MIMBY Candidate Forum Questions and My Answers

1. What, if anything, would you recommend the Village of Oak Park change about how

residents are notified about, and involved in, decisions about developments in their

neighborhoods?

The current process is confusing and complex for developers, confusing for citizens and produces unpredictable results. This decreases economic development and results in suboptimal outcomes when economic development does occur.

I am assuming that everyone here in this room agrees that some level of economic development needs to happen. We saw the blight on Madison after decades of neglect, and the truly stunning turnaround that corridor has enjoyed as the result of a sustained bout of commercial and residential development. Economic development supports local businesses, provides more housing, and generates more tax revenue.

I want the development that occurs to be a good fit for Oak Park. I support a streamlined, predictable process that creates more certainty for developers about what they will be able to build, and more certainty for citizens about what will be built. This process should incorporate community feedback to make these buildings better, to address community concerns and help developers create buildings that are an excellent fit.

2. Hundreds of new luxury apartment units have been built in Oak Park as Planned Unit

Developments, or PUDs, in the past decade. They add residents, shoppers and

taxpayers. But they also add more congestion in some neighborhoods, substantially

alter their surroundings, and add new demands for village services. Developers of

these PUD projects typically seek relief from zoning rules regarding height,

setbacks, and parking. Do you support more of these larger luxury developments?

Why or why not—and what, if any, changes to the PUD process do you want?

I support a process with fewer, or no variances, where allowances for zoning envelopes are clearly encoded in the zoning. For example, in return for affordability set-asides, or investments in sustainable infrastructure, the developer could qualify for lower parking requirements or additional height.

The difference here is that this would be explicitly part of the code, approved via an open political process. Once that new zoning code is complete, everybody knows what to expect.

PUDs might still be required, but I’d like to see them be the exception rather than the rule.

3. Many Oak Parkers are concerned about the lack of affordable housing in the village.

Please describe at least two ways that village board action can add new affordable

housing units to Oak Park and/or protect and preserve existing “more affordable”

housing options in both our vintage apartment buildings and more modest single-family homes.

New development, at any level, increases supply in Oak Park, and reduces the pressure on what’s called ‘naturally occurring affordable housing’. The lack of new housing supply, and the massive demand in Oak Park has driven home owners and landlords to upgrade the aging stock of what could have been affordable housing, raising prices and rents.

We know that new development increases affordability. Per the IHDA (Illinois Housing Development Authority: IHDA_, the percentage of affordable housing increased from 18.4% in 2013, to 23.4% in 2023.

I also support the existing IZO and affordable housing fund. The housing fund has funded many excellent new buildings in Oak Park, and we just announced two new investments on the horizon.

4. Oak Park’s unique historic and architectural character has been one of its strengths,

and even part of its “marketing brand” that sets it apart from many metro Chicago

communities, attracting both new residents and economic development in the form

of tourist spending and positive public relations. Do you support the current Oak

Park Historic Preservation ordinance? Why or why not? What changes, if any,

would you like to see in how we protect and enhance our historic neighborhoods?

I am a huge fan of historic preservation. I currently watch a YouTube channel where they are restoring a timber frame and masonry chateau using historically accurate methods and materials. I just eat that stuff up.

But we have fewer than one hundred such architectural gems like that in Oak Park. They deserve the highest level of conservation. They drive tourism, and give Oak Park a well deserved reputation as a destination for historic architecture. But outside those buildings, and the few small blocks that surround them, the large areas of historic preservation aren’t accomplishing those goals.

Preserving entire neighborhoods prevents new architectural innovation. It decreases affordability. It prevents the building of new multi-family housing. It makes it harder to achieve our sustainability goals. Large historic districts preserve the past, and ignore the needs of the future.

Imagine a future in which Oak Park is a world renowned modern architectural showcase that models how we adapt to our climate challenges and to an ever growing, more diverse citizenry.

5. The current Village Board has had some recent discussions about the “Missing

Middle,” a concept to add more smaller multi-family buildings in single-family

zoning districts (think 2-flats, 4 flats, 6 flats, 8 flats). This would require zoning changes. Do you support or oppose the general concept? Why or why not?

I support zoning changes that would allow missing middle housing that is appropriate to the current level of zoning in each neighborhood. This would allow the ‘next increment’ of density in each location. So, for example, if a neighborhood is Single Family only, the next increment would be a two flat or three flat.

I would be against zoning changes that introduce a large step size increase in size or density.

I support these zoning changes because they will provide more abundant, more diverse housing options that will allow seniors to age in place, and will allow our children to afford to live here.

6. Travel Lemming recently named Oak Park as one of the 50 best places to travel to in

2025 in the world—a list that includes Warsaw, Brisbane, and Tokyo—and one of

only 11 in the United States. Oak Park has received other, similar awards and

publicity in recent years that cite our architecture, community character, and

cultural offerings in the Village as setting us apart from other communities. What

economic development (specific development projects or types) would you suggest

that might build on appreciation of Oak Park’s architectural heritage, streetscapes, diversity, and walkable community character?

We should create an environment that encourages economic development that respects the character and built environment of Oak Park. We should encourage the levels of residential density that supports the walkable amenities people would like to see. I live in South Oak Park, which is one of the densest places in the village. It has two walkable business districts which support a thriving local business scene, restaurants, coffee shops, and even a mom and pop grocery store. Carnival!

I do think new economic development should support basic principles and design and appropriateness that respect our existing streetscapes. For example, buildings, of whatever scale, should always address the street well. The most enjoyable commercial districts in Oak Park have street scale retail which is welcoming and approachable. Another example would be that parking, when required, should be hidden and off street.

7. What specific types of new construction do you want to see encouraged in Oak Park

during the rest of the 2020s?

I would like to see many more residential units built to provide supply to match the tremendous demand in Oak Park. I have no preference for commercial developments. I think the folks who invest millions of dollars in new buildings have extensive research backing the market opportunities they perceive, if we have the residential density they are looking for, they will build the amenities we need.

8. Would you support any new constraints or limits on future new construction in Oak

Park, whether that be by height or density, type (SF, MF, commercial, etc.) or location (DTOP, SF zoned areas).

I support a more predictable zoning code with fewer or no variances, so that all stakeholder know what we are getting, and that those constraints are negotiated up front via a political process, not in commissions, or behind the scenes.

9. Do you believe that Oak Park's existing and historic mix of single-family homes,

small rental buildings, and larger apartment buildings is a good one, or should we be

moving toward a community of larger, "greener" apartment buildings with "affordable" set-asides?

We should encourage the next increment of density via zoning changes. Almost any new development will be greener and more sustainable than what it replaces.

I support our affordable housing fund, and the inclusionary zoning ordinance that funds it. We don’t have much experience with buildings that incorporate both market rate and affordable housing, but I am open to the concept - 7 Van Buren is an example, and I am eager to see it succeed. The revealed preference of developers is that most either want to make market rate housing, or affordable housing, not both.

10. The construction of multiple new luxury high-rise buildings has been perhaps the

biggest economic development story in Oak Park over the last decade. What would

you like to see as the big economic development story between now and 2035?

I would like to see a future in which Oak Park is seen as a world wide model of how to leverage urban density to both respect our architectural past, and provide innovative new housing solutions that grow our economy, help us hit our sustainability targets, and provide a village our children and grandchildren can be proud of.