After we spoke at the bakery, Paula, a local affordable housing advocate, encouraged me to respond to her letter opposing the proposed development at 4820 Searle Parkway. I submitted my response as public comment for the November 2 Skokie Village Board meeting.
Paula and I both want more affordable housing in Skokie. I support this proposal because it would put a vacant property back to use and bring more residents near downtown. I also want the Village to explain how it would use the proposed affordable housing payment and what the development could mean for Skokie’s schools.
View the Village of Skokie’s project information for 4820 Searle Parkway
Hi Paula,
Thank you for talking with me at the bakery yesterday morning and encouraging me to respond. I appreciate your advocacy for affordable housing. I share the belief that people with different incomes and needs should be able to make their homes in Skokie.
Where I disagree is with the call to reject the entire development at 4820 Searle Parkway. I think we need to look at what this proposal means for the whole community, including our housing needs, our downtown, and the resources that support our schools and public services.
Economic diversity is part of Skokie’s identity. That includes housing for people with low, moderate, and higher incomes. We need to preserve existing affordable housing and create more of it where housing needs are not being met, and I believe welcoming market-rate housing can also contribute to an economically diverse community.
The proposed $300,000 payment is relevant here. If approved, that money would go into Skokie’s dedicated Housing Fund, which can support creating, preserving, and improving affordable housing. The Village Board determines how it is spent. I do not yet know what this particular contribution would fund, but the money would be dedicated to addressing affordable housing needs elsewhere in Skokie. I want to be part of the discussion about how these dollars are spent and help ensure they fulfill their purpose.
We also have a long-vacant building and a developer who wants to invest in it. I pass by the area every day and see unused buildings and vacant land that have remained that way for years, in some cases decades. Seeing someone willing to develop one of those properties matters. We should consider that opportunity seriously, because rejecting this proposal does not guarantee that another developer will come forward with the project we would prefer.
You also raise a fair question about the grant awarded in 2018 and what the community received in return. I agree that the Village needs to protect public money when it provides financial assistance to businesses or developers. Those agreements should include clear commitments, a way to measure whether they are met, and enforceable provisions to recover funds when appropriate. The Board and Village staff need to get that right. But whether the Village adequately protected an earlier investment is a separate question from whether this housing proposal would benefit the community today.
Downtown Skokie needs help. A lot of help. When Mayor Tennes ran for election, and in subsequent conversations, she told me that downtown revitalization was among the most important concerns she heard from residents. In the seven years my family and I have operated Kneads & Wants downtown, I have seen how much work remains.
Through the Downtown Skokie Merchants Collaborative, I have worked hard to bring people downtown, support businesses, and build relationships across our community. A handful of business owners continually step up, contributing time, money, and energy. We cannot sustain downtown through that effort alone. Businesses need people who will shop, eat, and spend time here throughout the week.
Adding 58 households near downtown could help support the businesses we have and encourage new ones to open. That means potential customers, local jobs, and sales-tax dollars to support Village services. Those benefits matter to everyone who lives here or seeks to live here.
Our schools also need more property value supporting them. When the cost of operating our schools is spread across a smaller tax base, existing taxpayers carry a heavier burden. Through my work on the District 69 Board of Education, I have learned how TIF districts limit the property value available to support our schools. Within a TIF district, taxes on growth in property value generally go into the redevelopment fund instead of being shared with schools and other local taxing bodies in the usual way.
That makes bringing vacant and underused properties back into productive use important to our schools’ long-term financial health. Once property leaves a TIF, its full taxable value becomes available to support schools and other public services. New housing can also bring additional students and costs, so this project’s net contribution needs to be established. But expanding the property tax base that can support Skokie’s school districts needs to be part of the discussion, especially when we are also concerned about what existing residents can afford to pay.
Affordability in Skokie includes housing, property taxes, utilities, and the everyday cost of living here. Supporting our businesses and strengthening the resources available for public services are part of that discussion.
I support affordable housing, and at the same time, I believe this development deserves support for what it could contribute to the broader community. Bringing a vacant property back into use, adding residents near downtown, and contributing toward affordable housing are meaningful benefits. That is why I disagree with the call to reject the entire proposal.
Thank you again for the conversation and for being open to hearing my perspective.
Madeleine England
skokie.me