The latest provocative, ill-considered foray by the Oak Park Village Board of Trustees into downtown Oak Park has now crept into the bright sunlight.

As if it has nothing better to do, several board members are quietly pushing the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to designate all of downtown Oak Park as "historic," thereby supplanting citizens' constitutionally protected private property rights with this special interest group's avocation of saving everything that does not move.

This misadventure will continue the board's hallmarks of continued stagnation, lack of governance, and absence of imagination concerning the dated infrastructure in this important area of our village. While it ambles along, ignoring the poor condition of the main district's thoroughfares, the dimly lit streetlights, the nonfunctional parking facilities, and the irrationality of its never-ending quest to find some zany consultant to share its fetish of saving the infamous, mostly vacant, dilapidated Colt building at a cost of 10-15 million, hard-earned tax dollars, it has commissioned the HPC, an ensemble of preservation architects, basically to agree that downtown's buildings-all of them-are worth preserving (see the study session minutes of the board of May 8, 2006).

This stacking of the deck would make any Chicago political operative proud to display his pinky and light his cigar.

No property owner/business operator/retailer has voiced one scintilla of anti-preservation sentiment, for we are here in large part due to the recognition Oak Park has in preserving significant pieces of architecturally conceived residences. However, every single one of us, more than 40, vehemently contend that imposing a historic designation tag for the entire commercial and business district, without objective standards and without a property owner's expressed consent, is unwise, ridiculous, immoral and un-American. The last thing any property owner would want when attempting to renovate the exterior of a building pursuant to applicable building codes would be additionally to fight his or her way through a layer of 11 architects whose prime avocations and peccadilloes are preservation-for preservation's sake only.

Downtown property owners annually pay well into seven figures collectively for real estate taxes, which go justifiably to protect our parks, clean our streets and lamp our village. (We even pay a Lake Street mall real estate add-on tax when there is no longer a Lake Street mall!) We pay easily over $2,000,000 per year to operate our properties, the overwhelming number in a very professional manner. And many of us support with additional revenue the arts and other philanthropic ventures around downtown Oak Park to make this village a pleasant place to live.

One would think that every single board member would recognize with pride the investment of after-tax life savings that business and property owners have poured into downtown Oak Park to try to make the buildings work, to make their businesses flourish and to create jobs for fellow villagers. One would further think that such a quasi-governmental overture would not occur without private, individual contact with property owners to exchange ideas and without a decent length timeline to prove up the need for such a draconian approach. And, finally, one would have hoped that a recommendation would not be timed to occur immediately prior to next April's village elections so as to avoid politicizing this important matter. But all that is apparently too much to ask for this Oak Park ostrich with its head in the sand. I guess the belief of the board is that the best way to avoid resolving the important issues already on the table is to create new ones, however unfounded.

Putting aside the probable constitutional infirmity of the enabling ordinance for this venture of the HFC, would any individual in this village voluntarily agree to place his or her private property in the hands of 11 architects without direct proof that the concerned property was indeed historic? Even if there were a person so inclined, would he or she relish the obvious governmental bureaucratic overbearance and control which would certainly follow? Further, would anyone reasonably believe that such a socialistic venture would be well-received by any person or entity who had the slightest thought of moving into, investing in or, low and behold, bringing in retail to Oak Park?

There may be no more respected business and property owner in the village than Willis Johnson of the Lake Theatre. The efforts he has made, the money he has invested, and the product he has created with this beautiful cinema are well known to all. His regard and concern for historic preservation are also well established. Yet when confronted with this shotgun approach to historic preservation, his reply was simply, "This is my private property. Whoever wants to impose his will on my building while I am in building compliance should simply buy me out."

This is the same response we downtown property owners, and indeed most Oak Park residents, would express if village government, even precious Oak Park, came knocking on our privately owned doors.

Anthony Shaker is the owner of Shaker Advertising, located in downtown Oak Park.