Evanstonians for Responsible Planning

City Council notes:

TIFF Funds:

[Background: Based on our understanding, the TIFFs have siphoned $5 million from the school districts! Obviously, our school districts, especially in D65, are in dire straits. The last thing we need is the economic development department wasting this TIFF money on buying properties, etc., and giving giant grants to "preferred" businesses rather than others.]

Ald Davis has made efforts to close TIFFs early. From what we understand, the financial committee agreed and made recommendations accordingly.

Ald Nieuwsma and Ald Iles do not want to close, but EXTEND the Chicago/Main TIFF. Meanwhile, the financial committee has concluded that this TIFF has met its goals.

Paul Z gave overview of TIFFs: Howard/Ridge will end in 2028

West Evanston TIFF. Final collection 2029. Wants to use it for the acquisition of the Greenwood and Brown property and Mason Park improvements [does not seem like an improvement—it is an overabundance of concrete that many neighbors oppose]. If there are projects the city wants, we should budget for them and not rely on TIFFs that take money from our school districts.

Dempster/Dodge TIFF: opened b/c concerned about the grocery store closing. It was not a concern.

TIFF: Paul Z wants to buy up parking for PAW/for housing!! [Isn't there a huge shortage of parking in SE Evanston?]

5/5th TIFF: Has a very strong mission for AH. We think it should run its course.

[Question: Didn't Soul and Smoke get $600K from this TIFF? It's still not open after many years. Wilmette owners no less. Waste. Better if D65 received funds!]

Ald Davis: achieved the goal of Howard/Main, Dempster/Dodge, and Dempster/Main.

**Davis: HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD D 65GET IF TIFFs WERE TO CLOSE?!** [Excellent question!!]

Answer: $2.5 million would go to D65, $1.2 million for D202!!!!

[Once again: D65 SCHOOLS SHOULD GET THIS MONEY. SCHOOL DISTRICT IN CRISIS! WE DON'T NEED EVANSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO WASTE THIS MONEY!]

Ald Davis clears the record on Ald. Nieuwsma claims: "The vote from the finance committee to close this TIFF early was unanimous, apart from Ald. Nieuwsma." Busted.

Ald Burns wants to hold the TIFF issue.

Ald Nieuwsma has a clarification point: West Evanston is not included. Ald. Davis points out that Jonathan's information is NOT correct. It is included. Burns agrees.

Iles: I absolutely contend that Main/Dempster has not achieved its goals. Efforts to spur new development at SE corner of Chicago and Main. The Chicago corridor project is not done. Committee members don't know all the developments that he hopes to have. West side of Chicago Ave. [Wow. Iles wants major development on the west side of Chicago Ave.]

"Not only do I want to close the TIFFs, but I also want to expand the TIFFs." He wants parking and housing levels above.

**Wow. Shawn Iles and Jonathan Nieuwsma want to take MORE money from schools for more and more development.**

Ald. Kelly says as much as $5 million is diverted from the school district!

Ald. Davis sets the record straight, stating that the finance committee recommended that the TIFF did indeed meet its goals. Clarification that her statements were correct, including the votes and information.

Ald. Iles and Nieuwsma list many things they would like to use the TIFF money for, and does not want to pursue alternate funding...[but beleagured D65 should find other funding?]

Burns moves to hold the motion on the TIFF.

City Council meeting:
- Will the approved Rules Committee settled vote to require 2/3 majority for acting mayor be rescinded by one of the Biss bloc?
- Emerson building vote

City Council notes:
- Ald. Burns moves for Emerson development to be tabled (the development is replacement of two missing middle housing with a large "Soviet-era public housing project" with 30 units on a very historic block for Black Evanstonians.)

Ald. Iles and Ald. Rodgers complain about the process taking too long for developers.

- Re: rules on acting mayor. Ald Burns sent motion. He says he has heard arguments of simple majority vs 2/3 majority...bottom line for me...acting mayor who is best equipped.

Burns recommends a certain amount of (three) City Council meetings to try for 2/3 requirement for acting mayor and if no successful, a simple majority will vote. Following the third vote, an immediate vote for simple majority would happen immediately after.

Biss says he is waiting for state calendar to decide about stepping down. His principle is to minimize time Evanston is without an elected mayor.

Kelly pressing him on date.

Kelly proposes the longest-serving mayor be next step if a 2/3 vote is not reached. Ald. Burns says no.

Ald. Nieuwsma says we should take a longer view not stepping into politics, but it is. He is fighting for simple majority (because he likely wants to run for mayor!) in the name of no politics. lol.

Ald. Davis: would you support someone who is acting mayor who wants to run for long-term mayor?

Biss: based on what the process is, likely the deliberation when it is already known who the candidates are.

Ald. Davis: are others concern if an acting mayor will use it to their advantage to become mayor?

Ald Kelly: concerned about incumbancy advantage.

Voted down - 7-2. Very confused why non-majority would vote against!!

Rodgers makes revised amendment. Requires 2/3 majority if there is no special election.

Biss: this treats a resignation that occurs after an election, but is still operative...? [Not sure.] Biss bringing up hypotheticals.

Ald Nieuwsam: a vacancy could occur with 6 months left in the term...

Ald Burns: I would need more time on this. Would be a default no. Same issue. What if 2/3s cannot be reached, then what? Main concern.

Ald. Iles: going to vote no because it doesn't need to be this complicated. "We are making it harder than it has to be."

Ald Rodgers: this is the third time we are voted on this, so if this is the case, would like to place a hold to revisit other rules.

Biss: attempts to say that it is not proper. Attorney says it is proper.

Biss asks (prompts) if there is a motion to overturn the hold.

Iles: says he feels Rodgers pain.

THIS IS ABOUT THE THIRD TIME THAT ILES IS TRYING TO OVERTURN SETTLED VOTE.

Motion to over-turn the hold: NO. FAILS.

Acting Mayor vote held until June 22.

Biss: moves introduction for R2 (putting it into the code.)

Rodgers: Puts hold on R2.

Nieuwsma and Iles wants to overturn the hold.

For some reason, Rodgers pulls his hold.

City of Evanston, IL Live Stream Livestream closed captioning is now available on YouTube. Click the "CC" button at the bottom of the video to enable automatic live captioning. Please note: ...

Is Daniel Biss now reneging on his commitment to resign in time to trigger an actual mayoral election so Evanston voters can ELECT the person who finishes the remaining 2+ years of his term? (See Nov 2025 article below.) Will Biss deprive voters of an election and instead give us a City Council-appointed acting mayor?

At tonight’s Council meeting, will Ald. Shawn Iles try for the THIRD time to overturn the settled Rules Committee vote requiring a 2/3 Council vote to choose an acting mayor? (Instead, Iles, Nieuwsma, Geracaris and Harris want a simple majority vote — which would allow the “Biss Bloc” to presumably elect Ald. Jonathan Nieuwsma as acting mayor.)

Will Ald. Bobby Burns, again, make a good-faith effort to preserve and not undermine the higher voting threshold for such a potentially consequential decision, and to avoid further undermining public trust?

More:

At a candidate forum last November, Mayor Daniel Biss committed to stepping down in time to trigger a mayoral election so that Evanston residents could vote in a mayor who would finish the time left in his term (a term he arguably should never have pursued, knowing he was going to run for Congress.) "The idea is to try to minimize the amount of time we have an unelected mayor, he said.” Now, Biss, who tells 9th congressional voters that he will fight hard for democracy in the Trump era, seems to be backing away from this promise. There is hypocrisy in campaigning on democracy while potentially depriving Evanston voters of an election.

Also...the Rules Committee already voted to require a 2/3 Council majority to select an acting mayor — ensuring broader consensus for such a significant decision. Ald. Shawn Iles has twice attempted to overturn that vote and return to a simple majority threshold. Iles often tries to overturn the very few settled votes that don’t go the way preferred by Biss.

A 2/3 vote would simply require 6 Council votes instead of 5. If Evanston is denied a citywide election and instead receives an appointed mayor for more than two years, that broader consensus matters - at the bare minimum.

Everyone knows Biss is heavily favored to win the congressional seat. As Evanston Now noted: “Given the deep blue political cast of the district, the winner of the Democratic primary is almost certain to win the November general election.” In fact, a Republican has not won this district since 1947. Biss, himself, does not seem to be campaigning much and his competitor's polling does not seem to be a threat. We deserve an election.

Please tell Mayor Biss to honor his commitment and resign in time to trigger a mayoral election so Evanston residents can choose their next mayor.

And ask Alds. Iles, Nieuwsma, Geracaris, Harris and Burns not to overturn the settled 2/3 vote requirement. Mayor Biss should also recuse himself this vote and from any involvement in this process. He knowingly put Evanston in this situation.

Biss commits to mayoral succession plan - Evanston Now He says that -- if elected to Congress -- he plans to resign as mayor before the late-November 2026 deadline to trigger an April 2027 special election for mayor.

"I am thrilled to report we delivered exceptional results for our investors — achieving a 2.0x equity multiple and a 20% internal rate of return." [Developer, "Tapestry Station Sold to Developer for $38 Million."]

Five members of City Council, Mayor Biss (and Joining Forces for Affordable Housing/Connections for the Homeless who always advocate for luxury developers) must be pleased that Evanston was of service in helping the developer reach its goal: successfully flipping the Evanston development and producing a 20% return for investors.

When developers - often private equity-backed - come to the City of Evanston with shockingly enormous proposals that far exceed our zoning and say otherwise “the numbers don’t work,” this is what they mean: delivering a 20% return for investors.

In fact, even Alderman Jonathan Nieuwsma halted the 605 Davis approval process to ask what he considered the most important question: would the proposed deal - the meager two-story height reduction and other tiny concessions - still “work” for the developer? Now we know what “works” is a 20% investor return. (Probably also why rents are as high as $6,000 per month in some cases.)

Do Council members ever ask whether a project works appropriately for the City of Evanston? Works within our zoning code? Works for the neighborhoods directly impacted? No. The priority seems to be delivering on developers’ ROI goals and transforming Evanston as quickly as possible with as many large buildings as possible - all for future residents who do not yet live here.

Ald. Nieuwsma has now orchestrated the city purchase of private property on Main Street, which appears poised to be handed to this same developer (presumably at a favorable deal) to replace a significant portion of the block. It looks to be yet another with "Soviet-style" architecture. Above all, it will surely deliver another 20% return for investors.

Add this to the approved 29-story, 450+ unit luxury rental tower at 605 Davis; the 13-story building underway on Chicago Avenue; the 28-story luxury building presumed to be a done deal (who needs a silly legislative process?) and the likely replacement of two “missing middle” homes on a historic block for Black Evanstonians with a proposed building so bad that a preservation commissioner said it was “giving the middle finger to the city.” (See last post.) By our count, that totals at least 1,580 units coming online soon.

Yet even all of this transformative development is still not enough for City Council, Community Development staff (Sarah Flax in particular), or Mayor Biss, as they attempt to force through deregulation of zoning for more buildings into every neighborhood, changes that will incentivize teardowns and the replacement of single-family homes in Evanston (already only 31.7% of total housing stock), and will price out longtime residents. But that seems to be the point.

Nieuwsma, Iles, Geracaris (along with Harris and Burns) prioritize developer ROI and relentless urbanization over neighborhood preservation and balance. No meaningful guardrails. No serious concern for current residents, our neighborhoods, or our successful commercial districts. Just a continued push to transform Evanston for future residents while disregarding the people who already live here and the surroundings we love.

Sadly, Council members seem to be the only ones who do not recognize that Evanston’s beauty and character have actual value. It is not something to sell out or casually throw away forever.

Ask your Council members and the mayor for a more balanced approach — one that respects our city and residents at least as much as it respects developers.

Tapestry Station sold to Chicago firm for $38 million - Evanston RoundTable Tapestry Station, the 120-unit residential development at the corner of Main Street and Sherman Avenue, has been sold to Chicago-based TLC Management for

"...giving the middle finger to the City," is how one commissioner described the proposed building on Emerson.

While Commissioner Ahleman was referring to the proposed development (“design inhibits the character of the church and the ability to communicate its history”), it is also an apt metaphor for what the onslaught of development and proposed upzoning is doing - and will do - to our city. It also sums up how many residents peceive the response from the mayor and five members of City Council to our voices: a middle finger.

For this Emerson development, a number of Black residents came forward to protest the 30-unit building that aims to replace two houses on Emerson (missing middle homes, no less!) and will loom over the oldest Black church in Evanston, located on one of the most important historic blocks for the Black community.

This block and the people living on it seem to have endured a lifetime of wrongs, as it has been systematically dismantled, bulldozed and replaced over the years with the City’s priorities. From the City's use of eminent domain, which vacated most of the Black residents on the block, supposedly for a Northwestern research park, only to give rise to the E2 high-rise luxury developments that helped set the precedent for luxury high-rises in Evanston, to the demolition of the Black YMCA (when Black community members could not go to the downtown YMCA) to the demolition of the historic Butler Building. Now this oversized "Soviet-style" building will loom over the 135-year-old historic Black church.

Resident and landlord Tina Paden delivered a powerful rebuke of the City for "exploiting Black residents" to push luxury units, zoning changes, and luxury developments, which was instead just a "removal of the Black community." [Exactly.] Tina was joined in public comments by a number of distinguished Black residents. The comments were so disheartening and highlighted everything that is wrong with this faux righteous zoning/building effort that will only drive out the Black and other longtime community members, gentrify Evanston and increase prices. All for misguided ideology and profits. Everyone must listen. Everyone must push back.

Daniel Biss

'Giving the middle finger to the city' - Evanston Now Preservation commissioners critique apartment project next door to historic church.

Housing4All passes 7-2.
Biss bloc + Ald Suffredin and Ald Rodgers vote for the plan.
This is very disappointing. Without key amendments, this plan may well set Evanston up for blanket upzoning, leading to major teardown pressure and losses of our only 31.7% of single-family homes.

Burns and Harris, if they keep up this voting pattern, are setting up their wards for massive teardowns and gentrification in the 5th and 2nd wards. Why?

Mayor Biss, despite what you say, this plan and the deregulation of the zoning code will not provide any affordable housing. Only luxury. Stop saying this and please don't ruin Evanston anymore. Time to depart.

Thank you to heroic Ald. Kelly. Thanks to her MANY amendments were passed. Some of the amendments were indeed consequential.

Thank you to Davis for some amendments and a no vote.

Council meeting - 11:45:

Given tonight’s lack of support for key, reasonable amendments so far, council members should vote against the Housing4All plan.

The Biss bloc shows no regard for balance in approach, no guardrails, and no concern for possible unintended consequences, such as increased housing costs or pricing out longtime residents. There is no regard for longtime residents, and even no regard for preserving naturally occurring affordable housing.

It is all about ideology and unrestrained development vs. centering Evanston, especially by Ald. Iles and Nieuwsma.

Ald Harris never seems to be informed about matters before the council and simply tries to figure out how the Biss bloc will vote. She is second to vote tonight, so she simply votes the opposite of Ald. Kelly.

To be honest, other than Ald. Kelly, the minority bloc has also been disappointing, allowing the Council to steamroll and bully and not put up much of a fight. They do not endeavor to make a contrast.
Fight harder.

Council notes:

This amendment did not get a second.

"Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing"

Did not get approved! THIS IS TELLING.