Thank you, City Council!

Yes thank you council. The voice of the people has been heard! Lexington has shown no concern about the negative effects that this type of development would have on the surrounding neighborhood, espcially in regards to traffic. They just want to make a profit and let the city deal with the aftermath. We need a better plan.

Chris Aiston was wrong about the Joint Review Board did not approve the changes to the TIF because how could they approve it without taking a vote, which they did not do. They listened to what the Mayor a couple of residents had to say, they never commented, and then the Mayor adjourned the meeting.

Attorney Stillwell made a complete fool out of himself at the meeting. In his defense, I suppose he was upset because both of the projects he represents got voted down by the Committee; but he was wrong about both working with the Aldermen and about the City being anti-development: the City Council is beginning to wake up and realize that RESPONSIBLE development is preferable to development for development's sake...and that my friends and fellow citizens is a very good thing.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=10151313424527847#!/notes/brian-doyle/open-letter-on-lexington-club-and-cptf/10151313424527847

What was wrong about Stillwell's rant was his client way back when, never came before P&D with a concept plan, he instead went behind close doors with Administraion as he admits and listened to their promises when they don't pass anything. How come Mc Donalds came before the P&D (as should happen) asking for they comments and direction BEFORE moving forward. Stillwell has done this for 30 years and should have known better. To blame the Council members was absolutely lame, blame the Administration, they led you a stray not the council. The process he took was the wrong one and it's his own fault.

Ted, in regards to projects, the City of St. Charles has been more concerned with quantity than quality, more concerned with adding "rooftops" to the City than in making sure that the projects are appropriate and will not be overly disruptive to existing neighborhoods.

In the case of the Lexington Club fiasco, anybody with any common sense realized that the number of units was way too dense for the site and would generate way to much traffic for older streets, not designed for that much traffic. The area residents are not "nimbys" who do not want to see development on that site; they want to see a development that will match the density of their neighborhoods and will reflect the type of homes already available--that means no more than 80 single family detached homes, not the 102 townhomes and 28 single family detached homes being proposed currently by Lexington. And what they really feel would be most appropriate for that site would be a complex for independent and assisted living for seniors and for handicapped war veterans, which would mean much less traffic, which would have almost no impact on the school system (in terms of adding more students), and which would create jobs--thus being a win-win for everybody.

Steve, I never said the area residents were NIMBYs and never implied that, either. My observation from the start is there are opposing views on this, and I understand both sides. I do not claim to have the expertise to say one side it right or another is wrong.

My point in the comment above was that city staff has a job to do -- to serve the public and to do so according to the policies set by the City Council and the laws of the city and the state. To blame the administration for doing its job -- because like it or not, a developer is a member of the public -- puts the administration in a position where its damned no matter how it acts. You can't fault the administration for doing its job. The City Council, not the administration or, for that matter, the residents of a neighborhood, sets citywide policy.

In terms of what the neighborhood feels would be best for the site, I've never argued that. But the developer was not interested in that. The developer pursued his own plan and, ultimately lost.

Ted this would normally be true and was true in past administrations, but for the last at least 6 years that is not the case. Instead our administration choses not to give full transparent disclosure to our City Council. They lead the developers on that they will have votes for the projects as proposed instead of truly listen to the Council feedback. This has come out in several of the Committee meetings including a prior Lexington Club meeting. A good example of this is the fact that the developer of Corporate Reserves had not paid their taxes as of Monday and it was sold as a tax sale. This issue was brought up previously by Aldermwoman Krieger and the administration should have disclosed this to the Council prior to Monday night and this is just one of the many behind the scene things that happen and so the Council and the public is losing trust of the Administration. Lexington Club is another good example of this. In 2009 they came before the P&D Committee for a concept plan review. The Council pretty much gave their blessing and the residents really didn't complain, but this was at a lower density and even a few council members were still concerned about the density and design then. Then 2 1/2 years later they come back with a higher density plan. Now where do you think they got that direction. It definitely was not the Council.

So, how well will the roads hold up to hundreds of employees and semi-trucks coming and going to an industrial plant built on the site. That is the current zoning, and they could get a building permit for that tomorrow. Something to think about.

Well the residents of the area who I know well, all have no issues with keeping it industrial. Many have lived here for 40 & 50 yrs even worked in the old plants and have no issues at all. The streets will hold up just as they have all the years when trucks and employees used them plus the land meets standards without the TI, all they need to do cover in concrete!. What, hundreds of more residents won't do damage or congest the streets at all? It's not the residents are even against single family residentialbeing built, it's the townhouses (where there are none currently) that just don't blend that they have issues with and the CHEAP TRACK HOME PLAN of Lexington. Like 2 floor plans with 6 facades, that isn't quality homes in any way shape or form. If they proposed 80-90 single family homes on similar sized lots are the area, I highly doubt the battle would be what it is. If they proposed a single family or one level attached 55+ community that wouldn't burden the schools with students or lots of traffic, because many would be retired, the people would welcome that as well. The problem is the City and Lexington have no vision and don't get that the demographics show that 10k people are retiring each and every day and will for the next 30 yrs. We have enough of the traditional housing and that is not what the future will require. The smart devlopers who see where the trends are in fact going and who will build to meet that need will be the successful developers of tomorrow.

The sad thing is we are dealing with Lexington Homes who doesn't have that smarts to see the future, they want to continue to build what they have built for the last 20+ years which is nothing new and doesn't fill what the future needs will be and the other sad piece is that our City leaders and planners haven't the vision either. Their heads are in the sand thinking the same old thing will keep working.

Ted, towards your comment about what I wrote isn't getting my issue. It's fine for the planners to help guide the process of what needs to take place. My issue isn't that, it what Stillwell complained about twice at the meetings and that was (and he named him specifically) that Brian Townsend has for 4 years been assuring them that what they wanted to build would be appropriate and would be approved. Mr. Townsend doesn't have that power nor is it his job title to makeassurances to developers nor tell them what is appropriate or not. That is for the Plan Commission, P&D and eventually the City Council. To deliberately make those assumptions and on top of it not informing the other reviewing bodies your do such is wrong, inappropriate and mislead the developer which is what Stillwell complained about. Mr. Townsend's job title is City Administrator, not City Planner, not Planning & Development member, not City Council member or Alderman. He doesn't have a vote on any of this and therefore should have simply encouraged Lexington to present a plan as Mc Donalds did for preliminnary review. To mislead someone that they will get approval when you haven't that power nor assurance is dead wrong and has been an issue on other projects too recently like the driving range on Tyler where the people purchased the property because the City again assured them it would fly and the P&D shut them totally down, Hopefully you now understand where I am coming from. Stillwell should have known.....

Actually, the zoning for the former Applied Composites site is Light Manufacturing and many thing are not allowed under that zoning. The City made a Plastics recycler move out of a building adjacent to the Applied Composites site because recycling was not allowed under that zoning. He had around 12 employees, made little noise, kept the outside of his factory very clean, and produced no smoke or odors. I think the area residents would rather see ten such businesses on that site than the overly dense project that Lexington Homes is proposing. Even if the traffic were the same, which is highly unlikely, the businesses would create permanent jobs, would not have any impact on District 303 schools in terms of adding more students, and would not require 300 to 500 bomber-truck trips to remove the soil to be remediated because the EPA would allow it all to be covered in cement, like the former Moline Malleable site.

Over 300 pages of correspondence between developers/ investors, representatives of Lexington & the City, incl. correspondence redacted by the city, were obtained via a resident's FOIA . They indicate hours, years of pre-negotiations between the city & Lexington. If the City have nothing to hide, why were page upon page redacted? At the P &D meeting Monday, Mr Stillwell raised his voice, in fact shouted at one point, ( should have been reprimanded by Alderman Carrignan- was not) alluding to these negotiations in his arguement for their compliance w/ the City. There is a difference between guidance & promises. There is concrete evidence of promises made in the past between City & the owner of The Alibi, the partners in the golf venue-in the very words of these men, frustrated & taken by surprise that their plans had opposition. That's not fair to them or to taxpayers.Townsend has too WAY much reach. That stymies development, because the borderline is being crossed behind "closed doors". We're not opposed to development,aware of the value of the New Urbanism view of infill redev,the fact that opportunites are precious few in STC for revenue-generating dev, compatible & complimentary to the surrounding residential-developed areas.Next, some will try anything to reverse the finding. Cronies & appointees will come forward. Rabchuk spoke agressively pro-multifamily , set against making any changes at Comp Plan mtg. Rogina has tread lightly. Keep that in mind, when voting in April.

And the JRB did not vote. They were told by DeWitte reading a letter written by (I wonder who?) they had no obligation to vote, or reconsider the TIF, under state statute, because it was still in draft form. Despite the TIF being increased by 23% (& statute says 5% or more, it goes back for review), they cited that technicality to the Board, and the JRB sat silent, save for a reading of a D303 letter restating support of the cleanup. 50% of the TIF is for site levelling & soil removal and backfill primarity because of the plan of development, not the cleanup. If you examine the engineers Sept. 2011 soil report, of the 11 concern areas, heating oil tank removal and solid garbage & unstable fiberglass removal are the main recommendation. There are no "volatile organic compounds" ( must remove for commercial or residential development) in the soil anywhere near levels needing remediation. This mantra of cleanup needs perspective.

Can anybody answer this question: was this the first time that the TIF was up for a vote in front of members of the City Council? Past affirmations of the PUD are meaningless, as they really have nothing to do with acceptance of the TIF. Were there any prior votes taken in front of City Council or any of their committees that affirmed the TIF?

Ted, Hmm. Not sure why you're targeting me. My post was not agressive, it contains facts provided to me by a resident. I am removing myself from your forum, because it is you, who is being agressive to me. Kind of scarey, thinking you're judging who is who and questioning our identities. I don't care to give you, or anyone else, my last name, sorry. It is not required here-so why single me out?

David, This is the first time through-they kept pushing TIF consideration into future meetings until the Plan was accepted-said the two could not be considered together, anytime discussion was raised from the residents or Council itsself. Any records I have-and between J. & I, I think we have all minutes of all meetings-the TIF discussion came after the Plan, so, only one time. As you know, the developer said but for the TIF, they could not afford to build, so it kept getting entangled in discussions along the way.

Ted, I go back many years, back to the Fred Norris administration, so, my observations have the perspective that comes with a long history of watching the dynamics in town, comparing leadership, staff, "keeping an ear to the ground",for the facts, not just taking blogs at face value. I appreciate your comments, but I saw 2 instances (i'll get you the dates of the minutes) for your "concrete evidence"....with the owner of the Alibi and with the co-owners of the proposed golf venue on the east side, among many others. Well, I'll see what the minutes might show you-many other examples....it appears to me to be more than serving the community. Maybe overserving.....but, after this, I am taking a holiday break-home alot, w/ some health issues, leads me to the computer. Too often! But, I enjoy your reporting. Think I've heard enough of me for awhile. I will get back w/that info, then, on to Christmas!

Something like eight years ago, there were several incidents involving Wikipedia that exposed a flaw in the ability to post anonymously on the Internet. Some political campaigns had created Wikipedia entries about their candidates, their stands on issues, etc.

What they did not realize was that anyone with a computer and an email address could register to become a Wikipedia "editor." Wikipedia was founded with the premise of being an online encyclopedia that would be continuously updated by an online community of people who cared about accuracy and the changes brought about by new scientific discoveries.

Wikipedia's founders apparently overrated human nature. Some political hacks edited the entries of their political opponents to make them look bad. It was a scandal at the time but amusing to many. Yet it continues to illustrate the caution one must use when consuming information on the Internet. Some sources are more reliable than others.

I'd infinitely prefer to be a reliable one.