Differences between 7th Ward Candidates

Submitted by johnzbesko on Wed, 03/25/2009 - 23:04

Over the course of this campaign, I have endeavored to articulate my positions and explain my reasoning process. I have spoken at City Council meetings, written blogs and responded to others'. My opponents in the 7th Ward aldermanic race have not been as prolific, but with several forums and multiple questionnaires from various community groups, differences in positions and opinion are beginning to emerge.

Start with the “third rail of the 7th ward”, the branch library on Central Street. At the League of Women Voters forum, I described the branch library as an important part of what makes Central St. “a little village within the city.” I emphasized that the appeal of the branch library needed to be broadened beyond a small passionate group of supporters if it was to stop being used as a budgetary football. I offered several suggestions about how that might be accomplished.

Jane Grover expressed her support for the branch and then added, “That being said, I don't think funding the North Branch will always be compatible with keeping a healthy overall library system... We may reach the point where we have to decide [to] keep up the quality of the collection at our main branch or ... spread the wealth so that we retain our branch libraries.” Given the economic situation, I fear that point will be reached sooner, rather than later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6mu1lMcrRs

On the issue of taxes, all candidates state their opposition to raising taxes. But subtleties exist in candidates' responses to other questions about taxing districts. In the Central Street Neighbors Association questionnaire, candidates were asked if they supported the creation of new taxing districts to support the branch library and/or the parks. My opponents answered yes; I said no. Creating a new taxing district means the total tax bill increases. Given we all oppose tax increases for the City's budget, I can only assume my fellow candidates think it OK to raise taxes just for homeowners in the 7th and possibly 6th wards.

On the issue of the Civic Center, my position is firm. I feel the Civic Center is a wonderful seat of government that represents the “character” of Evanston and needs some tender loving care. Unlike myself, Jane Grover said “yes” to the CSNA question asking if she supported selling some of the land around the Civic Center to pay for renovations. But her commitment to the existing site is better revealed by her response to my question at the LWVE forum, “if money were no object, would you still support keeping the Civic Center the seat of Evanston's government?” Her response: “The question is whether this building is indeed the best place to house Evanston's government, not for the next 5 years, but for the next 50 years.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw4izpicC-Y

Sometimes what is not said can be more revealing than what is. In the case of the LWVE question asking our opinions about Ald. Liz Tisdahl's record, Jane Grover's refusal to answer the question is puzzling. Her husband is listed as a Tisdahl for Mayor supporter. Obviously, some voters strongly feel one way or another about Ald. Tisdahl's record- is not answering her attempt to not offend anybody? I do not know. I stated I felt Ald. Tisdahl's record is mixed. I recognized her achievements, but noted some specific issues I disagreed with. One of those issues was the Eastwood (Central St.) condo development. I spoke against the project in the past and spoke before the Council urging rejection of a permit extension when that issue came up. On the CSNA questionnaire, it looks like all 3 candidates oppose extensions for Eastwood. However, Jane Grover's response was “clarified” to mean opposition to any further extensions, and that was qualified by “without more information about the viability of the proposed project...” She supported the most recent extension. http://www.centralstreetneighbors.com/?q=node/502

In an ECMC cable TV interview, former Ald. Art Newman raised an important point, “she's going to want to spend a lot of money on social services...she's not going to want to cut mental health services, she's not going to want to cut affordable housing...  So I think her job is going to be impossible, and she will not keep her commitment on that (not raising property taxes.)” Let me be clear- consider a triangle with essential services (like police, firefighters, streets and sanitation), social services, and tax hikes on each point. If budgetary considerations force a decision, my position will be closer to the essential  services than the other two points.
http://evanstonnow.com/story/news/bill-smith/2009-03-17/former-alderman-...

Last but not least, subtleties exist in our attitude to the 708 Church St. project. I've displayed a “Stop the Tower” yard sign since the day they were available. Jane Grover's earliest opinion is listed on the CSNA website from a year ago, “I suspect there are more of us out there who are well-informed and interested and don't consider ourselves in opposition to the development proposal for 708 Church. There's just no yard sign slogan that expresses positive ambivalence about it.”
http://centralstreetneighbors.com/?q=node/398

So, the race for 7th Ward Alderman offers candidates with distinct differences that the voters must choose from. This election is a referendum on many issues. How much do you support the Central St. Library? How much do you support the Civic Center? In a budget crunch, what would you cut or would you raise taxes? Do you support condo development? I await your decision.

       

Comments

JunadRizki

Thu, 03/26/2009 - 18:24

John - I do not think the idea of a separate taxing district to support the branch is bad.  Understand Council members like Ann Rainey could care less about the North Branch, Jane Grover if elected maybe too quick to write it off. Given she is a Liz Tisdahl supporter she will go along with the unforunate business of politics as usual here, and not necessary represent us.  Liz would no doubt horse trade the branch for something she wanted and pretrend she did not have the votes to keep it. ( Like the tower vote )
 
Depending on the size of a branch library taxing district, I doubt we would not see a large tax increase, maybe less than I paid for membership in the Central Street Neighbors.
 
I think it is important WE citizens decide the fate of the branch not the city council. If 51% of the voters of a new taxing district say NO then it is closed. If 51% say yes it continues and we more forward.
 
John it is about how we spend our money, Jane wants to spend it on "family planning" duplicating a services we already have - She has maded no statement on way we need to really increase the funding for this.
 
John while a triangle may exist you may need to take a good look at police and fire services since not all positions and job functions in those departments appear necessary.
 
When you ask me for my vote, I told you I would support you, but I also told you would hear from me, if I did not like what  you were doing.  While I think Jane Grover appears to have many friends who might vote for her, she has not shown she will be able to deal with the problems the city will face next year in any positive manner. 
 
The pressures on council members will be great next year and I think you will deal with them much better than Jane, and also I think you will try to correct some of the problems, versus just sitting there with a sad look on your face.
 
Also I think the Evanston Review endorsement, of you did point to your business background, which clearly Jane has no strong real world experience in managing anything.
 
 
 
 

johnzbesko

Fri, 03/27/2009 - 11:44

Let me be clear- if a majority of residents wanted a separate taxing district for the Central St. Library, as your representative, I would support and work for it. But how does one define the district? Consider the library as Ground Zero. I'll wager that, if a 5 block radius were drawn around it, a majority would favor a separate district. Draw a 10 block radius and I'm less confident. Encompass all of Evanston and it would surely fail. The larger the district, the smaller the tax; the larger the district, the less support.

What I advocate is broadening the appeal of the branch libraries so all residents feel they are getting value for their tax money. I think attracting more Evanstonians (or even Wilmette residents) to Central St. is a good idea. I suggested alternative sources of new funds for the library. My ears are open to all ideas and suggestions. The difference between my opponents and me is that I see the branch library as more than just an extension of the overall libraries book collection.

 

jeffpsmith

Fri, 03/27/2009 - 17:21

John, I don't think you get the concept at all. No one is talking about a separate district for the north branch library. Moreover, drawing a 5-block radius would make the tax higher, not lower, for people within the district, assuming that such a district's expenses are not dependent on geographical size but on overhead, staff, and expenses. But that's irrelevant because no one is talking about what you are talking about.
 
An entire statutory section of the Public Library District Act of 1991 governs conversion of public libraries to their own districts by referendum, which is put on the ballot either by petition or by the library trustees:  § 75 ILCS 16/10-5 et seq.  Or the corporate authorities of a municipality can, after a resolution by the library board, convert the public library to a public library district, under 75 ILCS 16/10-15.
 
If library expenses do not increase as a result of the conversion, the effect on taxes should be absolutely neutral, because the city budget would decrease by a commensurate amount. Note that initial library district taxes must be no greater than they were before conversion. The statute specifies that the maximum tax rate must not exceed the greater of 0.15% or the last rate levied by the municipality for library purposes for the most recent year before the conversion. That rate may thereafter increase only as provided by law, in 75 ILCS 16/35-10.
 
The idea is not to purposely create more bureaucracy or carve out some geographic sub-area. The idea is to stop the annual nonsense of making the libraries, and especially the branch libraries, a political football, and terrorizing residents into supporting tax increases because "the only other choice" is to close the branches. Note that in the inevitable ensuing hue and cry, we avoid inquiry into much larger expenditures.
 
A secondary goal of such a conversion is to increase accountability and transparency for the library system instead of it being buried in the 550-page city budget.
 
If the library trustees and/or City Council won't act, then a conversion can be put on the ballot by petition. The referendum must state the existing and new tax rate.
 
I believe such a move -- which is facially tax-neutral -- would have broad support throughout Evanston. In fact, it would reveal to residents that the library system actually costs them about the same as a subsciption to a magazine.

JunadRizki

Fri, 03/27/2009 - 23:16

Jeff - making the library system separate from the city - may not end the risk to the branches - since the district would be all of Evanston - could  still have a library board of people from all over the city - many might still see the branches as a waste.
 
I am in favor of a  separate branch district for North Evanston, it would give people in this end of town their own control of the branch.
 
Might cost more in taxes - but I am not against higher taxes if they improve services. Although I do not see them as very large.