I'm still in favor of Home Rule for Villa Park and eager to run the referendum again in 2010.
Villa Park Home Rule Referendum, Feb 5, 2008
Google "Illinois Home Rule"I am firmly in favor of Home Rule for Villa Park.
I believe it is always better to keep decision-making power as local as possible.Beyond that basic philosophy, there are also 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 across the country, especially when it is mandatory and absentee slumlords are hit in the wallet. CFMH and other benefits are described in the Home Rule Fact Sheet.
As for the case against Home Rule, you have probably heard some of these points:
Some say Home Rule is unlimited taxation. Home Rule does indeed confer greater taxing powers. We on the board do not seek those greater taxing powers. Therefore, we have passed an ordinance to make difficult the process of levying new taxes and to provide a way for citizens to force a referendum on a proposed new tax. I will insist on passing another safeguard ordinance to abide by the non-home-rule debt ceiling and require a referendum to exceed it.
Some say that the safeguard ordinances are meaningless. A future board could repeal the safeguard ordinances that we have passed. Therefore we are working on an ordinance that would require any future Home-Rule-derived or related ordinance to undergo a full cycle of formal board meetings (committee-of-whole, first reading, final reading). I also will insist on a publishing requirement. A future board who would repeal our safeguards will have to do so in full daylight.
Some say Home Rule grants too much power. Home Rule transfers power from Springfield to Villa Park. It seems to me that Home Rule places power into the hands of an active and informed citizenry who gets out there and runs for office, serves on boards and commissions, and votes.
Some say that a CFMH-style program can be implemented without Home Rule. There are non-home-rule towns who have passed some portions of a CFMH-style program. For example, Non-Home-Rule Broadview requires "Certificates of Occupancy" and mandates inspections, but does not require the "Crime Free Lease Addendum", nor the “Prevention Through Environmental Design” property modifications. Without Home Rule, such ordinances may be vulnerable to a legal challenge. Even if we win such a challenge, it would be costly. The firm footing of Home Rule authority is necessary to succeed with CFMH.
Some say that Home Rule was abused in Villa Park back in the 70s. No taxes were passed under Home Rule in Villa Park. So far nobody has given even one specific example of this supposed abuse.
Some say this referendum process was unnecessarily hurried. On this point I agree. I would rather have put this referendum on the November ballot, but my colleagues on the board felt that the benefits of CFMH were compelling them to move more swiftly than that. In the interest of teamwork, I support this accelerated push for Home Rule. I hope it passes. If it doesn’t, I will work to bring another Home Rule referendum to the ballot as quickly as the law allows us to do so.
Village Hall 20 S. Ardmore Ave Villa Park, IL 60181 USA Phone (630) 399-1089 E-mail anddave@mindspring.com Web sitehttp://invillapark.com http://villaparkanddave.com
Please make sure that you are fully informed and please vote.