”No” Votes On City Council

February 18th, 2025

Fiesta Days permits were placed on the consent agenda and grouped as a five-part approval. This five-part approval included: approval of events schedule, approval of fireworks display, approval of temporary advertising signs, discounted police/parks/public works services, and approval of a special event liquor license. I pulled this item from the consent agenda to discuss the special events liquor license.

A concern I repeatedly hear from residents is that there are too many community events centered around drinking. I stated that I was fine allowing alcohol for two or three of the five days. My concern was allowing alcohol consumption from 11:00AM to 10:15PM on the free family day on Sunday, July 13th. I also objected to serving hard liquor in a VIP area on Friday, July 11th and Saturday, July 12th because community events should not have different tiers of access based on the ability to pay for preferential treatment.

No one is suggesting Fiesta Days be a dry event but we do need to listen to the residents who are concerned that community events need to be more family-friendly. Because the special events liquor license was included as a five-part vote, I voted “no.” Despite the attempt to manipulate this vote as a vote against continuing Fiesta Days, that is not accurate. Fiesta Days is an important part of McHenry’s history for 77 years and no one is trying to end it. If there was additional support for limiting the liquor license, the Chamber of Commerce could have brought back this vote with an amended liquor license request.

Our duty as members of Council is to bring the concerns of our residents to these meetings. It’s unfortunate that rather than addressing these concerns, this is being wrongly portrayed as trying to end Fiesta Days, but, that’s politics for you.

January 21st, 2025

To address Downtown parking availability issues and congestion, City Council voted on whether or not to contract a third-party consultant to perform a Downtown parking study. This $58,500 study includes a parking inventory, a property inventory, four separate parked car counts, and assessment. This would be followed by a Downtown parking strategy report and presentation. The parked car count entails hourly counts of occupied spaces one Friday or Saturday evening in the winter, spring, and summer from 5:00PM to 9:00PM, and one Friday in the summer from 9:00AM to 9:00PM. One count date will coincide with a performance night at The Vixen. Per staff, this study will take approximately one year to complete.

During this meeting, I recommended the City instead use AI programs to optimize the parking rather than contract a third-party consultant (read more about that HERE and HERE). The visual model I presented was simply a stock image example from the internet to show the layout of how parking spaces should be organized for optimization (aisles and rows parallel), not an actual AI-generated plan for the specific site. This would be lower cost, as well as produce tangible results in a shorter time. I was the lone “no” vote. The “yes” votes prevailed. I believe this study is not for the purpose of actually improving the parking situation but will, instead, be used to justify the “solution” of bringing in the next corporate landlord, similar to Shodeen, to develop the Downtown parking lots into a series of mixed-use buildings with apartment rentals on the top floors and a parking garage on the bottom floor that, ultimately, will not actually address the parking availability and congestion issues, but, rather, exacerbate it. Similar to Shodeen.

July 15th, 2024

At a special Committee Of The Whole meeting prior to the regular City Council meeting, Shodeen presented a two-part development proposal for the Green Street and Elm Street area and the former wastewater treatment plant site. This two-part development proposal was for a total of eight apartment rental buildings consisting of 799 apartment rental units, as well as a 130-room hotel. Shodeen was requesting a $2,000,000 giveaway of taxpayer’s money, a $55,000,000 TIF, and a multi-million dollar giveaway of taxpayer purchased land.

City Council received the packet, along with blueprints of both sites, on Wednesday, July 10th. In response, I submitted 23 multi-part questions to staff to seek clarification regarding the possibility that the City was prepared to give away multi-million dollars of taxpayer purchased land to a corporate landlord for free. The answer to these questions can be obtained through a FOIA request via the link HERE with the request portion stating: “July 12th, 2024 email sent to Council at 3:39PM with the subject line ‘RE: Staff Response to Development Questions.’ Please include PDF attachment titled “Bassi Response - Shodeen Concept Plans”

This was the first time City Council was told about this multi-million dollar giveaway of taxpayer purchased land. It is, however, not realistic to state that this development proposal was the first time the Mayor and his administration were told about this multi-million dollar giveaway of taxpayer purchased land though because as audacious as Shodeen is with their asks, no developer would ever include that in a development proposal presented to the public without approval of the Mayor.

Because the quickest way to get information to the public is through the press, I wrote an opinion piece for the Northwest Herald that was published a few hours before the Shodeen presentation to inform the public about the details of the proposal and to whistleblow about the closed meeting talks to use eminent domain against local businesses at the behest of Shodeen (read more about those closed meetings HERE). Along with other Council members, I voiced opposition and Shodeen requested cancellation of the standstill agreement soon after.

This was a particularly memorable meeting because the Mayor closed the meeting with a lengthy tirade stating “she seems like she’s nice but she was actually one of the supporters of eminent domain.” Further adding “I don’t care what people think of me but all I will note, all I do wanna say is, I will tell the truth. Don’t sit up here and write all this bogus stuff that’s absolutely not true. You supported it and that’s ridiculous. D’s Marine, you supported that, as well, as far as, having a discussion with the property owner to have me and our City attorney deal with that, ok.  So if you’re going to sit here and showboat at a City Council meeting, provide facts, not false information.”

At the next City Council meeting on August 5th, 2024, the Mayor closed the meeting stating “I would like tonight’s meeting minutes to reflect that I erred in a statement on 7/15 when I stated Alderwoman Bassi supported eminent domain in relation to the Green Pea Pod. My notes were inaccurate and in reviewing the meeting recording references personally of this topic I confirmed she, in fact, did not, so I apologize to Alderwoman Chris Bassi for the wrongful statement.”  The Mayor did not address the D’s Marine portion of his tirade, but, he “erred” on that, as well.

July 1st, 2024

Citing an increase in the price of treatment chemicals, City Council voted on whether or not to increase residents water and sewer tax rate. Sometimes tax increases are necessary when outside prices increase and this was a legitimate reason to increase taxes. However, the City should first look into ways to cut internal spending before passing on a greater tax burden to residents (read more about that HERE). Along with one other Council member, I voted “no.” The “yes” votes prevailed and that is why your water and sewer tax increased by 4.98% above the current rate.

June 17th, 2024

While not a proper vote, a discussion item was presented to City Council on June 17th, 2024 to gauge support for Shodeen’s development for 1111 Green Street. This proposal was for a six-story building with the top four floors consisting of 88 apartment rentals units and the bottom two floors with 157 parking spaces and 3200-3500 square feet of restaurant space. At this meeting, I gave a corkboard presentation illustrating three different parking ratio scenarios, all of which resulted in insufficient and/or less Downtown public parking. At this meeting, Shodeen also requested a $6,000,000 TIF and a $2,000,000 giveaway of taxpayer’s money which the City proposed could be partially paid for with a Citywide Food & Beverage Tax at bars and restaurants.

Along with the majority of Council members, I voiced opposition and we were able to stop this proposal and that is why the Downtown District does not have a six-story corporate landlord development, patrons of bars and restaurants do not have an additional 1% tax added to their bill, and Shodeen does not have $2,000,000 of taxpayer’s money. Following this discussion, the Mayor was quoted in the Northwest Herald stating the outcome was “unbelievable” and he was concerned about the City’s “reputation and relationship with developers as they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and sign agreements along the way and nearly four years later get denied to do any development.”  He added, “people need to get out and vote to move this City in the right direction.” I wholeheartedly agree and appreciate his unwitting endorsement.

February 5th, 2024

While not a proper vote, a discussion item was presented to City Council to allow open container in the Downtown District. Per the guidelines, open container would be allowed in the Downtown District centered along the streets of Green, Main, and Riverside from May 1st to October 31st from 4:00PM to 9:00PM on Thursdays through Sundays. These streets are separated by IL-120 and IL-31 and alcohol consumption would be permitted along those busy crossings. Alcohol would be required to be purchased from participating bars and restaurants and served in 16-ounce clear plastic cups.

The majority of residents in the Downtown District were not in favor of open container, citing concerns about public intoxication, littering, potential increase in crime, and safety concerns due to a lack of physical barrier between the open portions of the Riverwalk and the Fox River. Along with the majority of Council members, I voiced opposition and we were able to stop this proposal. Following this discussion, the Mayor was quoted in the Northwest Herald stating “I am disappointed” and that six months of open container Downtown was a good idea that would “separate us from other municipalities.”

July 17th, 2023

In the Fall of 2022, despite being contractually obligated, Flood Brothers went multiple weeks without neighborhood leaf pick-up. Flood Brothers explained this was due to equipment failure and lack of knowledge on their part regarding the amount of leaves that required pick-up. Residents were so frustrated with the weeks of build-up on their property that many began moving leaf piles onto the streets, unknowingly putting the sewer system at risk of pipe blockage which would result in a greater potential for sewage backup and overflow.

On July 17, 2023, Flood Brothers requested amending their contract to require leaf pick-up every other week instead of every week in preparation of the upcoming season. Contracts are awarded based on the criteria that they meet the needs of the residents so allowing a contract to be amended due to Flood Brothers lack of preparedness and understanding sets a bad precedent and is unfair to residents. Along with two other Council members, I voted “no.”  The “yes” votes prevailed and that is why you have leaf pick-up every other week instead of every week.

Multiple Dates

On multiple occasions, I have voted “no” on funding for the Riverwalk. The Riverwalk has been a welcome addition to the City since it started in 2002 but it also receives a disproportionate amount of City money. I have repeatedly stated that I will not vote for any additional funding for the Riverwalk until all of the City’s neighborhood parks are safe and usable (read more about inequitable parks funding HERE). With that, there are instances where additional funding for the Riverwalk is tied to reimbursements or funding for agreed-upon services. If there was an actual risk of vendors or individuals not being paid, I would have requested that portion be pulled and voted on separately so the City honors their financial commitments. That has never been a possibility though so my votes have remained and will remain a consistent “no” until all neighborhood City parks are given much-needed attention and equitable funding.