The comments posted on this message board represent the individual opinions of their respective posters only and are not to be construed as statements of proven or alleged fact.
They've been up for a couple months now. I think the village got tired of chasing away teenagers that were drinking in there or the occasional homeless person that would pitch a tent in there.
It would be nice if they would clean it up so it is usable...
That is where I thought - tho in my mind I tend to not distinguish between the areas N and S of Illinois.
I had always assumed that that was all GEPD land, but the GEPD website refers only to 4.8 acres on the S side of Illinois - including the playground. Does anyone know who has authority over the "bog" area in question N of Illinois?
If it IS public property as I suspect, I certainly think it would be better for the village to scare out the teen drinkers and homeless campers, and to make it more useable to the community as a whole, instead of simply declaring it off-limits to everyone. Maybe they are simply awaiting the influx of trashcan-advertising revenue...
Anticipating criticism of being a naysayer, I'll observe that if my PD considers itself unable to minimally maintain an existing facility such as this, I question their choice to spend millions on a new building. Take care of your existing facilities/programs/customers, before seeking new ones. (Same observation/criticism would be appropriate for D41!)
This is the property of the village. In the past there have been organzied eagle/boy scout projects working with the neighborhood and village to clean up the trails in there and put down new woodchips on the trails. However, it has been 3+ years since that last happened.
A few years ago I heard a proposal to clear out the weed trees and make this a more usable area, but nothing has come of it. At one time (in the last 5 years) there was a published survey of the hardwood/non-weed trees in there. Surprisingly, there are a number of hardwood trees in there (oak/maple/ash/etc.) This was published in the paper I think.