Keep Parkland As Is: Elmhurst Candidates

ELMHURST, IL – Elmhurst City Council candidates last week generally opposed selling parkland on the east side to a developer.

Over the last couple of years, residents near the parkland, often referred to as "green space," have contended the land provides benefits to Elmhurst. At one point, they brought their children to make the case to the council.

The neighbors opposed the idea of selling the land to a developer to help pay for a new police station. In December, the city's finance committee took that option off the table.

The parkland is between Schiller and Third streets at the end of Second Street and Elmhurst Avenue.

The property is the site of the old Elmhurst Hospital, given to the city a half-century ago. A 50-year agreement to bar development on the land ends in April.

The city has made no long-term promises to preserve it.

According to a 2023 memo, the city said it could sell the land for $5 million to $6 million. The memo identified the best use of the land as 10 to 12 single-family homes valued at $1.5 million each.

During a League of Women Voters forum, City Council candidates were asked whether they supported "permanently" maintaining the city land as open space.

The two candidates in Ward 4, which includes the parkland, both said they opposed selling the land to a developer.

Ward 4 candidate Bobby Fontana said he lived a block away from the site in question. But he said that was not how he came to his position.

"I did take a serious look at the proposal for selling that," he said.

Fontana said he wasn't sure the city's numbers for the land were achievable. Also, he said traffic may worsen if the development happens.

"It's a space that is used daily to mingle with your neighbors, to get into nature," Fontana said. "The benefits outweigh the costs."

His opponent, Mike Baker, said many students walk to school using the path in the parkland.

"We don't need overdevelopment in that area, then cause flooding," Baker said. "There are different things that can make a community. The green space in that community is part of it."

He said he could not say whether the city should permanently keep it as parkland.

"I always think the city has to look at assets when they need extra revenue," Baker said. "The list of assets are many."

Ward 2 candidate Kevin Kirby and Ward 5 candidates Dan Virgil and Adam Park said they supported keeping the parkland as is.

"There aren't any nearby parks. I think it's a nice amenity for the neighborhood," Virgil said.

Ward 2 Alderman Jacob Hill, however, has questioned why the city did not keep the parkland on the table as part of the plan to pay for a new police station.

At the forum, Hill said he liked the idea of open space and access to nature. But he also said officials were always trying to find ways to limit property tax increases.

Parcels such as the parkland, he said, are part of his consideration.

"I'm not closing the door on any of those asset discussions," Hill said.

If the land is going to be developed as a park, he said, how would the city handle parking?

"Is it for everybody? Is everybody going to have access to the park?" he said.