Every ward gets a capital number, published, every year.
You shouldn't need to know an alderman to find out when your neighborhood gets its turn.
Rockford was right to invest downtown, and Bob isn't running to undo it. He's running to apply the same discipline — visible investment, clear priorities, years of follow-through — to the neighborhoods where people live. You shouldn't have to know the right person at City Hall to find out when your street gets fixed.
14 wards. 14 numbers. Published every year.
Downtown proved sustained attention works. Now let's bring it to your block.
Today the capital program exists as one citywide total, so every neighborhood can believe it's being shorted and nobody can prove it either way.
What's happening
The work got concentrated, and everyone can see where.
Downtown Rockford went from empty to worth visiting. That took a decade of deliberate public investment, and it worked. Nobody should pretend otherwise.
And nobody who lives on Auburn, or Kishwaukee, or 15th Avenue needs to be told that the same decade looked different where they live.
Ask a resident what's wrong with their street and they won't name a category. They'll say Madison, or the stretch of Auburn where the curb is gone, or the 11th Street corridor, or the 15th Avenue bridge, or the vacant house four doors down that's been open to the weather for two years.
This argument never resolves for one reason: nobody publishes the numbers by ward. The capital program exists as a citywide total, so every neighborhood can believe it's being shorted and nobody can prove or disprove it.
What I'd do
Every ward gets a number, published, every year.
- Every ward should be able to see what it got. A ward capital report, annually, in plain dollars: what was spent in each of the fourteen wards last year, what's scheduled this year, what's programmed for the next five. A table anyone can download and add up for themselves.
- Street work sequenced with water work. If a lead service line is coming out of a block, the paving happens after. Once. Digging the same street twice is the most visible way a city wastes money.
- Nuisance property abatement with a clock on it. A vacant house with an open door is a public safety problem, not a paperwork problem. Published timelines, published outcomes.
- Rental licensing and inspection with actual teeth, aimed squarely at the small number of owners who account for most of the complaints.
- One number to call about a street, with a case number and a date, and a monthly report on how many cases closed on time.
- An annual count of vacant lots put back to use. The city's own infill guide names 50 sites totaling more than 1,000 acres of vacant residential ground. That inventory gets published next to the ward capital numbers, so acres and dollars can be read on the same page — and the count of lots returned to use gets reported every year against it.
These are streets, not "infrastructure." If a plan can't name the street, it isn't a plan.
And abatement has to be paired with whatever comes next. A demolished house with nothing planned for the lot leaves the block exactly as empty as it was. Those 1,000 acres are also the housing supply that needs to be moving before the train arrives with demand attached to it.
How it gets paid for
Mostly by doing the work in the right order.
- The ward capital report costs staff time and nothing else. The city already tracks this data to run the capital program. Publishing it is a formatting decision.
- Coordinated water-and-paving scheduling saves money the same budget year it starts, because the resurfacing isn't paid for twice.
- Abatement and rental licensing run on fees and existing code enforcement staff, with the licensing fee set to cover the inspection rather than to raise revenue.
- Street capital stays in the capital program, funded the way it's funded now. Nothing here asks for a new recurring general fund line, because there isn't one available.
- The infill inventory already exists. The city compiled it and the city publishes it. Reporting lots returned to use against it is the same staff time as the ward report, in the same document.
One caveat: publishing ward numbers will show that some wards have had less.
That's the point. You cannot fix a distribution you refuse to measure.