Are Highland Park's public spending decisions optimized for resident value, or are other interests prioritized?
Source-backed review hypothesis, not proven corruption or guilt Follow the money: track spending decisions, vendor payments, and campaign contributions Topic: As a Highland Park, Illinois resident, I want a complete source-backed public-records investigation of why the city feels poorly run for residents — especially (A) among the highest property tax burdens in the area and (B) commercial storefronts that stay empty while landlords keep rents high — and how public money is decided and spent. Leave no rock unturned across the City of Highland Park, the Park District of Highland Park, North Shore School District 112, and Township High School District 113 (separate taxing bodies — never merge budgets without labeling). Map and download everything publicly available, then FOIA the gaps: 1) Taxing bodies on a Highland Park tax bill and multi-year levy / rate history. 2) How spending decisions are made: council and board packets, agendas, minutes, staff memos, recorded votes by member (Legistar People.aspx and equivalent school/park boards). 3) Decision-makers treated like local legislators: mayor and all city councilmembers (plus park/school board members for their awards) — official bios, published professional interests, liaison roles. 4) Department and fund outflows: police, fire, public works, parks, recreation, schools, administration, and any material program lines. 5) Grants and intergovernmental funds (including USASpending and local acceptances). 6) Every material vendor payment trail: bids, awards, change orders, contracts, invoices/warrants where public. 7) Commercial vacancy / storefront policy: any council discussion of vacancy, incentives, TIF, or economic development tied to empty retail. 8) Meeting materials and published recordings/transcripts for material meetings. 9) Public campaign disclosures and campaign supporters of officials who vote on levies, incentives, and vendor awards (correlation candidates only). Open review questions only: whether decisions appear optimized for resident value versus other interests (campaign timing, supporters, favored vendors, weak competition, landlord-friendly outcomes
- Entity map (separate taxing bodies)
- Elected decision-makers and public interests
- Vote records on awards
- Grant and award trail
- Campaign finance disclosures
- Campaign supporters of voting members