Pavergate

A lot has been said about “Pavergate,” the controversy over Highland Park Council Member Kim Stone’s vote to install permeable pavers on the alley leading to and facing onto her home. As a neighbor whose home of 33 years backs up to the same alley, I objected to the $900,000 expense at the time, even though these beautiful pavers have now improved my own home’s value.

As Kim seeks re-election, she is justifying her vote by pointing to the merits of the decision, but that misses the bigger point -- that Kim voted when she should have recused herself due to a clear conflict of interest. Since the pavers were permanent improvements that increased the value of her home, she never should have participated in that vote. Councilwoman Kim Stone’s ethics are relevant in this election because she has been so outspoken in demanding the highest ethical standards for other Council members:

Last year, Kim was out front with concerns about conflicts of interest that might face liquor license holders -- even though Highland Park voters, less than a year earlier, had knowingly elected a liquor license holder to the Council. Kim cited these potential conflicts as the basis for blocking the liquor amendment, knowing that would force the elected Council member’s resignation, and essentially overturning the wishes of the voters.

This was an extreme and disturbing action with serious consequences for our community, as was seen with the public outcry. It was based on Kim’s professed commitment to ethical standards.
Kim should have held herself to the same ethical standards she applied to others. When faced with a clear conflict of interest, no matter how strongly she believed in the matter at hand she should have recused herself. Installation of these pavers conferred a benefit upon her personally and her vote was improper.

Josh Harris
Highland Park