COMMUNITY ACTIVISM IN OAK PARK: COMPETING AGENDAS ...

are activists and non-activists in the community and their diverging perspectives on
change produce an environment of conflict that makes political unity problematic
(Stoeker 1995:126).
Many community groups believe they are genuine in their efforts to improve the
quality of life for residents. When these groups publicize their efforts and try to gain
supporters, they often become dependent on government funds and on the representation
of government representatives and neighborhood volunteers to further their initiatives.
They must continuously seek out this type of support to continue their activist efforts.
The contradiction is that community groups must sustain themselves through creating
successful projects and programs and through building collaborations to improve the
neighborhood. But in doing so, they tend to overlook the local resident’s needs and focus
on their own agendas of community improvement. Their agendas for change work to
further mask the inequality that exists among residents.
Behind agendas for change, middle-class residents argue that a healthy urban
community is one that is being “beautified,” is low in crime, and has cultural attractions.
“Beautifying” the neighborhood also means that residents in Oak Park want more cultural
attractions and unique businesses. Entrepreneurs open up small art galleries, vegetarian
restaurants, trendy furniture stores, and artsy coffee shops. But while wanting “cultural”
attractions to be available, they also want these events without the flurry and grit of true
city life. When urban space becomes a social space that is filled with gentile activity, it
inevitably increases in value, and people are drawn to the upscale atmosphere. Such
111