Carvana does not conform with the Skokie Comprehensive Plan

Dear Mayor Van Dusen and Trustees of the Village of Skokie,

I appreciate the fact that you have a weighty decision before you: how to vote on the controversial Carvana proposal when the Plan Commission approved it but the overwhelming sentiment of the residents you have heard from is "no."

At this point, it would be wise to refer to Skokie's Comprehensive Plan, our community's roadmap and a reflection of our values. That is because ultimately, the decision before you is about what kind of Skokie do we want to be. So I read the latest amended Chapter 8 on Land Use and this paragraph toward the beginning stood out:

Even though almost every bit of land in Skokie has been developed at least once, the time has come to take another look at the way we use our land. We need to use our land efficiently and develop it in a way that is safe, aesthetically pleasing, economically viable, environmentally sensitive, and meets the needs of the community as a whole, not just the needs of a small number of individuals.

The Carvana proposal does not meet our own high standard of "us[ing] our land efficiently." I assume "efficient" in this case means a seamless incorporation of that lot with surrounding uses in which there is a synergy that benefits all.

Moreover, the Carvana would not be "safe" (to humans or beasts), "aesthetically pleasing," "environmentally sensitive," nor "meet the needs of the community as a whole, not just the needs of a small number of individuals."

It might be "economically viable." But would that particular criteria outweigh the negative effects of all the others? The only instance in which I believe an elected body has a duty to act against the wishes of the majority of its people is where human or "non-human" (that is, animal) rights are concerned, because these are simply inviolable. But Carvana doesn't lay claim to human rights.

I would urge you to vote "no" on Carvana. A "no" vote reinforces the centrality of our Comprehensive Plan and the Village's attention to its constituents.

Thank you very much in advance for your thoughtful consideration, and for the seriousness with which you undertake your mandate as the stewards of Skokie's land and all who call it home.

Sincerely,

Gail Schechter

Skokie, IL

POSTSCRIPT, February 8, 2022: Last night's votes by the Skokie Village Board members -- everyone but Trustee James Johnson, that is -- tell us everything we need to know about whose arguments are most persuasive to our elected officials: monied interests. They decided to believe Westfield that half-a-billion dollars in annual sales is not enough to support upgrades, so they agreed to a "blight" designation and raised the sales tax for Old Orchard shoppers. The Mayor raised the specter of failed malls in Niles and Northbrook and said, without proof, that Old Orchard's revenues, the most significant in the Village, could go south (and consequently, others' property taxes up) without a special taxing district. It is clear that Skokie is entirely in the thrall of outside investors and the Big Box.

They decided to believe that Carvana made enough concessions to protect birds and sidestepped all the other issues raised, even the questionable economic viability of the project and, frankly, its physical ugliness. It was immaterial to them that more than a dozen environmental groups, including its own sustainability commissioners, and thousands of residents have written and spoken out against Carvana.

The main lesson of last night's Village Board vote is that it is a mistake for residents to focus on anything but root-cause concerns in their advocacy. The reason is that symptoms like bird safety can be alleviated and distract from the real issue in Skokie, which is that our own elected officials give a greater benefit of the doubt to petitioners (that is, developers) than to the vast majority of its people. It wasn't the Comprehensive Plan that served as the Village Board's touchstone last night, but a hostage-like fear of disinvestment. In a responsive and responsible democracy, elected officials give the benefit of the doubt to its people when its people are speaking not in the interest of bigotry and racism, but in the interest of decency, equity, and, in the words of the Plan,"the needs of the community as a whole, not just the needs of a small number of individuals."