2011 Municipal Election

Candidate Questionnaire

Candidate Name: Valerie F. Leonard Ward: 24th

Campaign Committee Name & Address: Citizens to Elect Valerie F. Leonard

4111 West 21st Place
City: Chicago, IL Zip Code: 60623

Telephone: 773-521-3137 Fax: 773-522-1832

Campaign Manager: Mr. Fred Mitchell

Campaign Office Address: Same as above

City: : Same as above Zip Code: : Same as above

Telephone: : Same as above Fax: : Same as above

Email/Website: Email: valeriefleonard@msn.com Website: http://vote4valerie.voterspace.com

Blog: http://vote4valerie.blogspot.com
Are you a business owner? Yes/No: Yes
If Yes, what type of business & # of employees: Independent Consultant to Nonprofits; no
employees

1. The ―Big Box Living Wage‖ ordinance required large retailers to pay employee
wages and benefits over and above the market rate, putting Chicago at a
competitive disadvantage in attracting new businesses and creating jobs. Mayor
Daley vetoed the measure. Since then, various so-called ―living wage‖
ordinances, that would require some businesses to pay higher wages than their
competitors, have been introduced in the City Council. Would you support or
oppose a so-called ―living wage‖ ordinance? Support / Oppose

Please explain.

I could support a living wage ordinance if the overall benefits outweigh

the costs to all parties involved, including the City, employers and
employees. If the City structures the ordinance in such a way as it
benefits all parties, then all businesses whose revenues exceed $5
million and receive financial benefit as a result of City support should be
impacted.

It should be noted that the City of Chicago proposed a living wage

ordinance in 1996 and decided against implementing it when the
Employment Policy Institute, an outside evaluator hired by the City,
found that that the costs of implementation for the City, employers and

Return by December 15, 2010

Attention: Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Political Action Committee,
200 E. Randolph, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60601
phone: 312.494.6700 fax: 312.861.0660
employees outweighed the benefits. For example, they found that

 The ordinance would cost the city nearly $20 million per year.
The city would spend more than 20% of this amount ($4.2
million) on the administrative costs of certification, monitoring,
and enforcement of the ordinance. This $20 million cost would
require a permanent tax increase on citizens of Chicago.
 Labor costs among affected firms would rise by $37.5 million.
This amount does not include additional administrative costs
employers would incur in submitting payroll data and other
paperwork to the city, or in determining which workers (if any)
would be covered by the ordinance.
 The city could expect at least 1,300 lost jobs as a result of the
ordinance.
 On a per-employee basis, the costs of the proposal could total
more than $7,000. However, an affected full-time worker
supporting a family would see his or her disposable income rise
by less than $1,900 under the ordinance. Meanwhile, the federal
government would ―gain‖ more than $4,400 (much of it from
increased payroll and income taxes), and the state government
would ―gain‖ more than $900.
 The living wage ordinance would result in pay increases for
about 8,470 workers. However, the authors point out that many
of these workers were not in poverty to begin with. Nationwide,
more than 70% of workers with wages below $7.50 (in 1996)
live in households with incomes well above the poverty line for a
family of four. Thus, while more than 8,400 workers in Chicago
would get a raise, the number actually pulled out of poverty
would be much smaller — despite tens of millions of dollars in
new costs to the city. Moreover, the authors note that many of
the 1,300 people who would lose their jobs could fall into
poverty.

This example describes case where the living wage would be 79%
more than the minimum wage at the time. Perhaps win-win
solutions could be established using a combination of lower living
wages, earned income tax credits and tax credits for employers
hiring disadvantaged workers; or, requiring employers to adopt the
City’s compensation schedule for workers hired to work on City-
funded contracts.

Return by December 15, 2010

Attention: Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Political Action Committee,
200 E. Randolph, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60601
phone: 312.494.6700 fax: 312.861.0660
 If additional space is needed, please attach supplemental materials.
Support may only be provided to candidates who complete and return this questionnaire.

2. Last year the City Council debated the ―Striking Worker Notification Ordinance‖
that would require hotels to notify guests, and potential guests prior to booking, of
any strikes or work stoppages occurring at the property. Do you support or
oppose an ordinance to require hotels to inform potential guests about union
work stoppages? Support / Oppose

Please explain.
Guests and potential guests should be made aware of the situation
prior to arriving to the property. This would ensure that the hotel owner
takes proper measures to mitigate the impact of work stoppages and
communicate more effectively with guests and potential guests, while
allowing guests and potential guests to make their own determination
as to whether they would like to continue their original plans. In some
cases, work stoppages could impact the hotel’s ability to provide the
same level of service they would have provided prior to the strike, and
leave guests with a bad impression of the hotel as well as the City of
Chicago. On the flip side, such notification could provide an opportunity
to pressure management and workers back to the bargaining table.

3. The Illinois General Assembly is considering a gaming expansion bill that

includes a land-based casino for Chicago. Do you support or oppose a Chicago
casino as means of spurring economic activity and boosting our convention,
tourism, and hospitality industries? Support / Oppose

Please explain.

I don’t think that we should use gaming as a means to boost our

convention, tourism and hospitality industries.

The fact that Chicago is no longer number one in the convention

business has less to do with the absence of a land based casino than
the fact that the cost of constructing and operating new exhibit space in
Chicago puts us at a competitive disadvantage against other cities. Las
Vegas, which ranks number one in the convention business, has a
greater inventory of land at lower prices than Chicago. The cost of
labor and other production costs are much lower than in Chicago as
well. These lower costs, combined with a wide variety of shopping and
entertainment venues (other than gambling), and an increasing hotel
tax base, help their convention business to thrive. Orlando has a
similar dynamic and they have been able to add other family friendly
attractions.

Research has shown that gaming does not necessarily cause economic
growth. In some cases, gaming can cause economic decline. Within a
year of legalizing video gambling, South Dakota’s economy
experienced significant declines for selected activities such as clothing

Return by December 15, 2010

Attention: Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Political Action Committee,
200 E. Randolph, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60601
phone: 312.494.6700 fax: 312.861.0660
 stores, recreation services, business services, auto dealers and service
stations.

The situation was even worse in Atlantic City. Homelessness in

Atlantic City increased after the introduction of casinos, while revenues
for clothing stores and eating and drinking establishments declined.
When researchers examined the relationship between the growth of
gambling and crime, they found that the growth of crime in the Atlantic
City region reduced property values by $24,000,000 for each of Atlantic
City’s nearby communities.

The Illinois Business Review found that river boat gambling venues had
no impact on reducing unemployment or increasing employment in the
local communities.

Professor John Kindt, a professor at University of Illinois, found that for

every dollar legalized gambling interests indicate is contributed in taxes,
it really costs the taxpayer $3.00 to address the increased socio-
economic costs to society.

4. The General Assembly recently passed the first major capital construction
program in over a decade to address long-overdue investment in, and repair of,
our aging roads, bridges, mass transit, and other critical infrastructure. The
program is funded, in part, by revenue generated from state regulated video
gaming. The Chicago Municipal Code currently prohibits video gaming. Do you
support or oppose an ordinance to legalize video gaming in Chicago? Support /
Oppose

Please Explain.

I oppose video gaming for the same reasons I oppose a land based
casino. Moreover, investment in transportation infrastructure should be
paid for by general obligation bonds or revenue bonds backed by
receipts generated from transportation-related activities.

It has been my observation that government bodies sell unpopular

proposals by leading the public to believe the proceeds would go to
worthy causes. When the lottery was started, the public was assured
that the proceeds would be used for our schools. Thirty years later,
only a fraction of the lottery funds have been used for education and we
are still struggling with finding an equitable way to fund our schools.

Return by December 15, 2010

Attention: Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Political Action Committee,
200 E. Randolph, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60601
phone: 312.494.6700 fax: 312.861.0660
 If additional space is needed, please attach supplemental materials.
Support may only be provided to candidates who complete and return this questionnaire.

5. Businesses in Chicago with more than fifty employees are assessed an

employer’s expense tax, or ―head tax‖, of $4 per employee per month. Would
you support or oppose an ordinance to eliminate the ―head tax‖? Support /
Oppose

Please explain.

I could support an ordinance to eliminate the head tax if an alternative

revenue source is identified, and if the revenue can be applied in a
manner that is equitable.

6. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is an effective economic development tool that

allows the City to finance redevelopment without having to raise property taxes.
Some have proposed that TIF funds be used for general operating budget items
or direct funding of programs not intended for economic development. Do you
support or oppose expanding the use of TIF funds for purposes other than
economic development? Support / Oppose

Please explain.

The TIF funds should be used for the purposes intended. This includes
planning, architectural fees, construction, childcare, financing,
infrastructure, etc. In most cases, these are costs that would normally
be capitalized over the long term. Using TIF dollars for city services and
program operations would be akin to using capital funds to cover day to
day operations, and should be avoided to the extent possible.

However, we are in tough economic times, and we should evaluate the

costs and benefits (and consequences) of allowing uncommitted TIF
funds to remain unused, versus using some of the surplus as a
temporary bridge to cover costs of providing city services and social
programs.

The TIF program should be reviewed to minimize the chances of having

situations where 60% of the ($1.2 billion ) TIF funds are uncommitted
while the City’s general fund could potentially experience a $650 million
deficit, excluding unfunded pension liabilities. This forces the obvious
choice—do we raid the TIF fund and forego future development
opportunities, or do we leave the TIF funds untouched and raise taxes.
The chances of this scenario playing itself out year after year could be
significantly reduced by1) doing a better job of planning future
developments ;2) terminating TIFs when they have fulfilled their
mission; 3) creating TIFs in blighted areas as defined by the State
Code, and not expanding the definition to include Downtown and other
areas that could be revitalized using other economic development

Return by December 15, 2010

Attention: Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Political Action Committee,
200 E. Randolph, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60601
phone: 312.494.6700 fax: 312.861.0660
 tools;4) establishing stronger policies that address surplus TIF funds,
including returning surpluses to their taxing bodies, less a 10%
contingency to seed future development.

7. The City Council avoided a tax increase and filled a $650 million shortfall in the
2011 City Budget by tapping into leased city asset reserve accounts and surplus
TIF funds. Next year the City Council will likely face a similar budget deficit. Will
you support budget cuts - as opposed to tax, fee, and fine increases - to balance
the budget? Support / Oppose

Please explain.

If I recall correctly, Chicago's general operating budget was in the $3

billion range in 1991. Adjusting for inflation, one would expect
Chicago's budget to be in the $4.7 -$5 billion range today for the same
level of services we had in 1991. The 2010 budget is over $6 billion--
not including expenditures from special funds like TIFs and the capital
budget. This-- in spite of years of asset sales and privatization of City
services geared to cut costs. On top of that, approximately 40% of the
City's land mass is ―TIF’d‖. Recent budgets indicate plans to bring on
15-16 TIFs per year. At this rate, the entire city could be ―TIF'd‖ by
2025, which would further strain the system in an economy with
shrinking job growth and property tax receipts and an increased need
for social services.

The City Council needs to work with the Mayor, Cook County, the State
of Illinois, civic leaders and certified public accountants to identify ways
to fundamentally restructure our finances (at the State, County and City
levels) over the long term. In the short term, the City Council and
Mayor should work together to find savings beyond selling off revenue
generating assets and depleting 75-year cash reserves within 18
months. This will require an assessment of each City department, its
mission, goals and performance—within the context of the changes in
the City’s landscape—and prioritizing accordingly.

8. Providing a tax and regulatory environment that supports innovation and

entrepreneurship, and job growth and retention, is essential to ensure the
economic viability of our City. The first year for a new business is the most
critical in determining the long-term success of the business. Would you support
or oppose a temporary relaxation or elimination of certain city taxes and fees for
startup or new businesses in order to help ensure their long-term viability and
success? Support / Oppose

Please explain.

Relaxing certain city taxes and fees for startup and new businesses to
help ensure their long-term viability is a great concept. The questions
the City will have to come to terms with are 1) Will the exemption for all

Return by December 15, 2010

Attention: Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Political Action Committee,
200 E. Randolph, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60601
phone: 312.494.6700 fax: 312.861.0660
 new startups, or only for those that demonstrate the greatest potential
for success? 2) Do we extend the exemption to all startups knowing
that only a handful will grow to the point where they will make a positive
impact on the City’s revenue stream? 3) Do the returns outweigh the
costs? 4) Can we afford to do this in these economic times? 5) Will the
exemption from certain City fees and taxes really make or break the
small businesses’ ability to thrive? 6) What other mechanisms can the
City put in place in addition to the tax exemptions to increase the
chances of the businesses succeeding? 7) What are the chances of
the businesses succeeding without the tax exemption?

We should also be cognizant of the fact that tax breaks in and of

themselves will not overcome weaknesses in the business model. As a
resident of the 24th Ward, I have observed a number of businesses like
grocers, movie chains, coffee shops and video stores go out of
business not long after they have exhausted benefits accorded them
from using TIF funds. Local residents are left ―high and dry‖ and still
need to go out of the community for basic goods and services.

In summary, I support the concept of exemptions from City taxes and

fees for startups, but I would like to see some recapture in the event the
businesses don’t succeed within a specified timeframe—say 3 years.

9. Mayor Daley has convened a committee of business leaders and City officials to
address the often onerous and duplicative regulatory licensing, permitting, and
fee requirements imposed on businesses. Would you support a program for
consolidating and streamlining the business licensing, permitting, and fee
assessment process, which could include a single, annual payment for all
regulatory requirements? Support / Oppose

Would you support administrative determination, as opposed to City Council

approval, for permitting items such as driveways, sidewalk cafes, senior citizen
sewer rebates and refuse rebates? Support / Oppose

Please explain.

I think streamlining City regulatory and licensing processes is good for

increased efficiency, enhanced cost savings and improved customer
service. I think the concept of having a single annual payment for all
regulatory requirements is great—provided that the process does not
saddle businesses with charges they would not normally pay under the
current system. For example, there should be a way to check off a box
to indicate whether or not your business will be selling merchandise
that is subject to sales taxes. This will allow the City to determine
whether to expect sales tax receipts from a retail establishment, and
not to expect sales tax receipts from consultants (for example) that do
not sell merchandise.

Return by December 15, 2010

Attention: Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Political Action Committee,
200 E. Randolph, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60601
phone: 312.494.6700 fax: 312.861.0660
 additional space is needed, please attach supplemental materials.
Support may only be provided to candidates who complete and return this questionnaire.

.
9 Continued

Aldermen should be a part of zoning and permitting processes within

the Ward. As such, these permits should go through the City Council.
While this may seem to be an extra step in the process, it does provide
for more transparency and public discourse than an administrative
process--should the need arise.

10. The City Council recently approved the development of two Wal-Mart stores after
nearly three years of debate. The developments, which will generate hundreds
of new jobs and millions of dollars in City tax revenues, were held up due to labor
union opposition to the use of non-union employees. Which do you believe is
more important to the City and your community – more jobs or union jobs?

Please Explain.

In these current economic times, all jobs are important—whether they

are unionized or not.

11. What are your top three policy priorities?

Please explain.

You only asked for three policy priorities, but I will share four. The most
critical issues in the 24th Ward include public safety, housing, job
creation, economic development and education. These concerns are
shared by the rest of the City, but to varying degrees and may require
slightly different strategies.

Public Safety: I would advocate for a net increase in the number of

police officers in the Police Department, and making sure more
policemen are assigned to high need areas like the 24th Ward. I would
also advocate for increased funding for mentoring programs and
employment opportunities that serve as a deterrent to crime. Over the
intermediate term I would work with local District Commanders, CAPS
personnel, block clubs, law enforcement officials, and community based
organizations to develop and implement a comprehensive public safety
plan with measurable goals and objectives and proven strategies to
reduce crime, and monitor the results over time.

Housing: The City of Chicago already has a comprehensive affordable

housing plan that addresses needs of the homeless, seniors very low
income and moderate income individuals. I will‖ drill down‖ to the Ward

Return by December 15, 2010

Attention: Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Political Action Committee,
200 E. Randolph, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60601
phone: 312.494.6700 fax: 312.861.0660
level to develop and implement a comprehensive housing plan that
provides a range of housing options for local residents, including
seniors, affordable housing for working families, and very low income
families and market rate housing. I will work with distressed
homeowners and put them in touch with resources to prevent mortgage
foreclosure. I will also continue to advocate for our fair share of public
funds to purchase foreclosed and abandoned properties and put them
back onto the tax rolls as affordable units

Job Creation and Economic Development: I would create an economic

development and job creation committee consisting of 24th Ward
stakeholders that would assess the current skills and potential of the
24th Ward workforce, and the requirements of current and future
employers. I would help employers identify potential locations, and
help coordinate incentives and City services to encourage them to
locate in the 24th Ward and hire 24th Ward residents. At the same time,
I would advocate for funding and programs that will help local residents
increase their education and skill level so they may better compete in
the global economy. I would also encourage redevelopment of the
commercial strips along Ogden Avenue, 16th Street, Cicero Avenue and
Roosevelt Road.

Education: I would create a local education committee that would be

modeled after the Chicago Educational Facilities Task Force. The
education committee would consist of representatives from CPS, the
Chicago Teachers Union, business and civic leaders, parents and
community based organizations to provide advice into local school
openings, closings, restructurings, attendance boundaries, curriculum
and school climate. I would foster an environment of collaboration
among schools so they would increase their chances of getting
supplemental grants from the federal government. The overall goal
would be to make 24th Ward schools of choice rather than schools of
last resort.

Return by December 15, 2010

Attention: Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Political Action Committee,
200 E. Randolph, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60601
phone: 312.494.6700 fax: 312.861.0660