The two most important issues in the village are the deplorable status of our streets which need a vast amount of repair and storm water which floods many people’s property. These issues are interrelated.
The storm water system has two major functions: one is to provide for the conveyance of water and the second is to detain water in an orderly fashion until it can be released out of the village in a volume permitted by law. The three watersheds in the village are (1) Lacey Creek, (2) St. Joseph Creek and (3) Prentiss Creek. All discharge into the east branch of the DuPage River at a rate of flow dictated by DuPage County; this is to prevent flooding down stream communities. That is why it is important to size the storage capacity of pipes and detention vaults to detain water until it can be released out of the village. I emphasize vaults because the village doesn’t have adequate open land for detention ponds. What the village does have is a vast area of streets which can be employed to detain storm water, unfortunately that is an expensive proposition, but what other recourse do we have?
When a street is opened for repair a storm sewer should be installed even if there isn’t a present day connection to it. Eventually work on an adjacent street will allow connection of an inactive sewer to a functioning sewer. This will be less costly over time, its like putting money in the bank to be used on a rainy day (no pun intended). Why open a good street just to provide for a storm sewer?
An engineering design decision should determine what size sewer pipe should be installed in observance of surrounding pipe sizes and storm water conditions experienced by the area being considered. If a pipe size is not possible to be installed sufficient to contain water, as well as convey it, then a storm water detention vault should be installed in the street or parkway. This will challenge engineers because utilities have been previously installed without thought of storm water needs.
How to pay for such a costly storm water control system is going to be a challenge and it’s not going to happen over night, it’s going to take years, probably 30 years at least. Village Manager Cara Pavlicek gave several options for payment at the August 14 Work Shop:
Some of these proposals would admittedly discourage people from coming to Downers Grove and would be self defeating while some would directly be paid by residents. Regardless of the means for funding the storm water issue it is a good idea to establish a separate storm water fund to accurately control and account for storm water costs.
I find the storm water utility tax objectionable because it would establish another bureaucracy and the revenue derived therefrom would be spent in the cost of operations.
I think a property tax increase of 20 cents in the village real estate tax rate would generate about $5,000,000 and all of the home rule sales tax of $4,600,000, together, would just about pay for storm water control which is looking to require about $10,000,000 per year to defray the $340,000,000 estimated by the four engineering consultants who put together the basis for the storm water master plan. While I’m not fond of a tax increase and don’t want to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail I don’t see any other way of funding storm water problems. If you want to dance the piper must be paid. We’re talking big money.
September 7, 2007
Andrew J. Clark, P.E., Downers Grove
The primary election was held on February 27th, 2007 with the seven commissioner candidates running. The candidates listed below won this round and remain on the ballot for the April 17 election. There was a School District 58 Referendum on the same ballot. The referendum failed to pass.
February 27 ELECTION RESULTS:
[[
Click here and then search for: Dist or just scroll down. ]]
| ==== |
Read two letters by P. Turula about the Mayor's Campaign Contributions: in the Downers Grove SUN as "Campaign funding raises questions." and in the Downers Grove Reporter as "Mayor needs to explain campaign contributions." Click here to read the original of the letter before it was revised by the Reporter. | ==== |
|---|
| ==== |
Please click here to read Andy Clark's letter: " HOW SAFE ARE WE ? " | ==== |
|---|
Mr. Clark lists many code violations brought to the village's attention that the village has elected to allow. Village inspectors have the authority to waive code requirements which in their judgement are difficult to comply with. Yet when the village was asked to provide the qualifications of the village inspectors the village refused, on the grounds that releasing such information would be an invasion of the inspectors personnel privacy. That does not make any sense. What is Village Hall trying to hide? Please click here to read Andy Clark's letter.
| Downers Grove Watch and EmpowerDGTaxpayers wish to thank all the citizens and workers who got the measure on the ballot and who voted for a YES vote to abolish home rule. While these efforts did not succeed, we think it very important to foster democracy in our town by helping give a voice to more voters. Too many village decisions appear to be made without much citizen input. We continue to urge everyone to speak up at Village Board meetings and via letters to the editor. |
| The Downers Grove Watch meets at the library the second Saturday of each month. We welcome your participation. Lets all work together for a better Downers Grove. |
In a subsequent communication Mr. Whowell was informed that
Tim Diamond has concluded that the violations were "not sufficiently
flagrant, as to warrant prosecution".
He declined to say what constitutes flagrancy.
We’re told by Village Hall the several million dollar Home Rule sales tax is paid principally by the day time influx of people working in the village, but, who is really paying this tax? How much Home Rule sales tax can be collected from the lunch money of 5 day/week, 8 hour/day employees as compared to 7 day/week, 24 hour/day village residents who buy furniture, appliances, TV’s, building materials, etc. within the village limits? Who is really doing the heavy lifting here?
What about the Village’s $5,300 income deal with Pepsi Cola so only Pepsi products could be sold at Heritage Fest? Many local civic groups, who usually fund their activities with beverage profits, didn’t make much money because of the high cost of the beverages they had to buy from Pepsi. All complained but none got relief from the Village. Only the Village profited on this deal.
Then there were the Heritage Fest Parking Deck fees of $9,462 collected by a high school organization for its own benefit rather than those monies being applied toward the cost of the parking deck. That parking deck is village property and all funds it earns should be placed in village coffers. The village is not a charitable organization, ask any taxpayer.
The point to be made here is no matter how well intentioned the mayor and village council may be, they certainly are not perfect. The foregoing is undeniable evidence of that. Their imposition of Home Rule just allows them to clandestinely play Monopoly with more of residents’ tax dollars. "Expenses will rise to meet income".
What has Home Rule done to you? The village council has placed a 1/2% retail sales tax on your purchases in the village and is talking about raising it to 1% next year. They have put a 1 cent tax on every gallon of gasoline you buy in the village. They have raised the taxes on your utility bills at home -- on electricity, telephone and natural gas. The council has unlimited taxing power under home rule, it doesn’t have to abide by the tax caps set by the legislature in Springfield which are the lessor of 5% of last year’s levy or the rate of inflation.
Lisle, Lombard, Rockford and Villa Park have ceased to be home rule communities. Last year the Village of Homewood (population 19,000+) Council put a referendum on the ballot to become a home rule community but the people voted it down.
These communities have not suffered from dropping home rule, their leaders just have to be more fiscally responsible. As the election nears you will hear stories like Downers Grove will be controlled by Springfield -- don’t believe it. Are the above communities controlled by Springfield? You will hear your real estate taxes will go up. OK, then we will know who is raising them; furthermore, real estate taxes are deductible from your income tax but those hidden home rule taxes are not. Home Rule gives local politicians cover for raising taxes without voter approval and they love it. Look to see who will be most of the people telling you NOT to vote YES on the referendum question of "Shall the Village of Downers Grove, Illinois cease to be a Home Rule Unit?" They’ll probably be the mayor, members of the village council and village employees. If you want to get rid of Home Rule and get more control over your tax dollars be sure to vote YES in the referendum on March 21, 2006.
The village council can do the same things with or without home rule, the difference is that without home rule they have to call for referendums on some items and they know they have to make a good case for what ever it is they want the voters to approve or it will fail. The council only has to take a few minutes to direct that there be a referendum, they don’t require almost 6 months of petitioning to gather nearly 4,000 signatures like they forced residents to do just to put a single question on the ballot.
Andrew J. Clark
Home rule takes control of government away form the residents and puts in the hands of the special interests in "city hall."
Click here to read The Mayor's letter removing all members from five advisory commissions.
Click here to read archived newspaper articles related to this story.
Note that the Plan Commission Public Hearing concerning changes to the zoning code that was originally scheduled for Monday November 7th has been canceled because all nine citizen volunteer members of the Plan Commission were removed from office as part of the above events.
 The Downers Grove Watch was present at the June 24-26 Heritage Fest to provide information on Home Rule. Andy Clark discusses Home Rule issues with Village residents. | 
|
| In preparation for the April 5, 2005 elections Downers Grove Watch organized a "Town Hall" Meeting on Saturday, March 26 with the candidates for Downers Grove Village Commissioners: Elena Falco, Marilyn Schnell, Martin Tully, and William Waldack. Our thanks to the candidates and to all those who came and participated. |
Few of us would let others get charge cards in our names, yet our council has unlimited credit backed by taxpayers under Home Rule and TIF. Home Rule sounds good, like Mom and Apple Pie, but, when coupled with TIF, they become a blank check for local government to go on uncontrolled shopping sprees backed by our funds.
Simply put, Home Rule empowers our Council to make decisions without approval from citizens or Springfield; it can also sell bonds and raise taxes on its own. TIF allows blighted areas to retain its own taxes for self-improvement, passing to other property owners its tax burden for schools, colleges, courts, fire, police, streets, parks, forests, etc. TIF bonds are general obligation bonds, which means if the TIF can't make the payments, citizens are obligated to pay the debt.
Empowered by Home Rule, our Council declared our downtown a TIF area to upgrade sewers, water lines, etc. It then used TIF bonds to finance the garage which it decided we all needed. It now decided to raze half our business area and began buying property (in closed sessions, for unpublished amounts) and sought proposals from developers/stakeholders to design and build shops, condos, town homes and lofts. In fairness to the Council, it made a video of proposals (Curtiss Street Redevelopment, which can be checked out at the library and village hall).
The downtown redevelopment plans are as imaginative as Disney land. I like Disneyland, but wouldn't want to live there! Imagine squeezing a new street in between Main and the post office, to link the depot to the new garage. Then imagine Main with five story buildings and double-deck sidewalks (one sidewalk at ground level, the other walk at Level Two, to provide access to set-back shops and condos.) Proposals even replace the post office and Village Hall with townhouses, with more townhomes north of the Tivoli. (Would the Council use eminent domain to condemn existing homes?)
I have a problem with government in real estate. The video does not explain how we benefit or even the financing. What are the costs? Who are "stakeholders?" Does the Council plan to sell prime downtown real estate to stakeholders, who would profit from constructing high density tenements, stacked like shoeboxes? What happens to garbage, snow, moving vans? Trucks now block Main to unload as we've lost our alleys.
Spending money is easy, especially when financing with bonds secured by taxpayers. For example, the garage was estimated at $9M, yet cost $22M. Council lost money selling prime property for Station Crossing for $85,000 minus costs to relocate small businesses and to clean an oil spill. Across the tracks, Council bought the smaller property of Johnson Printers for $4.5M plus more to relocate that company. Council really blew it on Georgian Courts, selling eleven homes in this choice location for a mere $1M! All of this was done in "executive session." It alone decides what to buy or sell, the price, and can inflict its controversial architectural tastes on us and on generations to come.
Since I'm a homeowner, legally responsible for Village debts, I want a voice. I suspect TIF business owners also want a voice; they have a much bigger stake. Unfortunately, under Home Rule, the only voice belongs to the Council.
Contrary to the Council who apparently are comfortable with three concurrent TIF bonds, few of us would risk three mortgages on our homes, no matter how tempted by home improvement or equity loans. Common sense tells me that if the Curtiss Street Redevelopment is added to existing TIF debts, our small businesses will be hit hard. Customers will avoid the mess of mammoth demolition and construction, which will crush stores, restaurants and even the parking garage. When the dust finally settles, surviving businesses, if any, will face competition from the new shops that Council hopes to bring in (Gap, Borders, and/or national chains). If businesses fail and TIF bonds cannot be paid, homeowners must cover the debt.
Under Home Rule, it is legal for Council to do all of the above. It is also legal for residents to petition, to put a referendum on the ballot so everyone can vote for or against Home Rule. Repeal of Home Rule would not cancel existing debts, which would be restructured, but repeal would put our credit cards back into our own hands and give us a say in government once again.
Bea Bennett
 |
Spotlight on Development: Update -- More Developments |
The first item on the workshop agenda for
next
Tuesday [September 14] concerns rezoning
and subdivision approval for the proposed Golf View
Estates development.*
I am very concerned about this proposed spot or
"island" zoning change, as well as
the procedure by which it is
coming to the Village Council. The Council is now being
asked to
approve a 1.6 acre
In this case, there is clear testimony before
the Plan Commission that this proposed
isolated rezoning change would seriously
destabilize current land use in the established
R-1 district just east of this
proposed R-3 development. I strongly recommend against
approving this
poor practice of spot zoning that I as far as I know is unprecedented
in
Downers Grove
The staff analysis prepared for and provided to the Plan Commission on
August 2nd was based
on incorrect information about the current zoning to the
east of the subject property. According
to this incorrect information the
property to the east of the subject property was regarded as
R-3 so that the
proposed zoning change from R-1 to R-3 looked like a simple extension
of the
existing R-3 district. Although the staff reported this error
during the
course of the Plan
Commission meeting there seems to have been no effort by the
staff to explain the negative
significance of spot or "island' zoning to
the Commissioners.
There is also no discussion of this important precedent setting
issue of spot or "island" zoning in
the staff memorandum dated
September 18, 2004 that is included in the manager's memo for
the September
14th workshop. Indeed, the only references to this extraordinary
proposed
zoning change in that staff memorandum are 1) in the title: "Request
for
Rezoning, Final Plat
of Subdivision with certain Public Improvements
Exceptions"; 2) in the first sentence: "The
petitioner is requesting
approval of a Rezoning and Final Plat of Subdivision approval with
certain
Public Improvement Exceptions for a five-lot single family residential
subdivision on a
1.6 acre property located on the west side of Puffer Road
north of Chicago Avenue."; and
3) in the list of attachments: "1.
Draft Rezoning Ordinance".
In addition to the issue of this objectionable, proposed spot
zoning recommendation,
please look very carefully at the loose procedure by
which this proposed zoning change
has been considered by the village staff and
the Plan Commission. The recently
instituted blending of zoning matters
with subdivision considerations seems to have
reduced attention to the
principles of proper zoning practices.
These new Plan Commission procedures have very little in common
with the procedures
previously followed by the Zoning Board of Appeals for
rezoning requests. When the Zoning
Board of Appeals considered a request
for rezoning, my recollection is that the factual staff
memos did not recommend
for a particular decision and that all testimony of the petitioner
and the
public was sworn and often presented by attorneys. This sworn
testimony
was
always followed by quasi judicial deliberations of the Zoning Board of
Appeals with specific
references to the provisions of the village zoning
code.
Under the current new Plan Commission procedures the staff
memo
usually contains the
formula "The Staff Development Team has reviewed the
petitioner's request and concurs to
recommend that the Plan Commission consider
the petitioner's Requested Action subject to
the following conditions:"
A requested zoning change is not specifically flagged as a
significant
component of the "Requested Action". The Commission's decision
is no longer
based on sworn testimony. In this case there is not even any
specific mention of a
recommended zoning change in the motion adopted by the
Plan Commission. In this
case there seems to be no letter in the workshop
background packet from the Chairman
of the Plan Commission to the Mayor and
Council to report the deliberations and
recommendations of the Plan Commission
for a zoning change or for approval of the final
plat of subdivision.
Do these new "streamlined" zoning procedures
really comply with either the Village
Code or the
interests of our Community? I think they
do not.
Sincerely yours,
Gordon
________________________
* Unfortunately the on-line version of this workshop item seems to
contain only the first two
pages of the background material that is in the Manager's Memo in
the Public Library. Please
refer to the following link:
http://www.downers.us/govt/mmemo/09-14-04/golfview.pdf
(Moreover, an incorrect link for this agenda item is currently posted
on the Village Council
Agenda page for a) Golfview Estates Subdivision.
The link for this item is currently incorrectly given as:
http://www.downers.us/govt/mmemo/09-14-04/woodward.pdf.)
To whom it may
concern- I know we
all have issues we find extremely important and worth
fighting for. I live on Chase ave (1 block west of
of rezoning. There is a large parcel of land
on Maple with 1 house which is giving way to
39 and counting townhouses. This
developer is trying to buy up land on Chase as well as on
Elinor to expand this
project. This would mean rezoning both streets to accommodate
townhouses where
there is nothing but beautiful sprawling lots which add to the
uniqueness
and
appeal of
This
would be very short sighted in my opinion. This could be a fantastic
and
exclusive
area if it were developed responsibly. It could be an area with lots
of green space an
estate-type houses, not crammed with townhomes. Hopefully it's not
to late to change the
direction of this
project so that it fits in the area (single family). Traffic
is
another concern,
with Chase being too busy already. This developer does
not have the right to change the
face of a neighborhood simply to make himself
rich. This situation should be re-evaluated.
It may be just
a vision of
grandeur, but I'd like to believe that we as residents have a voice,
and maybe
our concerns will be heard. The over-development has got to stop. Every
old
tree and every old house that are destroyed are gone forever. There
needs to be
a compromise.
No matter how much rezoning is done, there is still only a small
amount of space left to be built
on. The focus needs to be shifted to work with
what is already here. Obviously growth must
slow down, this is inevitable,
but lets improve on what we have, stores, parks, etc. Having a
big yard should
be viewed as a positive thing, not a waste of build-able space.
We
need
green space and wildlife, to most of us it brings peace. Most
developers
are only concerned
with their profit, how quickly they can make a buck, even if
it means razing a forest to do
it. The board members of
over quantity. Lets make this a special community and not be so
quick to cater to the
developers and rezone every parcel. Here's a crazy
thought, how about preserving what
we have?
-- Jeff Agner, Downers Grove