You argued in a June 8 editorial about the devastating loss Evanstonians will suffer if they fail to jump on board the trend of cineplex/retail complexes plaguing our city and many suburbs. While on a broad level your arguments appear convincing, one has only to examine the context and details of the entertainment complex proposed for Evanston to understand why so many residents and merchants object to the plans.
As president of the Coalition for Appropriate Development (CAD), the citywide residents group that has formed around concerns about the development, I can assure you that neither our organization, nor the merchants who have spoken out against the proposed plans, has objected in any way to the idea of development in and around our existing downtown. What we have objected to are a myriad of substantive specifics regarding this development, as proposed by the Arthur Hill Co. and as strongly supported by several city officials.
For example, your editorial implies that the development would somehow alleviate the heavy burden residents pay in real estate taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Indeed, the only figures available show that the city itself will invest more than $20 million–but closer to $30 million when one accounts for interest accrued on the general obligation bonds the city will have to float to pay for its portion of development costs. In return, the city (and hence, taxpayers) will see almost no significant revenue from the taxes generated by this development for close to 20 years. (The development will take place in a tax-increment financing district, and bonds must be paid off before tax revenues will flow into city coffers.) The complaint is that such a poor financial investment by the city puts our financial well-being in greater jeopardy than it already is.
Ironically, the development was originally billed as a vehicle by which to “revitalize” Evanston’s existing downtown. But as the development has grown in size, it appears to have developed into its own self-sustaining destination shopping venue. It only takes one look at the design plan to see that the project literally turns its back on our existing downtown. In addition, conversations with the developers’ leasing agent, Mid-America, reveal a leasing strategy that appears to pirate concepts from already successful downtown Evanston businesses, translating them into their more homogenized chain-store relatives. In this development plan, “revitalization” is beginning to look more like cannibalization.
It’s a shame that sweeping philosophical statements such as yours can sound so persuasive and yet fail to address the nuances and complexity of these issues–economics meets community and the real details that make or break specific developments as they take place in specific communities. Perhaps your paper might consider doing some real reporting on this issue. Rather than merely endure platitudes like “Development is good” and “This will be good for Evanston,” we would be happy to make ourselves available for a detailed analysis and discussion of the issues at hand, which might then be covered in a truly substantive way.
