If what you say is truly the case, then we must demand the immediate implementation of a very different way of governing ourselves. Comment periods in front of the Plan Commission, P&D Committee, and the City Council? A complete waste of time and taxpayer money, unless the comments being fielded are directly related to the way that the proposed development will be injurious to the speaker. Things like the resident survey? Get rid of it (or at least the portions of it that pertain to what types of development the residents want to see happen in their town), as it is also a total waste of taxpayer money and an even bigger waste of our collective time, because it is irrelevant. Documents like the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (which set a vision for what we, as a community, wanted to see developed on the old Applied Composites site, down to the types and styles of homes that should go there)? Equally a waste of time and money. Per the argument presented here, that entire document could have been reduced to the phrase "please reference City Ordinances for Zoning and Land Use guidelines," as there would be no need to get the residents involved at all.

The problem is, the City does take the time to survey the residents, to assemble incredibly detailed documents like the 2007 CPA, and asks for input from the residents on development issues. That creates an expectation and a bond of trust that goes back decades.

(cont'd)
To invoke a phrase that has been used in this discussion before, the residents also deserve fair certainty in the process. The City cannot, and must not, lead the residents to believe that their input is wanted and valued, but then turn around and tell them that, due to the limitations in the law, everything they just said is meaningless. All this will lead to is a feeling of abandonment and betrayal on the part of the residents who were tricked into believing that their opinions mattered.

Having said all that (and understand that it was stated from emotions that are still pretty raw), there is a some measure of merit to the argument presented, but I will propose that the author missed one huge factor: negotiations. If the development under consideration is a straight-up development that is asking for exactly zero deviations from our ordinances, then the author's position is absolutely correct. In that scenario, the City has no right or authority to tell the developer anything, short of being there, looking over the plans presented, and making sure they follow the letter of our ordinances.

When the developer presents a plan that is asking for deviations from our ordinances, for whatever reason, the City has the moral authority to ask for something, in exchange (for the collective good of the residents), before permitting the developer to do something that we have specifically said we do not want done.

(cont'd)
As an example, the developer wants lot sizes smaller than our ordinance requires. We (as a part of a give-and-take negotiation) have the power to ask for something in return. Perhaps better materials on the exterior of the buildings, or more trees in the parkway, or a bigger cash contribution to our school district. The City has the authority and the power to conduct that type of negotiation, and the residents have an entirely proper position to expect that the City will consider their views and opinions during the negotiation phase.

When the development under consideration is asking for deviations from our ordinances AND a very significant cash contribution (roughly 12% of the value of the development in question) from property tax revenues via a TIF district, then the issue of the moral and regulatory authority of the City to protect the interests of the residents goes into hyper-drive. The residents are being asked to foot the bill for the development via higher property taxes, so not only do they have to live with the development, they also have to pay for it. If there is any time that the government ought to be listening, very carefully, to the will of the residents (and not just listening, but acting as well) this is it. In this scenario, any argument that says that the government is obligated to deliver to us something that we do not want simply does not understand the word "negotiation."

David: Thanks for your thoughtful reply and sorry for the delayed response. I've drafted this twice in two days and lost it each time! Arghh!

First, let me affirm the importance of public input. In the case of the Plan Commission, we're charged to collect information, including applicant presentations, staff and consultants' analyses, and public testimony, in order to discern the impact of any particular application on the Public Welfare. That's simplifying things a bit but I think that accurately describes our charge. In the case of, say, applications for Map Amendments on so-called "catalyst" sites, zoning and land use guidelines can provide a starting point for discussion but they cannot definitively determine whether a given proposal does or does not pose debilitating neighborhood effects. Elected and appointed officials do not have all the answers--but we do have the responsibility to render answers in a timely fashion. Citizens who come to public hearings with an understanding of the framework that governs our deliberations are absolutely in a position to influence the outcomes.

I do think that there are certain types of input that are less helpful. If you subscribe to my viewpoint, citizen petitions are not very useful. The people who sign them have not necessarily heard all of the arguments presented--and the applicant doesn't have the opportunity to rebut when someone is signing a piece of paper on their doorstep.

(To be continued...)

Conversely, you will *never* hear me argue that a given viewpoint is "in the minority" and therefore invalid--as has been alleged in other discussions about exchanges with City Hall. The Public Welfare is not predicated on majority opinion. It's predicated on the demonstration of adverse effects. A single person is capable of making such a case.

I may respond that a given argument is unpersuasive and/or not in accord with other facts in evidence--but that's a different way of framing the conversation.

As for negotiations, you are correct that PUD applications entail flexibility and/or relief on certain regulations in exchange for amenities that serve the Public Good. Yet, again, I would say that those negotiations should be framed on a good-faith assessment as to whether the public interest is served by those amenities.

Without reopening a debate on Lexington Club, I think it's fair to say that reasonable people can disagree on such questions. Personally, I trust that *all* members of the City Council voted according to their own assessment of what would serve the Public Good.

If you're interested, I would be interested in meeting with you offline to explore our respective ideas as to how and why people came to such drastically different conclusions....

Brian, I think you bring up some excellent points, particularly in your discussion of the Public Good/Public Welfare issue. Succinctly, it is possible that one person with a persuasive, fact driven argument could provide impetus for a decision to stop, or change, a project.

Conversely, if I understand this correctly, and to coin a phrase from Star Trek, it is also possible that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I imagine that also could be construed as the long-term "many" -- meaning the greater public good for the future, which might make even a large group in the present seem small by comparison. Am I understanding you accurately?

To both Ted and Brian, you are both missing a key fact in not only Lexington, but Corporate Reserve and the prior Towne Center fight and that being there was absolutely nobody (residents) coming forward in favor and asking for these projects to be passed. So "for the greater public good" who can claim passing a project like Lexington when nobody in the public arena wanted it or the TIF was indeed for the public good? I'll agree when you have mixed public views like happened on the First St project it is a total different argument, but when there is no support of a neighborhood changing project, commissions and Council need to listen and also use the other resources they have that provide a wide public opinion aka the City Survey to also help. Politicans after all are elected to represent the people not developers. There was so little negotiations with Lexington especially after they approved millions in TIF funding. As David said, it's the art of give and take and the City "gave" and Lexington "took" and the residents got "screwed" with a bad project and now have to pay for it. Something very wrong with that picture and final solution. Council and City Adminstration have proven they lack any expertise in negotiating.

Brian- From your essay: "What I can and should expect is for government to prevent land uses that are injurious to me, to my family, and to my neighborhood."...You go on to say this discussion is..."beyond the scope of this essay". But that discernment is at the crux of this chasm, and that is the bottom line we must address, to move forward with real changes and implement better processes. Petitions remain pertinent- still one of the ways residents can let their taxpaying voices be heard, when they cannot be present. How you discount them is presumptive-you presume that residents may not have heard all the information from all sides of the issue-well, that is THEIR charge. You go on to say the applicant has no opportunity to rebut at the time of signing....your liberal colors are showing there! Poor applicant. Because the activist residents endeavor to incorporate a broad base of resident comment through a petition that was carefully and clearly written to represent their view (or not.... for those who choose not to sign), that they cannot bend over backward to get the counterpoint from the applicant at that very moment... that discredits the petition signature? If that is what you really think, how do you view referenda?

Brian, once again, great blog. I think the kind of dialogue you've begun here is excellent.

You people have missed the main problem with new developments and that is what does the mayor and city council want. Take the First Street Redevelopment project. They were begged to get a market analysis of the viability of major additions of offices, shops and condos in the down town area. They would not. They were begged to get a book from the library that discussed major TIF developments that failed. They did not. They wanted this development no matter what. They didn't seem to care if it was taxpayer friendly or citizen friendly. They gave special deals to businessmen and the developer but not the citizens. The best answer to getting good developments is to elect the most competent mayor that will look out for the common citizen.

Gene, is it possible that they trust the expertise of their own professionals -- both the planning and economic development staffs? Generally speaking, that's why cities and towns have departments like those -- to have experts on hand to help make the vision, or policy, happen.

Does our government know best how to build that framework for dialogue and exchange ? Heck no! There is not sufficient time for public comment @ Council, Gov Services, P&D- when comment is allowed, they caution residents not to repeat -so owning the same view, maybe expressing it a little differently, thereby hitting the mark a little better than the last person... is not allowed -does that allow for what Ted said- that 1 person can create impetus for change? No, it preempts that opportunity.Plenty of residents are vigilant to get facts,but we are not all academics, not all speakers & we ALL (that's you too, Brian) are prone to err & free to be corrected by a respectful exchange.We can learn from one another, that's how I se it. 24/7, we can all help that conversation. (As long as honesty , clarity & respect are part of policy, having been sorely lacking at various times in the history of these projects).We don't need a new layer of government to figure that out. Our City website needs redesign w/ guidance for those who are not up to speed on seeking out info-it is easy to become lost, discouraged. Meeting minutes we used to have access to are gone, have to get them by FOIA. We rely on our representaives to strike a balance, not be pressured and swayed. It's time for new faces, new opportunities for residents to be considered on many bodies within our City. Time to fill empty spots left unfilled. Time for April 9, and NOT more of the same.

Brian, OK you were 1 person (you) speaking out for Towne Center and you say two elderly for Lexington which I do not remember but will agree with. So two people in favor (which I think they were likely in favor of a clean up and not the PUD plan as I know of nobody infavor of the housing plan) is enough to claim for the public good? Please tell us Ted and Brian what has the "Public Good" received with this Lexington Plan? Now if you are going to claim the clean up, explain then how only doing a partial clean up yet leaving the entire creek untested or cleaned up honestly and truly in the "Public Good". It's like BP cleaning up only part of the oil spill in the gulf and leaving the oil on the sand and then saying what a great thing it was and they are finished. We don't need the housing, townhouses have always proven to be a tough sell, especially in the downtown area, the schools will be out a lot of money needed to fund the students brought in by this so the tax payers taxes will need to be increased to cover that expense, there was no plan to pay for the eventual damage to Dean St after 4-6 years of trucks and heavy equipment hammering back and forth during the cleanup and development which again tax payers will end up paying for and giving Lexington a free pass on. Lexington got everything in this deal and the residents got the bills and impacts.

Thomas R., I can't say what the public good is with Lexington. I'm trying to consider and be open to the fact that there is more than one viewpoint here, and that despite the disagreement, both viewpoints can very well be equally valid.

Let me sum it up like this:

During the Vietnam War, some chose to serve in the military out of love and respect for this country. It was war, and they served with honor. They served with integrity.

On the other end of the spectrum were those who objected to war and chose to fight military service. Some even fled the country. Yet they, too, stood for integrity and moral convictions.

Is there a right side and a wrong here? No. There are simply opposing viewpoints. You don't have to agree with both, but you ought to respect, and perhaps try to understand, each.

That's what I've been trying to do. It's clear Lexington Club sparks a similar divide. Some oppose it, some support it. I'm simply trying to understand -- and respect -- both sides.

Sometimes, like in the case of Lexington, things and events are twisted and distorted. The City claims the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment was what the people wanted; yet at the public hearing held at Thompson, the people said if Applied Composites had to be residential, then it should conform to the neighborhood density and there should be a roadway to the North. Neither of those points was included in the Amendment, which was drawn up by a consultant in the employ of both the City and Lexington (although Lexington paid his fee). When the Amendment went before the Plan Commission in place at that time, the Plan Commission wanted to see comparable neighborhood density and a roadway to the North. In fact, the Plan Commission made it a stipulation of its approval of the Amendment that a roadway to the North be included. That was never presented to the City Council with the stipulation. So, someone or ones in the administration was doing some fancy tap dancing to keep certain things hidden from the Council. So, who really is deciding what is in the interest of the City and what is in the best interest of themselves or a developer?

Well Ted, that is pretty much Brian's whole argument here that in certain situations the City must do what they feel is in the "Public Good" even when it goes against what the public says it wants. My argument to that is, when as in Lexington, even you cannot point out clearly any "Public Good" for me and it sound like everyone else but you and Brian agree the City made a bad decision and passed a plan that doesn't clearly provide anything worth while to the Public Good and for me that is when it is time to change who is casting these ridiculous votes that clearly will burdened tax payers of STC with future tax increases only to help the profits of a developer and that gives virtually nothing back to the residents or City's needs. There was patronage (one Council memebers 30 yr friendship with the Developer's Atty) there were assurances made behind closed doors (The Atty again disclosed that last winter at a meeting) and for our City to fund a PRIVATE company's clean up of their property and not even be willing to discuss doing the same for the current residents who live and have lived along a potentially contaminated creek (which was clearly discussed by City and residents, many who have lived there more than 50 years and witnessed it) it one corrupt and dispicable process. Read the Chronicle about Elburn Station, that board has clear details it wants agreement on to pass. Not here though, just special deals and we are fed up with it! And you two try excuse it.

Thomas R., I never said Lexington was a good decision or a bad one, for that matter. What I have tried to do is be open to differing points of view, plain and simple. I honestly don't know whether it is good or bad -- I am sympathetic to both sides of this discussion. There are some people on the council who are getting trashed for acting according to their conscience, and whether you agree with their choice or not, I respect decisions made with integrity. Period.

Further, you make an accusation about patronage, which on its face is innuendo. Simply knowing someone a long time is not a basis for that accusation. It is easy to throw around accusations of patronage and corruption. Why was no one prosecuted? Or is there a conspiracy here of which I also am unaware?

I understand you and many others are upset about this. But please don't take it out on me -- or falsely accuse me of believing this or that -- when all I've tried to do is be fair and open to differing viewpoints on a complex, divisive issue.

Ted, I know for fact that Martin commented the night he oringinally voted "against the TIF" to another Member, "I just lost a friend" meaning Stillwell. I know for fact that other members were heavily pressured by Administration to change their vote in favor which another did in the end. Even Brian here was asked attend by the Adminstration to possibly stand and read a letter he wrote and posted on FB about his views for the project although in the end they rammed the vote through instead because allowing him to speak would have forced allowing more public comments. Nobody is prosecuted because it isn't "illegal" to change their vote for whatever reason and do you really think they would ever step forward and admit to doing it? It's not illegality we are talking about Ted, it is that certain members are allowing being pressured into changing votes for make certain happy instead of standing up for the City and the residents they swore to represent first and formost. When they couldn't sit up tall and proud in their chairs that night and look out at the audience with confidence and state their vote tells you they new they were not proud of what they were doing, yet they still did it like a bunch of cowards. The City process has fallen to shambles, why else do you think the Mayoral candidates are making such issue about "public meetings and comments" if they get elected? Why too is former Mayor Klinhammer commenting in similar fashion and more going on that meets the eye.

"Even Brian here was asked [to] attend by the Adminstration to possibly stand and read a letter he wrote and posted on FB about his views for the project..."

Funny, I didn't get that memo. I went because I choose to.

Funny, Council members were told you were and provided the letter you wrote. Actually they thought there was going to be a prior meeting which never panned out because Lexington asked for more time and that was the meeting they were told you were oringinally going to speak at. Brian, so many inside the City are tired of the way things have been going that now more and more stuff is getting out to the public. The public knows way more than you would ever imagine that goes on. Deny all ya want.

I'll make a (probably vain) attempt to bring this conversation back to its origin; public good (and the role of gov't in working to protect / preserve it) vs. property owner's (developer's) rights. While the original essay was written in the abstract, we are all talking about Lexington, so let's get specific.

If memory serves me correct, the developer asked for (and got):
$5.6M in TIF support, deviation from our affordable housing laws (worth potentially another $1.2M, calculating at $60,000 per unit x 20 units), higher density / smaller lots than normal, smaller building set-backs than normal, and larger FAR's than normal, and what seems to be pretty much a free pass on adherence to our planning document, the 2007 CPA (which makes we wonder why we bothered to write it in the first place). If I am forgetting anything, and/or have gotten anything on this list wrong, please feel free to correct me.

What did we get in return? $200,000 in future contributions to the City for, ostensibly,an intersection improvement that, if made, will destroy the value of Mario Vanderhayden's property at 7th and Main, and roughly 500' of sidewalk on the north side of State Street (if it can be built). Again, if I missed anything, please feel free to correct the list and/or add to it.

The base question for me is this: with resident expectations set by the 2007 CPA, do these results look like the City got a good deal in exchange for its concessions?

Ted
The document that the city provided was not a thorough study of the viability of the First Street project. Get a copy of the study to see for yourself.

Ted Schnell
Ted,why don't you let the administration speak for them selves? Why are you keeping their identity secret?
They can call the study that they did get a viability study but it wasn't.The study that the city is referring to was done by real estate people and addressed how well vacant shop fronts, coops and offices were being filled around St. Charles. It was not a viability study that took into things like:
a) Who and how many people are going to shop downtown?
b) What kind of shops would bring people down town to shop?
c) Are people going to park at an inconvenient parking garage rather than shop other places.
d) Are the coops the right amount, kind and price?
e) Is there a particular need for down town office space and if so how much and what kind would be best?
f) how long will it take the shops, coops and offices to fill up?
g) What happens if there is a down turn in the economy?
These are the type of important viability questions that the mayor and council should have sought answers to. The city did not contract with a sophisticated consultant with experience in small town developments to determine the answers to these questions. They can say that the study that was done was a viability study but it isn't in my book. If the city wants to pursue this they should produce copies of the study so we can all see what they claim was a suitable study (If they are claiming that).

First Gene, I was not intentionally keeping anyone's identity secret. I ask questions and usually get answers. In this case, the city administrator provided me the information about the viability study, which does exist, regardless of your view about its adequacy.

You told me at least once in person and again in this discussion thread that no viability study had been done. That was inaccurate and needed to be cleared up.

In terms of debating the merits of the study, I can't do that until a) I've read it, b) I understand it, and c) I understand the context relative to it and the First Street project. At first blush, however, it seems like some of the questions are impossible to answer without gazing into a crystal ball or makng predictions based on assumptions. I don’t believe in crystal balls, and assumptions carry their own risks as well.

Ted,
My wife scolded me for going too far. I see that I did and I apologize for that and will watch it in the future.

To Ted & Brian, I never claimed Brian was going to speak behind closed doors. Brian the letter you planned to read was written to the Comp Plan committee of which you were a member because you were out of town wasn't it and not written actually to the City or Alderman. I didn't say there was anything behind it, just the fact you were supposed to speak, for which you originally here tried to deny.
Ted about Mr. Martin changing his vote because the TIF amount was lowered to NEARLY it's original amount? It still cost residents hundreds of thousands of dollars more so your statement isn't very accurate. Your view that the City pressuring Council (which is common place in politics) should be acceptible behavior to residents, when that same Administration isn't listening to residents concers or standing up for their wishes, following their own City surveys and basically as Dave points out handing the people a "bad deal" is ridiculous on your part. You seem to constantly try and find excuse and reason to support the City in this and I wonder why?

Brian, I see that you have raised my name and affiliation as a "Historic Preservation Commission" member in one of your blogs : "Craig Bobowiec (member, Historic Preservation Commission) lobbying City Council as they see fit.to" to try I guess, explain why you were going to speak before City Council. First of all Brian, my being a commission member has nothing to do with any of my appearances before the City Council, Planning and Development, Planning Commission or Comp Plan Committee. I have NEVER EVER used that "title" or "affiliation" once when speaking about issues in any public meeting at City Hall or ever in any public comments in newpaper articles or blogs as you constantly have done and continue to do. When I speak before any committee or council, I speak as Craig Bobowiec, citizen and resident of St. Charles....PERIOD! My views and opinions are mine as a private citizen not those of a Historic Preservation Memeber or on behalf of the Historic Commission. Let's get that absolutely clear here! I have never as you, imply or possibly lead people to believe (by constantly attaching that "Title" after your name here in the Patch and in other places) that your views may be those of the Planning Commission, or are somehow more credible because you sit on the commission. or that you might be speaking on behalf of the Commission.

If you have been authorized by the Planning Commission to indeed speak on their behalf and these opinions your have are exactly what all other members do feel, then say that clearly and upfront in your articles and blogs. I personally would never think to use my Preservation Title when speaking my personal views on these personal issues. First of all I have not been authorized to do so, I wouldn't want in anyway to embarrass, offend or imply to any degree my views are those of my fellow Commission members unless they asked to speak on their behalf. Brian I wear many varied hats, one of which is Commission Member, but also I am a father, a resident, property owner and business owner. Please never again assume or imply that when I come before you at Planning or the Council that I am ever speaking as a Historic Commission Member or on behalf of them. If I ever am, I will clearly make that known at that point. So going back to bringing my name into this as reason it makes what you may do OK, it is not the same, in any way shape or form. I do not and have not spoken or lobbyed as you say as a St. Charles Preservation Commission Memeber and I would ask that you please refrain from implying that I have or am doing so. Thanks Brian.

Ted, Brian may have meant no harm, but when he has to always attach his "Planning Commission Member" Title to his speeches, letters, blogs or articles, it can and does confuse people as to is what he saying coming from the Planning Commission or not? Why then the need to attach that title on everything? I realize (and I am not belittling or implying anything here towards Brian or David" some people need to for lack of better terms "Enhance their ego" by constantly having to use these meaningless titles on everything they write as if they feel important or gain more integrity to their views and comments. Each of us wears these hats twice per month on average, it is a very small part of our lives.
Even though I have over 13 years on the Commission, have attended serval seminars on preservation, helped write the Commission's "Design Guidelines" and for over 30 years owned and restored several very old properties, two of which are St. Charles Landmarks, I do not feel I am any expert or that my views or opinions are somehow stronger because of the Commission Title. For me, I think it wrong to use theseTitles publically unless you are authorized by your commission to do so and are speaking on behalf of them. I speak as a"concerned citizen" and "tax payer". He is free to handle it however he chooses. I simply didn't want to be compared in that fashion because that is not how I operate nor do I agree with it. Simple as that Ted.

Brian,
i respect your explanation here and where you state plainly your comments do not represent the Plan Commission that is right for you to do. I just think in the future on any of your blogs, articles, speeches you need to continue to clear that issue up at the very beginning, so everyone reading or listening can do so with the full understanding of where these comments come from. I guess you are correct in your describing your role as an appointment, personally I look at it as I am volunteering my time and giving back to my City. Appointment for me sounds too "formal" as I do give the Historic Commission my best but it's not that serious to me, more it's fun, and rewarding contributing to my City and to those that we educate and help with their projects.
I just ask again, that if you choose to use my personal efforts in these other issues, do so as resident Craig Bobowiec. When I speak out trying to protect the better good of my neighborhood or City I am in no way doing so as a Historic Commissiom member. I am not nor are you or David in a "paid or elected" position with the City so I do disagree that we are not allowed to step out of our Commission hats when issues impact our personal lives. I guess we can agree to disagree on this. But when I walk out of my meetings, I become Craig Bobowiec human being and resident of St. Charles, although I do so with the respect that at times I do represent the City and conduct myself accordingly.