|
Citizen Advocacy Center Applauds Elmhurst Zoning Commission for Its Thoughtful and Comprehensive Denial of Addison Street Private Development / Public Parking Garage Project. Development, Zoning and Planning Committee Should Heed Recommendation.
The Elmhurst Zoning Commission has unanimously rejected a proposal to build a private-public mixed-use building on Addison Street. The now City-owned property has been the subject of much controversy: illegal closed meetings as determined by the Illinois Attorney General, City financing to the developer to purchase the property, and a request for increased building height to accommodate two additional floors for office space (including a private athletic facility) in an already saturated office market – just to name a few. A civics lesson: The approval process for development projects requiring exceptions to the Zoning Code has three steps: 1) The Elmhurst Zoning and Planning Commission, a group of appointed (non-elected) officials, holds a public hearing wherein the applicant must prove why and how a project meets City standards for conditional use or variance from the Zoning Code; interested parties from the public have an opportunity to submit their opinions about the proposed project for the official record during this hearing; the Zoning Commission then deliberates and issues its specific “findings” and recommendations indicating if the applicant has proved its case; 2) The Zoning Commission’s recommendation then goes to the City’s Development, Planning, and Zoning Committee, a standing Committee of the City Council composed of three Aldermen selected by the Mayor. The DPZ Committee reviews the Commission report and makes a recommendation in turn to the full City Council which has the ultimate vote. The recommendations of both the Zoning Commission and the DPZ Committee are advisory and may be overturned by City Council. A vote of two-thirds of the aldermen then holding office is required to approve a project contrary to the recommendation of the Zoning Commission. The Citizen Advocacy Center has been opposed to the Addison Street Project, not because we dispute the need for more parking, but rather because the public process around this project has been anti-democratic from the start, resulting in a proposal that was fatally flawed in several respects. While the Zoning Commission was able to consider only the information before it as submitted by the developer and signed off on by the City, we applaud the Commission’s recognition and rejection of the fatally flawed application based on the following: • The Traffic Study included in the application identified several engineering and safety issues that were not addressed. • The three buildings identified in the central business district as examples of buildings higher than 45 feet were distinguished individually and collectively as different from the proposed Addison Street project. • A recent City Consultant report identified excessive unoccupied office space in downtown Elmhurst. • It was unknown how much public parking would be lost due to a required loading dock, the addition of bike parking, and the revisions needed to accommodate engineering and safety issues, none of which were in the application. • Safety issues identified as ‘very problematic’ were not addressed related to lot-line to lot-line development, and narrow alleys vis a vis truck/ car/ pedestrian traffic. • The inability of the City to implement creative new pedestrian amenities in the immediate area if the requested zoning relief were allowed. The commission further rejected the application on grounds of the plans being, as stated by the developer, “fluid and subject to change.” Approval must be based on what was submitted by the developer and commented on at the public hearing process. Altering or changing the development plan would necessitate a new application and a new public hearing. The Citizen Advocacy Center asks that the DPZ Committee, and eventually the full City Council, concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Commission: the application as submitted should be unanimously rejected. Furthermore, the Zoning Commission report raises questions about the advisability of going forward with this project even at a building height that does not require zoning consideration. Maryam Judar Executive Director/Community Lawyer Citizen Advocacy Center 182 N. York St. Elmhurst, IL 60126 Elmhurst City Council members went into executive session on November 19, 2012 to discuss “Selection of a Person to Fill a Public Office,” which in this case was related to selecting an interim mayor. The Illinois Open Meetings Act allows public bodies to meet in closed session for a limited number of issues. Specific segments of the law are weak in that it allows public bodies to go into closed session on this particular topic and for generally allowing public officials to take a consensus vote in any closed session as long as a ceremonial “final vote” is taken in open session. That being said, public bodies are not required to go into executive session for any issue and the purpose of the Open Meetings Act is explicit: it declares the necessity for public bodies to conduct their business openly to the fullest extent possible. The purpose is not to cherry-pick exemptions to justify closed door discussions on topics that are, without question, issues of public concern. The mere appearance of the item on the agenda for closed door discussion is unacceptable. This is especially true given the hyper-politicized environment that will have more than half the council members on the ballot this April for either mayor or alderman. The public deserves to observe, in its entirety, the process of selecting an interim mayor. This includes the discussion about the procedure for how the Council will act as well as the political maneuvering for majority support and the ceremonial speeches prior to the vote. Just because a government entity can legally do something, should it and is legal compliance with a weak statute good enough to earn the ranking of an open and transparent government? City Council meetings should aspire to more than pro forma activities and our expectations of government should be higher. Ms. Terry Pastika Executive Director/ Community Lawyer Citizen Advocacy Center Beyond the Chicago Border:
Ms. Dee Longfellow asked in her 9/27/12 editorial, “Is anyone else offended?” by the Citizen Advocacy Center (CAC) and Elmhurst College hosting Dr. Dick Simpson of UIC to discuss his latest academic paper on political corruption. The tone was sarcastic musing of why a Chicagoan should come to suburbia to talk about corruption. This is why: Corruption does not stop at the Chicago border. Dr. Simpson is nationally recognized for his vast experience in addressing government issues, both as an insider and a watchdog. He has spent a career documenting the “corruption tax” paid when public officials serve for personal interest rather than the public interest. His sixth report, "Green Grass and Graft: Corruption in the Suburbs" documents convictions beyond Chicago’s borders and offers tangible reform solutions. CAC was also identified as “the local hot bed of political dirt digging” and an organization that protests indiscriminately. We are an award-winning community legal organization that for 20 years has worked to build democracy by strengthening the citizenry’s capacities, resources, and institutions for self-governance. CAC’s work starts in Elmhurst and extends statewide. Our resources are free, our doors are open to the public, and information about CAC is available at www.citizenadvocacycenter.org. The following are a few highlights of CAC’s work in Elmhurst: 1) Protecting First Amendment Free Speech rights via a federal lawsuit and bringing statewide and national media exposure to anti-democratic activity in City Hall. We also worked with District 205 to protect Free Speech rights during public comment (twice); 2) Reforming Illinois’ Tax Increment Financing law based on issues identified in the Elmhurst TIF 3 creation process and helping a community group organize to reduce TIF incentives approved on a TIF 1 project from the initial $5 million plus request to $1.2 million; 3) Questioning finance issues at City Hall. One inquiry led to monies being repaid; and 4) Helping individuals successfully organize. Examples include, placing referenda on the ballot, addressing a gas station leak, helping a local journalist protest the selling of a local paper, and helping organize a march to promote a historic preservation ordinance. People worldwide are fighting for the freedoms Americans have, yet very few Americans actually engage in the democratic process. If a qualifier for “political dirt digging” and indiscriminate protesting includes teaching people interested in government issues how to successfully use First Amendment freedoms, along with community lawyers enforcing democratic rights, I regard that as a compliment. Ms. Terry Pastika Executive Director/ Community Lawyer Citizen Advocacy Center Wauconda Township officials don’t get it
Wauconda Township officials are having trouble understanding the basics of the laws governing public bodies and townships. First, the purpose of the Open Meetings Act is to ensure that our elected officials discuss the business of our governments in open forum. According to “20% pay hike for Wauconda Twp. supervisor draws fire” on Aug. 2, the township supervisor met separately with each trustee to discuss the supervisor position’s pay hike. This resulted in a vote without discussion at the board’s last meeting. Ostensibly, the supervisor met with trustees one at a time to discuss the pay increase so that the trustees dispensed with open discussion on the issue, deliberately thwarting the Open Meetings Act. Secondly, Wauconda Township fails to understand the citizen initiative and referendum process as articulated in our state constitution at Article 7, Section 11, and further detailed in the Township Code. Recently, a citizen in the township submitted a petition for referendum for inclusion on the Annual Township Meeting agenda. The citizen got the requisite 15 signatures and met the deadline. Yet, contrary to the Township Code, they failed to include the item on the agenda. The citizen was forced to collect a second petition and garner assistance from our law office to convey to the township its obligation, a matter still pending before the township. Not only do Wauconda Township officials misunderstand the law, they misunderstand their obligations. Rather than serving the residents of Wauconda Township, they serve themselves first. Maryam Judar Community lawyer Citizen Advocacy Center Elmhurst http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120818/discuss/708189957 Government treats FOIA as a suggestion, not law
7/31/2012 9:17 PM - Letters to the Editor - The Madison St. Claire Record To the Editor: On September 26, 27, and 30, 2011, I filed three requests for public documents to the Village of Caseyville through the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. I was simply wanting to see a contract to a public works project that was funded through a county grant. Little did I realize what I would have to personally endure for exercising my rights as a citizen. But as I often hear from veterans, "Freedom is not free." The documents I requested were pretty mundane in nature, but asking a few harmless questions touched off a firestorm in the Village of Caseyville. The first surprise I received was having an obviously angry village trustee follow me out onto the parking lot and without my consent, start photographing me as I left. I was then unfairly labeled a recurrent requester, a designation I came nowhere close to deserving. Then came the assertion that my requests were unduly burdensome. While it would have been easy to give up. I have to admit that the village trustees' attempt to intimidate me after filing my second document request, did stiffen my resolve. Instead of giving up, I made the decision to take my cause to my fellow citizens and began speaking to taxpayer watchdog organizations. In February 2012 I received a favorable determination from the Illinois Attorney General. I thought the battle was over. It was not. The village attorney had known something all along that I did not. The only way I would be able to force compliance was to sue the village in circuit court. So in essence, the only way a citizen has real access to public documents is if they have the money to sue. In my case, I was fortunate to have a lot of public support from other like minded citizens. Citizens who volunteered to pay my legal fees to pursue a municipality in what we all considered willful and intentional violations of the law. To that end, I have come to the conclusion that the Freedom of Information laws are great "window dressing" for politicians, but the reality is that these laws are mere suggestions to public officials unless a citizen is of significant means and is able to pay to have the law enforced. So comes the question: Does the average citizen really have access to public documents? My answer is no. My now, very educated opinion is that until criminal provisions are put into place, government entities will continue to treat The Freedom of Information Act like a "suggestion" instead of a right to every citizen. Brad VanHoose Belleville 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 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/ Lack of transparency
The City Council approval of the Chicago Infrastructure Trust ordinance was a vote to value political interests over the public interest and passed with inadequate public protections despite unanswered questions from aldermen, the public and the city's inspector general. The lack of transparency surrounding the decision-making process was patently unacceptable. Transparency and accountability, particularly in government contracting and spending, are critical tools to prevent corruption, boost public confidence in government and ensure fiscal responsibility. While generally the city has provided greater accessibility to some government information, how deep the transparency commitment is becomes evident when crucial issues such as the CIT are in play. Reasonable accountability standards such as bringing the CIT under the purview of the inspector general's office, requiring council votes on all taxpayer dollar commitments, detailing enforcement provisions, ensuring compliance with ethics and procurement ordinances, and even declaring the CIT to be a subsidiary city public body to ensure compliance with state transparency laws were ignored. This lack of accountability is also inconsistent with Illinois Nonprofit Principles and Best Practices. Moving forward, public bodies interested in creating similar entities should embrace that the goals of democracy are broader than those of economic development and implement meaningful public interest safeguards such as those suggested. Our organizations, along with the Donors Forum, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, League of Women Voters of Illinois and Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund believe that the people of Chicago deserve better. — Brian Imus, director, Illinois Public Interest Research Group, and Terry Pastika, executive director, Citizen Advocacy Center, Chicago http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-vp-0504voicelettersbriefs-20120504,0,3181577,print.story In response to Chris Wetterich’s March 16 story, “Vast majority of FOIA requests coming from the public,” the Illinois Freedom of Information Act is an extremely important tool for the people in Illinois who participate in our democracy through monitoring the activities of their local governments, an indispensable check on our government officials.
The attorney general’s statistics reflecting the public access counselor’s caseload mirror the Citizen Advocacy Center’s experience with assisting members of the public who request records in order to inform themselves of community affairs that affect them, their families and their neighbors. We routinely assist people who are denied records, where the public body fails to satisfactorily explain why the exception taken applies to the requested records, and which ultimately result in a letter from the public access counselor’s office stating that the requested records should be made public. Members of the public should be wary of legislative efforts to roll back the FOIA reform enacted in 2010. Since the bill’s passage in 2009, each legislative session has seen several backlash bills aimed at curbing the people’s access to documents that should be made public, and which are routinely made public in states that have stronger FOIA laws. It’s everybody’s job to stay vigilant so that our FOIA statute remains one of the strongest in the nation. — Maryam Judar, community lawyer, Citizen Advocacy Center, Elmhurst |
Archives
January 2021
Categories
All
|
||
RSS Feed