fabric and character of the neighborhood.
Increased density brings with it an increase in services for police and fire protection, infrastructure needs, increased traffic, and parking demands. Certainly, the benefits of more shopping patrons and increased property tax would be realized, but has a pro forma been done to show that the benefits outweigh the additional services needed?