It is everyone's right to sue, Dins. This is America!!

I do believe these people were given every opportunity to express their opinion on this. Just because the village disagreed with them doesn't mean the village didn't listen or didn't follow the proper procedures.

Also the reasons they are opposed to this is as we've discussed here pretty lame. At best what fifty cars a day in an area that sees thousands.

They have also gone over the line with petty vandalism, planting of asbestos etc.

So yeah I think they deserve the criticism they've gotten.

Good thing our village nickname isn't "The Friendly Village"

quote:

They have also gone over the line with petty vandalism, planting of asbestos etc.

Not certain anything has been proven here.

But I agree...if they were overly concerned about traffic...they got totally punked by their real estate agents.

I find it hard to believe that the Good Neighbors would rally around Carl and his wife over this. They are the only two who will truly be affected by this. Maybe I am wrong, but there has to be something else about this situation. I really believe that those people truly hate our children...our future!!

The additional 15 cars in the AM and PM....pure BS.

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:
The additional 15 cars in the AM and PM....pure BS.

I have yet to hear of a planned development that did not - IMO - grossly underestimate the traffic impact. But that is JMO.

I can understand why those folk would prefer not to have a school put next to them. Before this situation arose I was completely ignorant as to the applicable zoning.

Despite your protests...you have a horse in this race, don't you Dinsdale?

If it were a hundred more cars...would it matter?

quote:

Originally posted by Dinsdale:
It is just as easy to turn this thing around. If only the school folk had given up their attempt to open a school there, it would have saved the village all this money.

Am I missing something here? Didn't the preschool folks make an offer to buy a property that was for sale? Didn't the owners of this property want to sell it b/c the Congregation that was residing there was behind on their payments? Love to know how these "Good Neighbors" make their livings? I guess in their business dealings they just always step aside when asked? FWIW, I live on Park Blvd and laugh hysterically when I read that this will add cars to the "noon rush hour". Give me a break.

quote:

Originally posted by jombl:
One of the neighbors has to share his driveway with the school entrance - they are the same. That would upset anyone.

You are mistaken here jombl, the driveway for the school pick-up and drop off is adjacent to Carl's driveway. Additionally, Carl's drivway, such as it is, doubles as an easement to get to the school's rear parcles as well as the church's before this.

Same situation, different owner. That's what makes most of us say hmmmmm?

IMO, the first objections were ok, even the second - but now that it's been thrown out of court not once, but twice, time for those folks to realize they can't have their private little park anymore and might have to share it with, God forbid, a private school with a smallish attendance that has been in existence in GE for a number of years. Or, had the neighbors wanted the property sealed off from any further usage, why did they not buy the property once the church got behind on their payments, and donate it to the village as a park?

I really don't think it's worry about a small, private school that's freaking them out - they just wanted an unused piece of land on that corner, like it's been for quite a while. I still have to wonder what would have happened had a small congregation, other than mainstream Christian, tried to buy that property - would the good neighbors actually been neighborly?

What have the good neighbors proposed as appropriate use of the space? Or are they just a 'party of no' these days?

Wonder how long before they all started to complain about the vacant property in their neighborhood. And why doesn't the village do something about it.

You know its a good thing nothing much happens in GE. I don't know how we would deal with it

I'm happy that the Village seems to have done the right thing (represent the interest of the community at large) . The place was a church and could have still been, which is not just about Sunday service traffic as thriving churches are in use pretty much 7 days a week.

A Montessori school seems like a wonderful and appropriate use of the site, regardless of the "technicalities" or whatever you want to call the process and it's subsequent costly litigation. Seems to me as a logical use of a small church building.

I disagree with your #9.

With regard to this project, there are many conflicted relationships, which, at the very least give the appearance of impropriety.

Plan Commissioner Whalen's undisclosed conflict regarding the building of both Repking's and Armstrong's homes and his owing the Village a large sum of money, which, by the way, rests with Planning and Development is just one.

I have an issue with certain Village Leaders working behind the scenes advocating for a project that they themselves will approve.

I have a HUGE issue with both the Chief's and Ms. Hulseberg's objectivity as it relates to this project.

If I remember correctly, in addition to the Chief and Ms. Hulseberg receiving favorable support from the Repkings (in relation to saving their jobs), Trustee Armstrong, their Attorney and Plan Commission Liaison, with the help of few on this board, led a successful campaign saving both of their jobs - all the while Armstrong's client (the Repkings/Diamonte Montessori) received favorable testimony from the Chief regarding traffic and safety at the intersection of Hillside and Park.

I, like Dinsdale, "hope the speaker had a pretty good reason to say something that many folk interpret as indicating misdeeds by folk who oppose this project."

Otherwise, one might suggest that Repking's and Armstrong’s allegiance to the Chief and Ms. Hulseberg continues to pay big dividends. Just ask yourself, why would the Chief publicly announce his "recent" opening of an investigation into the planting of asbestos, while simultaneously issuing a single, predetermined conclusion as to how the asbestos got there?

All I know is that I wouldn’t expect any announcement - whatsoever - until after a thorough investigation had been completed. A conclusion given prior to the completion of an investigation reeks of bias.

Mark Pfefferman has his work cut out for him. I wish him the best in his push for an ethics policy as it is long overdue.

quote:

Originally posted by jombl:
After watching the Mews and Clinic get rammed through ...

Going out on a limb here... ...I certainly have my opinions about the "good neighbors", but they would just be rehashing others sentiments. Has anyone had any other problems with the Clinic property? If I recall, the main issue stemmed from the new entrance/exit from Western. This was supposed to create massive traffic tie ups and potential traffic hazards. I travel this section every day, several different times. I have never been inconvenienced by a steady stream of traffic or misguided attempts to enter onto Western. This is turning out to be a poor argument in deferrence to the taxes the clinic pays.

The Mews is a joke of a different color.

But wouldn't common sense just tell you it seems like an appropriate use for the building?
Geez.

How does being friends with someone obligate you to blindly take their side? My best friend is my spouse, yet we disagree on lots of things. I often tell my boss why I think he's wrong, and he continues to pay me. We have clients who pay us for our time and talent, and we periodically disagree with them. I have co-workers I like a lot, but we're ofter on opposite sides when it comes to figuring out what to do next and how to do it.

Are you people so easily "bought" that you figure everybody is?

What does she look like...this photographer? Uh....how do I put this....heavy set?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by El Kabong:

Plan Commissioner Whalen's undisclosed conflict regarding the building of both Repking's and Armstrong's homes and his owing the Village a large sum of money, which, by the way, rests with Planning and Development is just one. [QUOTE]

It is my understanding that after Mr. Whalen built the Repking's house, as a plan commission member, he voted no on their attempt to move into St. Mark's church. Not sure how you view his "appearance of impropriety" in that matter.


[QUOTE]If I remember correctly, in addition to the Chief and Ms. Hulseberg receiving favorable support from the Repkings (in relation to saving their jobs), Trustee Armstrong, their Attorney and Plan Commission Liaison, with the help of few on this board, led a successful campaign saving both of their jobs - all the while Armstrong's client (the Repkings/Diamonte Montessori) received favorable testimony from the Chief regarding traffic and safety at the intersection of Hillside and Park.[QUOTE]

So, because Armstrong, Ladesic and quite a few members of this community fought the dismissal of two of the Village's best employees, in your view, that equates to a quid pro quo? If Armstrong's clients got favorable testimony from the Chief, what did all of the other people get in return for their support? What did the past village presidents who suported them get? What did the business owners get? Clearly, they have received something. What was it. I am sure your supporters on this board would like to know. Or, maybe, it just might have been that they all thought they were doing the right thing.

[QUOTE]Otherwise, one might suggest that Repking's and Armstrong’s allegiance to the Chief and Ms. Hulseberg continues to pay big dividends. Just ask yourself, why would the Chief publicly announce his "recent" opening of an investigation into the planting of asbestos, while simultaneously issuing a single, predetermined conclusion as to how the asbestos got there?[QUOTE]

There is an old maxim that goes something like this: When the law is not on your side, argue the facts. When the facts are not on your side, argue the law. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, personally attack your opponent.

Clearly, we know where you are at. You seek conspiracies and "the appearance of impropriety" around every corner. Everyone who has either helped the Repkings or spoken honestly on their behalf in this matter is corrupt in some way and has been targeted by the "Good Neighbors." Your message is clear: help the Repkings or the school and we will investigate you as well.

In all of you 90+ FOIAs you have found no "smoking gun." Send out another 90 more FOIAs and you will still find nothing. The reason is simple--there is no "there" there.
Maybe, just maybe, although you do not agree with the decision, it was arrived at fairly.

Hopefully, some day, you will be able to devote all of this time and energy for something that is positive for you, your family and the "Good Neighbors." Maybe, you will get involved in village government to get an inside look at how UN-CORRUPT things are in Glen Ellyn. Maybe it will help you see that prior relationships-be they personal or profesional-do not prevent people from doing their jobs in an ethical and respectful manner.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, but I find it hard to believe that one who lived so close to a house of worship can be filled with so much anamosity, hatred and distrust.

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:
Despite your protests...you have a horse in this race, don't you Dinsdale?

As a frequent driver/biker/pedestrian in the area I have a (very mild) preference against the school and new driveway, but it really is extremely low on the list of things I have opinions about. My preference would probably be for a couple of taxpaying houses on the property, but I sure didn't buy the property to develop it, so I have little complaint in that department.

I know casually a family that lives next door to the project. Based on my past experiences with the village and its attitude towards development, I can well imagine their feelings of not having their legitimate concerns addressed by the village. But again, after experiencing such treatment a couple of times myself, I pretty much expect it. Not about to be a crusader.

So that's about as full disclosure as I can think of. Unless you know something about me that I don't?

Just bustin' on ya, Yo. Truth be told...other than the expense...I don't really care. Though I did see a familiar name on the GN petition.