Candidates Forum 3/29/07

Here is brief overview of my answers from last night:

Eminent Domain: I gave a one word answer of “No.”

Zoning Code: “We don’t need to revise it. We need to completely rewrite the zoning code.” I also discussed that we need to revisit the Comprehensive Plan at the same time to make sure that it still represents our “vision” of the Village. These two issues are too intertwined to separate.

Campaign Finance: I have not taken any money from anyone for this election. In the future, I would not take money from companies that wish to bid or contract with Forest Park because I believe it, at the very least, can be perceived as a conflict of interest.

Making Forest Park Safer: More cops on the street. I also discussed how having more families (vs. single professionals, etc.) brings more people outside during the day, hence more eyes watching the neighborhood (most crime is committed during the day, according to Police Chief Ryan).

Roosevelt Road: I was the only one who brought up an idea that hadn’t been discussed before: a hotel/convention development. This would bring a lot of tax revenue (have you ever read one of those bills) and necessary people to spark additional development of this retail corridor. I also mentioned briefly (I only had 60 seconds) that we would have to be very careful about the type of hotel development because the wrong one could attract clientele that is inconsistent with our goals for that corridor.

Madison Street: I discussed my previous plan regarding combining the two lots at Des Plaines and Madison to create a large enough parcel for a multi-use structure with parking and retail/restaurant. It could be a win/win for everyone.

Landlord Question: Discussed that it is a matter of code enforcement. I believe that we need to make sure our department heads (or someone at Village Hall) can handle simpler requests so that our inspectors have more time to inspect and re-inspect properties that need it.

Proviso: I mentioned that we should look into the possibility that the No Child Left Behind legislation has changed the landscape in regards to being able to pull out of District 209. The rest of my answer was basically the same as the other 9 people up there.

If you would like clarification on any of these, or any other issue, please feel free to post those questions here or email me at Plepel2007@hotmail.com.

CUinFP Candidates Forum

The CUinFP Candidates Forum was last night and there was a great turnout (over 80 people, according to one person). It was great to see so many people take time out of their busy lives to learn about the candidates. If you were one of those people, you should be proud of your civic dedication.

As much as I enjoyed answering questions with the six other candidates (Mark Hosty is out of the country and was unable to attend), I really enjoyed having a chance to meet with many people one on one before and after the event. Since a couple of people asked me for clarification on a couple of my answers after the forum, I thought that it may be appropriate to restate those here, in case anyone else was wondering the same thing, but didn’t have a chance to ask me afterwards.

1) In a question about homes for parking, I made a statement that I didn’t want to speak in absolutes in regard to using eminent domain. That was apparently interpreted to mean that I am considering it. What I was trying to convey is that although there may be some hypothetical situation (I think I said “remote possibility”) that would justify eminent domain, I could not imagine what that would be. To clarify, I am against the use of eminent domain for the purposes of adding a parking lot or structure.
2) There was a question asked of us about involvement in public matters. I failed to express my involvement in the 500 block of Elgin project over the past year. That caused a couple of people to ask me if I was indeed part of that group. The answer, of course, is yes. I was very involved in that opposition. Further, I have been involved with continued talks with the developer (Cherryfield) about a compromise that would allow him to build without destroying the character of our neighborhood.

If any of you were at the forum today and want further clarification on any of my answers, please feel free to mention that here or via email at Plepel2007@hotmail.com. All and all, I think that the forum went well. In two weeks I will have another opportunity to participate in a public forum. I will do my best express my views as clearly as possible.

Were any of you there? What did you think?