I’ve long been skeptical of term limits because they seem redundant since voters can just vote out of office those elected officials who have remained in office too long. But when local politics have devolved to the point where there’s nobody courageous enough to run against incumbents and give voters that choice, it’s time to re-evaluate that position and vote “Yes” on April 1 to establish term limits.
One of the most important responsibilities of a village president and village board is to respectively appoint and approve residents to boards and commissions based on merit, not political loyalty. The underlying idea is to appoint residents who will make independent decisions and not be beholden to those who appoint them — at least that’s how it works in villages that practice good government.
But in River Forest, political connections make all the difference with development approvals. The ill-advised and, fortunately, failed Lake & Lathrop development is a classic example of political connections counting more than the substance of the project. Those in power steamrolled it through the approval process despite all its red flags and flaws. I can’t recall another time that I’ve seen town officials repeatedly resurrect a development project that should have been denied in the first place, just to please a town’s top elected official.
In contrast, the equally ill-advised development at 1100-1011 Bonnie Brae by developers without political connections was denied. The contrasting hearings for the two developments offer a crash course in the adverse impacts of political influence.
But despite all the uproar from the public over these developments, poorly handled zoning text amendments, ethical conflict of interest, and a grossly inadequate affordable housing plan, all incumbent village officials on the April 1 ballot are running unopposed. That’s not due to satisfaction with their performance. It’s largely due to the political power amassed over three terms in office, going on four. There’s no shortage of highly qualified River Forest residents to run for office. But I know that some declined to run out of fear of being subjected to the sort of disturbing smear campaign directed against village president candidate Patty Henek in 2021.
The best “good government” village president in our 38 years living here was the only one to serve fewer than 3 terms: John Rigas. President Rigas prudently appointed not just political loyalists, but also political opponents because he based his appointments on merit and qualifications, a practice rarely followed here since he left office. He served to advance responsible nonpartisan government here, not to amass political power.
And that’s why it’s time to vote “Yes” on April 1 to establish term limits for the village president and trustees. Sadly, practices under three- and four-term village presidents have given River Forest a reputation in the development and planning communities that political connections are needed to win development approval in River Forest — something not characteristic of “good government” communities.
A “yes” vote on April 1 can help reverse this reputation and restore nonpartisan good government — and appropriate development — to the village that we call home.
Daniel Lauber and his wife Diana moved to River Forest in 1987. As a professional city planner for 53 years, he has experience working with hundreds of municipalities and counties across the nation.