Oak Park's Kelo Problem, Part 1
Oak Park, Illinois, where I live, has had what I call a "Kelo" problem for quite some time. And now its residents are finally being forced to come to grips with it.
What's a "Kelo" problem? The name comes from the (in)famous U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Kelo v. City of New London (125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005)). Kelo involved an attempt by the city of New London, Connecticut to condemn ("take") privately owned real estate so that the property could be redeveloped. The Supreme Court ruled -- to the dismay of lots of people -- that New London's actions did not violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states in relevant part that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." The question in Kelo was whether the planned development of the property -- to create things like a resort hotel, conference center, office space, and residences -- really was for public (as opposed to private) use.
The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo -- that the development was for public use -- strikes me as wrongheaded on a number of levels, but I'm more interested in (and troubled by) Kelo as an example of the overexaggerated role of government in the development of real estate. The idea behind New London's actions in the Kelo case is that government should be actively controlling and planning the usage of the property within its boundaries. This is certainly a belief shared by the village of Oak Park -- and many of residents. Consider the following:
1. Oak Park's village code attempts to ban "for sale" signs from appearing on private property. I say "attempts" because, as I discussed here, this provision is clearly unconstitutional. That being said, the provision is still on the books and (more importantly) still adhered to by Oak Park residents and realtors -- there are no "for sale" signs on private property in Oak Park.
2. Oak Park recently banned smoking in all restaurants.
3. The village of Oak Park often seeks to control which businesses come in to Oak Park. The most recent example involved Oak Park telling Lane Bryant that it is a "niche" business, one that doesn't fit the "kind and quality" of shops desired for the building it wanted to occupy. This story was picked up nationally and proved quite embarrassing, as some folks saw it as evidence that Oak Park hates fat people (see this blog, for instance).
4. The village of Oak Park owns a LOT of real estate, and its portfolio continues to grow. The village has just purchased the Colt Building at 1125-33 Lake Street, and may also purchase the building at 1145 Westgate. The price tag? Just under $5 million for the Colt Building alone. The reason given by the village for the purchases? According to its press release (pdf here), the purchases "could mean more flexibility in determining how downtown will look in the future."
5. The village appears to use its zoning powers as a sword rather as a shield. Consider this language from the village's website on planned developments:
A Planned Development (PD) is a special process for approval of larger developments within the Village. An applicant for a PD typically is seeking relief from some aspect of the Zoning Ordinance such as height or set back requirements. The applicant must demonstrate that the Village will receive compensating benefits in return for zoning relief.
(Emphasis in the original)
Bookmark: 
