The letter says a lot about what I call The Grand Planning of Well-meaning, Socially Aware Not-for-Profit People with Money to Spend. I may be biased, but from long experience, dating at least from my time on the Interreligious Council on Urban Affairs in the ’60s, I am ever suspicious of such endeavors, especially if it has “interfaith” in its name. This one also has “Catholic.”
Both carry with them a dangerous propensity to equate great ideas for helping people with feasible great ideas that do no harm on their way to, or at least in the direction of, fruition.
Letter from the Editor
Guest Viewpoint: Demetrios Pappageorge
My name is Demetrios Pappageorge and I live at 430 S. Grove Avenue, and I am no stranger to the poor. I worked with the homeless in Champaign throughout college. As parents, we took our daughters to rallies in D.C. shouting No More Shelters We Want Houses! In Oak Park, we have served lunch to PADS, built homes for Habitat, and managed a 35-unit building for Oak Park Res. Corp., where we worked and lived side-by-side with the working poor. It was magic and it was a struggle.
Magic because at times, particularly the building barbecues, everyone came together. Despite differences in income, education, orientation, religion, or politics, people ate together and made offers to drive to Jewel or watch children for an hour.
It was a struggle because some folks lived in squalor; a toddler was left knee-deep in trash and neighboring units were plagued by a cockroach infestation; Police and DCFS were called due to theft, domestic violence, and mental illness. One enterprising teen was turning tricks in the basement with a line of men outside her apartment.
When it was good, it was very very good, but when it was bad, it was horrid; however, even when tenants were terrified to call the police for fear of retribution from an abusive neighbor, there was always someone on-hand 24/7, unlike the Interfaith Project which does not include a resident manager.
Our building had a small percentage of the poor sprinkled into 35 mixed-income units, and included people with the means to help. Interfaiths project is 51 units with 100% low-income. This literally keeps me up at night, and it is, in no uncertain terms, a recipe for disaster for the proposed tenants and our village.
Oak Park has an incredible history of folding people-of-need into the fabric of the entire community. We have over 700 vouchers and low-income units in existing buildings! That number dwarfs the combined total of Forest Park, River Forest, Des Plaines, and Berwyn put together. And our system grants tenants anonymity and dignity to live, learn and prosper as productive members of our village – without being segregated. For this we should be very proud.
Now some wish to turn their backs on this dignified and seamless system. Though the Oak Park way is being adopted by cities all around the country, some wish to return us to an failed approach that research warns us to avoid. In his writings like Blueprint for Disaster, Roosevelt University Professor D. Bradford Hunt discusses New Urbanist thinking and the need for mixed-income housing. New Urbanism prevents projects from standing out as separate spaces reserved for the poor, like this Interfaith Project where residents would feel, as Professor Hunt puts it, stigmatized in the eyes of other city residents.
In addition HUD advocates for mixed-income housing, and the CHA stated, No longer will public housing tenants be isolated as second-class citizens in reservations.
As a person of faith, this reminds me of the parable of the sower. In shallow rocky soil, seeds die unable to take root. Conversely seeds thrive when spread out over fertile soil.
As a schoolteacher, I want to know what lesson the village would be teaching our children? That we should separate low-income residents from the rest of society?
3 more problems include:
ONE: The plan relies on funding that chains it to being 100% low-income. Besides going against Oak Parks policy of diversity assurance, this funding is the tail wagging the dog. First and foremost, should we not be looking at what is best for current and future tenants? For their dignity and the integrity and stability of the neighborhood, let us not chain ourselves to this flawed plan due to their proposed funding
TWO: This project punishes folks for bettering their lives. Since it is for single adults, Interfaith tenants who find love and life-partners will be forced to move out. Since it excludes those who earn too much, tenants who climb the economic ladder will be rewarded with eviction. What motivation will there be for betterment?
THREE: The Interfaith plan also relies on success of the commercial spaces in this stagnant economy. If the project fails, Oak Park is left with even more empty retail spaces with inadequate parking, and a building full of dorm-sized units. A beautiful façade with a lousy business and floor plan is unacceptable.
As an 18-year resident of Oak Park, I truly appreciate your time and effort. And I urge you to reject these variances because the density, parking, and height do not enhance our village, and they would only serve to put into place a housing project that is not progressive, not inclusionary, and definitely not what is best for the future tenants, the neighborhood, nor Oak Park.
Blithe Spirit 