First, are the constituents of school district 181--parents of students at the Lane, Board of Education members-- aware of this development proposal? What is the most likely incremental student population? Will the Lane need an another addition? 400 -plus condos is A LOT of new residences.

Second, we have a traffic mess in this town, from Ogden south to COunty Line and 55th, encompassing the Oak Street bridge and the 47th St/County Line intersection. As Ralph pointed out York and Ogden is also a mess. The village must anticipate this and plan on addressing it BEFORE any development is approved.

I am okay with the notion of redevelopment of the office park; however, I am opposed to compromising the schools (or, gasp, another referedum for more classroom space) or adding to our already under-managed traffic issues.

Would like to hear from Lane School parents on this.

I was present when the Lane School principal leanred about the addition of 14 multifamily unit to the Lane School area this spring on Maple Street. He watches the numbers very closely each summer and he was very, very concerned about the potential addition of students. I expect that he would be opposed to a project of this scale in his school area. I don't think the recently renovated school can accomoadate an influx of new students.

In addition, Ralph and Molly both raise good points. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the area but think the scale of the project is not in line with the surrounding area. I expect for this to pass there will need to be a change in zoning or countless zoning variances. I don't understand how out of scale plans like this continue to make it this far along in the village government process. It becomes a waste of time for concerned Hinsdale residents, for village board volunteers and for the developers. I expect that if the trustees put a stop to projects that were so inconsistent with the zoning codes, we wouldn't be in this situation.

The trustees have hired a consultant to do a comprehensive plan for the Ogden Ave. corridor. As part of their assignment the consultant is to work with the beveloper of the business park to revise the current plan. The revised plan is to be discussed before the plan Commission on Feb. 14.

(note: this comment was posted by Ralph Mueller, Hinsdale Resident, on 1/12/07 and moved from a different discussion topic)

Ralph- I would love to see something done with Odgen Ave. Being a major arterial access point to our town, I am really surprised there aren't more recent developments taking shape there.

(note: this comment was posted by Ed McCarthy, Hinsdale Resident, on 1/15/07 and moved from a different discussion topic)

Foxford has prepared a revised plan. It still contains a 12 story hotel, three 8 story condominium buildings, and 3 major retail buildings along Ogden Avenue. The revised plan does not meet the request of the Plan Commission for a revision.

The Plan Commission is scheduled to review this plan at 6 p.m. on Feb 14. If you are intersted in avoiding a major disaster for Hinsdale please attend.

Ralph- I am trying to learn as much as I can about this development, and would really like to discuss it with you. My email address is edward.mccarthy@am.jll.com I would be most appreciative if you could send me an email so I could learn more about it.

Thank you- Ed McCarthy

I agree with the comments that a massive hotel, condos, etc are completely inappropriate for that stretch of Ogden Avenue. As a Hinsdale resident with a home very close to Ogden, I have concerns. The traffic on Ogden is already very busy. We do not need to make it worse. Some one level structures, preferably unique, historic looking buildings with retail space(similar to those in downtown Hinsdale) would be more fitting. Isn't the goal to create an appealing "entrance" to our community? Don't we want to beautify our community?

The school discussion by residents from The Lane is a good one. These are valid concerns. Don't overcrowd our schools by erecting high-rise condominiums.

Don't let this happen!

As a life long resident of Hinsdale.....here we go again. First problem was the trustees hiring a consultant to look at developing that land. Most of our problems seem to start there. Always looking for tax dollars. If you do that, than start lowering our taxes!

Those who say it is not in character with Hinsdale are exactly right. If we want to become Westmont, Downers Grove, or, God forbid, La Grange, by all means....develop every where!

To end these discussions for the next 20 years, why not take all of our open space including all parks, and put on there what the few with a lot of time on their hands (like the ones who are all over this site) a restaurant, condos, another three banks, and more parking in those parks.

I yearn for the days when I was young where this town was great....before the new money moved in and wanted to change the vitality, the look, and the safety of this town by developing every single place....

Yes, wouldn't Odgen be beautiful with four high rises, a strip mall, 900 condos....5,000 people racing down County Line in the am, making Odgen Avenue more unbearable than it already is around there between CL and York...

If you hear someone wanting more sprawl within our town (nee City now), tell them to move to Downers Grove. They'll fit right in. If you want to retire, fine. Retire there! It will take only 10 minutes to get back to Hinsdale.

P.S. A hotel? OMG. 95% of our houses are the size of hotels. I think we have our vistors covered. Oh wait, I think Koshgarian may need to put up their business associates overnight...
P.S.S. Ah, by the way, to "beautify the entrance to our city" (that's a goal?), it already is pretty there. Hmmmm. Trees and open space versus a Subway store, condos and a huge hotel... I can't decide which is prettier.

What happened at the meeting on February 14th to discuss the development of Ogden Ave? Had I read this, I would have been there to oppose the plan. A hotel? Are you kidding me? There are enough hotels in Burr Ridge and Oak Brook.

Discussion is heating up about town regarding the Foxford-group proposal for development north of Ogden at Oak Street. This Wednesday, March 14, Hinsdale Club will be discussed at the Plan Commission meeting. We can expect more division and debate on the subject.

On the right, opposing the development are many residents from the Graue Mill condominiums as well as Lane-school area parents (who are wary of the student influx this development might bring).

The main argument I’ve heard in opposition is that the three high-rise (8 story) condominium/retail buildings are out-of-character for Hinsdale. As one Graue Mill condo resident stated, “Wouldn’t Hinsdale’s empty nesters prefer to live in a smaller scale building, not a suburban high-rise?” Never mind that these would be the tallest buildings in town, and are just hard to look at if you are living in Graue Mill.

These concerns are valid. Foxford and the pro-Hinsdale Club constituents continually tout the need for housing stock that appeals to Hinsdale’s down-sizing residents; supposedly, this market is their target. Indeed the need is a real one for this type of housing, a fact that is confirmed by conversations with realtors, residents over 55, and the Hinsdale 2025 survey. But since, after hearing this opposition to their first round of designs, Foxford went back and only reduced the buildings to the current 8 story proposal (versus to a plan that meets zoning height regulations for the area), one can surmise that it is not in their financial interest to build something in-scale (and therefore in-character) with the village. Their proposal has gone from ridiculously out of scale, to really, really tall (and still well beyond zone restrictions). Do Hinsdale’s empty nesters want to live in an 8 story-building? Are they clamoring for the lofty vistas . . . of the tollway, Ogden, and downtown LaGrange’s skyline?

We can assume that the developer is not naïve about the seriousness, and potential effectiveness, of local opposition to tall buildings requiring zone variances. So now the political games begin. The Foxford and friends strategy is clear -- market their proposal as:

-one offering tax revenue numbers that will fill village coffers, so that we can have better streets and maybe a parking structure in town

- remind us that Hinsdale Club offers the last and best chance at empty-nester housing

-wear out the Graue Mill residents (they are so few anyhow, team Foxford must be thinkng) by serving up the current revised proposal as a “compromise” accounting for these residents’ concerns.

I know there is a movement among the plan's supporters to pressure Plan Commission members into accepting the current Foxford Proposal. Private meetings are happening, aimed at organizing a big pro-Hinsdale Club presence at Wednesday’s Plan Commission meeting. This is all well and good. Very American. I know for a fact, however, that among these supporters, those opposing the development are being dismissed as a pesky “vocal minority” ignorant about the need for housing, village revenues, restaurants, hotel rooms and spas, you-name-it. By the next meeting, the opposition will be vilified as anti-change, anti-development “Flat Earthers” (as were those who opposed the Garfield two years ago). (Those in support of Hinsdale Club development may in turn be viewed as “capitalist pigs”, greedily sacrificing the charm of our town for a buck.) If out of this American-as-apple-pie political ooze emerges something sensible and good for the community, it all will have been worthwhile. For that to happen, the process would have to include:

-an honest and thorough assessment of the inevitable traffic increase and possible student surge from more housing stock. These analyses would have to be made very public and should welcome scrutiny from anyone who cares to spend the time.

-a thoughtful analysis of the cost/benefit to our ailing village center. My impression is that adding more retail space may help lower the village center lease rates, but I wonder if this has been thoroughly thought through.

-a serious effort at meeting the zoning requirements for building height. Starting the discussions with a plan of more than twice the allowable stories was aggressive and insulting. And the new plan should not be viewed as a “compromise” by the developer, but rather as directionally better. Show us why it is impossible to meet the code and make a good investment return, too.

In the meantime, in considering the proposal we should all temper our eagerness for more housing, better restaurants, new streets and parking lest our judgement become cloudy. This property is a tasty piece of Hinsdale real estate, ripe for improvement. We shouldn't settle. Let’s be sure it is done well.

Last week the Plan Commission and Zoning and Public Safety recommended approval of Hinsdale Club plans. The plans have been revised to come closer to zoning code, though building heights still exceed that code.
Specifics:
9 story hotel with 180 rooms
3 condo buildings, one at 7 stories, the other two at 8 stories
Total of 271 new residences (condo and townhouses)

The developer and hired consultant assure us that there will be little impact on traffic.

Two questions:
1. With 271 new homes and therefore at least that many new cars, plus a hotel with 180 hotel rooms, there will be maybe 400-600 cars in and out of that area daily. We are curious as to how that translates to "minimal" impact on traffic issues.

2. What evidence is there that Hinsdale can support a 180 room hotel? Oakbrook has 6 major hotels already, with another (we hear) coming at 22nd Street and York Road. Perhaps there is demand, but on its face, this doesn't make sense to us.

For more details, see the Doings article

The development is sounding much better, but again, answers are needed and we hope that the village board will be pressing for those answers.

Did you know that last week every trustee voted to approve the Hinsdale Club development on Ogden avenue?

Trustees and developers are happy that the area, which is currently zoned for 4 story buildings, will have lots of buildings twice the height or more. Why bother with zoning when you can just do whatever you want with handshake political deals?

In many minds, this is a "done deal". This is not exactly the case. . .permits have not been issued, for example. There are rumblings from Hinsdaleans who are preparing to fight this along the way.

As a thirty-five-year resident of Hinsdale, I feel betrayed and tricked by our Board of Trustees.

On election night, Tuesday, April 17, our trustees were gathered at what was probably a sparsely attended village board meeting giving a unanimous approval to the proposal to put up four large towers on Ogden Avenue, dubiously called “The Hinsdale Club”.

Where to start?

This was a purely political deal allowing the developer to bypass the Zoning Board of Appeals to get this done. Why? How can that be good for the citizens?

They voted on this at a meeting that was likely to get low turnout from residents (because they were out voting). Has there been such a dirty trick since the prior Board approved The Garfield in the middle of August when many residents were away on vacation?

A unanimous vote as part of a fast track process should only happen if there is clear consensus in the community.

Do they really think there is no opposition to this plan? Is the onus on the residents to organize a movement to raise legitimate, even obvious, concerns about this unprecedented, huge development in our village? Don’t our representatives have an obligation to canvas the community proactively and not wait in their lavish board room for citizens to show up with their pleas, like so many mandarins holding court to hear the common people? Doesn’t it appear that the decision to fast-track this process (eliminating the ZBA hearings, for instance) is aimed at short circuiting effective opposition?

And votes from two trustees on the way out: just like Clinton handing out pardons while dressing for his successor’s inauguration.

Will no one stand up with me against this mockery of representative government?

I am appalled that we may put our packed schools at risk by having conservatively 35-plus new students (that's only 15% of the 216 new homes with one kid) joining the school from a major development.

As a resident of northeast Hinsdale, I know how hard it is to enter and exit Hinsdale from Ogden between 4PM and 6PM. The southbound traffic on York going east to Ogden backs up 30-40 cars at peak time. There are frequently traffic accidents on Ogden between York and County Line--probably 1 every month. One can only imagine what another estimated 600-800 cars per day might impose on the area.

We better look pretty hard at the cost/benefit of all this growth....

A CONCERNED RESIDENT in NORTHEAST HINSDALE

A development of this scale should be required to pay a significant school impact fee. These families would attend Monroe Elementary and CHMS. Both schools are already operating at capacity, with incoming class sizes continuing to show upward growth. These families would be eligible for bus service, which is very expensive for our district. Have our trustees requested a school impact fee?

Additionally, having paid much attention to the recent strategic plan for Hinsdale, I do not see how a hotel development and three seven/ eight story builings fit the vision for the village expressed by the residents in our strategic plan.

I am against the Hinsdale Club as it is approved because of its size and density. We already have the apartment building, Spinning Wheel, looming over the north side of town. This is not an attractive look for Hinsdale. It is unnecessary for Hinsdale to have so many condos and townhomes.

Who exactly is the builder, Foxford, targeting? If he is targeting a downsizer, the downsizer needs more space than just a two bedroom condo; and the townhomes sound like the garage is in the basement of the townhome. Stairs! Again, not what a downsizer wants.

Why doesn't the builder take a look at what Jim McNaughton is doing south of 55th Street in Westmont with a development called Greenleaf Court. They are zero lot line single-family homes, all with first floor master bedrooms. This secnario would take care of the height problem the condos are causing, not to mention this type of housing is greatly needed in Hinsdale. I think zero lot line homes coupled with townhomes and the proposed retail space would be a terrific solution.

If this development could be more targeted toward downsizers, then there would be no issue of increased enrollment at The Lane or Monroe and overcrowding these schools.

I am against this development as it stands, also, because of the heightened traffic it will produce. My children walk to The Lane School and have to cross Oak Street twice a day. Obviously, this is the street where most cars will turn on to get to Hinsdale to avoid the York/Ogden intersection. There are so many near-misses at the Oak/Fuller, Oak/Lane and Elm/Fuller intersections, I don't even want to think about how this development will produce increased traffic and increased accidents to these locations, not to mention all over our quiet neighborhood.

Amazing adding even more condos to the inventory of condos that ARE NOT SELLING!!!! What do you think that will do to prices? They haven't been able to break ground in other developments here in Hinsdale because they haven't sold a full building.

Last night (May 1), four citizens spoke out against the trustees decision to approve a PUD ordinance, clearing the way for the Hinsdale Club development. Objections included concerns about the project as proposed (traffic, large buildings impinging on village charm, lack of consideration for impact on schools, no guarantee of getting a high-end hotel) and considerable concern about a process that did not give citizens an adequate opportunity to learn about the revised proposal and communicate concerns.

There was no response by the Trustees to the citizens petition that they reopen this issue.

Despite the village board's approval of the Hinsdale Club project, there is a group organizing to file an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals and generally oppose the development given the current direction. More information about their stance and efforts is available at www.nohinsdaletowers.org.

Did anyone catch Pam Lannom's article in today's Hinsdalean, particulary Pres. Mike Woerner's threatening remarks regarding residents who have the nerve to appeal PUD variances ("modifications") to the Zoning Board of Appeals - the only protection residents have to ensure the code is upheld?

Injunctions against residents - has the village president gone too far? If the Hinsdale Club is such a great project for the village, surely it could withstand and benefit from a vetting by the ZBA.

From The Hinsdalean: "I believe when those people are served by the sheriff, I think they'll be surprised," he [Woerner] said. "From this day forward, people really need to know what they're signing, what they're getting into."

This is almost too bizaare to believe. Is this really what Hinsdale politics has come to? Village government trying to intimidate citizens into silence?

Sure, the backers of this development can claim the proper process was followed. And Hugo Chavez can claim he is the constitutionally elected president of Venezuela. In both cases it is a legalistic sham that won't hold up without thuggery to stifle opposition.

My prediction: Hinsdale citizens won't cower. And someone else may be surprised by the time this is all over.

I feel that a vocal minority of people in this village are against any development. It seems that each proposed development ends in litigation. It might be nice if we could use the village funds to actually improve our village instead of funneling it all to lawyers. I don't really have any objection to redeveloping that parcel of land on Ogden. Let's be honest, it's not very attractive at the moment and surely could be put to better use.

I heard from a pretty reliable source last night that President Mike Woerner feels he was misquoted by The Hinsdalean and is pretty upset about it. I've thought about my comment above in light of the possibility that Woerner didn't really say that, or say it that way.

Part of me would like to retract my comment because, apart from this issue, I believe Mike is a stand up guy. Also, I've been misquoted before and know how damaging that can be.

However, if the implication of The Hinsdalean's reporting is true, that the Village took the action it did with the goal, in whole or in part, of intimidating citizens and trying to deter future questioning of its actions, then this needs to be called out for what it is: completely unacceptable.

So, if Mike Woerner was misquoted, he needs to set the record straight.

Here are some of the key questions:

1. What exactly did Mike Woerner say to The Hinsdalean?
2. How did The Hinsdalean find out about the suit against the citizens? Did the Village arrange the interview as part of a campaign to frighten citizens who are opposed to the Hinsdale Club?
3. Did the entire village board have the opportunity to discuss whether this lawsuit is worth pursuing given the predictably stiffling effect it would have on debate about this and future issues?
4. Was the scare element of this suit an explicit goal?
5. If not, what specific actions were taken to soften the debate-stiffling effects? Who from the village government has reached out to the appeal petitioners to tell them not to worry, they'll be served but it's no big deal, they won't suffer financially or legally, and this is just an unfortunate byproduct of the legal process?

That's a starter list of the critical questions. And we need a response that provides convincing evidence that intimidation was never an intended consequence of this action. Denial or second thoughts because of the backlash isn't going to cut it. If scaring citizens was ever the goal, then all involved need to be taken to task.

As the debate over the Hinsdale Club seems to be heating up even more, I want to disclose exactly how my wife, Molly, and I are involved in this issue.

Molly's parents, Mary and Tony Baldwin, live in Graue Mill and are among those that petitioned for an appeal to the ZBA of the Village Board's approval of the development.

We have helped Mary and Tony think through how to get organized around this issue, and have helped the group fighting against this get a website up at www.nohinsdaletowers.org.

Molly is against the development for a number of reasons that I'll let her explain in a subsequent post, if she chooses.

My personal opinion is that there are elements of the development that should be changed such as pulling down too many trees. I also believe that not enough coordination has been done with the schools and that the village isn't getting adequate binding commitments from the developer that what has been promised will actually be delivered (e.g., that the hotel will be premium).

Given the above, I can support the development, especially if there are a few changes. However, I am totally appalled at the process. I think that while supporters of this development have been careful to maneuver so that they can claim they've followed process and the letter of the law, the fact is that many residents feel that they have been sidelined and that their concerns have not been taken into consideration. In some other post perhaps I'll elaborate on this point further, but for now I'll simply say that a number of people feel they have been marginalized, the village and supporters of this development tooks specific steps to stiffle opposition, and opponents are now justifiably angry.

So, that's where I stand and that's how we are involved. It's important you know.

Not only is the village suing residents to block opposition to the Hinsdale Club as currently proposed, it has announced an lightning-quick schedule of approvals for the final development plan that will have the effect of making it difficult for citizens to learn about the plan and voice possible objections.

The village has scheduled a special meeting of the Zoning and Public Service committee on Monday, June 4, at 7 p.m. The ZPS is regularly scheduled to meet on the fourth Monday of the month. As far as we can tell, this meeting was scheduled Friday. We've also heard that the minimum standard for proper notice of a meeting is 72 hours. Apparently weekends count.

The ZPS will consider two items at this meeting. The first is the final development plan for the Hinsdale Club. We don't know what is in the plan, but if the ZPS approves the plan, it will go to a trustee vote on Tuesday, the 5th. So, the way this meeting was scheduled, citizens 1) have very short notice to become aware of what is happening and arrange to attend the meeting and 2) will have only 24 hours between the time they find out what the plan is and how the ZPS will act and a potential trustee vote to give final approval of the plan.

The other item before the ZPS will be changes to the Zoning Code that deal with the Zoning Board of Appeals. We have not been able to confirm what the proposed changes are, but some believe the intent is to strip the ZBA of its authority to decide zoning variance issues. For more, see the discussion ZBA under Assault.

Attached is a copy of the application to appeal the Hinsdale Club development to the ZBA, filed by sixty Hinsdale citizens and being contested by the village.

At a special meeting called for tonight, the Zoning and Public Safety Committee did not act on the proposed development agreement with Foxford LLC for the Hinsdale Club project. This was a minor victory for the opponents of the Hinsdale Club and a major victory for those concerned that due process is followed in these matters and that the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals is respected.

For those who haven't been following all of the details, in April the Board of Trustees, using a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") mechanism, approved an ordinance providing exceptions to the Zoning Code for the Hinsdale Club development.

The next step before the development to move ahead would be for the village to approve a Development Agreement that outlines the details of what Foxford LLC agrees to do in exchange for the village granting the zoning exceptions. The steps to get the Development Agreement approved involve it starting with the Plan Commission, the going to the ZPS Committee, and then going to a vote by the Board of Trustees.

So, the ZPS was considering the Development Agreement after the Plan Commission recommended it. It needs to be considered by the ZPS before proceeding to the full board.

However, two circumstances weighed on the proceedings tonight. The first was an appeal filed by sixty citizens to the Zoning Board of Appeals objecting to the zoning variances granted. The ZBA granted a stay on all further proceedings on the matter until it determined whether it will hear the appeal. The village has subsequently filed suit for a ruling that the ZBA has no authority to grant the stay or hear the appeal. However, the court has not yet ruled on that suit.

The other circumstance is that the Development Agreement was originally scheduled to be considered by the ZPS at its next regularly scheduled meeting on June 25. The special meeting was called by the village on Friday, June 1, providing all interested parties only three days' notice of the possible action on this matter.

In the end, it came down to a vote by the four trustees on the Committee as to whether they should be considering and voting on the agreement at all.

Trustee Michael Smith, who chairs the Committee, started the discussion by outlining his concern about considering the matter at all. Citing the U.S. and Illinois State Constitutions, the Village Trustees Oath, and the Zoning Code, he presented his reasoning for the position that if the ZBA has issued a stay, and that stay has not been overruled by a court, then the Committee needs to respect the stay and not act on the matter.

Trustee Cauley added that the Illinois code is "crystal clear" and that a ZPS action on the matter would be a violation of the law. He also expressed frustration with the timing of the meeting, saying at one point that he felt "sandbagged".

At one point the village attorney offered his conclusion that it would not be improper for the ZPS to vote and send the matter to the full Board of Trustees.

Trustees Orler and Follett were content to follow the recommendation of the village attorney. Trustee Follett expressed frustration that they were even discussing the issue as "the ZBA is subordinate to the Board".

In the end, the vote was not on whether to recommend the Agreement, but rather whether to even consider it. Trustees Smith and Cauley voted against, with Orler and Follett voting for. With the tied vote, the matter was not considered.

So, the vote at the ZPS was meant to keep the matter off of the Board of Trustees agenda tomorrow. However, the village attorney described a technicality that might enable it to go forward anyway. So, we won't know until tomorrow whether this matter will be considered by the full Board of Trustees.

Probably enough detail for you at this point. If anyone is really interested in the technicality that might allow this to move forward tomorrow, let me know (comment to this discussion or email, jerry@hinsdaletalks.com and I'll describe what I can.

My conclusion from this meeting? We have two trustees on this committee that obviously did their homework and thought hard and carefully about whether to act on this matter. They concluded that, regardless of the merits of decisions on the Hinsdale Club or the jurisdictional dispute with the ZBA, this committee at this time needed to respect the independence of the ZBA and the stay that they put in place. It was comforting to see this instance of careful reasoning and sober judgement prevail.

Attached is a copy of the proposed Development Agreement with Foxford LLC and the resolution that would go to the Board of Trustees.

From John Bohnen:

As the Foxford/Hinsdale Club project speeds down the track toward final approval, we all should remember that the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, the document drawn between the Village and the Developer is the last and perhaps most important part of the deal. This is the document that governs the deal and can or cannot best guarantee the outcomes for both parties. As we learned with the Garfield project, an un-wary or un-experienced Village can sign away all kinds of rights and revenues if this is not executed properly. An un-wary or un-experienced Village can also obligate themselves to hidden liabilities if this is not executed properly. This rise or fall of a project or whether it is or is not built rides on the agreement by both parties as to the obligations and understandings set forth in this agreement.

We evidently are being rushed to sign this agreement. Most of we citizens have not had the opportunity to review this agreement. It is public domain. Trustee Williams, at last nights’ meeting suggested that this document be placed on the Village website. Ostensibly, the developer and the Board will take up the approval of this document at the June 20th Board meeting. Prior to that meeting, I suggest that all who are concerned review this document and be prepared to discuss it at this meeting. Though I have not yet seen this document, it strikes me that the Village should get a fair trade-off from the developer for the zoning concessions he has sought. This is the very basis for a Planned Unit Development concept; we will allow you to circumvent our zoning code if you give us “things” that are deemed a fair trade-off. Simple concept, yes? But as with many things, “the devil is in the details”.

Case in point. President Woerner and some of the trustees have touted this project as being very important for its’ contribution to our revenue stream. To be sure, we need money if we are going to be able to address the many infrastructure problems that we currently have. According to Woerner, the “crown jewel” of this project, the single most important element pertaining to revenues, was to be an upscale hotel, representing 50-60% of the total revenue coming to the Village, or so the Planning Commission was told as they began the approval process for the project. As the project moved through the approval process, it became apparent that two things were happening; the hotel was becoming more wishful than actual and the revenue projected for the Village was shrinking. Remember, the revenue was touted as the prime reason to concede for this project, and the hotel was the prime driver of the revenue. Got it? When confronted with the direct question by Laura Johnson at her next to last Board meeting, “do you guarantee us that the hotel will be built?”the developer said ”no, I can’t, and I won’t.” He then went on to do what developers do so well, proffering opinions of his expert hotel consultant about the viability etc. etc.. Remember, experts are for hire, right? And they know who signs their checks. At that point in the meeting, trustee Orler started to back pedal, saying that the hotel only represented 20-30% of the projected revenue of the project anyway, and that the project more importantly addressed the results of his exalted Strategic Plan survey (cost: $400,000+) which stated that 800 some residents wanted to buy condominiums over the next blah, blah, blah ….. Figures don’t lie but liars figure, right? President Woerner quickly agreed with him. You’ve got to go to all of the meetings to watch the shuffle occur, right? The meeting concluded with a lot of rhetoric and promises, none of which are part of any public record.

Newly elected trustee Cauley, at a recent ZPS meeting stated that he did not want to consider a draft of the Development Agreement unless it addressed compensatory damages. He stated that he had seen deals where good intentions amounted to only just that in the end and that he felt that the Village was entitled to compensatory damages of some kind, if in fact the hotel was never built. Sharp guy, certainly a welcome addition to our Board! I am reminded of the late Mayor of Rosemont, Don Stephens, who did just that when he wrote his agreement with a certain developer. When the developer began to demur towards building a hotel as part of a development in his town, Stephens quickly reminded him of the two million dollars of compensatory damages he would be triggering if he did not perform. Amazingly, the hotel was begun. Do we have the chutzbah to negotiate this way? I don’t have the slightest idea. Let’s move on.

The latest figures being quoted by President Woerner and Trustee Orler of the annual revenue to the Village from the Hinsdale Club is 1.1 million dollars. At Tuesday night’s meeting, trustee Orler stated that this figure was equivalent to 25% of what the Village takes in from property taxes, annually. Impressive number? Let’s look a little farther.
Of the projected 1.1 million of revenue that is projected revenue for the Hinsdale Club, $350,000 is the portion that is projected for the PROJECTED HOTEL. That means that if the hotel does not get built, we will be recognizing a total revenue from this project of $750,000 annually. Realize, that we are getting some revenue from the office park that is there now, how much, I do not know. Let’s guess that current revenue is a conservative 250,000. This then means that if we allow the Hinsdale Club to be built, we will realize a revenue gain of about $500,000 annually. Now, I am sure there are other sweeteners being offered, but remember, we haven’t been able to view the Development Agreement UNTIL NOW, so bear with me. The question then is, while $500,000 is real money, and we need money, is it enough to concede what we are conceding? Remember, there will also be negative monetary impact on our Village if this is built, such as additional children needing schools, fire protection, police protection etc.. Seems to me that the time to negotiate is now and the need to project what we need is imperative. We certainly should insist that we get what we need, regardless of the projected hotel revenues, and if the hotel is ever built, the additional revenues that we will recognize will be the frosting on the cake. Make sense? I think so.

The developer wants his answer NOW. He has stated, “either give me my approval now or I will begin to sell off my parcels, piece-meal”. He stated this ultimatum before Tuesday nights’ meeting, according to President Woerner. Well, last night has come and gone and to the best of my knowledge, the developer is still in the queue, so let’s not be intimidated by ultimatums. Remember, if he sold off this property piece by piece, he’d be selling parcels in an O-3 zoning district, parcels limited to four story development, which any fool can reason would bring in less revenue to the seller than if he were to be able to sell a seven and eight story development. Did I say sell? Oh, I forgot to mention, Foxford Development is a new entity owned by Bill Ryan of our town. It’s a spin-off of his primary business, Town and Country Builders which builds primarily, single family homes. So it is only reasonable to assume that if Foxford gets final approval to develop the Hinsdale Club, they will flip the project to another builder/developer and move on. Like Gammonley, perhaps? Hmmm. Are you getting the picture? But wait, we won’t have to be surprised to find out who our ultimate builder/developer is. After Gammonley tried to leave the door open in the Garfield development Agreement, so as to be able to slip liability and smuggle in God knows who or what entity, we learned that lesson and now require full disclosure in all development agreements and permit applications, or so I am told. Note to self; better make sure that Dave Cook did that.

In any event, let’s help our President and our trustees negotiate a good deal for our Village. Let’s give them our informed input as they navigate the details of the Development Agreement. Let’s help our “interim” Village attorney, Ken Florey, who is not a resident of our Village, value the tradeoffs that are fair for our Village. Then, if this project ever sees the light of day, we can be reasonably pleased with what we are left with.

Respectfully,
John Bohnen, Citizen

John, thanks for your analysis and encouragement to read the Agreement.

I have read the Development Agreement. It is awfully thin. For a $250 million deal, it looks like the village is giving away a lot for remote potentials -- a hotel that likely will not materialize, for example.

Surely there has to be more benefit to the village than what is laid out here.

See the item about hotels at Illinois tollways oases. What does this possibility do to the viability of the proposed hotel at the Hinsdale Club and the tax revenues that the village is counting on from the hotel to justify the PUD and the zoning reflief that goes with it?

How many do we have now?

We don't have ANY hotels, and there's probably a good reason: there are enough of them in the surrounding areas, and no hotelier believes that it's economically viable to build one here. It's not exactly a tourist destination. All cynicism aside, what hotel chains have been interviewed for the Ogden Ave. project, and what was their feedback? I'm surprised if they haven't come forward. I don't get it. Will the land be undeveloped til a hotel signs on? and remain an office building? For how long? And then what? I really don't know enough about the project. Would the condos and the office building be compatible, or is the Village pretty sure that a hotel will come?
I hope somebody knows the answers to these questions. There's probably a website somewhere?? If it doesn't become a hotel, what else could go in there? Could it be retail? or more condos?

Oak Brook isn't exactly a tourist destination but manages to support numerous hotels. I would suggest to you that hotels also serve as locations for business meetings, weddings, parties, etc. etc. I don't think everyone who stays at a hotel is a tourist. There are certainly lots of businesses in the region and one can assume a fair number of business travelers. I have a feeling though that even if the Four Seasons were to locate at the proposed Foxford development it wouldn't be enough for the naysayers in this village.

Let's get real that parcel of land is hardly attractive at the moment. It's time for some redevelopment on Ogden. I don't consider it the backyard of Hinsdale. It's more like the armpit of Hinsdale.

Like my mother used to say "One man's armpit is another man's backyard". The point is, THERE IS NO HOTEL. I think the Four Season's would be awesome, but they haven't shown up. The Hyatt would be nice, or the Sheraton, or the Marriott. But what if we wind up a Motel 6?
We'll leave the light on for you.

There is a corporate corridor down I-88 that supports the hotels in OB. I find it a stretch that Grant Square would support the same level of trade. Do you know if the hotels in OB make a profit? What is their occupancy rate? When was the last one built? 5 yrs.? 10? 15? maybe 20 or 25 years ago.
Why jeopardize the struggling businesses in downtown hinsdale with retail space on Ogden Ave? Survey says: Business is moving North.

Well, I'm assuming the hotels in OB do make a profit since they are still open! In fact, the Marriott just undertook a major renovation. I don't think the proposed hotel would only draw from Grant Square to maintain it's business. It is right beside a major highway so we could certainly depend on some business there. Maybe the Mayflower Motel would be willing to relocate??

The arguments against this development show a real lack of business knowledge. It's quite laughable really! I'd like to know what development of this parcel all the naysayers would accept? It seems you are full of criticisms for the current plan, but you offer no ideas of your own. I was actually going to say that Ogden was the a** of Hinsdale, but then decided to say armpit since that sounded a bit nicer.

To Jerry Hughes:

I do think Hinsdale Talks fills a laudable purpose, but it could use a lot more participation. Even so, you are to be commended for making this forum available for Hinsdale residents to share their views.

I was also impressed that you were quite up front in disclosing that Molley Hughes is your wife and that her father, Tony Baldwin, is one of the key leaders in the group of 60 residents seeking ZBA review of the Board of Trustee's decision to move forward with the Hinsdale Club development

But I was surprised and disappointed that you have failed to post my reply to Molly's posting regarding her thoughts on NIMBY's. My reply post was submitted last night. (It seems doubtful that the omission was due to technical difficulties because I have submitted comments successfully before.)

In my missing post, I suggested that while NIMBYs, e.g. the residents of the Graue Mill Condominiums, including Molly's father Tony Baldwin, may have the best of intentions, their passion for protecting their proverbial backyards often prevents them from seeing the collective benefit for the community at large. They may not like the Hinsdale Club's proximity to the Graue Mill development, but the majority of Hinsdale, as represented by the Trustees and the Plan Commission, has decided the Hinsdale Club will be beneficial for our entire community.

I also suggested that it seems rather ironic that the residents of Graue Mill are complaining about the height and density of the proposed Hinsdale Club, when the Graue Mill development includes the tallest building (and in my opinion, one of the most unsightly) in Hinsdale.

Finally, I suggested that the 7-8 story buildings of the Hinsdale Club, (which are aesthetically pleasing in comparison to the Graue Mill skyscraper) might be provide a good architectural buffer.

If Hinsdale Talks is really an impartial forum, then I trust that you will post these comments. (I did make a copy this time.)Hopefully worth goal of HinsdaleTalks is not being undermined by "all in the family" nepotism.

To Still Tired:

The short answer is yes, we do censor (more below), but I believe you'll find your post, Frivolous Petition Filed by Hinsdale Club Opponents, under a different discussion, that titled "ZBA under Assault". I don't see anything comparing the aesthetics of the proposed Hinsdale Club towers to Graue Mill, but otherwise the description seems to match. I reviewed this comment myself, and if memory serves, we had it published on the site within about a half hour of posting.

This is one area where we are not happy with the navigation of our site. If you are looking for a recent comment, but it has dropped off of the "New Contributions" block of the home page, it can sometimes be hard to find. We are working on a significant redesign of our site that will address this and hopefully make Hinsdale Talks easier to use in many ways. We will introduce that in early July; please let us know what you think when we do.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the general question of whether Hinsdale Talks censors posts. The best description of the site's terms regarding posts can be found in our Posting Policy, but let me fill in some details.

Currently, posts from registered users that are logged in and are not selected to be anonymous posts are immediately published on the site. We believe that if someone has registered and is willing to put their name to a post, there is no need for review prior to publication. If the post is anonymous or from an unregistered user, we do review it before publishing.

There is more detail about posting standards in the Posting Policy, but generally what we look to prevent are ad hominem attacks, inordinately disrespectful comments, unreasonable compromising of people's privacy, and posts making claims the authenticity of which seem questionable.

The vast majority of posts are published as written. The next largest category are those that are generally good and reasonable but include an unnecessary, nasty jab at another resident or user of the site. In those cases, we typically edit out the objectionable phrase or section. For instance, if a user posted a comment in reply to another user and used the phrase "you jerk" in an otherwise reasonable post, we might just cut out "you jerk" and publish the rest. I would guess we've had about six or seven cases like this since we launched the site.

Only in one case have we not published an entire comment, the sole purpose of which was to call another user an idiot without providing any reasons for saying he was an idiot. In that case the comment was from a registered user, and we emailed that user explaining why we could not publish the comment and asking that he consider reposting with some more helpful details about why he was frustrated with the other user. That user never responded.

In one case we delayed publishing an anonymous comment that made some serious allegations about one of the candidates in the recent local elections. We contacted the user asking for some verification of the facts before we published the comment. We did receive information that gave us confidence the allegation had some substance to it, and then published the comment.

We have also recently removed some trustees home and mobile phone numbers from a post at the request of one trustee. The immediate issue giving rise to the suggestion that citizens phone trustees individually had passed, so we honored the request and will be doing some work to determine what contact information would be most appropriate to post for trustees and other village officials.

Isolating family members from debate is not something we do. In fact, we are likely to be more permissive of attacks against us or family members precisely so that we do not put our fairness under suspicion.

That has been the extent of our "censorship" to date. I hope that gives you a better understanding of the issues we face and what we do to manage them.

Thanks for using Hinsdale Talks. We hope you will continue to find it useful and giving us feedback.

Jerry:

Thanks for your explanation. I would agree that all of your policies regarding publication on Hinsdale Talks are fair and reasonable.

Glad you are clarifying your policies on posting Trustees' phone numbers. I was quite surprised to see one post during the last week under either the ZBA Restructuring or the overnment section which contained the home and cell phone numbers of some (but not all) of the Village Trustees. (Apparently, it was automatically posted by a registered user and has now been removed.) It appeared that the writer was attempting to encourage opponents of the proposed ZBA restructuring to call (harass?) every Trustee whom they perceived might be of a different mindset since the personal numbers of Mike Smith and Tom Cauley were excluded.

The publication of the Trustees personal phone numbers, even when not selective, seemed like a real cheap shot to me. While it is certainly reasonable to expect our Trustees to be accessible to the citizens, it is unfair to target certain Trustees to received phone calls on their home and cell phones anytime a group of citizen wants to rant. For all of their sacrifices on behalf on the Village, I think the Trustees deserve better treatment from the people whom the Trustees hae volunteered to serve.

I could not agree more with your policy of preventing people from posting personal insults and attacks. I always strive to argue the merit of an issue.

Unfortunately, in recent years the level of civility and mutual respect in this town has declined dramatically. People are far more nasty than they used to be around here -- the recent 181 School Board Election is just one sad example. Another was the shameful behavior of a number of the ZBA petitioners at the Board of Trustees meeting on Tuesday night. Many of them acted like little children when they don't get their way, rather than like the inteligent adults that they are.

They had every right to be upset but not rude and disruptive. One particular veteran activist (who shall remain nameless) needs to have a refresher course in the rules of civilized behavior typically taught at the kindergarten level.

Again, thanks for your explanation, and thanks for your efforts to make this public forum available.

Dear "Hinsdale Resident":

It sounds like you wrote a reply to my "NIMBYS and other thoughts" that you believe we did not post. Might it be possible that last night, June 7, you wrote something but didn't press the submit button? I know that has happened to me before. We never received any comment from you last night. Anyhow, thanks for the alert; if others are experiencing "lost" postings, we need to know so that if the error is on our end, we can fix it.

Molly:

I certainly am capable of mistakes, but I believe that I pushed the submit button. Every other time I have posted a message, it has gone thru.

Based on Jerry's reply explaining the review policy of HinsdaleTalks (which I agree is very fair), I am confident that whatever happened to my lost posting, it was either a mistake on my part or a glitch in the system.

Thanks for your reply and clarification.

Fact check (since you are unregistered, we cannot contact you off the record to verify this): skyscraper in Graue Mill? Where exactly? The tallest buildings there are 5 stories --the same height for which the new Hinsdale Club wants a variance. This is basically the tree height there --so you don't see buildings over the tree tops. (I guess Foxford and some trustees believe that so many "empty-nester" Hinsdaleans are clamoring for the 7th or 8th story condos at the Hinsdale Club, so they can better enjoy the lovely views of. .the tollway).

In your post, are you referring to the skyscraper known as Spinning Wheel apartments? They are not part of Graue Mill, they preceded it and were not even part of Hinsdale when they were built. Spinning Wheel is now part of our village, but is a building that obviously would never have been built in this town by choice because of its height.

Please clarify for us.

By the way, are the 24 NON-Graue-Mill people who signed the appeal to be dismissed by you and others, too? On what grounds?

Finally: do you think that elected officials can ever be wrong? Can a governmental process be majorly flawed? If you were present at Monday's or Tuesday's meetings, you may recall that opponents of the Hinsdale Club are as angry about having had their concerns largely ignored or casually dismissed by the village officials as they are about the outcome. At some point, for the benefit of our readers, I or someone will further describe how real, major concerns were NEVER really addressed before the board's approval of the Foxford deal April 17. In the meantime, I'd refer you to the nohinsdaletowers.org website .

To Molly:

I was indeed referring the to Spinning Wheel Apartments and I may not have been precise enough in my wording. The point remains, however, there is already a very tall building in the general neighborhood proposed to be redeveloped; so 7-8 story construction doesn't seem that egregious in my opinion.

Frankly, even if "the skyscraper" had not been built, in my view 7-8 story construction does not seem that much of a stretch from the 5 story construction in Graue Mill -- particularly when the Hinsdale Club is bordered by two very busy streets -- I-294 and Odgen Ave.

I amn not as familar as you apparently are with the make-up of the petitions to the ZBA, but even based upon your numbers, the majority of the group is Graue Mill residents.

Based on what I know, many of the remaining signers of the petition are habitual anti-development activists -- including the leaders of RARE Land who were also acting as NIMBYs. (Their opposition didn't stop the Segwick development at 55th and Countyline -- all they were successful in doing was restricting the available housing options in Hinsdale. So today, the majority of Hinsdale residents are still expressing a need for more townhouses and condos that would be attractive to empty nesters. In my view RARE Land did a disservice to the community because 55th and Countyline would have been the ideal location for some upscale empty nester housing).

I absolutely agree with you that local elected officials can be wrong -- that's why we have frequent elections -- so that we can throw the rascals out if we don't like what they are doing. And I firmly believe that Mike Woerner was wrong (i) in trying to minimize the power of the ZBA and (ii) in his boneheaded decision to sue 60 Village residents. (But as you will note in my prior postings, there were some fivilous steps that triggered the Village's overreaction.)

As far as your inference that the Hinsdale Club proposal was somehow "fast tracked" through the public hearing process, that could not be further from the truth since the Plan Commission held numerous hearings on the issue over a number of months, forced Foxford to modify their proposal twice and extracted significant financial concessions benefitting the entire Village. There was plenty of opportunity and time for residents to register their criticims and/or opposition to the project before the Board's decision in April.

Thanks for the reference to the website, nohinsdaletowers.org, which I will visit

Still Tired should get all their facts straight before making comments which are not correct. First,there is no five story construction in the Graue Mill Country Condominiums complex. When Graue Mill requested zoning for a five story building it was denied by the village. Therefore, the tallest building in the Graue Mill Country Condominium development is four. The Office Park of Hinsdale is presently zoned O-3 which allows for five stories and 60 feet of height. This is more in line with the surrounding area than the Spinning Wheel development which the village never approved as it was in Cook County and not part of Hinsdale at the time. When any project needs over 70 variations in order to be built it sends a message that the zoning code and regulations are not only being disregarded but that the character of the village is ultimately being changed. And certainly not for the better. As far as the significant financial benefits to the village that Still Tired is refering to, that is still to be seen. The only money guaranteed is the $1.3 million pledged to make up for the loss of green space as required by our zoning code. As far as the residents of Hinsdale having the opportunity to state their criticisms and concerns about the Hinsdale Club at the Plan Commission meetings I believe that was done. Too bad the commissioners didn't take those concerns into their decision. Yes, there were changes made to the original plans submitted. This was good but many more should have been made by the developer before being recommended by the Plan Commission. It is not only the residents of Graue Mill that should be concerned by this project but all the residents of Hinsdale who care about this community and its future.

I looked the nohinsdaletowers.org website, as you suggested.

I did find a skyscraper in the masthead of the webpage. It's a photo of a 20 story skyscraper (I counted) that has been superimposed behind a picture of the Memorial Building.

This image is rather deceptive in two respects:
1.) In connection with the Hinsdale Club development, no one has proposed anything close to the height of the building shown.
2.) The Hinsdale Club will not be located anywhere near the heart of downtown Hinsdale, but instead will be bounded by Ogden Avenue and the Tri-State Tollway.

Perhaps this webpage should show a nine story hotel "looming' over a full exchange exit on a six lane interstate highway. While such an image would not be quite as inflammatory, it would at least be truthful.

And what are your thoughts about the content of the site?

Molly

I think that what she (Anonymous) is trying to say is that the first thing you see at "nohinsdaletowers" is that the website contains a blatantly dishonest portrayal of what will be built on the Hinsdale Club site. If you think that the mischaracterization isn’t content then you are sadly mistaken. More importantly, if the first thing a person sees on the site is an obvious distortion, then they are likely to be a bit sanguine about anything else they read on the site. Most people in Hinsdale are not that naïve that they would automatically accept the word of those of have a vested interest in preventing development of the Hinsdale Club site, which is why most Hinsdaleans do not oppose it.

To anonymous of yesterday,
You're right, most people in Hinsdale aren't that naive; they know that there isn't a 20 story building looming over our Village Hall---yet.
Lighten up. Satire is, and always has been, a very effective tool, and most people with any sense of subtlety recognize it when they see it.

I am writing in response to "Still Tired" and his/her misleading and erroneous pronouncements about the Rare Land organization, its involvement in the petition to the ZBA re the Hinsdale Club, and many other issues. The misinformed blogger writes:

"Based on what I know, many of the remaining signers of the petition are habitual anti-development activists -- including the leaders of RARE Land who were also acting as NIMBYs. (Their opposition didn't stop the Segwick development at 55th and Countyline -- all they were successful in doing was restricting the available housing options in Hinsdale. So today, the majority of Hinsdale residents are still expressing a need for more townhouses and condos that would be attractive to empty nesters. In my view RARE Land did a disservice to the community because 55th and Countyline would have been the ideal location for some upscale empty nester housing)."

To correct this misstatement:

1) Rare Land as an organization, has not expressed an opinion--either pro or con--about the Hinsdale Club development, nor have its board members signed the Petition asking the ZBA to review the Hinsdale Club application.

2) The abbreviation NIMBY stands for "Not in My Back Yard". Rare Land was established to educate the community about the qualities which make Hinsdale, and other such established, historic communities, unique and desirable places to live: low density housing, green space, walkability, safe and accessible neighborhoods, village centers that serve local communities, proximity to mass transportation, good schools, development that s consistent with the code, etc.

3)Rare Land did not oppose the "Sedgwick" development at 55th and County Line Road, as the blogger states. The Sedgwick development of 36 single family homes is consistent with the R-2 single family zoning designation of that parcel and its surrounding neighborhood. If the parcel could not remain open, then single family development is regarded as the highest and best use of this land. Village Board of Trustees voted to maintain the current single family zoning of this parcel.

4)Residents community wide, who have expressed concern about recent development projects, such as 55th and S. County Line Road, the Garfield, Maple Street, and the Hinsdale Club, are not "chronic anti-development activists" but educated, pro-community and pro-development proponents, PROVIDED THIS DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VILLAGE'S ZONING CODE and adds value to the community without an additional burden on its roads, infrastracture, schools, open space, safety and quality of life. Adherence to this code ensures that development is appropriately scaled to and consistent with its surroundings; the integrity of single family neighborhoods is maintained; and Hinsdale remains "one of the finest residential suburbs in the country," as promised in the Village's Zoning Code.

Residents do strongly object to developers' aggressve attempts to circumvent the processes and standards of the Zoning code. Residents also take issue with village staff and officials who appear to bend over backwards to facilitate development, rather than upholding the integrity of the code, as their oath of office necessitates.

5) As for the blogger's accusation that Rare Land proponents "restricted available housing options" for upscale empty nesters desired by a "majority of Hinsdale residents":

Developers and their advocates, many of whom have a personal financial stake in their success, are fond of bemoaning the lack of multi-family housing options for "downsizing" empty nesters in our community, or those who choose to sell larger homes to move into so-marketed "lower maintenance" condos, townhomes and the like. Developers of the Garfield, the Hinsdale Club, and 55th and County Line road have sited a recent survey result which states that 68% of residents would be in favor of more such multi-family housing in our village.

ACTUAL MARKET DEMAND FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING (13%) FAR LESS THAN PERCEIVED NEED FOR SUCH HOUSING (68%)

By contrast, the same survey tells a very different story about the actual market demand for such housing among current Hinsdale homeowners. When asked what their intentions were with respect to housing within the next five to ten years ONLY 13% of survey respondents stated that they plan to sell their homes "and would prefer to stay in the Village in multiple family housing if it were available."[Questin 2.08 c.]

Currently, Hinsdale's housing stock is 20% multi-family. If proposed new developments are built, an additional 400+ of MF housing units would be added to this pool. If the market demand among village residents for MF housing stock is 13%, clearly current supply suffices. There is no overwhelming actual need for such housing, even though developers and their agents have worked dilligently to create the perception of demand.

Quite simply, in a community of high property values and a slower single-family housing market, it is in the interest of developers to develop available land more densely to ensure a greater return on their investment. Hinsdale residents and officials do not have an obligation to faciliate such development, nor should they change their zoning laws to accomodate such housing projects.

Respectfully,
Sigita Balzekas
President,
Rare Land

With all due respect, I think you are having a little trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

We have all heard the old preamble to the Hinsdale Zoning Code cited over and over like a mantra of anti-development cult. In my experience, most residents who chant “Uphold the Code” don’t really know what is in the Code. Such individuals really should acquaint themselves with all of Hinsdale’s zoning code -- not just the preamble. The full code and the zoning map specifically provide for many varied land uses including -- single family residential, multifamily residential, business and office.

Hinsdale is a community primarily composed of single family residences and it will always be so. But to take the position that any new development should be limited exclusively to single family residences (just as Rare Land did with respect to 55th and Countyline) is simply myopic.

I stand by my statement that Rare Land's actions effectively deprived our community of desirable housing options such as upscale townhouses and condos (which can contribute significantly to the tax base, without burdening our school system). And despite your comments regarding Rare Land's lofty mission to "educate the community" (when was Rare Land's last seminar?), I believe that the most active and most vocal members/supporters of Rare Land were NIMBYS, i.e. mostly residents of Southeast Hinsdale and the Woodlands who were primarily concerned (correctly or incorrectly) with their perception that traffic would increase measurably in their neighborhood. NIMBYS are just as motivated by their own self-interest as developers are.

The whole idea of 55th and Countyline remaining “open land” was a pipe dream (and the name Rare Land was a misnomer – in fact I heard more than a few Hinsdale residents indicate that they felt a bit deceived by this name after the dust settled). To the best of my recollection when Rare Land was initially organized, the developer had already signed a contract with the Cook County Forest Preserve to purchase the property at 55th and Countyline and the parcel was already zoned R-2. There wasn’t any realistic prospect of that parcel remaining “open land.” When the proposed townhouses (only a portion of the larger project) were blocked largely in response to the political outcry driven by Rare Land, the developer went ahead with the a plan to build all large single family homes which were (and still are) overly plentiful in Hinsdale.

You argue that the demand for townhouses and condos doesn’t exist, but have you noticed how many single family homes have been built/sold at 55th and Countyline in the last two years? One or two maybe? If the market demand is so strong for more of the same, then why is the Segwick development currently languishing? Frankly, the best course would be for the Village to re-examine the zoning classification of this parcel and re-consider allowing a nice balance of town homes and single family homes in the Segwick development. If you want to see what kind of housing is in demand, take a drive down Grant Street, south of the High School and notice what is being built.

In my opinion, Rare Land effectively deprived Hinsdale the opportunity to make itself an even more desirable community, particularly to empty nesters and seniors, by permitting upscale townhouses in an ideal location (as opposed to Maple Street where a developer wanted to build townhouses in an existing block of single family residences). Most seniors, who have lived in Hinsdale all of their lives, are now forced to move out of town when they wish to downsize and leave home maintenance chores and yard work to someone else.

Your stated belief that the “current supply [of multifamily housing] suffices” puts you totally at odds with the overwhelming majority of Hinsdale residents responding to the recent Village surveys, to wit:

 82% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that: “Older residents leave Hinsdale because they cannot find suitable housing options.”

 78% agreed or strongly agreed that “Empty-nester housing (condos/town homes) should be encouraged by the Village.”

 70% indicated that they “would support more condos/townhouses if they were high quality and in keeping with the Village’s character.”

I also think that you are misinterpreting, albeit unintentionally, the survey results when you dismiss the fact that “ONLY” 13% of the respondents indicate that they “intend to sell the home [in which they are currently living] within the next five to ten years and prefer to stay in the Village in multiple family housing if it were available.”

What you fail to recognize is that 13% of all respondents is a HUGE response of the total number of residents WHO ARE LIKELY TO RETIRE SOON. At any given time only a fraction of the Village population would be of retirement age and seeking to downsize to a townhouse or a condo – of course the majority of residents are not going to answer in the affirmative to the question you cited. Of the survey respondents, 80% were under the age of 65 (45% were under the age of 50); relatively few in this group will be looking for empty nester housing soon. But only 20% of the respondents were age 65 and older (some of these folks already live in multifamily housing) and at the stage of life where they are anticipating selling their single family residence.

So if 13% of all the survey respondents intend to sell their single family homes and move into multifamily housing located in the Village (if available), this response translates into roughly half to two-thirds of the folks over 65. That’s not a result to be lightly dismissed, as you did in your posting.

Here‘s another simpler way to look at it: 13% of the Village population is 2,340 people! Cut that in number in half and the demand is for at least 1,170 “empty nester” units over the next 5-10 years. If Hinsdale is currently 20% multi-family units, as you state, the total number of multi-family units is approximately 1,250 (20% of the 2003 census count of 6,229 households in Hinsdale) – and many of these units are rental apartments, not upscale townhouses or condos.

You may be able to argue about how to slice the numbers and make projections, but only one logical conclusion can be drawn: The existing supply multifamily units doesn't come close to quantitatively or qualitatively satisfying the demand expressed by
“ONLY” 13% of the Village who intend to sell their homes in the foreseeable future and who would prefer suitable multifamily housing in the Village.

Hinsdale needs a greater range of housing options for all stages of life in order to attract and retain -- rather than drive away -- seniors (a demographic group who happens to have very high levels of disposable income.) If all the NIMBY’s and the habitual opponents of all new development were to hold sway, Hinsdale’s economic base will continue to wither on the vine, while other nearby towns flourish. The days of the horse and buggy and of Prohibition are long past – and if we adopt the “head-in-the-sand” polices favored by NIMBYs and other habitual anti-development activists (who have never seen any change they liked), be prepared to see even more vacant storefronts downtown.

While the charm of Hinsdale must always be protected, when managed properly and responsibly, commercial re-development (a/k/a improvement) is a desirable phenomenon for our Village; it can better our quality of life, our range of housing, dining and shopping options, our Village finances, our residential property values and even our town’s aesthetics (for example, the current site of the Hinsdale Club is a comparative eyesore and presents a very shabby entrance into to our Village).

Thank goodness that we currently have a Board of Trustees, a Plan Commission and a professional municipal staff who understands the foregoing principle. Thankfully, our local government officials are able to look beyond the noisy minority of NIMBYs and make well-considered develoment choices(with reasonable public input) which are truly in the best interests of our entire Village.

Respectfully, A Hinsdale Resident Who is Still Tired of NIMBYs.

Here we go again: responding to a gutless person who will not sign their name. No Nathan Hale or Alexander Hamilton here. Just another well-connected wannabe hiding behind the shield of anonymity declaring that anyone who aspires to a definable standard is “anti-development”.

We’ve seen you before. You will never sign your name. You will gladly criticize, but not offer a thoughtful alternative. You will tear down, but not build up. You are a coward who will claim you right to be heard, but will not stand up and accept responsibility for your actions.

You are the one who will not fight for what is right. You are a quick to blame others and pass by those in need.

We don’t need you – go somewhere else.

Stan Balzekas
Hinsdale Resident

Stan:

Your most recent post is exactly why I choose to remain anonymous. Too many people in our town have fallen into the unfortunate habit of attacking others when they cannot prevail in the contest of ideas.

It's highly amusing that you invoke the name of Alexander Hamilton in assailing anonymous authors. Obviously, you are unaware of the fact that Hamilton, the leading author of the Federalist Papers, used the anonymous pen name "Publicus" (as did James Madison and John Jay.) Benjamin Franklin also wrote numerous anonymous essays and letters throughout his public life. There is a long and healthy tradition of anonymous communication in Amcerican political discourse.

Since you can't substantively refute my points, you choose to call me a coward. (When I replied to the message posted by your wife. I responded with facts and analysis, not on ad hominen attacks -- but apparently you don't like the facts, so you have chosen to engage in name calling.)

Ethical use of anonymity only helps thoughtful debate — it does nothing to hurt it. It allows folks to express their ideas without being subjected to personal attacks, which is apparently your preferred debating tactic.

A Hinsdale Resident Who is Still Tired

Well said. There are a lot of us who are still tired of the Stanleys in our community.

The village has posted a number of additional documents related to the Hinsdale Club development on its website at www.villageofhinsdale.org/foxford/default.php.

These documents include:

• The Development Agreement with exhibits
• The ordinance approved April 17
• Various traffic, economic, and financial studies

I'm somewhat new to this mess. Does a Hinsdale resident own the development? Politically connected?

Yesterday morning, Saturday, July 7, a crew working for Foxford LLC was at work felling and removing an estimated 18 mature trees from the Hinsdale Office Park property. Nick Etten, a Graue Mill resident who opposes this development, was driving by and was able to take a number of photos, which he supplied to Hinsdale Talks and are posted below. His report was that after being informed of what was happening, the village manager and Hinsdale police stopped the destruction of the trees. The proposed Hinsdale Club development remains the subject of a number of lawsuits at the Illinois Circuit Court and a hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. A stay has been issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals halting activity and proceedings on the matter pending its hearings.

See photos in slideshow below. If this doesn't work, try this link.

During the deliberations by the trustees on April 17, prior to approving the proposed Hinsdale Club development, a number of assurances were made to address trustee concerns. These assurances seem, from reviewing the video record of the meeting, to have been important in securing the votes for the proposed development.

One of the interesting discussions is in response to a question by Trustee Follett about preserving trees. A few of the statements:

Follett: "I hope you'll work with our new forrester to go out and identify the trees that should be protected during the construction process that aren't in the way of the new construction."

Foxford: "We would like to preserve as many as we could as well."

Dave Cook (Village Manager): "We have had conversations with Foxford and any trees that can be relocated or transplanted as part of the process, they're more than willing to cooperate."

Some questions that seem to come out of this:

• Were all of the trees removed this weekend identified in a final plan approved by the village?
• Were all of the trees removed this weekend considered for relocation or transplanting and any possible steps taken to preserve the trees?
• Were the actions taken this weekend consistent with the comforting statements made to Trustee Follett?
• Was the village aware that the trees were going to come down this weekend?
• What was the reason for taking the trees down on a Saturday morning?
• Did the trees need to come down now? Is breaking ground imminent?