The past few weeks have been good politics. I’m proud of the folks who’ve come out in favor of home rule and also proud of those who’ve come out against it. At the end of the day, that’s what politics should be all about: subjecting ideas to public scrutiny and discourse. Some ideas survive such scrutiny and others wither under it. The next week will tell which kind of idea is Villa Park’s Home Rule referendum.
For my part, I remain firmly in favor of home rule for Villa Park. Regardless of any issue immediately before the village, I believe it is always better to keep decision-making power as local as possible, and for that reason alone, I support Home Rule for Villa Park.
Beyond that basic philosophy, there are also good practical benefits that Villa Park can derive from Home Rule. Chief among those benefits is the Crime-Free Multi-Housing (CFMH) program, which has been consistently successful all across the country, when it is made mandatory and absentee landlords who ignore the mandate are fined and lose their license to run their rental businesses. Other benefits have been described in the various public meetings and informational materials distributed by the village.
As for the case against home rule, I have heard four points:
-
Some say Home Rule is unlimited taxation.
This is by far the most common objection to Home Rule. Home Rule does indeed confer far greater taxing powers. Unfortunately, the Home Rule powers necessary to mandate a CFMH program bring with them the taxing powers. We on the board do not seek those greater taxing powers, but we understand why such powers concern people. Therefore, we have passed ordinances to make difficult the process of levying new taxes.
Some say that the safeguard ordinances are meaningless.
A future board certainly could repeal the safeguard ordinances that we have passed. At tonight’s meeting we began work on an ordinance that would require any future Home-Rule derived or related ordinance, whether or not it’s a tax, to undergo a full cycle of formal board meetings (committe-of-whole, first reading, final reading) which would span more than a month. I also will insist on a publishing requirement so that any future board who would repeal our safeguards will have to do so in broad daylight.
Some say Home Rule grants too much power.
The powers that Home Rule grants already exist… in Springfield. Home Rule, if the voters grant it, will transfer a bunch of power from Springfield to Villa Park. If you don’t like big government far away having the power, then you should favor Home Rule.
It seems to me that thoughtful people who raise the "too much power" objection lack faith in their neighbors and in themselves to elect good Trustees from a pool of 22,000 Villa Parkers, or think of Springfield as career politicians who have more legislative experience than us yokels have.
On that point, only you know how you feel. For my part, my very presence in this office has been intended from the beginning to set an example. Yes I’m a yokel, but I am your yokel and nobody else’s. Any of you out there who believe that you can serve your village by helping to make these big decisions can run for office and maybe even win. I did. It’s far from impossible. The more people who put themselves forward, the better board we will get. It seems to me that having Home Rule might even increase scrutiny of candidates or better yet, voter involvement and turnout. It seems to me that Home Rule places power in the hands of an active and informed citizenry who gets out there and serves on boards and commissions.
Some say that a CFMH-style program can be implemented without Home Rule.
There are non-home-rule towns out there who have passed some portions of a CFMH-style program. For example, Non-Home-Rule Broadview requires "Certificates of Occupancy" and mandates inspections to get them, but they do not require the "Crime Free Lease Addendum", nor the CEPTED property modifications. Furthermore, such ordinances are more vunerable to a legal challenge without Home Rule. We are absolutely certain that a CFMH ordinance here without Home Rule backing will be challenged immediately. Even if we win such a challenge, which is not guaranteed, it would be costly and counterproductive. I believe that the board is correct to seek the most solid possible legal footing. I’ve said repeatedly before that we should push the envelope and be ready to win legal challenges. Consistent with that position, I favor Home Rule for Villa Park.
Some say that Home Rule was abused in Villa Park back in the 70s
All I have to say to this is "Show me an example". I’ve yet to be shown one. No tax was passed in Villa Park under Home Rule powers. Show me an example. Just one.
Posted on the Villa Park Open Forum by Trustee Dave Hegland
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.