Hats off to Mayor & City Council for moving forward on this project to restore a blighted property to the tax rolls.

In the course of my work on this issue, I had the opportunity to speak to a shop keeper on Main Street, who, when asked if he would step forward and speak his mind at a City meeting, politely refused, saying that he felt that the City never bothered to listen to the wishes and desires of the residents and it would thus be a waste of his time to attend the meeting, let alone say anything at the meeting. Having not spent much time working on local political issues, I thought he was simply jaded and dismissed his attitude. After the City Council meeting last night, I now fully understand his position. The Resident Survey (paid for and conducted by the City) established with "95% percent certainty" that the residents do not want developments like the Lexington Club in St. Charles. Two petitions, signed by a total of slightly over 1,100 residents and/or workers in the City (the largest petitions ever presented to Council, I have been told) also signaled that this development was not wanted in St. Charles. No matter. Apparently we need more rooftops, regardless of the political cost. In addition to severely damaging relations with the residents, we can now all look forward to the great joy of having to pay for this unwanted development through increases to our property tax bills for years to come.

David, I am curious about why you think this will increase property taxes.

Ted - the analysis is lengthy really cannot be done in 1,000 character posts, at least not in any sane way. I would be more than happy to meet with you, and share with you letters that I sent to the Council, where I crunched the numbers and laid out for them (using data provided by the City itself as the launching point for the analysis) the proof behind what I was saying. If you then wanted to do an article on what this all means to us in St. Charles (higher taxes and/or cuts to services), I would welcome it. You have my e-mail address; please contact me directly and let's set up a time to meet. The voters in STC deserve to know what just happened last night.

I'll be curious, because if your analysis in any way rests on the idea that the school district or park district would raise rates to counter the stagnant revenue at the Lexington site, I would suggest it may be flawed. I've seen this type of assertion arise in other communities that considered TIFs (I edited stories from the Dundees, Carpentersville, Elgin and elsewhere for more than a decade when I was night editor for The Courier in Elgin), and there are statutory reasons such a move cannot be done. But perhaps you have another basis for you assertion, and I would be interested in learning more sometime.

At the same time that Lexington is forced forward by City leadership, tonight, the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Draft is being presented to the Plan Commission: under Land Use p.32 "Although roads & intersections can be widened & schools expanded,a less costly approach would be to work within the framework of the City's well-established infrastructure, evaluating a proposed developments' impact on City systems & working with developers to mitigate & minimize strains on local systems".

The people who were opposed to this particular proposal (but not to the redevelopment of the property) and this particular TIF (which may not cost the City anything, but which will surely cost all the taxpayer in St. Charles something) will NOT forget those Alderman who voted in favor of both.

Aldermen Monken and Carrignan, we will be working to help your opponents prevail in the upcoming elections. Aldermen Payleitner, Martin, and Bessner, we will be looking for strong candidates to run against you in two years.

When Aldermen and the Mayor completely disregard not only the hundreds of residents who signed petitions against both the PUD and the TIF but also the results of the City Prioities Survey which shows that the residents of St. Charles are overwhelmingly opposed to new residential units at this time, then it is time for them to leave public service. We need to get new representation that will actually represent the interests of the residents as opposed to the interests of developers.

Neither the mayor nor most of the city council listen to the voice of the people. This is supposed to be our government and it is not even close. Do you want to know what is wrong with our federal government today--look around at our local politicians--unfortunately they grow up to be our federal politicians. Good riddance mr mayor --and people wake up--vote the rest of the bums out of office before they have a chance to "grow up".

Doug you are correct they definitely did not listen to the people and they need to go. They could have allowed for some discussion on the plan since it hadn't been talked about since May, but nope the Mayor made sure there was no discussion. I also found it interesting how the mayoral candidate John Rabchuk had a smile on his face during the vote. Guess it was obvious he was happy about the vote

Ted towards your rooftop comments. Sure S Elgin was building but so was St. Charles, Harvest Hills, finishing Renaux Manor, Amli Apartments. Yet you still see most commercial currently even in this bad economy going either North or South on Randall. They simply pass right over and by St Charles? Why it cannot be rooftops because we still dominate in that, it's absolutely the poor job our Economic Dept and City has done. All they seek are rooftops and that's the issue. Look at our East side, only recently have they even started a discussion of a new business taxing district yet it's sat for years going backwards.

They turned away a Golf Driving Range on Tyler Rd because the netting and lights would be a eyesore and burden to the neighbors yet they pass this poor housing project without issues? I bet every Alderman who voted for Lexington last night would have voted NO if that project was to be built a couple blocks behind their own homes, yet they handed us residents this sad plan. Then to make it worse not one of them would even look us in the eye as they didn't. What does it tell you when someone can't make eye contact with you? It speaks for itself. We acted respectful, we backed up are arguments and points and showed valid flaws in the traffic studies, turned in petitons and nothing at all mattered to the certain few, they still handed without question Lexington everything they asked and gave residents who they are suppose to represent, nothing in return and ruined a neighborhood in doing so.

Well,one good judge of character remains, that someone can look you steadily in the eye, even when they are saying something you might disagree with. In the case of the aldermen, it need not be taken as "I told you so", but more as, "I believe in what I am doing as your representative, please believe in me". In the face of residents who worked dilligently over the past several years, to research, fact-check, attend meetings, speak during public comment, speak to the affected taxing bodies, contact their representatives, write to the press, circulate petitions getting over 1,000 signatures, organize an advocacy group, build a facebook discussion group, reach across the city building consensus with groups of residents in other areas. Respectfully, this audience has seen more than one glance at their representatives and are entitled to judge this remarkable moment as they choose, from a base of years of watching these people in action, in city government,on hundreds of votes. It was, in unison, at the least, an avoidance. Continued by the brusque demeanor of the mayor as he exited, avoiding resident Brian Volpe who was attempting to reach the podium in time to speak.Granted, the back of the room was a bit confusing, with people rising to leave, and Brian trying to make his way up. Not even offering Mr Volpe a civil, firm explanation, that moment also spoke volumes to the residents. I commend Council who did remain in place to respect and listen to Brian's remarks.

Residential TIF's are very risky. This one could have been so much better for all the residents of the area. They should have been listened to. As for the rooftop argument that is not as relevant as it was when the economy was good. This development will not solve any economic development problem in St. Charles. Any development on the west side has just a great a chance to help the economy of South Elgin as much as STC. I also feel this way about the Red Gate Bridge. I think it is good that it was built because any way to move traffic across the river is positive but it gives people a great way to bypass STC and get to Randall Rd. There is a much bigger story in relation to this project than meets the eye.

Totally agree with Ms. Klinkhamer and shows someone someone with Political experience and who once ran this City sees the problems with this as well as us being the ones to keep providing the new shoppers for the surrounding communities instead of luring th business here and attracting shoppers from other communities. Ted your reply to the rooftops and lack of commercial sound like nothing but pointing it all to an array of unlimited excuses. It's not that complex. Batavia, Geneva, S Elgin and even little Campton Hills all have recent commercial development projects in planning, being built or completed. We have what?????? These projects aren't just happening due to luck everywhere else but St. Charles. That is why City's hire Economic Directors, for the purpose of developing their economic base by seeking out and bringing business to the City. Where has ours been? Ms. Klinkhamer when Mayor was one of our leading "promoters" out selling and praising St. Charles. We lost that image and vitality when we lost her as mayor. Since then it's been a horrible stagnation for commercial development.

Ted, to your eye contact answer. I have been involved in this project for almost 6 years now. Never in any previous meeting has the council ever acted or avoided looking up to the audience like last night. Just as when they sat there and took Stillwell's tongue lashing a few weeks ago and allowed him to disrespect them as he did. Had any citizen ever acted in that way towards them, they would have been thrown out as almost happened to Mr. LaVolpe last night and Ms. Bell-La Sota at that same meeting as Stillwell. There are two sets of rules of conduct currently in this City. One the residents must follow which is respect at all times and one the developers, staff and administration are allowed to follow which is anything goes.

Double standards is an issue I understand well, Craig, and what you point out here certainly seems like that. I could hazard a guess or two about why things may have unfolded as they did in regard to that, but I am reluctant to do so simply because I don't have the complete picture -- I'm lacking some context.

Sue as often has been the case, you and I are on the same page. This was a major missed opportunity to develop a wonderful plan that both the Developer and the residents could be proud of. I also agree that roof tops on the west side won't bring much sale tax revenue in until you bring the commercial in for them to shop at. This idea that more rooftops will bring the business is unfounded and it definitely does not mean you build something that has a negative impact on a neighborhood. It is a deplorable that the council dismissed the residents concerns. We definitely need change

As this is a done deal, I'd like to express some concerns re: traffic in the area of the development. If 120 more families are going to use 2nd Street as a major route to and from their subdivision, something has to be done about the congestion at 2nd and Main Street. Left turn lanes have to be added to that intersection. It's like something designed for Mayberry RFD right now, not a large and expanding town like St. Charles. There are properties on the NE and SW corners of the intersection that could be acquired for the purpose of adding left turn lanes. Consideration should also be given to adding a light at N 2nd Street and Timbers Trail (across from Boy Scout Island). It's hard enough right now to turn left onto N 2nd Street from Timbers Trail; this subdivision will only make matters worse.

Thomas, I agree with your concerns, now think what our neighborhood streets which were never designed 80 years ago to accomdate street parking and two directional traffic. It barely can handle the current traffic and festival traffic. All these 120 families first have to get in and out of the neighborhood before they can even add traffic on 2nd St and Main St. How the council stuck the residents with these issues without a formal resolution that truly dealt with the traffic is beyond me and a failure of their duty to do so. In fact any street improvements which are minimal at best will not be funded by the developer until 1/2 the development is built out. For me that is a little late to then tear up streets furthering the problems while the improvements are installed which always take months. Again what were those who voted to approve this mess thinking????

Ms. Klinkhamer hit the nail directly on the head in her final statement "There is a much bigger story in relation to this project than meets the eye." It wasn't about right or wrong good or bad at all. The answers lie much deeper.

Although it will not help the residents near the former Applied Composites site now, the lame duck Mayor showed why it is a good thing that he will be leaving office.

Can you imagine him actually staying in office if his actions reflect the following mind-set: screw the residents of the area who wanted a more appropriately sized development, disregard the petitioners and people who testified at hearing, completely disregard the City's 2012 Priorities Survey, which showed that residents did not feel that more housing was appropriate, and disregard the opinions of the Aldermen whose Ward includes the site.

No wonder nobody wants him around anymore.