Interesting ideas. I think there is a sound basis here for a good model — in that vein, though, I've got a bunch of clarifying questions:It's a little tricky to reverse-engineer a model like Oak Park's for several reasons. Most directly, there's the reality that the Village of Oak Park is a municipality unto itself, whereas gentrification within particular community areas presents many questions about equity and empowerment within and between the areas of a given municipality. I don't think this fact torpedoes the model, necessarily, but it certainly makes it messier. When does the city planning department deem a neighborhood to be \”gentrifying\”? Is there a special overlay district or SSA-type setup to fund these activities? Are the activities taken out of developers' pockets? Would a resident have to demonstrate tenure within the overlay district to avail themselves of, say, a neighborhood apprenticeship program? Questions of access come to mind as well. Oak Park has/had the ability to control access to community resources (schools, services, etc.) in a way that a given neighborhood would not. This is doubly true for physical access: if my understanding is correct, the heavily restricted street access between Chicago and Oak Park along North Ave. and Austin Bvld. came as psychological quid pro quo for a lot of the integrative measures pursued (or, to some, \”thrust on Oak Park\”) during this time. Even today those barriers are an uncomfortable elephant in the room, what would be a corresponding measure of reassurance for longtime residents of a community in the midst of gentrification: affordable housing guarantees? Like I said, sorry to throw a lot at the wall here, but the idea is intriguing, and certainly too tempting not to tinker with.

Like