I’ve been thinking about the essay, Emma Doesn’t Live Here Anymore ever since a friend called it to my attention several days ago.  What is intriguing is that it appears to define the dilemma of our local housing situation – a choice between teardowns at one end of the spectrum and the negative aspects of low-income rental housing at the other end.  Comments in the essay and by other readers suggest developers are the source of both situations.  This is an interesting observation, but not the issue I want to pursue here.

I get a sense that the author of Emma is not thrilled by the prospect of either alternative – teardowns or indiscriminate rentals – occurring in his neighborhood.  But given the choice between a teardown and a rental, he’ll take a teardown as the lesser of two evils.  Perhaps other readers of this thread feel similarly.

But maybe this provides the beginning to a possibly fruitful discussion.  By pointing up these two alternatives, has this essay framed the issue for us?  If these two apparently less-than-desirable situations comprise the extremes –- teardowns vs. potential slum situations –- are there middle-of-the-road alternatives that, in the author’s words, would help retain the “original charm” of homes like Emma’s and, by extension, preserve the character of Downers Grove neighborhoods?

The hope expressed for a makeover by Armando Montalongo and his Flip This House crew is one solution, but admittedly an unlikely one.  And it would solve the problem for only one house in one neighborhood.  What about all the others?

I suggest that readers consider what some realistic middle-ground alternatives might be, if there are any.  I’m no expert in this area, but here are three discussion-starters.  While they may not be workable, they may help to get readers’ creative juices flowing:

Idea #1. What if a local social services group were to team up with local Realtors to screen potential renters?  Criteria would be candidates’ judged potential to succeed if given a chance.  This scenario might include a rent-to-buy option.

Idea #2. What if an organization were to buy endangered, moderately-sized homes like Emma’s, fix them up and then sell them to middle-income families?  Organizations like this exist. The Community Housing Association of DuPage (CHAD) is one that is active in our county.

Idea #3. What if a group of neighbors were to form a partnership and contribute funds to buy Emma’s place (or a home like Emma’s), fix it up, and rent or sell it?  At minimum, they could likely obtain a tax deduction from depreciation while they held the property and/or split the profits from the eventual sale.

These are just ideas, and they may or may not be applicable to Downers Grove.  The objective is to start a serious conversation that produces some real world approaches in this forum that a) help preserve our neighborhoods, b) offer workable alternatives to teardowns, and c) prevent our neighborhoods from taking a downward turn.

It would be ideal if several realistic scenarios could be generated by the contributors to DGReport and then presented as recommendations through the village’s Total Community Development program (TCD3).  The village is encouraging all types of local groups to submit community-related ideas and concerns as part of the TCD3 effort.  Preservation of the original charm of older homes and of neighborhood character is a goal worthy of representation in TCD3.

So:  Any ideas?