Trump is Not on the Ballot; Homes and Schools Are

In Evanston, Illinois, running “against Trump” is an easy shot. Minimal risk for a candidate. Evanston voted overwhelmingly Democratic, and likely even most “Trump voters” aren’t even fans but voting on party basis. So if you can get most of the Harris voters, you win, right? Heck, on a nearby block the other day I counted more Harris-Walz signs up than for all municipal candidates combined. However, this easy shot in a deep blue town is also a cheap shot, because to campaign as if Trump is the opponent suggests that an opponent is in the Trump camp. In the April 1, 2025 election -- tomorrow, as I write this -- that’s just not true. Here's why.

The next mayor of Evanston will have no impact on the Ukraine-Russia conflict, on the DOGE assault on federal agencies, on the extortion of Big Law firms, or on an invasion of Greenland. Nor will Jeff Boarini or Daniel Biss or anyone running for City Council align with Pres. Trump on any of those issues; all these candidates are variations on liberal-left. Did you see Evanston, Illinois mentioned once in the Hegseth group chat about Yemen? Me neither. So to rally volunteers or seek votes by claiming that national issues are “at stake” in the Evanston election is somewhere between solipsism and misinformation.

Some aspects of Trumpism, however, do relate to Evanston, and voters should take those seriously. The first is that elements of heavy-handed mismanagement have crept into how Evanston is run these past few years.

Trumpism Lite? Like Trump, Evanston has acted as if it is above the law. It ignored its own law, which requires a majority of the 10-person Council to pass zoning change, in attempting to transform the stadium area into an entertainment district incompatible with a residential neighborhood. When confronted with that in the inevitable lawsuit, Evanston argued that it doesn’t need to follow its own law. Sound familiar?

How we even got to that point is also Trump-like. To 47, everything is a deal, so everything is for sale, from Donetsk to Gaza, not to mention US natural resources. In the case of the stadium, instead of a neutral and objective consideration of evidence and the record before the Land Use Commission, which recommended 7-2 against the rezoning, a few Evanston officials took it upon themselves to negotiate that decision away, along with stadium neighbors’ property interests and quality of life, behind closed doors — explicitly in return for cash and other promises. It could not be more transactional.

Now, with Trump, barter is his main brand. But sale of legislation or government favors is the opposite of the rule of law, at least since the Magna Carta. That the “monarch” in America is a mix of elected and appointed government rather than hereditary does not make pimping out zoning any more acceptable; if law is for sale, there is no such thing as due process or a fair hearing. The stadium “deal” some brag of, regardless of its terms, made a mockery of the LUC proceedings.

A second aspect of Evanston mismanagement that brings Trump to mind is the recent observation of former Ald. Don Wilson (5th) that too much of Evanston government is “performative.” Evanston does not have a working fountain in Fountain Square, and only got peanuts back from the contractor that failed to get the water running. Evanston has barely made a dent in replacing water service lines that pump lead into residents’ households. Few communities had COVID lockdowns stricter and longer-lasting than Evanston, but afterwards, with our own downtown predictably hollowed out, our leaders seem clueless as to how to revive it except through a “Build Baby Build” agenda no more rational than Trump’s “Drill Baby Drill.” Yet although Evanston seemingly can't deliver on many basics, despite setting one project spending record after another, the City takes second to none when it comes to civic virtue-signaling to a political base.

However, tho they should not be overlooked, those Trump parallels are not the main issues in this election. What are on the ballot, more than Donald Trump or our local Trumpism Lite, are Evanston’s homes and schools.

Homes (and Businesses). Evanston is currently, in theory, reviewing and revising its comprehensive plan. The last Plan was just adopted in 2000, not the Middle Ages, and while some provisions need a freshen-up, most reading it would agree that most of it is still pretty valid. Plans are meant to last, because they serve as the touchstone for zoning decisions, and zoning is meant to provide certainty: if planning or zoning changes willy-nilly, that diminishes property value, because no one knows what might be built next to them, or what they can do with their own land.

The normal and fair standard process is careful planning followed by a review to see what zoning needs or doesn’t need to be re-done. Instead, what has happened in Evanston in 2022-2024 is that a predetermined zoning decision desired by a few, already made, has driven the entire current planning agenda: the “upzoning” of all Evanston, which would suddenly give any speculator or developer the right to build far greater mass and bulk and number of units on most residential and business-district lots. The zoning sub-consultant hired to analyze and draft zoning was, surprise surprise, the same outfit that had "analyzed" Evanston for the multi-million-dollar lobbying force that's been pushing for upzoning at almost every City meeting on this, including meetings unseen to the public — and whose nonprofit affiliate gets taxpayer funds when large developments who don’t provide affordable units are approved.

Development tends to increase to the limits allowed, and often beyond, so upzoning would have the effect of making densely populated Evanston even more crowded. While touted as a path to affordability, many believe that the more likely outcome is simply more congestion, higher land costs, a more expensive place to live, and gentrification that impacts historic diversity. This will be up to the next Mayor and Council. So homes are on the line, as is Central Street and downtown. We hear assurances that the change would be gradual — by officials who weren’t even around when the teardown-and-McMansion craze was sweeping through northern suburbs 20 years ago, or when overdevelopment frenzy in 2004-2006 helped give us the Great Recession.

For Evanston voters in the April 1, 2025 election, there are real differences between the candidates, despite the general liberalism they have in common. Mayor Biss was a chief dealmaker on the stadium, has been the top municipal cheerleader for upzoning, and won’t commit to any Central Street Plan features; his opponent, retired media producer Jeff Boarini, is supported by opponents of the stadium deal and favors a more careful and selective approach to zoning that puts existing residents first. On many other issues, the candidates agree, and there are other reasons that voters may choose one or the other, but "Trump" is not one of them.

In the 6th and 7th ward Council contests, Parielle Davis (7th) and incumbent Tom Suffredin (6th) opposed the stadium rezoning and are seen as most supportive of the existing zoning protections that have helped preserve the Central Street business districts; candidate answers to CSNA questionnaires can be viewed here for mayor and Councilmember.

Schools. Homes are also on the ballot in the school board election, though in less visible ways. As some but not all Evanston voters know, District 65 is building a new school on the site of the old Foster Field ballfields. Regardless of its historical or equity justification, this was accomplished deviously, without the bond-issuance referendum normally required, by the District using misleading statements as to busing savings to claim a loophole. At the time, note, the District had announced a school boundary realignment that would not alter the number of schools. Subsequently, it was “discovered” that the busing savings would be nowhere near what justified the new school decision, and that there has been an enrollment drop. So we are building a new school for a district that is losing enrollment, not growing, based on bogus numbers, for a district that says it is near broke, and so may have to close schools. This doesn’t bother those who favor inflicting some pain on the north side of Evanston, akin to what's already happened to families at Bessie Rhodes Magnet School. In the ideal world every neighborhood should have a relatively walkable school, but as it becomes more public this will cause distress. If one or more north Evanston schools close, north Evanston will not as a whole become undesirable (be realistic), but many homes bought to be near a neighborhood school may see a drop in value, and many families and students inconvenienced.

What will make not only north Evanston but most of Evanston less attractive is if District 65 does not fix its performance issues. These relate, many think, not just to the prolonged COVID measures, where students suffered generational damage, but to flawed assumptions and emphases in D65 curriculum and/or methodology. Theories are debatable, but the drop in D65-age-students whose parents are not sending them to District 65 is a hard number. The “no thank you” numbers have reached historic proportions. District 65 needs to determine and undo what is driving families away, and the word “performative” again needs consideration.

So Evanston voters who have not yet made up their minds, or were considering sitting out this election, (a) need to vote, (b) need to do their homework, and (c) forget all the noise and nonsense about Trump and other campaign distractions. If we are to have local governments that serve the residents and families who live here, voters need to think about their homes, our schools, all the children of Evanston, and local government that is fair, open, and effective.

To find your polling place for tomorrow, use this State Board of Elections polling place locator. You may also vote early at the Civic Center today.

The Board of Central Street Neighbors Association has a tradition of not endorsing in local elections. Members are free to comment or post their views on this website, within bounds of civil discourse.