Oak Park village board needs to find the middle on spending

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

By Editorial

Feels a bit like Oak Park is playing ping-pong on spending. Village government has spent $10 million to beautify (and replace underground sewers) on two blocks of Marion Street. Then there was the grandiose TIGER grant application to the feds looking for $25.8 million to roll out more bricks and granite across Lake Street and Oak Park Avenue. That grant went nowhere and now Oak Park is sorting out whether in this post-TIF gulley it has any capacity to spend money on feel-good streetscaping projects.

Last week, an intergovernmental pact between the village and the park district to make modest improvements at Oak Park Avenue and Ontario Street went poof when a newly cautious village board pulled the plan off the consent agenda and basically killed it. This was an agreed-upon plan to spend $58,000 (down from $98,000) to do some curb bumpouts at the intersection, simultaneous to the parks overhaul of Scoville Park.

We are fans of local governments coordinating efforts and we know from experience that that corner is a tough one for pedestrians — especially pedestrians looking to get their kids to or from the park. So having the parks and the village plan improvements in common is all good. Following through on promises is also a virtue when building a collaborative spirit is the goal.

So while we appreciate fiscal restraint, we'd have preferred to see the village honor this existing plan before it got budget-busting religion. Seems to us this current board is evolving toward a more conservative attitude when it comes to spending and, given the times, that is a fine thing.

The park district will be fine. Its officials seemed to walk off more bemused than upset at the village's choice. Scoville Park will be lovely when it is complete. And we'll just wait until the village finds its equilibrium on spending.

Reader Comments

3 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 12:07 AM

I would urge the WJ to be less hesitant about citing the village as being the taxing body that inhibits intergovernmental agreements. The village is a hindrance to inter-government success. Projects, and even more important - project detail, must suit the village's complex policies, has a planning process that defies cooperation, shows a lack of interest in anything but DTOP, and displays a superiority complex that hinders its ability to treat other taxing bodies as equals rather than minions. OP Village Board members spend a lot of time touting the advantages of inter-governmental, but have done little to make it work.

Observer  

Posted: August 15th, 2012 8:54 AM

The Village Board would have gladly spent the $58,000 or even $98,000 had the park been located within DTOP borders. However, the project falls outside DTOP borders so the Board pretends to be cost conscience. The Board has frequently been cost conscience on projects outside of DTOP but never on projects within DTOP. The garage at Lake and Forest is an example; they are spending thousands on designs even though Sertus continues to ask for extensions on a project that is unlikely to materialize.

Enuf is Enuf from Oak Park  

Posted: August 15th, 2012 6:43 AM

A village board majority bleated their approval for Pope's request to spend $100K for renderings as part of the TIGER grant application, which was rejected, thus wasting the $100K. The board is also proceeding with the design of Lake St. streetscaping from Harlem to Euclid, a project to cost tens of millions. But the intersection at Oak Park Ave. and Ontario St. is one block removed from DTOP interests which control the board, thereby relegating it to no funding status.

What's new on OakPark.com

Ready to start your garden? Take some tips from this year's Spring Home and Garden guide.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


SubscribeClassifieds
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor

Latest Comments