Evanstonians for Responsible Planning

10/07/2026

From Crain's: (UPDATE: see full article in comments.)
"Evanston is poised to dismiss about two dozen building-maintenance violations against Northwestern University and settle vacant-building citations for $63,000 — a fraction of what one council member says the university owes — in a deal reached without a city council vote."
---
At a moment when the City is proposing another sizable tax increase on residents, the City and its law department (likely directed by someone...the mayor, Biss Bloc council members?) yet again appear to start from a position of accommodating the non-taxpaying entity of Northwestern rather than representing residents. They are not even enforcing rules already on the books.

More background:
- Water records obtained via FOIA (only since 2020) show that a number of (tax-free) properties owned by Northwestern, with obvious signs of disrepair, were indeed vacant and not using water, despite NU's claim that they were being used. Despite years of complaints and issues caused by these properties, neither the City nor NU took action.
- A September analysis based on Evanston’s published vacant-building penalty schedule found that fines calculated over the documented period of vacancy — nearly six years — could total between approximately $4.16 million and $16.65 million for NU.
- Last week, even the City came up with a still low figure of $700,000, but now is trying to rush through a $63,000 "settlement with NU," without discussion by Council, without regard to precedent by similar cases in Chicago.
- “There is another serious problem with the $63,000 settlement: it assigns zero fines for more than two dozen property maintenance violations at six Northwestern properties dating back to August 2025,” Kelly said. “For nearly a year, Northwestern ignored repeated notices, reinspections and continuing violations before the city finally issued citations in July 2026. Yet the settlement assesses no fines whatsoever for those violations.

Is this reminiscent of past City/aldermanic actions?
- A City of Evanston attorney went to federal court to petition to eliminate or narrow the jurisdiction of the court-mandated NU/City committee when stadium issues were on the docket. Eliminating the committee's power would be in NU's best interest, not residents'. The judge stopped him, concerned that his actions did not represent the City's best interests or the spirit of the clear consent decree.
- Ald Jonathan Nieuwsma held secret meetings with NU to form an agreement about the stadium that excluded aldermen from the 1st, 7th, and 6th wards... who represent residents who would be most impacted by the stadium and had long lists of concerns.

At some point, the City Evanston has to stop treating Northwestern (and developers for that matter) like the exception to the rules and start treating residents like the people City Hall works for.

Question: An interim mayor will soon be chosen. Ald Nieuwsma is reportedly vying for this role. What is his stance on this? Can we guess?

The fines were on a subset of 11 houses Northwestern owns that Evanston residents say have sat vacant for years along Sheridan Road.

09/25/2026

Just so everyone is aware, this ****$865,000**** ADA ramp at Dog Beach is simply staff insisting, and of course now achieving (thanks to the usual suspects on City Council), a boardwalk project that was previously rejected.

Staff wanted this so badly and thus forced an unnecessary, meandering, contorting wooden “ADA ramp for dog beach.” No one is arguing against an ADA ramp at Dog Beach. In fact, there was a proposal for one costing less than $100,000 and a much more direct path. But, staffers like Lara Biggs seemed to continue to sabotage a simpler, cheaper project for one random reason after another.

Yes, Evanston taxes are among the highest in the state, and this is a perfect example of how staff and the ‘Biss Bloc’ of City Council prioritize spending taxpayer money.

This “ADA ramp” at Dog Beach costs almost as much as the entire zoning revamp for the City of Evanston, which staff cut back because they believed it was too expensive.

This is par for the course of unnecessary overspending on the wrong things in Evanston and a perfect example of staff’s wishes and priorities trumping the day.

09/10/2026

Preservation Commission Meeting:

Statements from the developers of the 26-story, 360-unit luxury high-rise tower at 900 Clark St, who will pay a fraction of the property taxes.]

[Get out your developer bingo card!]

Have to put this one first:
- "Our traffic study shows the volume of traffic [with the addition of a 360-unit building] will be REDUCED!"
(Does anyone, ANYONE, even staff, Biss or Ald. Nieuwsma, Harris, Iles, Burns, Guaracaris believe that these traffic studies are credible and not lies?)

- "In response to resident feedback, "we have reduced the building height...by ONE floor!" [W.O.W.!!! Certainly, this reduction was not baked in to give a faux "concession," now was it?]

"It will improve the view!" [Right!]

"We will improve Clark St!" [Right!]

"The first floor will be activated!" [A rendering shows it so! And look, it is sunny and there are lots of trees! No empty first floor here!]

"We believe in Downtown Evanston! We believe in the community!" [Until the building is flipped for record sale price.]

"The development will enhance the economic engine of Downtown Evanston!"

"We are investing here...!"

"We hope to set a standard for what a planned development looks like!"

"This will optimize tax base!" [By not paying taxes?]

"Public interest is at the forefront!"

"There was multi-faceted community engagement!"

"We had three rounds of revisions...responding to community feedback and staff feedback!!"

"We will more than make up for the *loss of three parking spaces on Clark St* - [Less street parking will certainly will help downtown!]

Information about the CTA and RTA will be provided in the lobby to help ridership!

"Density downtown Evanston is key!" [GREAT insight! We have never been told this by any of the other developers who have now built 8,000 luxury units, as our downtown is less and less frequented.]

"Wind will not be an issue!"

"Improvements that Evanstonians can enjoy!"

Perhaps developers should just ask us Evanston residents to develop their presentations. We know it by heart now. Good thing Biss appointee LUC Commissioners, as well as Aldermen Iles, Nieuwsma, Harris, Burns, Geracaris fall for this each and every time.

09/10/2026

Land Use Commission:

1620-1640 Chicago Avenue - proposing to divide the lot. Is this to have two enormous planned developments?
1) Whole Foods
2) High-rise multi-family development and retail spaces (ATT, Pete's, and Poko Ono.)

Developers seem to want to divide and then sell, (presumably for another megadevelopment luxury high-rise.) New planned development where Whole Foods is currently, perhaps?

Will the luxury high-rise madness ever end?

09/09/2026

Here is an overview of issues of the 26-story, 360 rental units (predominantly highest luxury) megadevelopment being reviewed tonight by the LUC:

- Developers are requesting variances. Section 6-12-2-8(B): to allow a 298’ tall building where building heights in the RP District are limited to a maximum of 150’.

- The building would be about 300 feet tall (taller than Optima Views) and have 360 rental units (almost all studios and 1 bedroom apartments).

LUC/Legal Considerations:
By law, here are some of the considerations the Land Use Commission is to take into account:

(A) Promoting the public health, safety, comfort, morals, convenience, general welfare, and the objectives and policies of the comprehensive general plan, as adopted and amended, from time to time, by the City Council;

(B) Securing adequate light, pure air, and safety from fire and other dangers;

(C) Conserving and enhancing the taxable value of land and buildings throughout the City;
(E) Minimizing or lessening congestion in the public streets;

(F) Preventing the overcrowding of land by regulating and limiting the height and bulk of buildings hereafter erected, as said buildings relate to land area;(G)Establishing, regulating, and limiting the building or setback lines on or along streets, alleys, and property lines;

(H) Regulating and limiting the intensity of the use of lot areas, and regulating and determining the area of open spaces between and among the surrounding buildings;

City Ordinance No. 43-O-93. Criterion (H) is from Ord. 47-0-09. In addition, the city is supposed to weigh environmental impacts because of its Net Zero goals.

Pedestrian Wind Safety It’s already very windy in front of Maple Avenue and at the corner of Maple Avenue & Clark Street. With two towers next to each other, the wind will get a lot worse at these spots so that it is impossible to stand or, for a frail person, to stroll in front of the building even 4 out of 5 days in the windy 6 months. It will also compromise the safety of bicyclists.

Sunlight and Shadow The developer's shadow study omits morning-sun hours, even though it is a residential building and the tower sits almost directly east of Optima Views. As proposed, the tower would eliminate morning sunshine for condos to the East side of the building which occurs before 9am for 6 months of the year. Some condominiums will have much natural light eliminated.

Traffic and Congestion Their study does not account for existing rush-hour backups on Emerson and Maple/Ridge/Greenbay which experience significant delays in rush hour and is a known crash locations. It is impossible to take a left turn from Oak for many light cycles. The developers report is generated 2 years in the summer when NU is not in session. Traffic has been increasing and many more developments have been approved since that need to be accounted for.

Neighborhood Character. There are no setbacks in violation of city codes and basic urban planning principles. A flat, property-line facade with no setbacks would deepen the "canyon" effect already reshaping downtown streets — a form that would not be permitted in many other cities.

Environmental Impact. Evanston does not need high-rise construction to hit its density goals: nearby low-rise, transit-oriented projects (e.g., 2206 Maple) show a lower-impact path is achievable in the same market. As we have discovered, high-rises are very energy inefficient.

Property Values and Tax Base. There will be a significant valuation loss for Optima Views owners and this will impact the City’s tax base (views can add 15 to 50% to a valuation) while the new building will pay no taxes for many years and reduced taxes for 30 years. It is a very expensive way to add affordable housing that is even unsuitable for families.

09/09/2026

Update: a continuance was requested so the meeting will resume in two weeks.

TODAY: The Land Use Commission is holding a public hearing on a massive 26-story tower on Wednesday at 7 p.m. for the planned development at 900 Clarke St. The location of the meeting is 605 Davis - City Hall. Please speak at the meeting if you can (still need to confirm is remote comments are allowed) and ask them to vote against. Once again, this is another high-rise that will NOT pay taxes full taxes, but only a small fraction, depriving Evanston of millions of tax dollars as we help subsidize this uber-luxury project.

Developers are requesting variances Section 6-12-2-8(B): to allow a 298’ tall building where building heights in the RP District are limited to a maximum of 150’. Additionally, there is no setback, so a sheer wall from the sidewalk. See other very important concerns in comments.

This high-rise follows the recent approval of another Chicago-level height skyscraper, 27 stories, at 605 Davis, as well as the Horizon building currently under construction on Chicago Avenue. It is also the third tower that has/aims to replace a successful stretch of businesses in *struggling* Downtown Evanston (in addition to the Albion on Sherman, the Horizon on Chicago Avenue) and will likely lead to more empty ground-floor businesses.

Not only that, in an act that shows just how much of a "done deal" approvals are in Evanston even for absolutely enormous buildings in succession, the developer went ahead and vacated successful businesses and is demolishing five of our movie theaters (and has shut down all theaters in the interim - the one thing people come downtown FOR) as they are apparently so confident in gaining approval.

Evanston's economic development department has, as usual, been thumbing its nose at residents' wishes for downtown and is instead laser-focused on recruiting an endless number of high-rise developers, creating a depressed downtown that fewer people want to patronize. Meanwhile, nearby downtowns less than 2 miles away, all around the North Shore, and even in the western suburbs and Chicago neighborhoods are absolutely flourishing.

The Economic Development Department, the Community Development Department, Mayor Biss and aldermen like Shawn Iles and Jonathan Nieuwsma just seem focused on transforming and urbanizing Evanston - no matter the poor outcomes. They do not seem to care that they have alienated the majority of the residents of this city, visitors and even the built-in contingent/customers of NU students and people no longer want to come here.

It is hard to watch people who lead this city not value the qualities most people love about Evanston. It is simply a "build, baby build" mission with luxury developers as they throw away our town.

Note: Icing on the cake - Sky Zone will probably shut down with the construction mess. The closure of movie theaters mean that even more people will get out of the habit of coming to Evanston.

08/25/2026

Council Meeting:

Thank you, Ald Clare Kelly, who made a motion that was approved to REJECT staff's suggested change to the zoning consultant RFP budget to "reduce the level of effort [by consultant) associated with the draft and final work plan." (!) This was concerning on several levels, especially the vague reduction in the consultant's effort on the final product and the increased responsibilities being assigned to staff. The last thing we want is to shift responsibilities to heavy-handed staff with a history of forcing predetermined outcomes. PASSES.

Ald. Kelly also rejected staff's proposal to reduce working group oversight. PASSES. Not sure why she didn't also push back on staff taking on more responsibilities, like coordinating meeting agendas. Staff needs to stop SHAPING policy in these ways.

Ald. Kelly also tried to have the final zoning contract come back to Council, since many items are still up in the air and will be "negotiated by the city manager." She wanted the exact details in writing and not just relying on the city manager to make many decisions.

For some reason, Mayor Biss mocks her for this.

Ald Kelly: "Why Daniel, are you surprised that we would final approval on one of the biggest contracts we are undertaking?"

Burns has a compromise...city staff will email councilmembers a contract for review before it is signed. If anything significant is missing, council members can ask that it go back to Council.

Another key learning: City Staff member Liz Williams, *who is a Skokie resident* will "own this process" and will be THE point person on the zoning rewite. Sarah Flax and others on her team will be involved, of course. Why is it acceptable that a staff member who does not live here, will not be impacted by a major transformation in Evanston, gets to have this role? What happened to city staff being required to live in Evanston? We need someone else in this role.

Biss: It is 10pm, pursuant to new rules, so Council should adjourn. Once again, Ald Nieuwsma votes to extend the hours of the meeting! What is the point of the rule? Last meeting was 9 hours, went through a dangerous storm and was NINE HOURS LONG.

08/25/2026

City Council meeting tonight - Envision Evanston zoning contract.

08/05/2026

We now have our answer: Evanston City Clerk Stephanie Mendoza, a staunch Biss ally and key player in Evanston Machine politics, will be the Biss 2.0 candidate.

Early indications are that Mendoza would/will further Biss's misguided, uncompromising, divisive, ideology-driven tenure, regardless of the actual impact on Evanston and Evanstonians. Another candidate who will likely put City of Evanston staff (many non-residents) in the driver's seat, overstepping their unelected role in pushing outcomes.

It is time to have a candidate who centers the best interests of Evanston and Evanstonians, not just those of luxury developers. It is time for a mayor to be more thoughtful and careful as a caretaker of this city. And not pretend that careless, blanket upzoning for market-rate development that will incentivize the replacement of our low- and moderate-income housing with luxury development will help rather than hurt our residents and town and transform this city in the opposite as intended way. We already know that forcing an uncompromising agenda, instead of governing with pragmatism or a focus on doing the expected job well, will lead to disastrous results - just look at District 65's recent past as a cautionary tale.

Let's get behind a pragmatic and responsible candidate who centers and values Evanston and the people who live here now. Not a continuation of an approach that many believe has been largely divisive, unsuccessful and unhelpful for our city.

08/01/2026

Which current elected official will run to be the Biss 2.0 mayoral candidate?