quote:

Originally posted by Dinsdale:
This is too damn funny, guys.
If you wrote it as fiction, folks would say it was unbelievable.
I think the town has truly turned the corner with this move.

I think it was Potts or GEFan that jumped on my @ss a few months back when I mentioned that I would not recommend Glen Ellyn over Wheaton or Naperville to those looking to move to the western burbs. Once again, for those not paying attention, I am a genius.

quote:

Originally posted by Dinsdale:
This is too damn funny, guys.
If you wrote it as fiction, folks would say it was unbelievable.
I think the town has truly turned the corner with this move.

It has turned the corner...for the better. Everyone knows about this...and everyone who I've spoken to is really really pissed about it!

However, acts like this and the resultant community response will motivate people to become involved....to take leadership roles....to continue to push for open government and change.

I just hope that those who had the courage to send letters, attend the meetings and make the time to make their voices heard do not get discouraged but instead, use it as a rallying cry to continue to speak and continue to get involved. An involved populace is government's worst fear.

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:

quote:

Originally posted by Dinsdale:
This is too damn funny, guys.
If you wrote it as fiction, folks would say it was unbelievable.
I think the town has truly turned the corner with this move.

I think it was Potts or GEFan that jumped on my @ss a few months back when I mentioned that I would not recommend Glen Ellyn over Wheaton or Naperville to those looking to move to the western burbs. Once again, for those not paying attention, I am a genius.

It must have been GEFan as I didn't do that.

Still, that being said, your comment is preposterous. Wheaton has these problems, Naperville has these problems, Hinsdale has these problems...every community has these problems.

Glen Ellyn is a great place to live...with or without the issues on Duane. That being said, it could be a much better place.

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad. This is our town and our money paying for this.

Do members of the current board dislike Dan Gardener, or have some ax to grind with him? He had a vested interest in this - in a positive way.

As for the presentation by Town Builders - I'm not sure what their innovative ideas are. I already posted the redundancy of the 8mm to DVD business as being available for several years at Walgreen's with two locations in GE. Did TB spend no time looking at what GE already has available?

Everyone already knows the jazz events are a draw for people, though I wonder if local businesses benefited from that event this past summer.

We have a movie theater already, and the Park District has several "movie events" a year. What would make TB's movies more appealing to residents, while getting money into the community and businesses into empty storefronts.

String Theory in the Banyan Tree Mall already hosts knitting parties - doesn't it?

As for their prior successes - sorry TB when I think of Robbins, I think incinerator - period, not a model for GE. And Berwyn?!? I've never been - is it a model for GE?

Finally, that bid/estimate is ridiculously open ended. Were reimbursable expenses defined somewhere?

The Vicky voting issue needs to be addressed. Please! Pete? Tim? or I'd even listen to what the puppeteer, Joe Wark, has to say this issue (although, I may need to be getting off the train to hear his rants). If Vicky was supposed to vote then that is fine, but I've heard given the votes that were originally cast she was not supposed to vote. I don't know the answer but I think some of you reading this do. If she were not supposed to vote last week than all of this would be moot! (Does that rhyme with w00t?)

I'd feel even worse if Dan Gardner were not such a jerk to me the last time we crossed paths. I think Clam said it a few posts ago, be careful what you say in a potential business setting. It is amazing how long an inconsiderate and ignorant remark will fester.

quote:

As for their prior successes - sorry TB when I think of Robbins, I think incinerator - period, not a model for GE. And Berwyn?!? I've never been - is it a model for GE?

This is Berwyn's pride and joy:



and

I found this last week (when I first predicted this outcome) when questioning whether Pres. Hase's vote was proper. Although it doesn't totally answer the inquiry, it does seem to suggest that her vote was proper as an argument can be made that a majority was needed to pass to the ordinance/resolution/approval/whatever. Since 3 votes were cast in favor of Houseal, a 7th and final vote would have been required to potentially create a majority. The flip-side though, why didn't Pres. Hase, our leader, require Trustee Thorsell to make a definitive vote when her choice is eliminated there and then. Well, we know the answer to that question...she knew what she was doing...the fix was in. Maybe a little more research is in order.

From our Village Attorney's Website

quote:

Municipal Law Q&A
In a village with a president and six trustees, the vote to approve an ordinance authorizing the execution of an annexation agreement is 3-yes, 2-no and 1-absent. Does the president vote? Does the ordinance pass?

ANSWER: The village president votes because half of the board has voted in favor of a proposition, but there is no tie, however the ordinance fails because an ordinance to approve the execution of an annexation agreement requires at least the two-thirds vote of the corporate authorities, which in this case, would require five votes. (65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-3) It is important for elected officials to know those instances in which an extraordinary majority vote is required. These items are listed in the Illinois Municipal Handbook at pages 108-115.

JR
FYI
Sara Lee is flattered but she is 50.
Doesn't erode your point any though.

quote:

Originally posted by Candidate:
JR
FYI
Sara Lee is flattered but she is 50.
Doesn't erode your point any though.

Yeah, I recognized my error after posting it...but not before it was linked.

I never would have guessed 50 though...so I made her 49 out of courtesy.

Need I say more.

0000-5246-4~Ringling-Brothers-World-s-Biggest-Menagerie-Posters.jpg (67 Kb, 962 downloads)

Hi,

Silly optimist that I am, I actually thought it would go the other way. I guess time will tell if Town Builders was a good choice or not. This is disappointing.

Although the two are not related, I keep thinking back to the night Todd Stroger was elected. Watching the results on TV, I kept thinking 'those people are going to regret it.' Hmmmmmm......

quote:

Originally posted by Candidate:
Need I say more.

Smilin' Joe looks pretty good up there.

quote:

Originally posted by JRPotts:
I found this last week (when I first predicted this outcome) when questioning whether Pres. Hase's vote was proper. Although it doesn't totally answer the inquiry, it does seem to suggest that her vote was proper as an argument can be made that a majority was needed to pass to the ordinance/resolution/approval/whatever. Since 3 votes were cast in favor of Houseal, a 7th and final vote would have been required to potentially create a majority. The flip-side though, why didn't Pres. Hase, our leader, require Trustee Thorsell to make a definitive vote when her choice is eliminated there and then. Well, we know the answer to that question...she knew what she was doing...the fix was in. Maybe a little more research is in order.

From our Village Attorney's Website

quote:

Municipal Law Q&A
In a village with a president and six trustees, the vote to approve an ordinance authorizing the execution of an annexation agreement is 3-yes, 2-no and 1-absent. Does the president vote? Does the ordinance pass?

ANSWER: The village president votes because half of the board has voted in favor of a proposition, but there is no tie, however the ordinance fails because an ordinance to approve the execution of an annexation agreement requires at least the two-thirds vote of the corporate authorities, which in this case, would require five votes. (65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-3) It is important for elected officials to know those instances in which an extraordinary majority vote is required. These items are listed in the Illinois Municipal Handbook at pages 108-115.

Doesn't much matter now, but as a point of order, does authorization of expenditure require the same 2/3 as an annexation agreement?

I've only been following this thread marginally. I've come to the realization that, for me, Glen Ellyn's downtown means restaurants, 2 visits a year to Giesche's, tree lighting, The Taste of Corn Dogs, and the occasional visit to 10,000 Villages for knick-knacky gifts. No matter who writes what strategic plan, the odds that the business owners will offer hours that appeal to two-worker, non-retired families are slim to none. So I guess my opinion on this matter means little.

But to be frank, is it that big a deal that Houseal or Town Builders "won" this contract?

Fact One: It was going to be a 4-3 vote either way. So there's going to be at least 3 Village Board members who would be disposed to be critical/cynical of the recommendations provided by the selected consultant. Might make actual agreement on or implementation of any Strategic plan near impossible.

Fact Two: Since I moved here, I've seen little attempt by the various village commissions or boards to actually adhere to the previously commissioned and created village plans (not to mention over-riding village codes and ordinances over residents' objections). What indications do we have that this Strategic plan won't collect dust, same as the others?

Fact Three: As Ted has repeatedly pointed out, we don't control who the building owners lease to or how much they charge. I'm guessing that the changes that a lot of posters on this GEMB envision would probably require big time coercion and financial and/or legal action on the part of the Village. Who's ready for a fight? Who's ready to spend more in taxes? I'm thinking a split Board isn't (or can't). So unless the Strategic Plan includes the Village purchasing a kick *** magic wand at Olivander's, I don't see sweeping change a possibility.

I'm surprised that you, of all people 87, have lost sight of the greater issue. This issue isn't about who was or was not selected [that's a separate issue in and of itself]...this issue is HOW the entity was or was not selected.

Just like the Dist 41 Referendum in 2001....the issue to most wasn't the amount of money obtained....the issue to most was HOW the money was obtained.

Little distinctions like this are not, by any means, insignificant....and you know that better than most.

At the end of the day I guess you could look at it as, some plan is better than none, but given the choice and the fact that we are behind the eight ball on this the competency and experience of the firm is very important.
More importantly than that is this process will take community buy in to implement and we have already set off on the wrong foot by not listening to community input. Not one resident , other than the four who voted for them ,supported Town Builders Studios.

quote:

Originally posted by JRPotts:
I'm surprised that you, of all people 87, have lost sight of the greater issue. This issue isn't about who was or was not selected [that's a separate issue in and of itself]...this issue is HOW the entity was or was not selected.

Just like the Dist 41 Referendum in 2001....the issue to most wasn't the amount of money obtained....the issue to most was HOW the money was obtained.

Little distinctions like this are not, by any means, insignificant....and you know that better than most.

I'm just a bit cynical about any plan that is produced actually being implemented.

But I hear you. If the selection process was hinky, I've got no problem with folks crying foul. It appears, on the info as stated here, that one Trustee changed her mind on which firm her #2 choice was. WHY she did so, she hasn't said, as far as I know. It's fun to speculate, I suppose, but until we hear why (if we hear why), all we can say for sure is that the Village Board voted 4-3 against the (unanimous, really?) requests of those residents so inclined to voice their opinion. I can't imagine that her real reason was "someone got to me".

quote:

Originally posted by middlein87:


I'm just a bit cynical about any plan that is produced actually being implemented.

this is an excellent point, and the primary reason i expressed concerns with the TB selection. i do not see them as being able to implement a plan, and stated so in my letter to the board.

most important, and i apologize for repeating this point, this plan/process/implementation will take WAY more than GE community input. a viable CBD/brand will require gathering and analyzing input from a broad range of consumer segments who live beyond our borders. it will also require research with and buy-in from the landlords and biz owners. IMO, you could not do this extensive research project for $99K. so i really wonder what methodologies are spelled out in their proposal.

moreover, i did not see the very crucial implementation services/qualifications on TB's site. so i fear that, like hiring many consultancies, our "plan/strategy" will be paid for, then end up sitting on our doorstep, leaving town hall in the position of implementing it. . . a depressing thought, IMHO.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: t.a. superette,

T.A.
I don't think the board has seen your letter yet but I expect to see every last one. I think Diane from Go Downtown has been banned from this board for speaking out against the EDC but she called Berwyn and Robbins and both stated that the plans put together for them from Town Builders were not realistically implementable. On a different note, is that Ultra Man on your Avatar?

quote:

On a different note, is that Ultra Man on your Avatar?

It's Gort, from "The Day the Earth Stood Still"