Meet your Candidates: Adam Salzman, Oak Park Village Trustee

Adam Salzman, 32, is vying to win his first seat on the Oak Park Board of Trustees, six trustees and the village president responsible for shaping the village’s public and fiscal policies. This is his first run for political office.

Members of the board of trustees serve four-year terms. This year, three seats are up for election. Salzman is running with and as part of the slate of the Citizens for Accountable Leadership Party, a group backed by the Village Manager Association, Oak Park’s principal candidate slating organization.

and Lewis Carmichael are running as independents.

An attorney in private practice, Salzman has been on Oak Park’s Universal Access Commission since 2008 and has served more than two years of a three-year term as chairman.  A resident of Oak Park since June, 2008, he is married with two daughters.

Patch: What is your vision for Oak Park?

Adam Salzman: I am seeking the office of Village Trustee because I believe strongly that young families, on whom the future of our Village depends, need a representative voice in Village governance. Naturally, if elected, I will be a responsive and dedicated representative of all generations of Oak Parkers. However, there are several key issues pertaining to young families that deserve special emphasis in this election.

Chief among these issues are transparency, responsible fiscal stewardship, and a commercial development policy that is smart, fair, and sustainable. I am proud to say that my slate, Citizens for Accountable Leadership, has made these issues a key part of its platform, and I am proud to be running on that slate alongside two accomplished public servants-- Ray Johnson and Bob Tucker.

Patch: What would you accomplish during your first two years on the board?  Please be specific.

Adam Salzman: During my first two years on the Board, I hope to empanel a new Commission dealing specifically with the issue of Civic Information Technology. I would like that Commission to lead a wholesale review of the Village's online presence, its website and the extent to which certain key services have been digitized. The end goal, which certainly can be achieved within two years, is the complete revamping of the Village website to make it more user-friendly and an engine for more efficient provision of Village services and increased transparency of Village operations.

The other key priority during my first two years will be the initiation of serious and productive efforts between the taxing bodies (village, township, district 97, district 200, park district and library) about specific services, such as purchasing and payroll, that can be shared in order to reduce expenses and ease the property tax burden on Village residents. 

One of the board’s priorities has been transparency in village government and trustees often say that the village is open and transparent. In the wake of the Attorney General’s ruling that the VOP violated the Open Meetings Act, how can Oak Park live up to that priority? Please be specific.

I think we need to take the Attorney General's findings seriously. I believe very strongly that the Village needs to err on the side of overdisclosure rather than underdisclosure. We need to have clear criteria for when executive session is necessary. I would propose that the Board only meet in executive session when (a) the Board is receiving legal advice from the Village Attorney or, (b) the Board is working through the parameters of a contract with one of the 11 Village unions. 

Give specifics on how the village can be more financially effective and efficient. How would you ensure that the village is spending its money wisely?

 I believe that the key to increased efficiency when it comes to the Village Budget is intergovernmental cooperation. As noted above, Ray, Bob and I are pledged to immediately begin discussions with the other Oak Park taxing bodies to discuss the sharing of key services and functions as a way to reduce redundant expenses.

We are also committed to smart, fair and sustainable development, targeted to produce sales tax revenue that can ease the pressure to raise property taxes. Finally, we are committed to year-long scrutiny of the budget to ensure that no unnecessary and/or dubious expenditures escape Board knowledge

There are several areas in Oak Park that are ripe for development: the former Colt Building site, on Lake Street just east of Harlem Avenue; and Oak Park Avenue and Madison Street; Lake Street and Forest Avenue could soon follow. And there are other sites, too, that aren’t being developed, like the former Volvo site on Madison. What’s holding back the development?

What should Oak Park be doing to attract and retain business? Is it being aggressive enough? Be specific. 

I think both of these questions can be answered in a single answer, since, with respect to both the recruitment and retention of business, I believe there are three concrete improvements that need to be made: 

(1) Beef up our Business Development Department at Village Hall. The Business Development Department at Village Hall currently consists of one woman, Loretta Daley. She does a great job, but there is only so much one woman can do. She needs additional support.

If we cannot add more staff to the payroll (a significant likelihood), then we need to create a Citizen Business Development Commission, consisting of local business owners and civic leaders, in order to support Loretta Daley and act as liaisons between the local business community and Village Hall.

The Business Development Commission should track the concerns of local small business owners and strive to improve communication with Village Hall, efficiency in the permitting process, and incentives for local businesses to commit to Oak Park as their long-term home. 

(2) Increase Civility in Code Enforcement. Ray Johnson, Bob Tucker, and myself have met with small business owners and absorbed a lot of feedback regarding the quality of communication between Village Staff charged with enforcing Village Ordinances (like Building and Property Standards, and the Public Health Department).

A number of business owners reported that staff had been insensitive to the costs attached to compliance with certain Village codes. Incidents of rudeness have also been reported. This is inexcusable. A new tone of civility and cooperation needs to be struck between business owners in Oak Park and Village Staff responsible for Code Enforcement.

(3) Create a Hospitable Infrastructure for Small Business. There are remarkable small businesses in many parts of the Village beyond Lake Street. As you note in your question, Harrison Street is one example. A number of restaurants, cafes and galleries are fantastic places to frequent for residents and businesses alike. However, parking on Harrison Street is scarce. So is the lighting after dark. Basic infrastructural problems like these discourage patrons from coming to this part of town. The Village Board needs to be cognizant of these issues and fix them. These kinds of solutions are key to the recruitment and retention of small business in our Village. 

How would you vote on the Comcast project and what would be your reasons for your vote?

I have tried to approach the proposed project on the Comcast site by putting myself in the shoes of the nearby residents. On the southwest corner of my own block, there is a vacant apartment building, and I have considered how I would feel if someone proposed putting 51 units of additional housing there in place of the existing structure. And frankly, I would be very concerned. So I understand where the opponents of the project are coming from.

I have also met with members of the Plan Commission- one member who voted in favor of the project and one member who voted against it. We had a long and involved discussion. I was gratified to see that the Plan Commission’s approval of the project carried with it 19 conditions.

Two additional concerns of mine — the need for 24-hour onsite management, and the need for additional parking, were included in the 19 conditions attached. So far as I can tell at this stage, there are no conditions that address the problem of density. So my remaining concern is with respect to density–can the area absorb 51 additional units of housing?

When considering the proposal at the board level,  that is the question that I want to see answered. In order for me to vote in favor of the project, that question will have to be answered satisfactorily.