Dan Lauber's potshot response [Rethink 'For Sale' signs? Think Again, Viewpoints, March 26] to a sentence in my previous One View [It's time to start rethinking For Sale signs, Viewpoints, March 19] warrants my response because he missed the point. It also represents the first time I have been referred to as "shortsighted, self-serving, uninformed, simply wrong, naive (twice), and dishonest" in eight paragraphs.

I am unsure what "Galewood" you drive through. I have resided in Galewood for 23 years. On Narragansett. The 1600 block. Panic peddlers' heaven according to your "facts." In 23 years, there have been a dozen or so sales on our block. Not exactly block-by-block resegregation. With potential inventory of 19 homes, comparable sales data is difficult to find since folks stay put here. Ditto for the rest of the community. I paid 54K for a home that recently appraised for just under half a mil. New construction and substantial rehabilitation abound.

People are not "steered" to Galewood. They base their purchases on good value, large lots, well-maintained housing stock, its inherent lack of apartment complexes, comparatively low real estate tax base and, yes, decent test scores from our Sayre Language Academy. We all embrace its diversity.

Oddly enough, the only minority group you refer to is African-Americans. The diversity we so embrace here is all-inclusive. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Lesbian, Gay, professional and blue collar alike are all warmly welcomed. Our realistic tax base and senior services allow our elderly population to remain in the community long after retirement.

I speak on behalf of the many residents of Hyde Park, Kenwood, River West, Tri-Taylor, Beverly, Logan Square, Wicker Park, Humboldt Park, MontClare, Belmont-Cragin, Rogers Park and, yes, Galewood as being only some of many neighborhoods in Chicago which have experienced comfortable integration without mass regentrification. No social engineering. Just good neighborhoods with decent housing choices available to all.

I own property in Oak Park. Our For Sale sign ban is archaic and useless. Oak Park is an awesome community, and the steps taken to preserve its diversity have been wildly successful. Particularly impressive is that the village has been able to keep itself geographically diverse.

Want to see some real depreciation in housing values here? Allow the current foreclosure and short sale crisis to continue to fester. Many lenders with REO have yet to dump their inventory on the market. Want to reside next door to a boarded up half-million-dollar home? Keep your head in the sand or realize that I was suggesting one aspect of what amounts to a multitude of urgent changes necessary to preserve property values within our community.

I would like to take the opportunity to quote a paper written some time ago by Evan McKenzie and Jay Ruby titled, "Reconsidering the Oak Park Strategy: The Conundrums of Integration":

"The most celebrated aspects of Oak Park's integration maintenance policies are those dealing with single family housing, most notably ... the ban on 'For sale' signs. However, these programs, while highly visible and probably important in reducing white flight in the 1970s, are less significant now in maintaining integration in Oak Park than the conventional wisdom would allow. For example, ... the ban on signs is undoubtedly unconstitutional but has never been challenged in court by Realtors."

I would urge you to read the entire text of the aforementioned. It is, by far, the best synopsis of Oak Parks' integration policies I have read.

Your diatribic rhetoric leads me to think you might have a tacky plastic duck on your front lawn.