|
Lombard remap was self-serving
In response to “Lombard trustees keep districts in remap,” July 14, the facts lead to the conclusion that incumbency protection was the number one priority. This is evident by Lombard’s adoption of a map in which a one-block-wide section of District 2 extends two blocks into an area surrounding District 6 in order to keep an incumbent’s home in District 2. This is further evident by the fact that 10 maps were dismissed for lack of incumbency protection. We cannot know what kinds of decisions led to 19 potential maps in Lombard, because despite alternatives such as holding a workshop or a special village board meeting, Lombard trustees decided to keep the process closed by each trustee meeting separately with staff members in redrawing the boundaries, thereby deliberately thwarting of our state’s Open Meetings Act. The fact that 19 different maps resulted from those private meetings attests to the possibilities that there are all kinds of decisions that could go into redistricting: some are mandatory such as those demanded by the Voting Rights Act, and others just make sense in a healthy democracy. If the process of redistricting doesn’t include all the stakeholders, then the process becomes “malnourished” and the result is a less than healthy democracy. One consequence is fewer candidate choices at the ballot. In contrast, if the decisions behind redistricting are made for reasons that protect the interests of the residents in the potential district rather than the interests of a the incumbent politicians, then the process will result in a healthier democracy where, for example, voters have meaningful choices of candidates on the ballot. When politicians are in control of the process, they will act in self-serving ways. An alternative is a process that includes meaningful participation by other stakeholders. Maryam Judar Community lawyer Citizen Advocacy Center Elmhurst Westmont home rule referendum may come down to voter trust, expert says
By Dave Heitz, dheitz@mysuburbanlife.com Westmont Progress Posted Jul 18, 2012 @ 06:08 AM Westmont, IL — Residents will have the call whether or not the Village of Westmont will retain home rule status and the various taxing powers that come with it. What’s unclear is the level of impact on the village if residents decide to strip it of home rule authority in a November referendum. On Monday, the Westmont Village Board approved a measure to place a referendum on the November ballot, two years after the 2010 U.S. Census showed the village dipped below the minimum population of 25,000 required of home rule communities. Westmont was granted home rule status after a special census in 2007 showed the village had 26,211 residents. The 2010 census figures came in at 24,685. Village officials remain unsure of the impact of a repeal of home rule by voters. There isn’t a lot of precedence for it: Just four times since 1971 has an Illinois municipality repealed home rule, according to Larry Frang, executive director of the Illinois Municipal League. Those towns are Lombard, Lisle, Villa Park and Rockford. Village Attorney John Zemenak said Illinois law is vague regarding what losing home rule would mean to ordinances already in the books, and how it would impact the current budget process. Terry Pastika, an attorney with the Citizen’s Advocacy Center in Elmhurst, said some ordinances — those enacted through home rule authority — may have to be repealed or amended to fit state law if the referendum fails. Among those ordinances are a .5 percent sales tax hike passed in 2008, a 2.5 percent gasoline tax hike enacted in 2010 and a multi-family rental licensing ordinances that requires Westmont landlords to pay an annual licensing fee to the village. Some residents are already speaking out on the referendum. Read the remainder of the article at: http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/westmont/topstories/x1992164338/Westmont-home-rule-referendum-may-come-down-to-voter-trust-expert-says?zc_p=0 Residents should be outraged at City’s TIF plans, CAC exec says
City Hall is considering a fourth tax increment financing district (TIFs), estimated at $89,000,000. The proposed TIF is massive in economic terms and City Hall calls them a “shot in the arm” to stimulate growth in areas where property values are stagnate. That “shot” is government subsidies to lure developers to an area that is otherwise undesirable to certain of these developers. Where does the cash strapped City generate the subsidy? They claim from properties only within the TIF district. If it were only that simple! Subsidies are generated by the City freezing the tax base of a specific area for every governmental entity at the 2012 level for 23-36 years. As property values increase over time the difference between the 2012 level and every year after goes into the City’s TIF fund rather than to the school district, park district, etc. Sometime between the years 2035 and 2048, the City benevolently unfreezes the tax base, allowing the frozen out taxing bodies to access the property tax growth. What City Hall does not advertise is that TIFs ensure that everyone pays more to keep the affected taxing bodies afloat during the TIF period. This is because TIFs change the math equation for how property tax rates are calculated, resulting in increased tax rates for the other taxing bodies. If the City thought TIF 4 was a great idea, why did they wait until the 11th hour to engage the school and park district in public discussions only, to tell them that it was too late to make substantive changes? TIF 4 may have started as a good idea but the effort has been corrupted by a map with unnecessary properties and an unacceptable bully in the sandbox process. Furthermore, the City’s actions will result in closed door discussions regarding TIF intergovernmental agreements, which will be cash payouts to the school and park district to lessen the economic blow. Elmhurst residents should be outraged and the City Council should vote TIF 4 down until a truly public and transparent process is followed for all involved. Ms. Terry Pastika Executive Director/ Community Lawyer Citizen Advocacy Center Link to related article : Joint Board okays new TIF, though some had asked for delay which quotes Terry Pastika www.theindependentnewspapers.com/news/joint-board-okays-tif-area-some-had-asked-for-delay/ Letter: Elmhurst Residents Should be Outraged at the City's Handling of TIF 4
Citizen Advocacy Center executive director says TIF 4 should be voted down until all the facts can be brought to light. City Hall is considering a fourth tax increment financing district (TIF), estimated at $89 million. The proposed TIF is massive in economic terms, and City Hall calls them a "shot in the arm" to stimulate growth in areas where property values are stagnant. That “shot” is government subsidies to lure developers to an area that is otherwise undesirable to certain of these developers. Where does the cash strapped city generate the subsidy? They claim from properties only within the TIF district. If it were only that simple! Subsidies are generated by the city freezing the tax base of a specific area for every governmental entity at the 2012 level for 23-36 years. As property values increase over time the difference between the 2012 level and every year after goes into the city’s TIF fund rather than to the school district, park district, etc. Sometime between the years 2035 and 2048, the city benevolently unfreezes the tax base, allowing the frozen out taxing bodies to access the property tax growth. What City Hall does not advertise is that TIFs ensure that everyone pays more to keep the affected taxing bodies afloat during the TIF period. This is because TIFs change the math equation for how property tax rates are calculated, resulting in increased tax rates for the other taxing bodies. If the city thought TIF 4 was a great idea, why did they wait until the 11th hour to engage the school and park district in public discussions, only to tell them that it was too late to make substantive changes? TIF 4 may have started as a good idea but the effort has been corrupted by a map with unnecessary properties and an unacceptable bully in the sandbox process. Furthermore, the city’s actions will result in closed door discussions regarding TIF intergovernmental agreements, which will be cash payouts to the school and park district to lessen the economic blow. Elmhurst residents should be outraged and the City Council should vote TIF 4 down until a truly public and transparent process is followed for all involved. —Ms. Terry Pastika, Executive Director/Community Lawyer, Citizen Advocacy Center, Elmhurst http://elmhurst.patch.com/articles/letter-elmhurst-residents-should-be-outraged-at-the-city-s-handling-of-tif-4 Related Topics: Citizen Advocacy Center, City of Elmhurst, TIF 4, and Transparency |
Archives
January 2021
Categories
All
|
||
RSS Feed