Evanston committee hears broad public support, targeted concerns on draft Housing for All plan

The Housing and Community Development Committee discussed public feedback on the city’s draft Housing for All strategic plan at a meeting Oct. 21, where staff said more than 675 people responded to an open comment form and recommended a set of edits to make the plan more actionable.

City staff presented a data-driven summary of the survey responses and asked the committee for direction on 14 draft changes, including consolidating and prioritizing strategies, adding maps and charts for readability, expanding the plan’s discussion of student and senior housing needs, and strengthening the plan’s implementation and reporting sections.

The committee heard a string of public comments both in person and online. Sarah Peterson, executive director of Open Communities, described the draft as “thoughtful” and urged the committee to add timelines and measurable benchmarks so the plan “moves from aspiration to action.” Shreema Shivanis, associate director of Advocacy Connections for the Homeless, said the plan should replace vague language with “concrete targets” and move protections such as re‑evaluating Just Cause from a six‑year horizon to an earlier timetable.

Other public speakers balanced support for more housing supply with concerns about potential displacement. Paul Breslin said the plan is improved from previous drafts but urged stronger anti‑displacement protections and clearer coordination of the plan’s many programs. Hiram Flores, a Northwestern student, urged creation of a preservation fund to protect naturally occurring affordable housing near campus. John Story Williamson, a longtime Evanston real estate professional, urged the city to add measurable goals for increasing homeownership among first‑time buyers.

City staff summarized key patterns in the survey: respondents who are renters, lower‑income households and people of color were underrepresented in the feedback relative to their share of people experiencing housing cost burden; when the tabulated responses were reweighted to reflect income and tenure, support for many of the plan’s strategies increased, notably tenant protections and preservation initiatives. Yuri (city staff) recommended using both the unweighted and reweighted results to refine the plan.

Staff proposed consolidating the plan’s 27 strategies into a smaller set of nested strategies and initiatives, and elevating several cross‑cutting actions (funding expansion, data tracking and interagency collaboration) so they appear as through‑lines in the plan. Staff also recommended more precise implementation language — for example, assigning lead departments for each initiative and clarifying reporting frequency.

Committee members broadly welcomed the direction but asked for more specificity on sequencing and legal exposure for certain ideas. Council member Burns urged that the committee convert “ideas into a strategic framework” that identifies barriers, the tools the city controls and which initiatives will deliver the most impact. Several committee members said they want a focused discussion of Just Cause tenant protections and asked staff to return with legal analysis and practical scenarios that show how different approaches would affect small “mom‑and‑pop” landlords as well as larger investors.

Staff asked for direction on timing. Members agreed to continue the discussion at a special meeting so the committee could provide additional input before staff issues a revised draft; staff said it would then circulate the revised plan in advance of the next regular HCDC meeting.

The committee did not take any final votes on the plan itself on Oct. 21; staff will return with updated text and implementation details.