Affordable housing, and the role of government, were on trial on Tuesday night.
At the end of a five-hour meeting, village trustees voted 4-3 to stop the affordable housing discussion in . Residents, workers and even , packed the room, with some spilling into the hallway and others sitting on the floor, through more than two hours of debate on a resolution to halt further discussions on affordable housing in a town without diverse housing stock.
"We are trying to end the divisiveness in this community," said Trustee Richard Kates, who drafted the resolution, before public comments began. According to Village Attorney Katherine Janega, future councils must draft legislation in order to discuss affordable housing in the future.
At the November meeting, trustees took a straw poll and said they would heed the results of this year's Winnetka Council Caucus poll, which suggested that most people who took the survey do not want to pursue affordable housing. About 25 percent of Winnetka households took the survey, according to the Caucus website.
In the name of civil rights
Resident Marc Hecht was one of 11 to speak against the resolution. "Sometimes legislators are dutybound to lead even if it is not popular," he said, referencing the Caucus results.
Hecht also called the resolution comparable to "taking a stick and poking it in the eye of the Illinois Attorney General, and daring her to sue Winnetka to enforce the State Affordable Housing Act. Picking a fight with the State of Illinois, on what will be seen as a traditional civil rights issue, is just crazy."
Another speaker against the resolution was former trustee King Poor, who called the resolution "plain unnecessary and uncalled for."
"It will make Winnetka stand out for going out of its way to be hostile," Poor said.
Two members of the Plan Commission spoke against the resolution, as well as a former Caucus Village Committee Chair*, Jan Bawden. "I respectively submit that you don't get to quit," Bawden said. "It's not pretty, it is not convenient, but it is all our jobs."
Winnetka lost 37.5 percent of its renter-occupied units between 1980 and 2000, according to the Plan Commission.
In support of small government
Six people spoke in favor of the resolution to end affordable housing, including Carry Buck, who led the charge against affordable housing as chairwoman of Winnetka Home Owners Association (WHOA).
"Some things that were said tonight surprise me," Buck said. "Shouldn't the trustees represent the majority of the people?"
Others mentioned a desire to avoid "federal dollars" in Winnetka, and to keep "big government from reaching into our community."
The Dance of the Trustees
For about an hour, the trustees shared their views on the discussion and acknowledged some wear-and-tear. Trustee Jennifer Spinney said her feelings were hurt by some of the comments suggesting the council was not working on the issue. Trustee Gene Greable said he has been losing sleep. Trustee Christopher Rintz shared his personal story of moving into Winnetka as an outsider. "I never thought I'd see these people turn away from controversy," he said.
After everyone shared their opinions, it was time to vote.
Trustee William Johnson expressed hesitancy at voting, and began asking the village attorney for clarification on the lasting implications of the amendment.
"No council before this council has ever taken something off the table for future councils," said Village Attorney Katherine Janega. "No council really should do that, in my opinion."
When Kates spoke out against this, Janega fired back, "I do not mince my words or shape them according to some political outcome. I have 30 years of experience in this subject area. ... You may take whatever I say and disregard it, shape it, but please do not misrepresent my words."
As the exchange continued, Village President Jessica Tucker said, "You do not need to berate our village attorney." Later Trustee Arthur Braun suggested that Janega's words had changed the tone of the issue.
Two trustees put forth an amended resolution with a temporal distinction. The wording of the amended Section Two of the resolution reads: "Given the current condition of the economy, cost of land and lack of meaningful development opportunities in the village, it is the opinion of the council that the Amended Affordable Housing Plan adopted May 10, 2005 not be amended further at this time."
In the end, the trustee vote was split, with Tucker breaking the tie in favor of the amended resolution.*
The debate about diverse housing options in Winnetka is suspended.
"Like" us on Facebook; you can afford it. It's free!
* Dec. 8 11:30 a.m. Clarification: We added the word "amended" to make it clear that the 4-3 vote was on the amended resolution, not the original resolution provided by Trustee Kates. We changed Jan Bawden's title from Caucus chair to Caucus Village Committee Chair.
But Ms. Buck continues to threaten and concoct conspiracies without proof.
If one attended the meeting to try and learn more about Winnetka's Affordable Housing Plan and form an educated opinion, I am afraid that they went away unfulfilled. They did get an education on the philosophical positions of many of the Trustees and commenters, however. Personally, that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee.
1. Highland Park's inclusionary zoning program works; development was not stifled due to the requirement of an affordable housing set-aside in new multifamily construction. When the Highland Park representatives spoke to the Winnetka Plan Commission at the Commission's invite, they did say that they had to make some adjustments (e.g., allowing developers to allow for simpler amenities in the affordable units), but that the results have all been powerful. At the July Commission meeting, the Highland Park staff person said, as quoted in TribLocal, "I think it’s been a great opportunity for people to stay in the community, first and foremost." http://triblocal.com/winnetka-northfield/2011/05/26/winnetka-hears-from-highland-park-on-affordable-housing/ 2. Winnetka *can* have senior housing and it *can* have a community preference. Affordable developments can have community preferences. The fine point is that it is illegal to have housing developed without an age restriction, but put age as a preference. In other words, Winnetka cannot allow a regular multifamily condo or rental development to make Winnetka seniors a top priority. It can only put Winnetkans of all ages on the top of the list. Non age-restricted buildings violate the Fair Housing Act when they discriminate against families with children.
separately, I don't understand Kates at all. Wasn't it strange that Kates voted FOR the amendments, then voted against the resolution with amendments?
This probably goes against "good government" rules, but I think it's not such a great idea to amend and then vote on measures during meetings. To me, the sentiment in the room was clearly affecting Trustees' thinking. Maybe that's a good thing; I don't know.
Several trustees, including Mr. Kates, correctly pointed out that inclusionary zoning is of limited benefit as an affordable housing generator in a built-out community precisely because it depends on piggy-backing on new construction. For communities like Highland Park, Winnetka, and others that are built out on the North Shore, the benefit to having such a policy in place is that it plans for the future, and it guarantees uniform requirements. This is a relief to developers who only want to know the groundrules, and it's efficient for the municipality because it precludes deal-making. It is inevitable that there will be development opportunities in the high-density districts of Winnetka. The Village should plan now for the future.
What do we do? We've provided foreclosure prevention counseling to over 200 families and seniors in the last year; provided advice to another 200 tenants who wanted to know their rights, including helping them organize; facilitated 35 Homesharing matches, where we help home providers, mostly seniors and single parent families, remain in their homes by finding an individual looking to live closer to work, family, or school (rents ranging from near free in exchange for services, to $550/month); we investigate complaints of housing discrimination through testing (that is, deploying trained investigators to record their experiences so we can evaluate differential treatment); and we educate and advocate for fair & affordable housing throughout 16 northern suburbs. Visit us at 614 Lincoln or go to our web site www.interfaithhousingcenter.org. Thanks!
Ann Dillon
This girl does not deserve WHOA's cyber-bullying. It's clear from the pics you've posted that you've invaded her FB "privacy." Please stop.
That said, they should also have the courage of their convictions and be willing to make what appear to be unpopular choices if they believe it is for the good of the town. That is the sign of a strong leader.
Can you please make clear what the President, Barney Frank, or Chris Dodd have to do with Winnetka? There are many poor and free societies which work; India comes to mind. There are many free and rich societies which are openly socialist; Sweden comes to mind. I don't know if I would want to live in either one, but saying that you can't be free and poor or rich and socialist is just not correct. Speaking of freedom, the freedom to discuss beliefs and ideas seems like a good one. Trustee Kates's proposal, backed by WHOA, would have removed that freedom with respect to affordable housing. So who's on the side of free societies and who's not?
Oh, and for the record, Trustee Kates' resolution would not have "permanently" removed freedom with respect to affordable housing in any way shape or form - that is a myth. All Resolutions and Ordinances can be amended up the road. Including Trustee Greable's version. So let's end this tedious discussion as the 2011 Caucus Platform Plank #5 suggested. Or let's not. Democracy rocks! God bless America - and especially our beautiful little home town of Winnetka. We wish EVERYONE peace and joy during this holiday season. Amen. Carry Buck
By this logic, those who support affordable housing should demand that it be passed because, after all, it can always be amended. I don't think that argument would carry much force with WHOA, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
They do not pay taxes. They do they live here and they should not be welcome into a Village Meeting nor should they be allowed to voice their agenda on behalf of their initiative to direct the policies and the taxes of a village they do not live in. Community Organizers and Alinskyites are now more clearly understood to create havoc, and are but a scheme to blackmail others for funds, as seen in the Community Reinvestment Act, the CRA, which nearly brought down the economy of the USA with their fraudulent Fannie and Freddie loans. Those NINJA (no income, no jobs, no assets) loans were given to those who could not and did not make their payments on their homes. It was a scheme and Schecter's plan is of the same order.
Further, as Chris Rintz makes his living from building subsidized Affordable Housing he should not be in a position to vote for or against Affordable Housing in Winnetka as he is not an unbiased bystander nor a fair and balanced advocate for Winnetka but rather for himself and for his business. That alone should keep him from running for the only board position that sets Winnetka's agenda. There are people that sat on the commission who invest and are invested in Affordable Housing projects. That should have barred them from vetting the Affordable Housing topic. I suggest future committees are more thoroughly investigated for those who have a personal agenda.
They do not pay taxes. They do they live here and they should not be welcome into a Village Meeting nor should they be allowed to voice their agenda on behalf of their initiative to direct the policies and the taxes of a village they do not live in. Community Organizers and Alinskyites are now more clearly understood to create havoc, and are but a scheme to blackmail others for funds, as seen in the Community Reinvestment Act, the CRA, which nearly brought down the economy of the USA with their fraudulent Fannie and Freddie loans. Those NINJA (no income, no jobs, no assets) loans were given to those who could not and did not make their payments on their homes. It was a scheme and Schecter's plan is of the same order.