This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Letter to the Editor: Transparency Versus Opaqueness Part 5

Reader Jay Thomas shares concerns over Lexington Homes. Thomas' thoughts will be shared in several posts due to the length of the letter.

At the Jan. 7, 2008 City Council meeting, the truth finally came out that the property "was purchased by a developer. Representatives of this developer advised the City that they were considering residential development of this site."  So, the very genesis of the study, which became the Amendment was not as Mr. Hupp previously stated because the City thought the time was ripe to do one, it was because the developer/purchaser of the Applied Composites site wanted it done.  The Amendment was approved by the City Council.

Find out what's happening in St. Charleswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

On Oct. 7, 2008 at a meeting of the St. Charles Plan Commission, Lexington Homes presented the first of its concept plans for consideration.  That plan, the subsequent concept plan, and the actual plan presented in 2011 have all involved a much higher density for the site than anyone form the neighborhoods surrounding the site, than those who participated in the public forums, and than the Plan Commission when it was reviewing the study ever envisioned. No roadway connection to the north, not much open space, failure to maintain the grid pattern of the existing streets, no concern with how the traffic generated by the development would impact the existing neighborhoods.
One question that needs to be answered is: couldn't or shouldn't the City have found a consultant to perform the study, which became the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, who was impartial and who would have been objective in the performance of the study, instead of being biased in favor of its ultimate employer, Lexington Homes.

Another question is why was public advice and input sought to begin with, other than to serve as nothing more than window dressing for an opaque process, if it was going to be completely ignored. One item that was brought up at the  public forums and by the members of the St. Charles Plan Commission, and which has come up since then, is a roadway connection to the Timbers subdivision. Yet in the final document there is no mention of this. That is significant because the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for every subdivision to have at least two entrances/exits, the the Timbers subdivision does not have.  This would have been the perfect opportunity to correct that situation. 

Find out what's happening in St. Charleswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

So, why did neither the City's staff nor the consultant see fit to include mention of this in the Amendment?  Why did they fail to bring it to the Planning and Development Committee?  Could it be because the Mayor of St. Charles resides in the Timbers?  If this is the reason, it is impossible to avoid the perception that the Mayor feels free to ignore public policy goals when they conflict with his own self-interest.  Interesting that he doesn't want his neighborhood impacted while not being remotely concerned with the impact on other neighborhoods, as long as St. Charles gets more rooftops.

The entire process that brought us the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is why citizens do not bother to get more actively involved--they have the feeling that their voices will not be heard, that the planning process is cut and dried, and that the City will do what it wants regardless of public involvement and participation.  In this case, they would be completely correct.
We, the citizens, have been told that this is our Comprehensive Plan Amendment.  Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. 

This Comprehensive Plan Amendment was bought and paid for by Lexington Homes.  Citizen participation mattered not one iota in the formulation of the Amendment.  What is even more galling is that Lexington Homes then feels free to ignore what few stipulations and criteria do exist in the Amendment, and bring forth a proposal that violates the letter and the spirit of the Amendment.  It is the ultimate irony and the ultimate insult to the community.

Jay Thomas

23 North 7th St.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?