Elephants in the Room:
Serious Thoughts About Who We Can Trust to Determine River Forest’s Destiny [continued]

Talking to fellow River Forest residents, I’ve learned there are two rather large elephants in the room when it comes to talking about home rule:

• Trust, and

• The handful of fiscally–irresponsible governments that, frankly, worry a lot of people

The first question boils down to: Who do you trust to set the rules for River Forest government: the Illinois General Assembly, or our own River Forest Village Board?

Should we declare our independence from the General Assembly by voting to adopt home rule or should we let outsiders like House Speaker Mike Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton, and all those downstate legislators who have no clue where River Forest is to control what our village can and cannot do?

Who do you think has our best interests at heart? The downstate legislators we can’t vote for and who could care less about River Forest or the adverse impacts state legislation often has on us, or our own village trustees whom we alone elect, who are our neighbors, who have a personal interest in River Forest, and who live with the consequences of the laws they adopt?

That ought to be a pretty easy choice. Why would we want to continue to be among the 20 percent of Illinois residents who live without home rule and are subject to the political whims of legislators who don’t care about the quality of life in River Forest and often deride communities like ours?

Why wouldn’t we want to place control of our village in the hands of our neighbors, people we can call and actually influence, people who care about River Forest because they live here too?

And why wouldn’t we want to have the same control over our local government that 80 percent of Illinoisians have?

As both a city planner and later a zoning and fair housing attorney, I’ve worked with local governments all over the country since late 1972. I've seen that the cost of governing is higher for those communities without home rule since their hands are tied by the often–excessive state legislation that controls them. Having to go to their state legislature in order to get powers needed to address urgent issues diminishes their capacity to respond quickly and effectively.

River Forest experienced that problem two years ago when the village sought approval of a small increase in our sales tax. Not only did River Forest have to go to referendum, but it had to get the Illinois General Assembly to pass a law that temporarily freed us from restrictions on how we could spend the additional sales tax collected. The General Assembly tells non–home rule villages how they can spend the additional sales tax revenue that’s approved by referendum. They can spend the money only on capital improvements — a result of the lobbying power of the construction industry. River Forest had to beg the General Assembly to pass a law that allowed non–home rule communities to determine for themselves how they would spend the new sales tax revenue.

Unfortunately the law came with a sunset provision so that it expires in five years. Without home rule, River Forest will be forced to spend that sales tax revenue only on what the state legislature allows — namely infrastructure — and not as our own village board wishes to spend it. Of course we could beg the General Assembly to renew the law — but be aware that will cost a small fortune to get a bill introduced and passed. Why should we have to beg the General Assembly to do what home rule cities can do with their sales tax? Who do you think better understands River Forest’s needs, the Ilinois State Legislature or our neighborhods on the River Forest Village Board?

Legislation the Illinois General Assembly adopted dictates to non–home rule communities how their police department’s management team is structured. With home rule, our own Police Chief and Village Board would be free to adopt a more current “best practices–type” structure customized to meet River Forest’s unique needs, saving us River Forest taxpayers money and enabling our police to perform their jobs more effectively. This unwarranted restriction on non–home rule communities is yet another example of how Springfield politicians keep non–home rule communities from using the best, most effective, and most cost–efficient practices.

My research director and I just returned from a site visit to a major city in Montana for which we are producing a lengthy study. We were stunned to see the extent of the negative impacts on this city thanks to state–imposed limitations on home rule powers that have crippled the city’s ability to deal with a number of local problems.

Experience of Other Cities With Home Rule

The most vocal opponent of home rule keeps bringing up the strawman of the bankruptcy of three medium–sized charter cities in California, out of 109 charter cities, their equivalent of home rule. He can’t resist reminding folks of the irresponsible behavior of the governing boards of five of Illinois’ 209 home rule municipalities.

Just like businesses, some governments are run well and others are not. Just like businesses, some are corrupt and most are not. Go beyond the alarmist rhetoric and you realize that 98 percent of Illinois’ home rule villages and cities, and 97 percent of California’s charter cities have not run into the sort of misconduct the opponent to River Forest home rule raises.

We’ve got everything to gain with home rule and nothing to lose. If we’re unhappy with the decisions of our village board, we can replace at least half of it every two years. If we’re unhappy with the decisions of the General Assembly, we are powerless.

I’m about as cynical about government as most people, actually maybe more so since I see how they are run all around the nation. But the one thing I have learned the past 40 years is that we can trust our neighbors to govern us far better than any state legislature.

Home rule places us in charge of our own destiny. I trust the people of River Forest and our village trustees who are accountable to us alone to govern us far better than the faceless politicians in Springfield who act as though they are accountable to no one.

Who do you really trust to determine River Forest’s future and control our destiny? Springfield or our neighbors?

— Daniel Lauber