For the past 20 years, I’ve read Chicago Sun-Times Washington Bureau Chief Lynn Sweet’s probing political coverage and after all these years, she still amazes me. At the Metropolitan Planning Council’s Annual Luncheon on Monday, I was lucky enough to have a front row seat as Lynn skillfully interviewed Illinois’ U.S. Senate candidates Alexi Giannoulias (D), Mark Kirk (R), and LeAlan Jones (Green) for the edification – and sometimes entertainment – of nearly 900 Chicago-area corporate, civic, government and community leaders who attended our event. We were grateful for the wonderful turnout, but for those of you who were unable to attend here are some of the highlights from the candidate Q&As:
Sweet wasted no time getting to the heart of the issues with her first question in which she asked how the candidates would make the most of metropolitan planning organizations like the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), specifically in the programming and disbursement of federal funds. Both Giannoulias and Kirk agreed on the importance of these organizations. Giannoulias said it is “imperative” that the federal government empowers organizations such as CMAP while Kirk said he “absolutely” supports the work of CMAP and other metropolitan planning organizations, because they can cross county, municipal and even state lines to support the right investments for a region. Jones said he also supports regional planning, but “communities need to be at the table.”
Sweet’s second question focused on the candidates’ stance on the Livable Communities Act, federal legislation MPC continues to actively promote. We were pleased to hear both Giannoulias and Kirk express their support of the Livable Communities Act; Kirk provided clarification by stating that he was a “lean yes,” adding he would want to review the bill once it reaches the House floor. I’m grateful for all of the exceptional media attention the Annual Luncheon received and single out the The Times of Northwest Indiana for mentioning this important piece of legislation.
Focusing on transportation, Sweet’s third question asked the candidates: What strategies would they propose for financing the nation’s transportation infrastructure and reducing the demand for driving? Sweet continued the line of questioning by asking what they believe is the proper allocation of resources between roads, rail, bridges, transit, and other transportation modes. Giannoulias proposed a National Infrastructure Fund, which he said would provide $45 billion to improve the nation’s roads, rail network and other infrastructure over the next 10 years, while offering his support on cap and trade policies. Kirk said the idea has merit, but the “funding source has already been claimed by the [Obama] administration.” He also referred to himself as a “recovering earmarker” who agrees there needs to be a better way to select investments that will benefit most communities. Neither candidate supports increasing the gas tax to fund infrastructure. Jones said, “I live in a community where you have more unemployment and joblessness than anywhere. I’d have to seriously look at earmarks,” as an option for increasing employment opportunities. The Daily Herald’s transportation reporter Marni Pyke did a great job covering this portion.
The final question asked how each candidate would protect metropolitan Chicago’s water supply. She also asked them whether they support re-reversing the Chicago River to prevent the threat of invasive species. None of the candidates specifically responded to the state of metropolitan Chicago’s water supply but when it came to reversing the Chicago River, Giannoulias’ and Kirk’s responses to this question were polar opposites: Giannoulias favored reversal as a long-term goal while Kirk was against it; Jones stated that he would have to look further into the issue before making a decision. A page 2 article in the Chicago Sun Times on Tuesday provided a great rundown of the candidates’ responses to Lynn Sweet’s questions, sparking a broader debate on the future of the Chicago River.
The purpose of MPC’s forum was to hear what remedies candidates would apply to cure some of what ails Illinois. After all of the backroom drama leading up to an event like this, I left the luncheon feeling optimistic. Although their responses were contrasting, I was thrilled to get these candidates on the record about issues that are critical to improving metropolitan Chicago’s economy and communities. Taking part in this forum prompted the candidates to think about issues they may not have previously considered on the campaign trail. It was not only evident that they did their homework, but that they really processed what the questions and their answers meant. It was clear to me that this attitude will help them develop proactive, flexible policies that work in the very different regions of the state. Too often our elected officials fail to recognize that this region – the source of 80% of state GDP – deserves special attention. During hectic weeks like this one, I appreciate how fortunate I am to work for an organization that can deliver on providing information that voters need. MPC looks forward to partnering with whomever among candidates becomes the next U.S. Senator of Illinois.