Third Ward Alderman Ray Rogina’s call on Thursday to require at least seven days’ notice on votes on controversial developments met with mixed reviews from his opponents in the St. Charles mayoral race.
While all three of his political opponents indicated that they believe the public should have opportunities to sound off on what the City Council is considering, not all three agreed that Rogina’s plan would be effective.
Rogina’s call for the advance notice on votes on controversial developments came 10 days after the City Council’s surprise vote to push through final approval of the Lexington Club, less than a month after aldermen had rejected the tax-increment financing district for the project during a Dec. 10 committee meeting. Rogina said the Lexington Club was put on the Jan. 7 council agenda just days before the meeting, leaving opponents of the project little time for an eleventh-hour lobbying effort.
Candidate Jake Wyatt, in an email response to St. Charles Patch, wrote that he agreed with Rogina’s idea and his comments on the issue as reported in St. Charles Patch on Thursday.
“The Lexington TIF vote has left a bitter feeling with our voters that our city aldermen (five) and mayor failed to listen to the citizens,” Wyatt wrote. “I'm on record as stating the citizen must be heard on all issues to be voted and when need be, to put it to a referendum.
“As a minimum with a tied vote by the council concerning the Lexington TIF, it should have been tabled for further review/discussion and then brought back to the council at a later session with citizens given the opportunity to express concerns. Yes, it may have been a delay in effort only, but at least the citizen would have been given a chance to express their position with their respective aldermen.”
Candidate Jotham Stein also supported Rogina’s idea, although he doubted it would have mattered had it been in place before the Lexington Club vote. Further, Stein said there are “big picture” issues the city has yet to address that were apparent with the Lexington Club project.
“Mr. Rogina's call for a seven-day waiting period prior to any City Council vote on a significant building development project is a good one, which I support,” Stein wrote to St. Charles Patch. “However, as a practical matter, Mr. Rogina's suggestion would have done nothing to change the City Council's vote on Lexington, nor would it have done anything to stop the two alderman who changed their vote on the residential TIF.
“At least seven days passed from the time those alderman initially voted ‘no’ on the TIF to the time they switched their vote and voted ‘yes.’ ”
“Mr. Rogina's suggestion also misses the bigger picture,” Stein continued. “The bigger picture is first, that the city did a poor job negotiating the deal with the Lexington developer, and second, that city staff spent much too much time pushing the residential development, and not enough time recruiting businesses, and the tax dollars and jobs they bring to our city.”
Stein wrote that if he is elected mayor, he intends to “fix both of these ‘big picture’ issues,” citing his two decades of experience giving legal and business advice to companies and their managers. “I have negotiated business transactions of all types and sizes, from less than a $100,000 to more than !00 million, and I have written a book on business and employment negotiation — you can get it on Amazon.com,” he wrote. “As mayor, I will ensure that every deal we negotiate for our city is the best deal we can achieve for our city and its citizens. And as mayor, I will use my experience to actively recruit new business investment to St. Charles, nurture start-up businesses, and help struggling St. Charles businesses.”
Stein was critical of the Lexington project, saying the city “did a poor job negotiating with a sophisticated business (the developer), and thus, the city negotiated a bad deal. The result is the developer is laughing all the way to the bank, while St. Charles residents must live with a project that is needlessly dense and with a residential TIF that will ultimately increase all our taxes.”
Stein said the city could have negotiated a deal that was both good for the developer and recognized residents’ needs. “I am for reasonable development, and as mayor, I will ensure that the city negotiates the best deals with anyone who negotiates with the city.”
Stein also criticized the city for spending too much time and money pushing residential megaprojects and not enough on business recruitment. “A vibrant business environment means more companies paying more taxes that we residents do not have to pay,” he said. “A vibrant business environment also means increased property values. If our property values were higher, there never would have been talk of a TIF in the first place — the Lexington developer would have cleaned up his property and dug dirt on his own because he would make money doing so.
“As mayor, I will focus on actively recruiting businesses to our city so that St. Charles has a vibrant business environment that will benefit all of us,” Stein wrote.
John Rabchuk, who earlier professed support for the Lexington Club proposal and in fact suggested five days beforehand that the City Council reconsider its vote on the project, questioned the need for the policy suggested by Rogina.
“Encouraging and listening to residents should be a primary object of everyone in city government,” Rabchuk wrote in an email to St. Charles Patch. “I'm not sure that special rules need to be established for ‘controversial’ developments however, as there will be people opposed to and in favor of proposed development.
“The city should always make every attempt to provide adequate public notification for every potential vote so that all residents can participate in the discussion and deliberations,” he added.
Rabchuk also faulted some of Rogina’s remarks.
“Mr. Rogina's statement relative to the recent council vote concerning the Lexington development omits some significant and relevant points, however,” he wrote. “It would seem that over the four-plus years that this development has been debated, ample time was provided for public comment by both proponents and opponents. In fact, many of the most outspoken critics of this development were in attendance at the council meeting the very night that the aforementioned vote was taken, so it would appear that the amount of public notice provided to them would seem to have been adequate for them to attend the meeting.
“Further, the mayor made a direct request for public comment, waited for a response from those in attendance and none was forth coming,” he wrote.
Rabchuk noted that while Lexington Club had critics, there also were supporters who were just as frustrated by City Council debate during the four-year process that ultimately led to its approval.
“In this particular situation, it would be conjecture to suggest that the additional three days of notice that Mr. Rogina calls for in his announcement would have provided any new points of view or new facts that had not already been considered by the council,” he wrote. “At some point, the council must decide that they have heard all of the relevant comments concerning any development and then make a decision.”
- Jan. 17, 2012: Rogina: Lengthen Comment Periods for Controversial Developments
Editor’s note: This story was updated at 2:54 p.m. to restore additional remarks from candidate Jotham Stein. Some of the original text was inadvertantly deleted when the story was first posted.
Let Patch save you time. Have local stories delivered directly to your inbox with our free newsletter. Fast signup here.