.png)
positions / issues
Pandemic and Its Aftermath
The ongoing pandemic has obviously been challenging for all. However, it too will ultimately run its course and the country will eventually return to a very welcomed sense of normalcy.
Until now, all levels of government, including the Village, have had to play a role in combating and responding to the pandemic and its consequential hardships. Indeed, the Village should generally be commended for its overall response to the pandemic and the disruptions caused by it. The level of Village services now provided compared to those services delivered prior to the pandemic is outwardly similar. The Village’s police department and public works department, for example, have seemingly continued to provide the high quality of services that the community has rightfully come to expect. On the other hand, the Village may have fallen short in less noticeable ways. For example, because the Village is the closest and most accessible unit of government to the public, it should have been somewhat more aggressive in developing a well-coordinated outreach program to provide its residents an outlet to voice their concerns about the pandemic and the policies employed to mitigate it and to act as an effective resource for its residents for information, etc.
The Village’s post-pandemic focus is equally important. Future health crises comparable in scope and severity to the current pandemic are likely. At each level of government, including the Village, a formal “lessons learned” assessment should therefore be undertaken. Indeed, the one broad lesson to be learned as a result of the pandemic is that good proactive emergency planning is critical if future public health crises are to be effectively, efficiently and quickly addressed. Any such plan should, for example, recognize the need to rapidly identify those within the general populace who are the most vulnerable and how best the Village can use its local resources, together with other private and public entities, to protect them. The Village should also establish guidelines for ensuring that it continuously maintains a supply of equipment and materials needed to adequately implement its plan in a timely manner. In the end, planning now with others (for example, other localities and the county) is critical to avoid the missteps experienced during the current pandemic.
.png)
Budgeting / Taxes
I would characterize myself as being fiscally responsible and a strong proponent of the notion of zero-based budgeting. Each Village budget should be evaluated on its own merits each year – that is, all approved expenses in the annual budget must be sufficiently justified. Indeed, the Board should never accede to the notion that an ever-increasing tax burden on the Village’s residents is a given or is acceptable. Instead, each annual budget ultimately approved should be a “tight budget.” It should, in other words, strike a clear balance by ensuring that the services and infrastructure provided by the Village are adequately maintained, while the taxes being imposed to support those services are not excessive, but are reasonable.
If elected to serve on the Board, I would therefore be guided by the basic philosophy that during the annual budgeting process, each major budget item should be evaluated based on a three-pronged test: is the item reasonably necessary to ensure that the overall quality of services within the community are maintained; will the item be effective in meeting its intended purpose; and is the level of funds to be allocated for the item reasonable thereby not placing an undue burden on the Village residents. The first prong of the test – “reasonably necessary” – would obviously play a prominent role in the initial assessment of each budget item. For example, if a specific item may otherwise be deemed worthwhile but is not then absolutely vital, its possible funding should be deferred or delayed to a future time. But even then, when the budget item is once again considered, it should be subjected to a full evaluation based on all three prongs of the test. The end result – annual budgets serving the needs of Huntley but not unduly burdening the Village’s taxpayers now and in the future.
Infrastructure Priorities
An overall priority of the Village is to reasonably maintain in good repair on an ongoing basis its existing infrastructure (streets, buildings, water and sewerage systems, etc.). To allow any element of the Village’s infrastructure to fall in disrepair would only prove to be more costly to its residents over the long term.
With that said, I deem two infrastructure projects within the Village to be of the highest priority, while a third to be of a lesser degree. The two “highest priority” projects are the realignment of Kreutzer Road and the reconstruction of the Route 47 railroad crossing at Main Street. The third undertaking would be a restoration of the Route 47 roadway from north of I-90 to Main Street, together with the upgrading and installation of additional pedestrian and bicycle pathways and facilities along that segment of the highway. The sources of funding and the amount provided by each source will vary for each of these projects. Funding for the reconstruction of the railroad crossing, for example, would typically come from various sources – here, the State, the railroad, and the Village. However, because Route 47 is a state highway, IDOT would pay the majority of the costs. The other projects -- the Kreutzer Road and Route 47 restoration projects – would similarly be financed through a combination of sources, including the Village and the State, subject to the nature and location of the improvements to be made.
Community Growth
I am a strong proponent of attracting new businesses to Huntley and expanding its residential base, provided it is focused and managed well. We need to determine at the outset what type of growth best benefits Huntley, where best to encourage it, what would be its inevitable consequences, and how best to address those consequences. Advanced, organized planning is therefore essential to ensure that the growth is positive and helps us to become an even more vibrant community.
With that said, we always need to be mindful of the potential implications of growth beyond its obvious benefits – expansion of the tax base, more varied shopping available to Huntley’s residents, jobs, and a greater sense of community. Growth also requires sufficient infrastructure to support it. Quick and sizable growth, for example, will inevitably result in more traffic congestion on our roadways, place additional stress on our water, sewerage and park/recreational systems, and heighten the potential for harm to our environment. Growth and our infrastructure should therefore always remain in balance and planned accordingly. Planned growth, in other words, requires a concomitant expansion and improvement of our infrastructure to avoid a future of undue and costly burdens on our residents.
Walker / Biker Safety
While the Village has undertaken some measures to make the community more walker/cyclist friendly, I believe that the Village should place an even greater emphasis on achieving that goal through a well-defined safety program. Such a program should largely consist of two components: (a) a greater dissemination of safety information to the general public and (b) the improvement of existing paths and roadways and the construction of new walker/biker-related facilities to better separate walkers and bicyclists from vehicular traffic and to otherwise better protect them from injury. In the end, by actively embracing and maintaining a friendly community-wide environment for walkers and cyclists, the Village not only boosts the notion that the Village is a good place to live but also solidifies it.
Sale of Recreational Marijuana
In January 2020, the Village Board voted to prohibit the sale of recreational marijuana within the community. I fully agreed with that action based on three factors. First, the then prevailing evidence seemed to strongly demonstrate that the sale of recreational marijuana within a community could very likely result in (a) an outcome whereby the health and safety of a community’s residents could be adversely affected and (b) an increase in criminal activity within a community, thereby placing an additional burden on its police department. Second, if an adult resident in Huntley did opt to use marijuana for recreational purposes, that person was plainly able to purchase the product at outlets in fairly close proximity to Huntley. The Huntley prohibition, in other words, did not, nor does it presently, foreclose the potential of users legally purchasing the product elsewhere. Finally, the sale of recreational marijuana in Huntley would seem to run counter to our community’s well-established family values that Huntley has promoted over time.
With that said, my opposition to the sale of recreational marijuana in Huntley is not forever etched in stone. I would be amenable to revisiting the sale issue if more recent evidence clearly and convincingly reveals that my health, safety and criminal activity concerns have proven to be misplaced. However, my concern that such sales would undercut the family values of our community would still play a prominent role in my rethinking of this issue. Indeed, in regard to my value concern, your input, as residents of Huntley, would be invaluable.
Term Limits
I am strongly opposed to any level of government unilaterally imposing term limits thereby artificially restricting the length of time any incumbent may serve in an elected position. Instead, that responsibility should rightfully fall on the electorate. The voters, in other words, should always retain the right to judge whether or not a particular candidate is worthy of being elected to a position that he or she seeks to hold. No artificial barrier should be established to restrict or otherwise deprive voters of that fundamental right.
With that said, I also firmly believe that an incumbent equally bears a responsibility to the electorate to personally evaluate the value of his or her continued service in a public office that he or she has held for many years. No elected official should ever deem an office to be his or her own personal “fiefdom” or deem himself or herself irreplaceable or indispensable. Incumbents should instead recognize that his or her ongoing service of many years in a single position may not, on balance, serve the best interests of a community. But why? Let me explain.
Incumbents obviously have a huge advantage in elections because of their heightened name recognition and their enhanced ability to attract greater financial support. These advantages, in turn, allow a long-serving incumbent to become even further entrenched in a public office, thereby effectively discouraging potential challengers from running. The election of new people is therefore effectively thwarted, and their likely input of new ideas and perspectives is lost. The end result is that the community as a whole suffers.
I recognize and acknowledge these potentially harmful effects of being a multi-term incumbent. I therefore pledge that if elected, I will serve no more than two 4-year terms as a Huntley trustee. I do not ever want to be perceived as one who precluded others from providing new ideas and perspectives on the Board.
