Evanston Development Vision

Dear All,

There is an absolute denial by most of the above comments.The City is in a serious economic bind. I haven't seen the numbers yet, but I am absolutely certain that the revenues anticipated by sales tax, permit fees, transfer taxes,etc., will come in dramatically short of expectations.

This reduction in revenues will place an even greater burden on the City Council to figure out the new Budget.

Ther is a real need for some "out of the box" type of thinking.

The ridiculous arguments about what kinds of developments we would all like is so far from reality, that it's absurd.

Everyone would like to see more jobs, offices, etc., but past experience has shown us what works in Evanston and what doesn't. We as a City can wish for things to be a certain way and we can investigate how to have that wish come true, but as we all know our tax rates are high for businesses so unless we can figure out how to get our financial house in order, we are self limiting what we want. And with the tax structure being what it is, the market has defined that Evanston is much more of a residential market than an office market. No one in the city has compromised efforts to create more of an office and business environment. In fact groups like the Chamber and Inventure work on that issue all the time. That battle is up hill at best.

On the other hand, we as Evanstonians have created a rather hostile environment for any type of development coming to town. Our reputation preceeds us, unfortunately.

Our City is a wonderful place to live and work, however we are missing out on the type of development primarily due to the tax structure and lack of public encouragement.

That is the reality.

In order for things in the City to improve, we must deal with reality.

1.) All the jobs that Washington National Insurance offered in Evanston were quickly replaced with smaller and mid-sized businesses, many of whom have grown and prospered and now fill our office buildings. Also, the revenue generated from what is now in place of where Washington National Insurance was, is of greater financial benefit to Evanston and its schools.

2.) Recent major development in Evanston that generated more building fees and increased property values, in fact, resulted in lower property taxes for Evanston residents and businesses not higher property taxes as you seem to suggest.

Mr. Who Knows raises many points, but I would like to respond to one immediately.

When the developers of Eastwood came to the Council for a two-year extension, I spoke against it. I said that there was no guarantee that the condo project would be any more successful in two years. Also, by refusing the extension, the developer might be “encouraged” to find an alternative plan sooner. By granting this extension, the Council has ensured that the land will remain a park for the foreseeable future.

I find the suggestion of building an IHOP interesting. Again, I support more commercial development in Evanston. One of the complaints about the development before it was approved was that the property was zoned for mixed use- typically, a retail establishment with apartments on top- and this project was a residential project with just enough (inadequate) retail space to qualify. The small business owners were forced out and a small building of some historic significance was destroyed. Now the City has a free park.

I agree wholeheartedly that residents should have more of a say in what is brought into our community. This issue is shared in the 9th Ward where residents and our Alderman are against the proposed Aldi being added to the Home Depot Shopping Center. We cannot legally stop Aldi, who can build 'as of right.' Aldi has stated they are not even targeting our neighborhood, but two zip codes east of us. Anyone want to guess where those zip codes are? The majority of neighborhood residents are vehemently opposed to this store, but our hands are tied. Additionally, now the Salvation Army is asking for a rezoning from industrial to commercial of the old Rustoleum facility on Oakton so they can move from their near downtown location. We realize they are trading spaces, but this is going to limit our current industry's ability to expand as well as our ability to entice additional industry into our area. Further, are the footprints being exchanged the same? It seems the Oakton property footprint is larger. Evanstonians have enough churches - we want more and better jobs in our community so we can stop commuting to downtown Chicago. Retail jobs do not pay well and it seems that is the future for jobs in Evanston. Further, the constant rezoning of industrial space that has been taking place in our city is creating an unhealthy imbalance in zoning. Much research has been done on this topic and we know that a healthy city needs a healthy balance of zoning to be successful. Evanston vision is an issue that is shared by all Wards.

I certainly don't expect much from any alderman from the 6th or 7th wards - those are both NIMBY strongholds, so I don't expect a progressive alderman to emerge from those districts. The best I can hope for from Ward 7 is that the new alderman will not continue the anti-NU policies of the current officeholder. It is kind of like watching a Republican primary in Alabama...I know that the winner will be unpleasant, I just hope that the least unpleasant candidate wins.

Now I have read, with great interest, Mr. Zbesko's statements. To his credit, he is willing to spell out his agenda instead of just making baseless accusations (unlike certain other candidates....you know who they are...)

I find it interesting that Mr. Zbesko writes "So when developers came to the Council pushing their plans, the most vocal opposition came not from the Council, but by (mostly) home owning residents. The Council responded by arranging meetings between developers and neighbors, and they created a process to write zoning plans, such as for downtown or Central Street. These plans seem to be compromises between developers and citizens."

A few comments:

1. First...as he points out...the opponents of the developers were "(mostly) home owning residents". The people with big lawns and lawnsigns. It is a mistake to assume that these are the only residents of Evanston. Of course, Zbesko is running to represent Ward 7, where these people may be a majority, but not everyone in Evanston owns a single family home. So not ALL citizens of Evanston oppose development, just a noisy and affluent minority.

2. Zbesko says "These plans seem to be compromises between developers and citizens."
As I said above, not all citizens oppose development - I strongly favor it. But more importantly, what is so wrong about Council trying to reach a compromise between developers and 'citizens'? Does Zbesko propose that we just let the noisty complainers get their way all the time, without ever compromising?

3. This brings up another issue..Zbesko calls for more (non-residential) development, perhaps a
bowling alley, live performance theater, more offices, stores, etc. Who will build these? The city can't afford to do this. It seems clear that someone else (developers!) must be expected to build these. And yes, the developers will be motivated by money - they will build things that make them money, not large open air theaters or art museums to satisify the CSNA.

Why would developers want to invest their money in Evanston when the 'citizens' are so hostile, and the new Council is unwilling to 'compromise'?

We cannot have it both ways..we cannot make life difficult for developers, and then wonder why no developers want to build in our city. As Zbesko points out, the market reacted to an oversupply of housing and new condos are not being built. So what is the solution? To keep harassing developers, so they won't build any new condos, which they aren't building anyway? Or should we make it easier for them to modify their plans, to build offices or stores or factories instead of condos?

A good example is the empty field at Central & Eastwood. At least one person in the CSNA wants the city to buy this empty lot and turn it into a park, removing it from the tax lists forever. We can't afford it, and we have too many empty fields.

If there is no market for condos, then we must let the developer build something else on that site...for example, a 24-hour IHOP would appeal to NU students, be popular before and after NU sporting events across the street, be a nice place for doctors and nurses and firemen on the night shift, and be a nice place for families to go after church (St. A's).

DITTO!