In recent weeks, River Forest village staff, trustees, and president have responded to resident concerns about the proposed Madison/Ashland development in letters to the editor in Wednesday Journal, emails to residents, and updates to FAQs on the village website. Yet the most fundamental questions from residents remain unanswered.
First, the village has not explained why the selection of the developer was conducted privately, with two of the six trustees not present. Why were deliberations of the developers’ proposals held in Executive Session, with no opportunity for public input and no public record of the discussions? River Forest residents deserve to understand what each developer proposed and the rationale for the selection or rejection of each of those proposals.
Second, the village has not provided meaningful details regarding its due diligence analysis of the developer. The village appears to be relying on the work of JLL and Ryan LLC. While hiring experts is appropriate, why can’t the details of the analysis be shared with residents? Even with NDAs, certain discrete information could be redacted and summarized for residents. What risks associated with the developer did JLL and Ryan LLC identify? No credible analysis would conclude that a developer or a project is without risk.
Third, we still have no explanation as to why the EDC was not involved in the review of the developers’ proposals.
Fourth, what is the village’s position on lawsuits associated with the developer finalist? Shouldn’t the village respond and explain if and why it did not consider lawsuits problematic and disqualifying?
Finally, and most importantly, when will the village have an actual dialogue with its residents? A dialogue is a back-and-forth conversation, not a one-way communication. Public comments are one-directional, without providing a meaningful exchange with residents. Updating FAQs is not a substitute for dialogue either and is yet another one-directional communication.
The development of Madison and Ashland is complex and requires a dialogue with residents. The first dialogue should not occur at the DRB hearing stage, which is much too late in the process.
Lucia Giudice
River Forest