Here is another fine example of Oak Forest government

Read thru this list and see that our town is missing from the list. We must not need additional funding huh?

Here are the requests submitted through the South Suburban Housing Collaborative, an arm of the South Suburban Mayors & Managers Association:

Blue Island: Plans to buy, rehab and sell 20 homes.

Country Club Hills: Plans to demolish and replace fire-damaged homes.

Dolton: The village will acquire 25 homes to be land banked and rehab 40 more for homeownership purposes near the border of Riverdale and the rail line.

East Hazel Crest: The village will buy five foreclosed homes adjacent to the Metra Station and return them to ownership housing. The village also plans to buy and demolish a blighted site within the transit-orientated development area and land bank it.

Ford Heights: The village will buy 19 rental units for rehabilitation, 11 residential buildings will be demolished and 22 units will be bought and redeveloped for homeownership.

Glenwood: The village plans to buy and demolish six units in the future station area. In addition, the village will buy and return to homeownership 10 foreclosed homes in a blighted neighborhood.

Harvey: Near the 147th Street Metra terminal, the village plans to acquire, rehab and resell bank-owned homes, demolish 64 multifamily apartments and redevelop 15 other units of demolished or vacant property near the Dixie Highway Corridor.

Hazel Crest: The village will buy 11 properties to rehab and resell, and another 11 to demolish and land bank for subsequent redevelopment.

Lansing: The village hopes to buy 60 properties to rehab and resell to qualified buyers in two older areas of the village.

Lynwood: The village will remove blight by demolishing two structures along two main corridors.

Matteson: The village will buy, rehab and resell 10 homes in the Apple Oak Subdivision, which has the community's largest concentration of foreclosed homes.

Midlothian: The village will buy one foreclosed commercial building and one foreclosed residential building to land bank as a part of their transit oriented development plan.

Olympia Fields: The village will acquire and rehab five single-family homes for later sale, and will demolish two blighted single-family homes. The village also plans to redevelop parts of an active adult senior community.

Park Forest: The village will demolish and land bank 30 homes in a neighborhood targeted for redevelopment, and rehab 10 homes for low-income families.

Phoenix: The village plans to demolish and land bank four properties and to rehab four homes for sale.

Posen: The village will buy 22 foreclosed homes for rehabilitation and homeownership. Two additional buildings will be acquired and demolished.

Richton Park: Richton Park will address 20 units through a lease-to-purchase program. The Village has identified a number of partners to assist with the program, and 11 of the units are targeted for low-income households.

Robbins: The village plans to address a key transit-oriented redevelopment site. The village will demolish and land bank 32 homes, and redevelop 109 units in the transit area it shares with Blue Island.

Sauk Village: The village plans to buy eight homes for rehabilitation and homeownership, and will redevelop one home on a vacant lot.

South Holland: The village will demolish and land bank five properties in the Town Center redevelopment area. In addition, the village and its partners will rehab and sell 35 homes throughout the community in order to stabilize the village's housing stock.

Steger: The village plans to buy, demolish and redevelop four blighted homes, and to buy, rehab and resell four other foreclosed homes.

Some of these areas are much worse off than oak forest.

They are all worse off, including Midlo, Oly Fields and Lansing. However, why not get the funding??? But Hank is a nice guy.

True, but it would have been nice to get some funds to tear down those apartments by the train station.

OF Watch wrote:

True, but it would have been nice to get some funds to tear down those apartments by the train station.

And resplace them with what? No your right tear them down with no plan that way we have vacant property and lose the tax income from the property taxes on improved property

boycott wrote:

<quoted text>
And resplace them with what? No your right tear them down with no plan that way we have vacant property and lose the tax income from the property taxes on improved property

You buy the property and rebuild on it, like the other towns doing transit orientated development will do, genius. While you may lose taxes in the sort term, you will benefit by not having to provide extended services, such as extra police calls to the area.

If the city would have done this and acquired a lot of the land around the train station, as Tinley has done, you could have more options on where the parking lot and retail space could have been instead of shoehorning it into place as it is now.

OF Watch wrote:

<quoted text>
You buy the property and rebuild on it, like the other towns doing transit orientated development will do, genius. While you may lose taxes in the sort term, you will benefit by not having to provide extended services, such as extra police calls to the area.
If the city would have done this and acquired a lot of the land around the train station, as Tinley has done, you could have more options on where the parking lot and retail space could have been instead of shoehorning it into place as it is now.

I disagree.You dont remove and hope they come. You make plans that include the property or market the property as if vacant. THEn you acquire and demolish as part of the big picture. The cost of service is minimal comapred to taxes received from the property currently. You do not have service costs exclusive to the property that would go away completely as a cost. Alternatively removing and aquiring the property does completely remove the inclome. I would guess the city receives more of a net revenue basis from the apratments than the annex of 20 single family homes that cost a half of million to acquire when factoring legal cost

boycott wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree.You dont remove and hope they come. You make plans that include the property or market the property as if vacant. THEn you acquire and demolish as part of the big picture. The cost of service is minimal comapred to taxes received from the property currently. You do not have service costs exclusive to the property that would go away completely as a cost. Alternatively removing and aquiring the property does completely remove the inclome. I would guess the city receives more of a net revenue basis from the apratments than the annex of 20 single family homes that cost a half of million to acquire when factoring legal cost

..and I will respectfully disagree with your disagreement. If you look at some of the well thought out transit orientated redevelopments in other towns, you will see that before anything was re-developed, blighted properties and ones that did not fit in with the overall plan were acquired and then the new development occurred. OF does have a well thought out plan, take a look at the comprehensive plan done under Kelly. But, when towns do start the new construction, what is usually the first thing built? Its the train station and rightfully so, as the development is supposed to center around it.

That did not happen here in OF. The train station looks like it will be one of the last things to be done and the stuff done first is disjointed and does not have a good flow to it. Whats been done, unfortunately for the taxpayers, seems to have been rushed through in order to get something done during a one term mayor.

I would have preferred the City to have waited until a few more parcels of land were acquired so a more complete version of the comprehensive plan could have been implemented and possibly tweaked a bit to provide traffic and pedestrian flow in the area.

OF Watch wrote:

<quoted text>
..and I will respectfully disagree with your disagreement. If you look at some of the well thought out transit orientated redevelopments in other towns, you will see that before anything was re-developed, blighted properties and ones that did not fit in with the overall plan were acquired and then the new development occurred. OF does have a well thought out plan, take a look at the comprehensive plan done under Kelly. But, when towns do start the new construction, what is usually the first thing built? Its the train station and rightfully so, as the development is supposed to center around it.
That did not happen here in OF. The train station looks like it will be one of the last things to be done and the stuff done first is disjointed and does not have a good flow to it. Whats been done, unfortunately for the taxpayers, seems to have been rushed through in order to get something done during a one term mayor.
I would have preferred the City to have waited until a few more parcels of land were acquired so a more complete version of the comprehensive plan could have been implemented and possibly tweaked a bit to provide traffic and pedestrian flow in the area.

Yes it does seem discombobulated. Including 4 million or what evr it was for the parking lot. What we got was inconvience at a high price without follow up with new benfits. Looking at Oak Lawn, they seemed to do it in a way that brought new development and hresidence at the same time they got a new station. But I still maintain that the apartments should be part of the plan but do not require moving now for building later. I think they should be marketed for the property and acquired at the apporpriate time.

I say you knock the apartments down,commercial business will come! That area should have never been zoned residential in the first place. Another example of poor decision making in oak forest

About six years ago, the plan was to purchase the apartments, south of 159th & west of the RR, and turn them into a new Metra lot. The old Arbor Park school would be turned into commercial property as would the old Metra lot west and north of 159th & Cicero. With some luck, the train stop could have been moved to south of 159th street. The new lot would have been designed to accommodate a second deck. That would have made it convenient and safe for the commuters. What we ended up with is a very inconvenient lot commuters are avoiding causing a resulting decrease in parking revenue.

JPR wrote:

About six years ago, the plan was to purchase the apartments, south of 159th & west of the RR, and turn them into a new Metra lot. The old Arbor Park school would be turned into commercial property as would the old Metra lot west and north of 159th & Cicero..........

If that was the plan, what happened? Was it really a plan or a whim?
Who was purchasing the apartments? who was purchasing Arbor School?
Where was the station money coming from and who said Metra would have o.k.'d the move of the platform? A two story Deck parking?
What commercial businesses were willing to come to the old Arbor School site? The whole back half (south of the original building) cannot structurally be built upon. The same reason the southwest corner has been vacant for years. Even if possible, what do you think the residents on Oak and Forest would say about commercial/retail on their block? I suppose, the plan was to buy all the homes too? You say the Arbor park site was an ill conceived spot for a "parking lot" due to safety and residential congestion but a great spot for commercial?

Go drink some kool aid and tell me more. You've got my interest.

Say Waaaat wrote:

<quoted text>
If that was the plan, what happened? Was it really a plan or a whim?
Who was purchasing the apartments? who was purchasing Arbor School?
Where was the station money coming from and who said Metra would have o.k.'d the move of the platform? A two story Deck parking?
What commercial businesses were willing to come to the old Arbor School site? The whole back half (south of the original building) cannot structurally be built upon. The same reason the southwest corner has been vacant for years. Even if possible, what do you think the residents on Oak and Forest would say about commercial/retail on their block? I suppose, the plan was to buy all the homes too? You say the Arbor park site was an ill conceived spot for a "parking lot" due to safety and residential congestion but a great spot for commercial?
Go drink some kool aid and tell me more. You've got my interest.

What happened was a new administration had different plans. It was a serious plan, not a whim.
The city would purchase the apartments, a developer would purchase the Arbor Park School.
Metra may or may not have approved the platform move, but either way the commuters would be safer than now.
The two story deck was to be built into the design in case more parking was needed. It would be at the same level as the tracks.
At the time, a developer had some people willing to come to the Arbor Park School site, but CVS and a bank were not a high priority.
It was clear the residents on both Oak and Forest were not happy, particularly since the developer published a plan to take over their homes.
That was never the intent. There was to be buffer zone of condos between the commercial and residential homes that exist now.
The current parking lot is an ill conceived plan and I have no doubt someone will be seriously hurt running across 159th street some day.
One was killed doing the same across Cicero and Metra ultimately paid for the pedestrian bridge. Although there is a bridge across 159th, it's not at all convenient for the commuters. Also note not only did the city purchase the old school, they gave away most of the property NW of 159th and Cicero to the developer!

JimRossi wrote:

<quoted text>
What happened was a new administration had different plans. It was a serious plan, not a whim.
The city would purchase the apartments, a developer would purchase the Arbor Park School........At the time, a developer had some people willing to come to the Arbor Park School site.......There was to be buffer zone of condos between the commercial and residential homes that exist now......

I don't believe an Admin change after eight years of watching robust growth in surrounding towns discarded a viable plan in the making that had the interest of investors as you say.

Was this plan ever put to paper and designed out? Were the apartments ever approached to be purchaseed(I recall an article stating they were never contacted)? What developer was interested in purchasing Arbor with no investment required by the City?
You mention people coming to the Arbor site. What people?
Just how big do you think this piece of property is? Tell me more about the buffer of Condos. Exactly how do they screen existing residents from this supposed commercial site with no ingress/egress off of 159th other than Oak?

Please, pass the kool aid. I'm thirsty.

Say Waaaat wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe an Admin change after eight years of watching robust growth in surrounding towns discarded a viable plan in the making that had the interest of investors as you say.
Was this plan ever put to paper and designed out? Were the apartments ever approached to be purchaseed(I recall an article stating they were never contacted)? What developer was interested in purchasing Arbor with no investment required by the City?
You mention people coming to the Arbor site. What people?
Just how big do you think this piece of property is? Tell me more about the buffer of Condos. Exactly how do they screen existing residents from this supposed commercial site with no ingress/egress off of 159th other than Oak?
Please, pass the kool aid. I'm thirsty.

You can believe what you want, I only state facts.
There was a lot of research done on the apartments including the cost of relocating all the residents to affordable housing.
They couldn't be simply thrown into the street.
I don't recall the name of the developer, but it was the one that published the plan in the Southtown against the wishes of the city.
I don't know which contracts they had in hand, they usually don't share that until the last minute.
The plan is a moot point and there's no reason for me to discuss it with you. It isn't going to happen.
I don't drink kool aid, it's bad for your teeth. I stick with water.

JimRossi wrote:

<quoted text>
You can believe what you want, I only state facts.......

......just can't recall small details, like who the developer was and who the interested retailers were and why the apartment owners never knew about the purchase or negotiations and what Metra's contribution would be and exactly how and where condos would be built to screen the residential area from commercial.

Other than that, I guess you stated the facts.

Just give me whatever your having then.

JimRossi wrote:

<quoted text>

I don't recall the name of the developer,.........I don't know which contracts they had in hand, they usually don't share that until the last minute......The plan is a moot point and there's no reason for me to discuss it with you. It isn't going to happen.

I agree the points may be moot, but who's the one that brought it up for discussion. Who's "they" anyway? You would think whoever the City Admin was at the time would be familiar with any contracts "in hand".

Say WAAAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
......just can't recall small details, like who the developer was and who the interested retailers were and why the apartment owners never knew about the purchase or negotiations and what Metra's contribution would be and exactly how and where condos would be built to screen the residential area from commercial.
Other than that, I guess you stated the facts.
Just give me whatever your having then.

I can't say the apartment owners were ever approached. I just don't know, but I suspect an appraisal was done on their property.
They would have been given a fair price, but the real problem was relocating all the existing residents.
You just can't expect to demolish that much housing, and expect all the residents to find other homes my themselves.
Metra will contribute an amount to a train station that's their standard. If the municipality wants more, they pay the extra.
Moving the stop south would have been a bit difficult, but not impossible.
The condo buffer map was published in the Daily Southtown, but it was not the plan the city approved.
It included the acquisition of a lot of property the city had no intention of buying.
If I recall, it could have been accomplished without much forced acquisition, if any.

Say Waaaat wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree the points may be moot, but who's the one that brought it up for discussion. Who's "they" anyway? You would think whoever the City Admin was at the time would be familiar with any contracts "in hand".

"They" is the developers. Potential clients do not want their names released until a final contract is signed.
I was the city administrator at the time. That information is highly confidential and wasn't even shared with me.
It happens that the plan for the parking lot was introduced by me.

JimRossi wrote:

<quoted text>
"They" is the developers. Potential clients do not want their names released until a final contract is signed.
I was the city administrator at the time. That information is highly confidential and wasn't even shared with me.
It happens that the plan for the parking lot was introduced by me.

After those remarks, I may just stick to the kool aid.

Is it a common practice to keep City Administrators in the dark as to what's going on or is there some type of "top secret" confidentiality clause that runs it to perpetuity that keeps you from revealing any type of substance and facts to what you say?