This is such a weird surreal debate. It's a proxy for gentrification but the stakes are paltry. The provisions of a landmark district are not that burdensome. There's really not a significant downside for the community for the landmark district. And win or lose, the displacement and gentrification of Pilsen will continue - just in existing buildings instead of new ones.
The city is not legally allowed to do anything (like rent control) that might seriously address displacement in Pilsen. The community has become outraged demanding action from the city that it cannot take without changes to the law in Springfield. Things the city CAN do, like the ARO, only produce affordable housing if you allow large new developments. Sigcho has not allowed any such developments. A demolition moratorium stops teardowns but not rehabs. A moratorium on building permits entirely will be struck down in a court.
Sigcho has even forced nonprofit developers like The Resurrection Project to downsize new buildings (100% affordable) because neighbors complained about height and parking. Doesn't sound like someone who is serious about the housing crisis, but maybe that's me.
Hopefully a reduced form of the landmark district might pass, focused just on 18th and Blue Island without surrounding residential blocks. If the community sees a district that mainly affects commercial property owners, it may be less controversial. And then there's the issue of St Adalbert, for which landmarking is rightly supported by the community.