The Homeowners’ Confederation does an excellent job of keeping the public informed, not to mention keeping elected and appointed officials on our toes.  The Confederation asked the candidates to respond to two thoughtful questions.  Here is what I wrote:

Question: The collapse of the economy has already forced the City to reduce its services and the Staff who provides them, and has also resulted in projected budget deficits. If elected, what will you do, specifically, to mitigate the City’s financial crisis? If your plan involves raising taxes (or tax rates) for homeowners, please state exactly what increases you will support. Other than taxes, what sources of revenue do you expect to be available to balance the City’s budget?

On the cost side, all city employees making more than $100,000 a year should have their salaries frozen.  The City pays pretty well, and the benefits are excellent, so there would not be any mass exodus of talent.  Also, the City would operate more efficiently if the City Council members would stick to their real jobs—establishing policy—instead of micromanaging the staff.

On the revenue side, one of the few bright spots in the national economy is  energy conservation/green technology.  With its high-tech reputation and workforce, Naperville is a natural place for job growth—and ensuing revenue growth—in this area.  Which companies will become the Amocos or Bell Labs of the 21rst century?  Which emerging technologies will succeed?  I don’t know and neither does anybody else.  Government should not try to pick economic winners or losers, but we can provide an environment that encourages investment.

 What do you foresee for the future redevelopment of Naperville? Please state what incentives to developers (if any) you will support (such as waiving impact fees), and whether you would seek to impose any new limitations (including height, parking and the like) on future developments. Please also state specifically how you would regard opinion input from homeowners who live in the vicinity of these projects.

As we deal more with infill developments, land use proposals become increasingly controversial.  Part of the reason for this is developers’ natural tendency to try to cram in too much density. (Although the City tried to do the same thing with its proposal for a massive library parking deck, which I voted against.)  Sometimes developers do this because they are buying property from an owner with an inflated view of its value.  That’s when our requests for lower density are greeted with, “The deal won’t make economic sense unless we are allowed to…”  Often this really means the developer is paying a premium for property.  This leads to what I’ve referred to as “10 pounds of potatoes in a five-pound bag” proposals.  The proposed duplexes adjacent to Seager Park—which I voted against--are a recent example. We must resist these.

Land use decisions should be based on sound planning principles, not who has a politically-connected attorney or how many angry neighbors show up at public hearings.  Since they know the area better than anyone, residents often provide excellent recommendations regarding development proposals.  If the neighbors provide compelling reasons why a proposal should be denied, I will vote to deny it.  In a sense, it’s the quality of opposition, not the quantity that will influence my decisions. 

Sometimes the council is faced with proposals that provide city-wide public benefit but pose problems for those nearby.   In such cases, the petitioner must do everything possible to mitigate potential harmful effects.  Sometimes this means money—the hospital’s expansion south is a good example —but more often means sensitive site planning: landscaping, open space and other buffering between different land uses.  This is performance zoning, the idea that what is not as important as how.  For example, the idea of a grocery store amidst single-family homes violates most post World War II zoning ordinances.  But look at Kreger’s, a true asset to the neighborhood.  We need more walkable commercial uses like this.

Having been thinking about these types of issues for the past 30 years, I could go on forever.  But thanks to the Confederation for providing this opportunity, not to mention the recent candidate’ forum.

                                                                   --Joe McElroy

                                                                                                  McElroyForCouncil.com

Check out Joe's