Oak Park Newspaper

March 8th Board Meeting Concerning Taxpayers Bill for $17,000,000.00 and 20 Stories of Residents

The Board of Trustees met in Council Chambers in the Village of Oak Park on Monday to review and discuss the recent recommendations of the Oak Park Plan Commission. The report reviewed and recommended approval by the Board of Trustees of the Sertus development plan. The plan involves the development of the area of Lake Street and Forest, and includes the buildings at which the Original Pancake House and Certified Grocers were located, as well as the Village owned parking garage.

Economics of the project are not considered in the report of the Plan Commission. This is because that analysis is reserved as a right of the Village Board, and its cadre of advisors.

In what appears to be a knee jerk reaction to the crash of village income derived from retail sales tax, real estate values and sales, the Village Board of Trustees unanimously
approved a $28MM project. The proposal involves village participation in the form of commitment of TIF cash and the Village owned/operated parking structure.

Facing local budget deficits, layoffs, cutbacks, and reduction in Village services, the Board of Trustees appear to be placing their bets that the Sertus development will balance the budget.

Individuals in support rely on the possible benefits from consumer spending and construction, referring specifically to how the new hotel would attract the tourist and conventioneer to spend some of their time and money in the area renown for its historical figures. Local bankers with experience spoke about the rebound in the economy that is sure to come following this recession.

In contrast, opponents cited the reticence of banks and lenders to enter agreements to fund such large development. One former associate of General Growth Partners (aka GGP), the second largest retail mall owner and operator in the United States, attacked the Sertus plan, stating that hotel development in the US was at zero.

The gallery of the meeting chamber was initially filled with the Village Manager's staff diligently following the discussion, as well as members of the Plan Commission, project proponents and its detractors. "No tower" signs reminiscent of the opposition to the Whiteco project were evident throughout the audience, which often voiced its approval and disapproval during various times of the meeting, although that is the only similarity between the opposition to the Sertus proposal has with the Whiteco development. Opposition to Sertus, to this citizen, appeared unorganized and lost in the process.

As the midnight hour approached, the gallery seats became increasing available. Staff and elected officials brought the matter to a vote.

It is noteworthy that in the elections that brought this group of officials to the chamber, the loudest criticism of the current incumbents was the lack of meaningful input and process. The current Village President campaigned on issues of transparency, openness and adherence to recommendations contained in reports commissioned by the Village to advise in matters of development and zoning.

Economic panic now appears to have a grip on development analysis and planning is out of fashion.

The board avoided connecting the relevance of the Sertus proposal, now approved development, to the zoning plan and design previously endorsed by Village planners.

Individuals who spoke with me shared a common theme: Village Leadership needs to do a better job explaining itself. The perceived secrecy in use of Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) cash, and the growing acrimony resulting in litigation over TIF, Taxes and Development create an impression that the expectations of the Trustees lies
somewhere in the mystic cloud of logic left in a back room at 123 Madison Street.