COMMUNITY ACTIVISM IN OAK PARK: COMPETING AGENDAS ...

such as milk, eggs, and toiletries, and are furthermore places for the poor to meet with
friends and share information. The absence of liquor stores will make it difficult for the
poor to get groceries and other basic amenities. Middle-class residents want to close
liquor stores as a way to deter loitering. But even though the poor will not be able to
hang out in front of closed down liquor stores, they will be forced to hang-out at other
spots in the neighborhood. Thus, the closing of liquor stores will only make the
“problem” move to another area. The poor are almost powerless to make land
development decisions in their neighborhood and therefore they must give up their
“rights to the city.” This creates tension and conflict among middle and lower-income
individuals.
Consequently, women who create grassroots projects in the community perceive
women and children to be the most vulnerable group in Oak Park. While the Women’s
Group acknowledged that gentrification was occurring, they felt it had more positive
outcomes than negative ones. So the women’s group created projects that would help
temper the negative effects of gentrification on poor women and children. From the
perspective of the women’s group, women juggle domestic duties, work, and raise kids
and thus need a lot of support. Projects created by the women’s group were perceived of
as helping to improve the quality of life for women and children, which would therefore
benefit the whole community.
On the other hand, the Labor Association in Oak Park did not support community
revitalization projects. They felt these projects would have negative effects on the lives
of the poor and would only in fact benefit entrepreneurs, corporations, and other wealthy
115