Freeport is Locally Regulated...And it Shows

Freeport citizens are being told how important home rule is because it allows for "local decisions by local people."  With home rule the Freeport City Council has great latitude to, purportedly, solve uniquely local problems.  But how does it work in real life?

In the following instances local regulation appears to be failing miserably.  But don't expect any city council members to acknowledge a problem, they prefer to pretend this blog doesn't exist and that I'm just a lone wolf, one of the ways local leaders seek to marginalize any voice of dissent, much less attempt a public refutation thereby enlightening their constituencies. 

Home rule, in reality, means that the Freeport City Council answers to no one at no time.

Anyway,  this past May, I posted on this blog about the lack of consideration for pedestrians when the new parking lot was constructed at the northeast corner of  Stephenson Street and Walnut Avenue.  A "curb cut",  an entrance for cars to cross the sidewalk, was made on the well used pedestrian route of  Stephenson Street.  Here is a picture of this curb cut.    

One of the motivations behind the new Chicago Avenue "streetscape" was pedestrian safety and accessibility, both very worthy community goals.  However, if anything goes when it comes to curb cuts for cars, those goals are already lost.

And what about curb cuts in residential areas?  Are there any zoning or other mechanisms by which these are regulated?  Maybe that doesn't sound too important to you at this point, perhaps it would matter more if your neighbor decided to make a curb cut and concrete much of their front lawn while a creating a parking spot a mere feet from your home.

Take what has happened in the 1200 block of Lincoln Boulevard for instance.  A homeowner there decided that they wanted a curb cut in the front of their house, never mind the fact there has never been a curb cut on on the south side of the 1200 block of Lincoln Boulevard and the curb cut was not created for access to a garage.  The residents of this block all have alley access for their garages.

So, evidently, you can create your own curb cut, as this homeowner has obviously done.  Here is a picture.

So City of Freeport officials, this is acceptable under current Freeport zoning and building permit ordinances?  Can someone concrete their entire front lawn and create head in parking for half a dozen vehicles? 

What about the lost parking places?  Doesn't this mean that property owners, in a de facto sense, own the street parking in front of their property.  If I can turn the street side of my house into one long curb cut, denying my neighbors use of street parking, how can it be said that I don't "own" the street?

Disclaimer, I do not personally know the homeowner in question.  However, this is definitely an issue the city council needs to take up before one of their neighbors, or yours, does something similar.

As always, yours in honesty, John Samuel Cook, 2022

tutty.baker@gmail.Com

Ethics and Business Conduct in Winnebago County

My schedule doesn't allow me to watch much television but I do manage to see a morning news show or two from Rockford broadcasters.

Recently I've noticed a political advertisement airing for Republican Esther Joy King featuring Winnebago County Sheriff, Gary Caruana,  pitching for his fellow Republican candidate in full uniform and standing in front of a county owned police vehicle.

Here is a screen grab from the commercial in question.

The Illinois Constitution of 1970 purportedly guarantees "Free and Equal" elections so units of local government in our state generally have ethics ordinances or policies against using taxpayer supported assets for purely political purposes.  Sheriff Caruana's behavior illustrates that these policies are often little more than window dressing, such is the obvious case in Winnebago County.

Winnebago County has an "Ethics and Business Conduct Policy" that is suppose to be reviewed by employees and officers and they are to "certify that they will not engage in conduct or activity that may raise questions as to the organization's honesty, impartiality or reputation or otherwise cause embarrassment for all employees of Winnebago County."

Apparently Sheriff Caruana did not read the policy very carefully in his annual certification as the Ethics and Business Conduct Policy purportedly prohibits county property from being used for political purposes.  Following is the actual language of the policy.

So I'm curious as to what "Strictly Prohibited" means to Winnebago County officials and while their Ethics and Business Conduct Policy reads well, it ends up that it has no teeth.  The Sheriff  knows he can't be punished so he just moves forward, scoffing at any public concern. 

So what good is the policy Winnebago County Board?

I did send an email to Winnebago County States Attorney J. Hanly this morning asking it to be viewed as a formal complaint,  I will file a certified complaint if need be.  Taxpayer supported property should never be showing up in political commercials or being used for clearly political purposes. 

As always, yours in honesty, John Samuel Cook, 2022
tutty.baker@gmail.com

Using Home Rule to Keep the Poor Poor

In the early aught years the City of Freeport was considering ways to pay for storm sewer repairs.  The city council authorized a study to determine an equitable way to divvy up the cost of the public infrastructure.

Here is an excerpt of city council meeting minutes from 2003 discussing this study:

Purportedly the study was done in order to "determine a fair and just method" to pay for the work.

What happened to this study?  It was basically thrown out as a "fair and just method" was of no interest to the Freeport City Council.  This would be way too much like property taxes wherein those with the most would pay the most.  But why worry about equity when you're home rule and can basically create any tax on a whim of the city council?

As far as I can tell, please correct me if I'm wrong, 2003 was the last time the Freeport Council held a public discussion on distributing the cost of public infrastructure equitably.  Despite adding more and more blanket fees to our water bills, equity among ratepayers has never been a priority with any city council of the past nineteen years.  Again, if there is something in city council meeting minutes to prove me wrong, please point it out, I enjoy being wrong if public enlightenment is the end result.

So what started out as a $2.00 "storm water fee" in the early part of this century we now have blanket fees totaling $43 on every residential water meter regardless of of any other factor, other than water and sewer service.  No consideration is given for parcel size, impermeable areas or other important factors.  If you pay for water water service (not even own a car or property) you must pay these fees to keep this most important public utility hooked up.

In my personal situation, like many other Freeporters, I have an undersized lot, it's only 68 feet by 68 feet.  I have a one stall garage and I share a driveway.  Why Freeport City Council should I pay the same in these fees as people whose garages won't even fit on my little lot?  Clearly it requires more water and sewer service infrastructure, road infrastructure; as well as the larger the lot and building the more storm water run off produced.  Equitable?  Anyone?

Had these fees been placed on property taxes over the past two decades I would of paid far, far less, this a provable fact.  As a matter of fact if property taxes were used instead of this $43 per water meter the vast majority of Freeport homeowners would pay much less than the $516 annually these fees generate per residential water meter.  Also, property taxes on a home address are deductible from federal income tax if you itemize and Illinois property tax payers always get an income tax credit.  The fees we're paying in the present are gone forever with no future tax credits.  If I'm telling fibs the city manager, mayor or any city council member should be able to easily prove me wrong with a few simple mathematical calculations. 

Also, the smaller the parcels the less infrastructure and maintenance required.  In Feeport's older, established neighborhoods the lots and houses are more compact, meaning less infrastructure and maintenance is needed per water meter.  If an overlay map was done showing where the majority of the money from these fees originates, I'm guessing it would show these fees are basically borne by Freeport's poorest families,  as that's where water meters are more concentrated.  Again, if I'm wrong, do the overlay map and prove it.  Nothing should be as transparent as to how our public utilities are being financed and exactly who among us is financing them.

And then we have the single mother I know that rents half a duplex where each unit has it's own water meter.  As a waitress she struggles to make ends meet,  yet she pays the same fees as someone that lives in a mansion on more than an acre out on Barberry Circle.  Will Mayor Miller or someone on the Freeport City Council look my friend in the eye and tell her how equitable the City's tax structure is with home rule?

Another issue with above, the City is collecting double fees from one parcel, with only one parcel worth of infrastructure requirements, from two separate renters of this duplex.  Again, people that are using far less benefits of infrastructure and maintenance are paying beyond their fair share.  It's simply the law of physics.

And why, pray tell,  should temporary tenants be forced to pay for the long term infrastructure needs?  Doesn't this only serve to benefit the property owner, i.e. landlord?  Poor people are getting their water shut off and having to pay big fees to get it turned back on not because they can't afford the water bill but they can't afford to pay off all the home rule bonds tied to these fees.  Pathetic leadership in my opinion.

This is one of the largest reasons home home rule needs to go.  There has been absolutely no effort made by former or current mayors, city managers or city council members to wield the home rule power equitably among citizens.

They brag about using home rule to keep property taxes low, yet they never say who are the beneficiaries of this policy.  Clearly it is Freeport's wealthy elite, the landlords and campaign contributors because it sure as hell is not the residents of Freeport.

As always, yours in honesty, John Samuel Cook 2022

Will grant all the  space needed for any rebuttals.  tutty.baker@gmail.com