|
|
· Bulletin Board |
|
News · Calendars |
|
|
|||
Topic Closed|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
|
GlenEllynite |
GEmom2 is to trees as Yossarian is to trivia.  |
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
"Tree-via"
|
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
Thanks - This thread needed some "leave-ity."
 |
|||
|
GlenEllynite |
|
|||
|
GlenEllynite |
Gemom2 - tree hugger
Glen Ellyn Park District - Tree Thuggers |
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
I asked my tree care company, Davey Tree, if they will even be bidding on the Ackerman Woods project.
The district manager responding, writing "As for the contracting of the work we do not bid on or do land clearing jobs. It is antithetical to our purpose." Great to see a for-profit entity with a purpose that goes beyond the dollar. If only some of our tax-funded decision-makers could do the same regarding the destruction of these woods. |
|||
|
GlenEllynite |
The most important issue tho, is if they clear this land, where will the people on the south side of St. Charles rd dump their lawn clippings and dead leaves???
|
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
I don't think it has gone to bid yet. At least, I haven't seen it on any of the bid boards where the municipal entities normally list bid invites. |
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
geez, nobody that went to the meeting last night can post here and update us?
|
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
What I am reading here is that if the current soccer fields were in better condition there would be less "over crowding." And no official surveys have ever been taken the GE Park District admitted to know how many more fields are needed. And the Park Distruict was caught in a "lie" when they said there are 2,000 children using these fields. But they admitted under questioning at the 4/10 meeting that the 2,000 amounts to 1,200 in the spring and 800 in the fall - not 2,000 at the same time. I always hate to see these folks having to misrepresent the facts. If the programs are truly needed why do they have to lie? |
|||
|
GlenEllynite |
Maybe they just got finished watching this video: f*&k-the-earth-day |
|||
|
GlenEllynite |
Well Said taxpayer. |
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
Love the update at http://www.saveackermanwoods.com/ today. Nicely done.
|
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
Repeating now, wonderful job by the group fighting for these trees. We tree huggers applaud your work.
Two wonderful photographers will be out at Ackerman Woods at sunset tomorrow to photograph the place and hopefully the group fighting for the trees will be getting those photos by the weekend for their website. |
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
I agree. Very well done effort.
Kinda sad a bunch of private citizens must go to such lengths to oppose such a wrongheaded policy. I note they have done a better job documenting their position than I can recall from the park or school districts...  |
|||
|
GlenEllynite |
the two areas and points of contention are not the same issue. One is a remediation issue with the County, the tree removal and water retention area are not.
Should the PD be responsible for it's errors in the wetlands issue? Definitely. The two issues are not mutually exclusive. Does this indicate a true pattern of nature abuse? I would need more evidence than this. |
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
At the least, I think they make a decent prima facie case for a little delay to fully consider this matter which, IMO, was pretty much sprung on the public as a fait accompli. (How bout that? Latin AND frog in a single 1 sentence post! Let's see you ulture-cay ultures-vay top THAT!) I think their quote from Tommy Jay is pretty prudent. If only our commander in hief had follwed such counsel 5 years ago. |
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
Rob, I wouldn't characterize this as a pattern of nature abuse. However, I do see a pattern of these two government bodies engaging in a behavior of avoiding public oversight. |
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
I would certainly agree with you on this point. I just hate to see people trot out all kinds of scenarios that do not apply to the current issue. Should this be held up for more scrutiny, or the process slowed for more review? I do not see how that can affect any sale price or construction timeline. Unless the plan called for the construction of the soccer fields to be completed for fall usage. I believe, even though it did not come to light in a timely fasion, that this group has had numerous times to address both boards in recent weeks. Agree or disagree with the outcome, but they did have the opportunity to be heard. |
|||
|
|
GlenEllynite |
And, the PD has talked about this for what.. a decade? I remember several years ago a plan being floated where the area would be clear-cut for ball fields with a 40' buffer of trees left behind the residences on the east side of Lenox. Again, hate to see it all go. But this isn't a new idea. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Bulletin Board | ||
| Servlet | eve2da015 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Blue Steel [Default]" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
Topic Closed| Other Sub-Directories and Indices within the Glen Ellyn Web Site... | |||
| Cable, Broadband, DSL etc... | Photo Gallery... | Welcome & Site Info Page | |
