Although River Forest officials said they believe they are doing a good job of communicating with residents, a presentation on key findings from the village’s neighborhood dialogues program given at the Jan. 13 Village Board meeting indicates they need to do more.
As Rick Jasculca, who led the program said, “There’s a difference between communication and engagement,” especially when it applies to economic development.
Jasculca, owner of Chicago-based JT Strategic Communications, a public affairs firm, who has lived in the village for 50 years, and James Chase, vice president at JT Strategic Communications, facilitated seven neighbor dialogue sessions that each were attended by between five and 15 residents between September and November. Six of the sessions were held in residents’ homes and the seventh in the Community Center. Five were held in the south end of the village, the original target area for the program, with the others each held in mid-village and the north end.
“Right or wrong, true or not, one universal view consistently expressed at all of the dialogues is that the village has a flawed process for selecting future development concepts and developers,” Jasculca said in a memo to Matt Walsh, village administrator, and Jessica Spencer, assistant village administrator, who also attended the sessions. “And when we suggested at one dialogue that you ‘can’t completely democratize the selection of projects and developers’ because of all the complex factors that determine viability, there still was an overwhelming sense that residents must be given a significantly greater opportunity to view concepts and developer proposals much earlier in advance of public hearings and trustee voting.”
In response to a question from Trustee Bob O’Connell regarding the village’s development process and comprehensive plan, Walsh said it did not appear at the beginning of each session that attendees understood either and that he and Spencer attempted to explain.
Walsh also endorsed a suggestion from Trustee Lisa Gillis that officials make it easier for residents who are interested to understand the comprehensive plan.
“It’s clear that residents don’t understand,” village President Cathy Adduci said. “Up front, we need more engagement with residents.”
“Residents emphasized that they are not anti-development,” Jasculca said Jan. 13. “They want to have an informed and productive role in partnership with village leaders.
“They generally acknowledged that the village is operating under constraints of market conditions and must respond to developers’ needs but residents just want a better understanding of those issues.”
Jasculca said “virtually everyone” talked about public safety, mostly about traffic, speeding and parking, especially those living near Madison Street, Lake Street and Washington Boulevard.
Regarding the vacant property at Madison and Ashland Avenue, Jasculca said in the memo that attendees indicated a desire to see something that residents can use such as a restaurant or indoor recreation center. There also was “widespread and consistent opposition” to any sort of high-rise buildings.
Regarding the stalled development project at Lake and Lathrop Avenue, he said it is “very clear” that many residents have a “trust issue” because of what happened.
“We heard very few people express displeasure about the development concept at Lake and Lathrop,” he said. “But pretty much everyone who weighed in on Lake and Lathrop pointed to what they believe was a flawed process for selecting a developer.”
Walsh said notes from each individual dialogue would be published on the village website this week, although all comments will be anonymous according to an agreement with attendees to foster more open conversation.