 |
Home rule question on River Forest ballot in November
Residents opposing the measure are already strategizing
Updated:
 | Share on Facebook |
 | Share on Twitter |
 |
 |
By Devin Rose
River Forest voters will be asked on their election ballot this November if they want the village to become a "home rule" community. The village board approved the ballot initiative at a special meeting, Aug. 7.
The resolution asks voters, "Shall the Village of River Forest become a home rule unit pursuant to Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution?"
As a home rule unit, the village would have all the same powers as the state — particularly with respect to raising taxes — and can take any authoritative actions except those that are limited by the state constitution or statutes.
Non-home rule communities like River Forest can only take action specifically granted by the state. For example, state tax cap laws limit non-home rule communities' ability to raise property taxes to 5 percent or the consumer price index, whichever is less.
Communities with a population over 25,000 are automatically designated as home rule and are not constrained by non-home rule tax cap laws.
A handful of residents who oppose the change have already met to start strategizing how they will educate others about the matter, said Al Popowits, a River Forest resident who attended last week's meeting. He said he was involved in the opposition effort in 2006, when a committee studying the issue narrowly voted in favor of putting a similar referendum on the ballot. The village board, however, decided against it.
Popowits said becoming a home rule community would give current and future trustees power that is nearly absolute, which makes him "uncomfortable." He questioned whether referendums to borrow money would still be necessary. Getting rid of them would do away with the democratic process, he fears, because leaders would no longer have to state their case before taking an action.
Since home rule communities are allowed to raise property taxes above the tax cap, trustees are discussing an ordinance that would still limit them to that cap. But Popowits pointed out that such an ordinance could be changed by a future board.
"We know that power can corrupt some people," he said, "and I don't want to give any board of trustees in River Forest that kind of power."
Village Attorney Lance Malina said a big question in the debate is whether voters place more trust in their local leaders or in the legislature in Springfield. He acknowledged that, with a greater range of choices, "I guess there's more room for mischief."
Malina added that certain actions, like changing the village's form of government, would still require a referendum, but switching to home rule means fewer referendums in other areas.
According to Village President John Rigas, one of the biggest reasons for wanting home rule status is to be prepared for what happens in Springfield. He said legislators have talked about taking part of the village's income and sales taxes.
If that happens, implementing other taxes could make up for the lost revenue, and the board might not have to raise property taxes as much.
"We really have no idea," he said of the actions that might come out of Springfield.
But becoming a home rule community would give the village more tools and flexibility to prepare for the future, Rigas said.
The trustees will discuss the proposed tax cap ordinance at a meeting on Aug. 20.
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. | |
| Subscribe | Classifieds |
| Photo store | Contact us |
| Submit Letter To The Editor | |
Latest Comments
Sydney J. Harris, the late columnist for the late Chicago Daily News, used to...
By Dan Haley
Posted: May 21st, 2013 5:37 PM
I asked my 7th grade daughter what she thought about the effort to ban the...
By Brooks Student
Posted: May 21st, 2013 5:29 PM
Why is the village replacing Lake Street from Harlem to Euclid that is rated in...
By dystOPia
Posted: May 21st, 2013 5:08 PM
Bridgett - The board has implied, given an indication, etc. that the highest...
By John Butch Murtagh
Posted: May 21st, 2013 3:54 PM
Green daikon seems to describe it very well. Thanks, Essag.
By David Hammond
Posted: May 21st, 2013 3:18 PM
@Adam, I don't know if accepting grants is a sign of "total...
By Bridgett
Posted: May 21st, 2013 3:09 PM
@JMB, Yes you cited facts that are important in the decision-making process--of...
By Bridgett
Posted: May 21st, 2013 2:57 PM
@dystOPia, If OP is granted X number of dollars, do they need to accept the...
By Bridgett
Posted: May 21st, 2013 2:49 PM
@Violet, The money for parks and the money for streets come from two different...
By Bridgett
Posted: May 21st, 2013 2:46 PM
Robert Zeh from River Forest, Illinois
Facebook Verified
Posted: August 18th, 2012 11:48 AM
Becoming a home rule community would allow River Forest more flexibility to raise taxes. I'd rather the village board didn't have that flexibility, and that the board had to go through a referendum. A future board that makes poor financial decisions can always be voted out --- after the decisions have been made and we are stuck with the bill.
Jim J from RF
Posted: August 13th, 2012 11:01 PM
@Al - how do we take this on, and defeat it. This is sick to me, just as the PD thing was. As I had been told by a very good source - Mr. Rigas backed a very well sourced effort to defeat the PD referendum. Was told at the time - he wanted it to go down so the Home Rule vote would have more appeal - when the time came. Not sure if this is how it happended, but shows the amount of deals that are surely being cut so Home Rule even makes it on the ballot. Do not trust this Home Rule thing
Greg from River Forest
Posted: August 13th, 2012 9:16 AM
@ Robin and all...If Mr. Rigas believes that the people want this there would be no reason to educated them. I think the voters of RF are very well informed and know exactly what this is. This is exactly why a small community like RF has no Home Rule. It protects the citizen from G doing things without a large part of the community behind it. It specifically requires our consent to act. The board must realize it has limits and live within them.
Robin
Posted: August 12th, 2012 9:48 PM
@Greg - did you hear the latest from the meeting the other night. From Mr. Rigas "It's about the people telling us what they want," --really. I have never heard from the people they want Home Rule. Just the opposisite. Lets see, the play book also says - at their upcomming metings to "Educate the Public" they will say -- "we will implement our own set of self-imposed tax restrictions" Sure, I need all this power - to raise more revenue, but I will not take all of it....I Pr
Robin
Posted: August 12th, 2012 9:12 PM
@Dan L., I am surprised in many ways - but guess not - as it was Rigas who nominated you to the a village committee. You fought this issue before, but now it is ok? I do not mind a good debate Dan, but the pure BS about Springfield vs RF is just pure... Further more, if Home Rule is not about local spending more money - than tell us what it is - power to reduce spending?
Greg from River Forest
Posted: August 11th, 2012 1:37 PM
Sorry.."block" not black. 20 people against and 0 for.
Greg from River Forest
Posted: August 11th, 2012 1:36 PM
So lets summarize...19 comments and only 2 positive. The 2 positive are developer and city planner by trade. 17 comments against?? Reminds me very much of PD referendum that lost 82 to 18. The only people who like it are the trustees and their close associates. This is the exact reflection of G bodies truly reflecting small parts of a community instead of a community of the whole. Talking on my black 20 against 0 for.
Unfortunately
Posted: August 11th, 2012 10:50 AM
All one needs to know is that Rigas was the President of the OPRF board when they presented that they needed the referendum to avert fin'l calamity and today they have a $100 million surplus composed of our money. Next? Rigas and the RF board claimed that the Red Light Cameras were solely for "safety," but we all know that it was about money. Home Rule for RF is ALL about raising taxes to pay for more govt. Period. Why do they insult our intelligence?
doc from wooddale6305950798
Posted: August 11th, 2012 9:47 AM
lauber home rule on tax has nothing to do with right wing
George J.
Posted: August 11th, 2012 6:59 AM
Look at Rosemont, look at Melrose Park. The level of spending as reported by the Tribune is out of control. For what? I would like Mr. Rigas to tell us in RF why we need it, and dont repeat the Springfield vs RF line he is using. This was never debated, discussed or given a reason
T.J.
Posted: August 10th, 2012 8:34 PM
Ask the residents of Bridgeview, IL if they regret approving Home Rule. This town could be a great case study of why one should never approve Home Rule.
T.J.
Posted: August 10th, 2012 8:30 PM
Home Rule also allows local gov't to take on major debt if local elected officials desire to do so.
T.J.
Posted: August 10th, 2012 8:27 PM
Only a fool would vote to approve Home Rule. Or somebody who has something to gain courtesy of the tax payer's dollar.
Robin from RF
Posted: August 10th, 2012 8:23 PM
Home Rule is bad idea - just like the Park District referendum was bad idea. At least with the PD idea we knew just how much a vote would cost us. With this -- as others have stated, it is a blank check.
RF Achievement
Posted: August 10th, 2012 7:52 PM
RF Home Rule Montra. Well, we know the track - "do voters trust Springfield or their local leaders" This is stated by no less than their paid cheerleader - the Attorney, who is paid by OUR Taxes. This is someone NOT to be trusted and should aplogize. Dan L, is now picking up the same line - so expect this WILL be used in their literature. Say NO to Home Rule - it is a BLANK Check to spend more of YOUR hard earned money. IT has NOT been proven by anyone as to why it is needed. BOLD False.
Done from Oak Park
Posted: August 10th, 2012 1:04 PM
Bruno and Observer - well said. Don't only look at OP but also at Bridgeview and the shape they are in after instuting Home Rule and then building Toyota Park. Not that RF will build a soccer stadium, but it is those types of projects that add little value but big financial tax burdens on the residents. Do people like Rigas and Pope get an exemption from paying taxes? Are they not concerned about the burden on the residents who will foot the bill for their decisions?
Observer
Posted: August 10th, 2012 12:35 PM
Home Rule not only allows the Village to raise taxes, which in my opinion is a minor point, but it also gives them more freedom in borrowing money. That is where the concern should be. OP is in extremely poor financial shape mostly due to their insatiable desire to borrow money. The Village will be able to borrow with even less taxpayer oversight.
Bruno Behrend from River Forest
Posted: August 10th, 2012 11:46 AM
Home Rule is about raising taxes, and nothing else. The state limits the growth of the levy through PTELL. In this instance, "independence" from Springfield means the ability to increase spending beyond statutory limits. This means tax increases. It means more insider projects for those connected to the board. Given River Forsest's small commercial base, Home Rule means big property tax increases. This is NOT about trusting Rigas over Madigan, it is about increasing debt, spending, and taxes.
Greg from River Forest
Posted: August 10th, 2012 11:34 AM
@Dan so immediately you label a thought and then latter label IL G has bad. Too many labels and no logic. Here is an easy question, if RF becomes home rule and IL G puts pension costs on schools what happens to your taxes? With or without home rule the State will still have a huge impact. There is no way the V can offset the 50% increase expected at the schools. So the question remains; why give any taxing body more taxing authority in this climate? Think whole picture not specific G body.
Z from River Forest
Posted: August 10th, 2012 11:00 AM
With all due respect to RF leaders, why is Home Rule needed? Illinois State elected officials have dysfunctional and corrupt for decades, and River Forest has done just fine over time. I don't think anything is broke, and thus believe that there is no need for any kind of fix.
Z from RF
Posted: August 10th, 2012 10:57 AM
With all due respect to RF leaders, why is Home Rule needed? Illinois State elected officials have dysfunctional and corrupt for decades, and River Forest has done just fine over time. I don't think anything is broke, and thus believe that there is no need for any kind of fix.
Tom from River Forest
Posted: August 10th, 2012 9:15 AM
Mr. Sullivan: The short answer to your question is no. Under the 1970 Constitution, home rule power is expressly limited by the ability of the General Assembly to preempt its exercise with regard to any matter. Z - RF doesn't need home rule power to be an OP-like developer. Home rule is not necessary to create TIF districts.
Z from River Forest
Posted: August 10th, 2012 8:45 AM
I came to RF because it has a simple, lean and basic government; doesn't try to do everything for everyone. Now they want to be Oak Park. I'm sure they want Home Rule so they can play Developer and use taxpayer funds to do deals (I suggest they play SIMS on the computer instead). I'm not for that, and I don't think anyone can say that, over time, RF Trustees will be better than state politicians. NO to Home Rule!
Dan Lauber from River Forest
Posted: August 9th, 2012 5:52 PM
This obsession with taxes under home rule is typical right-wing misdirection. Only 11% of our property tax bill goes to the village. My wife and I have lived in a number of home rule communities and their municipal tax rates are all pretty similar to River Forest's, some higher and some lower. The real question is whether we can trust our local elected officials more than Springfield. The answer seems pretty easy and it doesn't come down on the side of Springfield.
Gary M Sullivan from River Forest
Posted: August 9th, 2012 5:14 PM
I would trust our own elected officials anytime over those in Springfield-Mike Madigan or John Rigas; my vote is for John Rigas. Anyway, if RF did become home rule I wonder if that status would insulate RF from the laws that the Springfield pols would implement. Say they want to raise taxes be they property or sales if RF were home rule would that trump them or would we have to sue or defend ourselves b/c of their actions? Who knows the answer?
Greg from RF
Posted: August 9th, 2012 1:59 PM
Given all that we see from all sets of Gvmt there is just no reason to give trustees more authority to tax. Gvmt must make brutal (not hard) decisions in the near future to put us back on a sensible track. Its not just the village but the schools and the HS. We also need to remember that the HS sits on $75M in cash due to Mr Rigas opinion it was needed. Too often Gvmt says wants are needs...we (voters) should know better.