With an estimated 3,000 homeless people in Lake County and a shortage of shelters, it is logical that homeless advocacy groups welcome the idea of getting a piece of Ft. Sheridan. And that possibility is open to them, with the fort’s future again in limbo.
But any plan for disposition of the property must ensure the best overall use of the fort, which now is costing the Army some $5 million a year to maintain as a shuttered base. A homeless shelter-especially one of any appreciable size-is not the answer.
At stake-after the Navy and Army Reserve picked off some 300 acres-are 400 of the choicest acres on the North Shore, including the last long stretch of pristine Lake Michigan shoreline. The goal must be to preserve that shoreline and other open space for public use, along with the fort’s splendid bluffs, ravines and 94-building historic district, while for the first time producing some needed tax money for surrounding communities and schools.
This is a tall order that can only be accomplished with some kind of commercial development to help pay the bills and guarantee the necessary preservation. The fort communities-Highland Park, Highwood and Lake Forest-thought they had filled the order with a proposed 575-unit luxury home, condominium and golf course project.
That plan foundered because the Army, in proposing a swap of fort land for a developer’s property in Virginia, sidestepped provisions of the federal base closure act, and Congress refused to grant an exemption. There also were uncertainties as to whether the plan would adequately protect the historic buildings and the fort’s natural features.
That returned the situation to square one, under which homeless groups can petition for a portion of the fort and propose their own plan to the Departments of Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development. If a plan is approved, they would get the land free, but they would have to pay maintenance and preservation costs.
There is a serious question of whether such non-profit groups would have even those resources, particularly if they proposed taking over and renovating some of the registered historic buildings. They certainly would not be able to underwrite any of the larger preservation vital to the fort. And to give them a portion would play to one of the communities’ biggest concerns-that the fort would be parceled out in many pieces without a cohesive plan, making it undesirable for any large-scale development.
Further, there is a serious question of whether the fort is a sensible, convenient location for a homeless shelter, being distant from the county’s primary pockets of homelessness. A better alternative would be to include some permanent, subsidized housing for low-income people in a larger development plan.
The fort communities wisely have renewed their efforts to craft an ideal use plan. It is the best course to try to influence the outcome, with the hope that the remaining acres can be sold as a whole to someone willing to follow the plan and protect for the public the fort’s history and natural beauty.
