Should Naperville buy Ponds of Hobson West?

Do whatever it takes to keep it Open Space.

This one couldn't be more clear. If we can't find a way to purchase a small tract of land for open space/park land, between two already existing small parks, then I wonder if we are really as great a city as we claim we are.

Lets hope the will is found to make this happen.

It's a shame that the city spent so much money on that stupid bell tower and a former city employee (who quit).

I modestly support the purchase of this parcel only because it is already between two current small parks. But I would also like to see what the Park District plans to do with the land--sports fields, walking track, playground equip, etc. There has to be a plan, not just a purchase for the sake of "open space".

However, that being said, I am tired of people who live near any open space assuming that it should stay that way forever and looking to the city to buy the land as a solution.

The park district is offering $2.5 million, and the developer wants $4.1 million. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that they somehow--without filing a lawsuit--agree on mutual price halfway in between, at $3.2 million for 6 acres. That works out to about $530,000 per acre, or roughly what the jury said the Brach-Brodie property was worth. If they can't agree on a price without going to court, the last thing I would support is a condemnation suit to get the land.

I think that the city of Naperville should initiate condemnation proceedings and offer to pay ONLY $2,500,000. Then, when the jury verdict comes in at $8,200,000 (more than twice the original price) the city can turn to District 204 for real estate, financial and further legal advice.

T.B. has a good point.

People should not complain who live near an open area or an empty lot.

No matter what anyone tells them, it might (will) be rezoned.

No shoulder to cry on here!

If the park district can't make this happen then I think it should stay zoned as single family homes. Why do builders agree to purchase land zoned a certain way and then cry that the land was too expensive for them to make a profit and ask for higher density? And why does the council contantly give in on these requests? It's only a good MASTER PLAN if you stick to the PLAN part!

I also think Grant Wehrli should excuse himself from all future votes on the matter as he is closely related to the builder that would profit on the transaction.

TB - great point about open space. i agree. i would be against developing it for homes. but i also think the park district should develop a valuable way to use the land for the benefit of the citizens of naperville and not let it just sit there for the sake of open space.

Tired - Great point about planning and grant wherli. also agree 100%. the only chance for him to recuse himself is for you to go to the city council meeting and point out the conflict of interest and ask him to recuse himself in open forum. that would be a great thing to do. he has voted against the citizens desires and for developers on these types of issues more consistently than any other councilman. rosanova and bouyajian (spelling?) are close.

This property should remain "Green Space". This is a beautiful piece of property where my grandchildren and I enjoy fishing, watching the wikldlife and just walking. The zoning should never have been changed by the City Council in the first place. However, reversing this decision might just provide the Park District with a favorable bargaining position they need to aquire this land at a reasonable cost. Our Park District has already proven they are capable of maximizing the use of "Green Space", so I don't view that as an issue. My thanks, to the Park District and (4) Councilman in favor of this purchase, for your hard work. For the remaining Councilman I am disapointed in your inability to "smell the roses".

Tired,

Excellent point regarding wherli-

My suggestion is you send Grant Wherli an email, copy city attorney Margo Ely and all other concilmen. Ask Wherli if he has delivered the following disclosure to the City Manager as required by the Naperville Municipal Code. And, if not, why not.

Finally, even if he can avoid the code requirements on some technicality. Point out that what you said in your posting and ask him to recuse himself to avoid "even the appearance" of a conflict of interest.

NAPERVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE

1-13-4: DISCLOSURE AND ABSTENTION:

When any member of the City Council has an ownership, employment, or family interest, in a proposed contract, business, or transaction with the City, which interest is allowed by Section 1-13-3 of this Chapter, such Council member shall file with the City Manager a written disclosure of such interest, a description of such interest, the provision of Section 1-13-3 of this Chapter relied upon, and a description of the applicability of such exception on a form as follows:

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
IN CONTRACT, BUSINESS, OR TRANSACTION

Name: ______________________________

Position with City: _____________________

Name of entity contracting with City: _______

Proposed contract, business, or transaction: ___

I have an [ ] Ownership

[ ] Employment

[ ] Family

interest in the proposed contract, business, or transaction as follows: ____________________________________________________________

I am entitled to have such an interest under the provisions of Section 1-13-3 ____ because of the following facts: ______________

Dated: ____________ _

Signature

1. Such written disclosure shall be filed with the City Manager not later than the call to order of the City Council meeting at which the proposed contract, business, or transaction is to be considered. The City Manager shall bring the written notification to the attention of the City Council in public when the item is called on the agenda for consideration.

2. A member of the City Council having an interest for which a disclosure is required shall leave the chamber where deliberations take place during the discussion and vote on the interested matter and shall not vote on said matter. (Ord. 87-70, 6-2-1987)

http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/IL/Naperville/03013000000004000.htm

Let me provide some history and context related to the property now referred to as the “Ponds of Hobson West” (about 6 acres located between the two ponds). I’ll try to keep it as brief as possible, but this will not be short.

The 195-acre Clarke farm (now Hobson West) was roughly bound by Emerald Street on the East, 75th Street on the South, Naperville-Plainfield Road on the West, and Green Acres subdivision and the Garden Plots land on the North.

In the early 1970s, Metropolitan Structures (a subsidiary of MetLife) purchased the property and wanted to put a “huge” development on the property that included a ten-story high rise in the middle, five-story apartments along 75th Street and other homes that added up to a proposed population of 10,000 people. Can you image what Naperville would be now if this proposal was adopted and many other farms became densely-populated developments?

Residents fought this proposal and spearheaded the efforts which resulted in it being rejected. In fact, an outgrowth of this effort was the establishment of the Naperville Area Homeowners Confederation.

Metropolitan Structures sold the property to Weathersfield developers who wanted to build a development of 6,000 people on the property. It also was ultimately rejected. Then, in the later part of the 1970s, Mid-America Bank purchased the property for single-family development and sold 408 lots to developers (and in the early 1980s several remaining lots to individuals a well).

The six acres and farm house were kept by the Clarke family as their residence. The two pond and other common areas of the new Hobson West subdivision were given by Mid-America to the newly formed homeowners association. The homeowners association gave the two ponds (a total of 9 acres) to the Naperville Park District.

It was “rumored” that when the Clarke’s died they wanted the property to be donated to the Park District; but, a son took it to court and took possession. The property was composed of two lots. The properties were subsequently sold to Dr. Soper and his wife. A church congregation looked into buying the southern-most lot for building a church but decided not to do so. Again, it was “rumored” that one finding was that the water table was too high and that the one property was not large enough.

At some point in time, the two lots were zoned single family residential and placed as such in the City’s Master Plan as such.

In the spring of 2004, Crestview Builders purchased both properties for a total of $2.75 million with the intent of constructing townhouses on the properties. Crestview began dialogue with the board members of the homeowners association. (Context: many of the homeowners had recently become upset when this board was proposing building a large club house at its current site and the homeowners rejected the proposal). It is “rumored” that Crestview offered to provide funds toward a new club house provided that residents of the new development would become members of the homeowners association and have access to the swimming pool, etc.

In the fall of 2004, Crestview invited homeowners to an informational meeting at the Barn on Martin Ave. They showed a proposal of 6 buildings containing 29 townhouses. Most of the residents indicated their disproval. One Hobson West resident said that when Ron Wehrli, owner of Crestview Builders, left the meeting, Mayor Pradel was waiting outside in a car for him.

On November 3, 2007, Crestview brought a proposal for changing the zoning and to construct 6 buildings and 27 units before the Plan Commission. Many area residents spoke before the Plan Commission. There were two more public hearing sessions. On December 8, 2008, it was rejected by a 7-0 vote. Grant Wehrli, a Plan Commissioner, before he voted, said “...lower the density, then at least give us something that we would have the possibility of considering.”

Upon hearing that Crestview Builders was going to again submit a proposal to change the zoning, a petition was circulated. Virtually all of the over 1,000 people signing it were against a zoning change. On February 15, 2006, Crestview proposed 5 buildings with 22 units. At the public hearing on April 26, 2006, the Plan Commission rejected this proposal by a 4-2 vote. One Plan Commissioner, who was a resident of the Hobson West subdivision, recused himself from the vote. By this point in time, Grant Wehrli had been appointed to the City Council to fill a vacancy.

Crestview, on July 6, 2006, decided to take their rejected proposal directly to the City Council for approval. The first public hearing was postponed and the next one was tabled. Then, on September 5, 2006, it was again postponed as the Council directed staff to explore with the Park District and the Conservation Foundation about property acquisition for open space. On October 17, 2008, a vote to retain single family zoning failed by a 4-5 vote. However, it was voted to have Park District staff and the Conservation Foundation to seek ways to purchase the property.

Note: At this point in time, then Director Heller of the Park District had at her highest priority the building of a $35 million recreation center at Frontier Park; thus, there was no interest in spending several million on land. The Park District said it did not fit their profile of land (of at least 15 acres). They sent a letter to the City Council indicating they had no interest in purchasing the property.

On December 5, 2006, a vote to have the city purchase the property failed by a 4-5 vote. The City Council then voted to have an ordinance prepared for the rezoning from single family to multi-family and approve the 5 buildings with 22 units. But, Crestview was not to build for 6 months to allow for purchase for open space which was to be valued as if the zoning was still single family.

Note than there were many residents who stood up and spoke at these public meetings. In addition some met with staff and Councilmen. Also, several Councilmen were invited to meet with residents (from different areas of the City) to discuss the issue.

On January 3, 2007, when the ordinance was on the floor to be voted upon, both Councilman Rosanova and Councilman Wehrli were asked to recuse themselves from voting. Rosanova’s son, a lawyer, had been hired by the law firm representing Crestview. The City Attorney said it was okay for Councilman Rosanova to vote because law firm indicated that the son would not work on matters that would come before the Council. Also, Councilman Wehrli’s first cousin was the owner of Crestview. On a 5-4 vote the Council approved the zoning change and approved the preliminary plat that allowed 5 buildings and 22 units. There was also to be a 12-month period before construction was to begin and that the property, should it be sold to a public body, be valued as if it was zoned for single family residences. Before the vote, Councilman Wehrli said he now supported the proposal because the “facts had changed.” This was said, even though the proposal was the same as the one rejected by the Plan Commission on April 26, 2006.

So, the residents began appearing before the Park District Board to ask them to purchase the property as well as to give many ideas as to how the property could be utilized for Park District activities. On January 4, 2007, 25 residents appeared before the Park District Board. On February 8, 2007, several residents again spoke on the issue before the Park District Board. The Board directed its staff to investigate whether the District should acquire the property. At the March 8, 2007 Board meeting, residents again asked that the property be acquired.

At the candidate forum on March 21, 2007 for those seeking election as Park Commissioner, the seven candidates were asked whether the Park District should buy the property. Six gave strong affirmative answers and the other one did not oppose the purchase.

At each of the next four monthly Park District Board meetings, residents asked for the land to be purchased. At each of these meetings, no comment was made by the Board.

On July 25, 2007, ten residents met with a reporter for the Daily Herald to discuss the “Ponds of Hobson West” property. An article and picture appeared in the newspaper several days later.

At the Naperville City Council meeting on August 6, 2007, the council members discussed a letter received from the Naperville Park District requesting a meeting where funding of the purchase of the “Ponds of Hobson West” property could be considered. The $3.3 million price was mentioned as well as a suggestion that the City should consider paying any difference if the selling price was higher since the city was responsible for the increase in value of the property.

At the August 9, 2007 Park Board meeting, about 20 residents again spoke to the Park Commissioners about the importance about purchasing the property and to make a decision. The Board President said that options were being evaluated and that funding considerations needed to be addressed.

On September 3, 2007, a number of residents participated in the Last Fling Parade entry of the West Street Greenspace Preservation Coalition that focused on saving open space and, in particular, the open space between the Hobson Ponds. The marchers received applause often along the parade route.

At the September 13, 2007 Park Board meeting, several residents commented on the efforts of the Park District related to the “Ponds of Hobson West” property. On October 3, 2007, several residents met with two Park Board Commissioners to discuss with them what the residents could do to keep the purchase of the “Ponds of Hobson West” property by the Park District a viable possibility. Since time was running out, the residents indicated that Board members should be held accountable by voting in public instead of only discussing a purchase in Executive Sessions.

At the Park Board meeting on October 11, 2007, presentations were made that:

1. Emphasized a shift by the residents to not only support the purchase of the “Ponds of Hobson West” property but to focus on saving open space in the Naperville area,
2. Stated intentions to create a Naperville Save Open Space foundation.
3. Discussed possible uses of the property,
4. Discussed limited matching-fund grant money that could be available, and
5. Recognized that the 2004 Park District Survey called for acquisition of open space as the top priority.

A number of other residents from different areas of the city spoke in favor of the Park District purchasing the land. The Park Board President said that the “Ponds of Hobson West” property would be on the agenda for the November 8, 2007 Park District Board meeting. But, again at the next meeting, no specifics were stated by the Board other than the Park District was working with the Conservation Foundation.

In early December 2007, the Park Board attorney sent a letter explaining why they were only offering $2.5 million for the property. At the December 18, 2007 City Council meeting, several residents spoke to the Council about the property and that time was running out. The attorney for Crestview piped up that he had sent a letter to the Park District that very day. The letter stated that the Park Districts offer was rejected and that the developer now wanted $4.1 million for the property and that additional time would be considered to extend the delay in construction. A reply letter by the Park District acknowledged the extension until January 31, 2008.

At a Special Meeting of the Park District Board on December 18, 2007, the Park Board was asked to consider acquiring the property through its eminent domain power and to get an injunction to prevent the property from being destroyed during that process.

At the January 2, 2008 City Council meeting an attorney for Crestview stated that Crestview would be unwilling to extend the negotiation period beyond January 31, 2008. One Councilman suggested that an interest-free loan be given to the Park District to cover the difference. Another Councilman suggested that a land swap (the 5th avenue former storage site) be made with Crestview for the property. A vote to allow City staff to work with the Park District to seek ways to make the purchase by the Park district possible failed by a 4-5 vote

Mr. Rod Randall,
Thanks for your long post. If the Dr. Soper you are talking about was my dentist who was located at 361 E. Bailey Rd in Maplebrook Plaza, then I have some light to shed.

He had always complained about flooding in his home. Many times over the 20 years he was my dentist. So "IF" the farm house you are talking about was him home, we have a really serious flood plain not suited for building.

I am beginning to suspect that Crestview Builders discovered it was a flood plain not suited for building somewhere along the way and are playing their cards with the city and Park District to try to milk us for some serious money, knowing they could never build on it, anyway.

If in fact it is a property subject to massive flooding as I suspect from my conversations with Dentist Dr. Soper, they are tyring to off it on to the Park District because it is technically worth NOTHING. It can not be built on! If they sell homes on it that are flood prone the homeowners will sue them.

And it seems like some kind of game is going on to help Crestview Builders get paid for a huge mistake they made. To have council members with conflicts of interest vote to have it zoned to a higher density sounds like a possible scam to milk 4.1 million dollars from the taxpayers for a flood zone that should never be built on.

Crestview should take the beating for not checking out the flood plain status before purchasing the property from Dr. Soper and his wife and donate it to the Park District! Knowing Dr. Soper, he is just too honest and probably told them his home floods annually and they still bought it for a very cheap price in order to possibly scam the taxpayers by pretending it is suitable for building while having purchased it for no reason other than to sell it to the Park District in the first place for an outrageous and unreasonably high price! I would not be surprised if they planted the opposition against building. It is the only way they get 4.1 million for swamp land!

How much did Crestviw Builders pay Dr. Soper to buy this alligator-less swampland? I bet almost nothing! I suspect they knew what they were buying and bought it for the sole reason of selling it for a higher price to the Park District knowing they could never build on swamp land.

I hope you can help us a little more Mr. Randall. I also could be totally wrong if Dr. Soper had a second home I did not know about. But he was not the investor type and worked 80 hours a week so I tend to believe he lived in that farm house that flooded almost every year. He had to close his practice many times because his home flooded. And he had state of the art sump pumps with the back-up systems. He said it was a hopeless situation and he needed to move elsewhere one day.

This is what I know. I hope bloggers with more information can shed some more light so we can understand how the Establishment helps their relatives make money and get out of messy flood plains.

Joe stated if we can't find a way to purchase a small tract of land for open space/park land, between two already existing small parks, then I wonder if we are really as great a city as we claim we are.

Actually Joe, what makes a city great is not rolling over to every NIMBY group with a handful of residents claiming to be some sort of majority representing the community.

Another sign that Naperville is a great city is the fact that they and the builder agreed to give the homeowners a year to come up with someone to purchase the land.

Now that the year has passed, with no signs of a viable purchaser, it is time to move on and let the rightful owner to do with the land as he wishes.

Melissa, I am sure Crestview had the land surveyed before they bought it and if it were a flood plain as you claim, they would have never purchased it. There is a big difference between "flooding in a home" and a flood plain. Flooding in the home was remedied by eliminating the home, and the new structures would be built higher to eliminate such flooding. A flood plain is designated as such, and no building would be permitted, which would have been noted on the master use plan.

I highly doubt Crestview would have purchased the land and spent the money on engineering and design for their project if it were on a piece of land designated a flood plain. Nor would the City allow Crestview to even consider building on it.

Mark,
The city makes mistakes on flood plains. They let people build in certain areas of Ashbury that turned out to be flood plains when heavy rains ensue. Not only are streets flooded with a few feet or rain water, but basements get 9 feet of water and no sump pump or pumps can keep up.

I guess this piece of land could not have basements...that is for sure. But I guess as you may be suggesting, they can haul in tons and tons of dirt and try to build the homes on mounds of dirt to be higher. But that is an expensive process. Thus there could be a hidden desire by Crestview not to want to build.

Many people buy land without having it checked to see if it is in a flood plain even though it is surveyed.

Keep in mind Crestview Builders have conflict of interest supporters in the City Council. First cousin Wehrli to be specific and second Rosonova who has a son working in the infamous Brestal Law Firm. And they already pulled one scheme by increasing the density from home to mulit-unit which increased the value of the property for negotiating purposes with the Park District. That gave Crestview the confidence to ask for the ridiculous 4.1 million instead of the 2.5 million the Park District offered. Of course the city stated that they can not consider the high denisty price but only the single family price when negotiating. That is like telling someone we just put 4.1 million in your pockets but for all practical purposes when you count the money, you are suppose to count it as 2.5 million. Common Mark, do you think taxpayers are really this naive that the city and developers can pull stunts like this on them at our expesnse. Pul...lease!!!

These things that are being done by connected people can not be done by ordinary people. Do you think Dr. Soper could have gotten this rezoning and increased the value of his home the way Crestview(Wehrli) did? Of course not! He was to honest, would never tolderate conflicts of interest, and does not have relatives and friends on the city council.

And yes you can build on flood plains. People build on beaches which are flood plains. They just have to elevate their home at great costs and hope for the best.

If I understood your blog, the home had to be eliminated because of this extreme flooding. I was not aware of that and thanks for pointing that out. I am a lay person but to me some of these things I am hearing, rouse some suspicians.

With land scarce in Naperville, developers are going for infill land, swamp land, land with old demolition candidate homes on them, etc. etc. I just think anything can be happening here and I am asking more bloggers who have information about the extreme flooding in Dr. Soper's home to shed some light. I am just hoping we don't have a Napergate Style story of sorts that may involve some cover up here and there. I just don't know at this point but somethings stinks about this project. I am seeing some red flags!!!

Melissa,
As far as having to eliminate the house due to this alleged flooding, that is not what I implied. The home was removed for whatever reason and the flooding isn't an issue anymore, if it ever was, seeing as this flooding is based on a very vague conversation with a dentist and you aren't even sure if this is the same property.

If the land in question was actually a flood plain then the two ponds would become one during heavy rains, which I have never witnessed. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be suitable for a park either, and the Park District shouldn't buy it.

You also allege that Crestview's asking price is a ridiculous $4.1 million, when you think it is worth $2.5 million. Let me ask you this Melissa, if your house was valued at $410k, would you be willing to sell it for $$250k? I didn't think so.

You can allege all the conspiracy's you want, but the fact remains, the City and Crestview gave a year to come up with a buyer and the clock is ticking. Having the Park District dump $4 million for a few peoples private park isn't a very good use of taxpayer money.

In a few short weeks Crestview will be free to do as they please with their property and it will be time to move on. Imagine the outcry if somehow the homeowner group did come up with the money and Crestview tried to back out of the deal. Both parties agreed to the terms, it is time to let things run their course and move on.

Melissa,
As far as having to eliminate the house due to this alleged flooding, that is not what I implied. The home was removed for whatever reason and the flooding isn't an issue anymore, if it ever was, seeing as this flooding is based on a very vague conversation with a dentist and you aren't even sure if this is the same property.

If the land in question was actually a flood plain then the two ponds would become one during heavy rains, which I have never witnessed. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be suitable for a park either, and the Park District shouldn't buy it.

You also allege that Crestview's asking price is a ridiculous $4.1 million, when you think it is worth $2.5 million. Let me ask you this Melissa, if your house was valued at $410k, would you be willing to sell it for $$250k? I didn't think so.

You can allege all the conspiracy's you want, but the fact remains, the City and Crestview gave a year to come up with a buyer and the clock is ticking. Having the Park District dump $4 million for a few peoples private park isn't a very good use of taxpayer money.

In a few short weeks Crestview will be free to do as they please with their property and it will be time to move on. Imagine the outcry if somehow the homeowner group did come up with the money and Crestview tried to back out of the deal. Both parties agreed to the terms, it is time to let things run their course and move on.

Mark,
You missed my main point. The city jacked up the price of the lot by changing the zoning to higher density thus making it undesirable for Crestview to want to sell the land for 2.5 million to the Park District when it was zoned low density residential.

This is disturbing! The city can take any 2 or 6 acres on 75th St. and change the zoning from residential to commercial if they choose. By doing this they would triple the value of an acre from 300,000 to over a million or even a million and a half. Residential lots on 75th Street are not worth much being on a busy street. But if someone has the connections at City Hall to get the necessary vote to change residential zoning to commercial, they just hit the jackpot.

I was around in the Napergate Era when all this was explained to us in those full page ads. Now as many are saying we again have conflicts of interest between council members, developers and that famous law firm of Brestal. It just seems we learn nothing when the spotlight is taken off and we go back to business as usual.

Yes, I am not 100% sure if my dentist was complaining about his home on that piece of land between the 2 ponds that he owned.. But I assume he was and did not suspect he had a second home. So I asked bloggers if they knew if had a second home so I could not be dispensing erroneous information. Unfortunately, Dr. Soper retired a few years ago and I don't have his phone number or I would asked him. But if we are talking about the same home on that lot, he experienced very very heavy flooding and also very very often. That was the topic of discussion in his office after every heavy rainfall. I guess he finally sold to relieve himself of all this flooding!

Finally, you statement "If the land in question was actually a flood plain then the two ponds would become one during heavy rains, which I have never witnessed. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be suitable for a park either, and the Park District shouldn't buy it." is very nonsensical.

Most if not all subdivison have huge retention areas/parks which flood during heavy rains. When the heavy rains finally evaporate or make it to the river, they become parks again for the subdivision where the kids play soccer or baseball. There is one of those in my subdivision. I think they have mult-purpose duties. Retention and park depending on the weather! Pond do grow by leap and bounds during heavy raining and do not necessarily have to connect and become one during heavy raining. They could still be separated by an acre while 5 acres are gobbled up by the rain. Just like I am not sure of Dr. Soper's home, you are not really sure how much of this land floods or how much the ponds increase in size during heavy rainfalls! Analysis needs to be done!!!

But these retention ponds/parks in most subdivisions could never be built on unless you want your home surrounded with 10 feet of water during heavy rains. That is all I was trying to say. Someone needs to do a thorough analysis!!!

Melissa,

Yes, Dr. Soper (the dentist) and his wife lived on the property for many years.

The house is still there. It has been vacant now for almost 4 years.

The Park District's offer was $2.5 million in cash. it also suggested that any remainder between that and the selling price be a land donation by Crestview Builders. This would give quite a tax break on the remaining "donation." Of course, this was not acceptable to Crestview.

Mark,

The property is located where virtually everyone in Naperville would have convenient access to it. That is why the residents have suggested various uses for the land that would appeal to most of the residents of the Park District.

Mr. Randall,
Thanks for confirming my beliefs that Mark did not want to seem to confirm. I had no proof but strongly believed Dr. Soper only owned this one home and his annual complaints of flooding were about this ONE home.

The fact that it has been empty for 4 years also speaks volumes. I think since this is a flood plain, the Park District can use this leverage to bring the price down to one million dollars as it is really not suited for buildings. No house on this piece of land could ever have a basement. Just impossible!! And the townhomes would really have to be elevated. If we ever get a rainfull like the one we got 12 years or so again, these homes would need helicopters to rescue their habitants. Does our fire department own any helicopters? Will this evacuation be at taxpayer expense or Crestview Builders expense? Will Crestview Builders warn all townhome purchases that the current home on the property floods annually despite a sophisticated sump pump system with a back-up?

Having said all this, I have never seen the property. Could you kindly give me directions to visit the property starting from the corner of 75th St. and Naperville-Plainfield Rd.

Thanks so much for verifying my information, Mr. Randall.

I enjoyed your long blog but I was not sure what your opinion was on the subject property....whether it should be bought by the Park District and for what price or if the City Officiala should allow their cousins to build on a flood plain at taxpayer expense due to future certain litigation!

Melissa

Melissa,

I grew up in Hobson West, near this property you are asking about. You can get there by taking Rickert (Naper/Plainfield Road turns into Rickert after you cross over 75th) and go to West Street and take a right (light by Wendy's). It will curve around to your left and the property is the white house with a couple of other white smaller buildings on the left side. You should see it when you are on West Street as it is in between the two ponds everyone is referring too. Mrs. Soper was my 6th Grade Counselor at Lincoln Jr. High and a very kind lady who helped a lot of kids over the years.

Regarding the flood plain question, I was not aware that this property was in a flood plain. In fact, during the real estate transaction this would have been disclosed. I am a Realtor and after a Buyer purchases a home, one of the first things the attorney does is send over a letter with a bunch of questions with one of them asking the seller to disclose if they are in a flood plain, even if everyone knows they are not. So if it was in a flood plain, it would most likely be known through that process.

Take care,

Kevin

Anything in Naperville can (and probably will) be rezoned at some point in the future. Even already-developed land can be rezoned and modified as we saw with Edward Hospital. No one should ever assume that the view or surroundings they have grown accustomed to will stay that way.

Kevin,

You are making an assumption that everyone is honest and will always disclose that their basement floods annually.

If a seller admitted that, the house would NEVER SELL. So must sellers would be reluctant to admit that especially if it would cost them a half a million or a million dollars. In this case 2.5 million dollars!!!

I suspect most sellers would not admit to that.

They would sell and flee to their retirement home.

I want to be clear that I am not speaking of Dr. Soper or his wife as I have no first hand knowledge or information other than dental office talk about non-stop flooding of this specific property on an annual basis.

Melissa
PS. Dr. Soper could have disclosed this and Crestview bought the property knowing from Day One it is a flood plain and that they will off it to the Park District or City. Remember Crestview is cousins with Naperville! Does Wehrli ring a bell? I believe he is on both sides of the equation and does not RECUSE himself. And does Roson0va ring a bell? He is also on both sides of the Brestal equation and does not RECUSE himself. Need I say more!!!

Melissa,

I guess we might be confusing two things here; flooding in a basement and living in a flood plain can be two separate issues. Your basement can flood for many reasons like the home being old and having cracks in the foundation, a bad sump pump or just bad grading around the home. To determine if you live in a flood plain, you can always check with your insurance carrier as they would have flood plain maps that show you who is and who is not living in a flood plain. There are homes that live in a partial flood plain too where only the back half of their backyard is in a flood plain for example, I have seen homes like that before.

The new buyer of the home would need to know this information for their home owners insurance policy and the insurance companies check so they know what they are insuring too. I have listed and sold homes that are in a flood plain before and each seller disclosed it with no issues as it would be tough for them to lie. It also doesn't benefit the home owner to lie about living in a flood plain as they would want to make sure their home is properly covered through their insurance carrier in case their home floods and they seek damages. I guess I would not take that risk myself, but maybe others would. Like you said though, not everyone is honest out there and I see your point with that.

Take care,

Kevin

Melissa,
You seem to be confused as to what a flood plain actually is. A flood plain, is flat or nearly flat land adjacent to a stream or river that experiences occasional or periodic flooding. Somehow, I don't think the property in question would be considered a flood plain under the true definition and it would be nice if you checked the facts before insinuating that the property is in a flood plain.

As far as a seller not disclosing whether the basement was prone to flooding, he would be taking a great risk. If it wasn't disclosed by the seller, it most likely would be found out by the home inspection service. If by chance it wasn't, the first time it did flood, the buyer would sue and most likely win.

As far as Crestview buying a swamp without checking if it indeed could be built on, Pul...ease! No builder/ developer just buys land on a whim and hopes it works out.They are in business to make money, not lose it. A whole lot of planning and engineering and feasibility studies are done beforehand to make sure the land they are interested in is actually a good investment.

Melissa -

I think Kevin and Mark did an excellent job describing for you that a flooding house does not equate to a flood plain.

That being said, suppose you're right. Wouldn't the best outcome for you be for Crestview to build there, flood, and be sued? Then the big, bad builder would go out of business, right?

I find it odd how I can't get the park district to put a couple of benches in my neighborhood park (a flood retention area with no play equipment) because it is not in their five-year capital improvement plan. However, some NIMBY people may get a new $2.5 million park. I guess the sqeaky wheel really does get the grease.

Kevin, Mark and T.B.,
I know little to nothing about real estate. You got me there. I was not even 100% sure that my dentist lived in that specific home until Mr. Randall verified he did.

As a lay person with no expertise, I would never buy a home on a lot that had a previous home that flooded at least twice a year. Sometimes 9 feet in the basement and one or two feet on the first floor according to my dentist, his wife Mrs. Soper and their receptionist.

If other people want to buy that lot or build on that lot, more power to them. But most lay people like myself would not take a chance. And with so many options, why would anyone take a risk on a lot like that.

From my point of view, if a house floods that bad, it is in a flood plain. My brother lives in Ashbury Subdivision and his basement only flooded once to the tune of 9ft. The streets in front of his home were lakes for a few days. That seemed like a once in a century rainfall about 10-12 years ago. He even finished his basement since that 17 inch rain storm that flooded almost every basement in Ashbury. He is taking a small calculated risk.

But in my opinion, despite what you experts and realtors are saying, I would never buy or build on a lot that flooded twice a year for 20 years. It is my belief that if Crestview Builders disclosed to the buyers the severity of flooding on that lot, that no one would be stupid enough to chance it no matter what kind of grading or elevation they did.

Anyone knows living between 2 ponds is beautiful. I am sure that is why Dr. Soper bought the home. But if he knew living between 2 ponds meant he would experience 2 floods in his home every year, I don't think he would have bought the home and lived in it.

Now while you guys say I don't know the difference between a consistently flooding house and a flood plain, I will concede you are right.

But my question to you is, would you guys buy a lot on that land and build a home knowing of Dr. Soper's problems of non-stop flooding on that parcel. My guess is if you were investing your life time savings, you would not put your money where you guys are putting your words. Just my hunch! I wonder if any lay people would agree with my feelings!

Melissa

PS. Dr. Soper was a very intelligent and wealthy person. He was even a Professor in dental school. I think if his problem was a cracked basement wall, he would have fixed it for 500 dollar or a 1000 dollars. His problem was probably what happened to my brother. So much water it just breaks thru the basement windows and sump pumps can never handle true flooding when it comes in the manner it hit my brother in Ashbury once and Dr. Soper repeatedly.

Melissa,
As far as having to eliminate the house due to this alleged flooding, that is not what I implied. The home was removed for whatever reason and the flooding isn't an issue anymore, if it ever was, seeing as this flooding is based on a very vague conversation with a dentist and you aren't even sure if this is the same property.
Posted by: Mark | January 6, 2008 04:48 PM
******************************************************************
Mark,
You seem to be challenging Melissa quite a bit here on these blogs. She has tried to be honest by saying she is not very sure but thinks that is the case.

You seemed very confident the house was removed off the property, but Mr. Randall says it is still there and vacant for 4 years.

Melissa's conversation with the dentist about his home flooding was not vague. She was just vague to the possiblity he may have owned a second house and did not live in this particular home. But Mr. Randall confirmed that Dr. Soper actually lived in this home before selling it as Melissa had thought or speculated!

And since you lost your credibility by saying the house had been removed while it is still there, do you expect yourself to have any credibilty with the bloggers when you speculate the land is not prone to flooding.

Your assumption that since you have never seen the 2 ponds connect the land must not be prone to flooding. Maybe the entire United States is not prone to flooding since the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have never connected before. I am exaggerating to make a point.

And further have you watched these ponds 365 days a year to make sure they never connected. Obviously you have not since you did not even know the house is still on the property and thought it was removed.

It amazes and bewilders me how some people who admit to having vague or no knowledge sometimes have way more knowledge than those who assume to have that knowledge while not really having any knowledge. My 2 cents worth!

Ameena,

It's a natural tendency for people to draw conclusion from what the observe or don't observe. If they explain why they draw those conclusions and even though you may draw different conclusions; it's not a sign of 'lacking credibility'.

I seem to recall a previous thread in December where someone else drew an incorrect conclusion based upon what they claimed to have seen and not seen on a street.

It doesn't mean that everything they say after that point is now automatically without credibility, does it? People are human, they make errors and we have different opinions and draw different conclusions based on our own life experiences and observations.

Melissa,

To answer your question..."But my question to you is, would you guys buy a lot on that land and build a home knowing of Dr. Soper's problems of non-stop flooding on that parcel...Posted by: Melissa | January 9, 2008 02:37 AM" My answer would be no. However, in your previous entry on this blog you made speculation that not everyone is honest and tells you that the home floods or is in a flood plain at the time of purchase. So I was just commenting on that part of your entry and then trying to explain the flooding vs flood plain question as it is a very good one. However to answer your question above with a little more detail, the only way I would know if the home did flood twice a year like you said or it was in a flood plain is if it were disclosed at the time of purchase by the seller or in the case where the seller was not honest, by my insurance carrier while they do their search on the property on their flood plain maps. There are plenty people out there who do not care if they live in a flood plain, now you and I do care an would not live in one, but there are people who don't care.

My overall question here is, does this home we are discussing reside in a flood plain...I don't know...I was just explaining that not every home that floods is in a flood plain. It would be interesting if there were an insurance agent on this blog who can look it up for everyone so we have the facts.

Also, some other history on the property...I grew up near it and across the street from Rod Randall...at one point there was an in ground swimming pool on the property...not by floods either. That was later filled in with concrete many years ago, but it had an in ground pool with a pool house. When the Soper's lived there I never really saw the pool being used that much or remember the pool having water in it. You can still see the pool house as it is one of the little white buildings still standing today. Just some more history on property.

Take care,

Kevin

Melissa -

Your guess that lay people would not buy there isn't such a lock as you seem to think it is. I'm not in real estate, but would buy there if I thought the homes were built correctly and were of good quality. Except, of course, I probably couldn't afford it!

I grew up in a house that flooded, but my neighbor's house didn't. My current house does not flood, but my neighbor's does. There are varying reasons for flooding and most are not $500-$1,000 fixes as you expressed. Did your dentist ever say he even attempted to fix the flooding or determine the cause?

Also, exactly how old was this farm house? I would suspect that age is the root of the flooding problem and also made any flood repairs cost prohibitive.

Ameena -

Just because Melissa has been honest, doesn't mean she shouldn't be challenged. She repeatedly called the land a flood plain, when I think it is obvious from later posts that she was making an assumption based on limited knowledge of the subject. She then said that she was not sure if it was a flood plain, but she would never buy there. I think it was a good back and forth and she eventually got her opinion across without making assertions that were not true.

Mark appears to be just as honest in his opinions as Melissa. Just because he disagrees with another blogger regarding the house still being there, that doesn't mean his entire post is not credible. Which post are we to believe about the house and why?

Your dicing of Mark's words about not watching the property 365 days a year for flooding is rather...well, Joe-like.

Just my "two cents" worth.

T.B., Kevin, Joe, Ameena,
Either the house is there or it is not there. If Mark says it is there and Joe and T.B. want to believe him, that is fine.

I figured if Ameena can go research Napergate ads at the library, I can go research the property. I did go there this morning and as Mr. Randall said there was a large white house surrounded by sheds and 3 abandoned cars. I took Mr. Randall's word that the house was vacant and drove into the driveway. In the back yard was an old wooden snow man sign, that read Happy Holidays from the Sopers!

The larger pond had overflowed and created a third small pond even though there was little to no rain the last 24 hours. The smaller pond had overflowed and created pockets of water towards the street and Dr. Soper's home.

My guess or hunch was Mr. Randall was being factual and credible while Mark was just babbling to act smart despite having no knowledge let alone first hand knowledge. My hunch was right and a house was there! If you say a house is not there when in fact it is there and was never removed, in my opinion, you do not have any credibility to be be making such fabricated and false statements. Don't know why Joe would defend such a guy but that is Joe always trying to take the opposing veiw whether it is right or wrong....kind of like everyone says for the sake of an argument to get a high of sorts!

I was admitting I was vague. Mark was acting like he knew it all. He turned out to be wrong and I guess anyone can verify that if they want to waste a gallon of gasoline to see for themselves. I just think it is terrible that we have to have bloggers that shoot their mouths on these blogs while others have to go out and verify the truth.

Anyway, after visiting the property which was in a single home residential area, I thought it was terrible to zone it multi unit because a developer paid to much money for a property prone to flooding. If the Napergate Man was around and rallied the residents, this council decision would have never taken place.

I don't see this very wet 6 acres as being Park District quality land. The Park District has a policy of only seeking 15 acres or more. They should stick with that policy. I am totally against spending 4.1 million dollars of my money on this flood prone piece of land. The one soccer field you could put on would be way to moist to play on even after a week of sunshine. Most other times I would think it would be very muddy and wet when not flooded.

The Park District should not buy this land. The city council should reverse its decision to have made it high density. For those residents who don't know this can be done.

The Napergate Man led many subdivions to stop the building of a commercial plaza on a formerly residential lot known as Spring Green, that was rezoned by Brestal and the city council. I believe the Napergate Man also led another group that stopped a shopping center from being built on the SW corner of Naper Blvd. and 75th St. To this day it remains vacant land because of his struggles and those of the nearby residents. I believe he ran the residents in that area a full page ad called SouthWest Gate to publicize their cause and rally them.

Just because we lost the Napergate Man, that should not mean we can not fight or stand up to City Hall anymore. Why can't the residents of the area at least demand the improper multi-house zoning be reversed back to single family homes? And if Crestview wants to build let them build single family homes on a lot prone to flooding. Hopefully, they will bring in thousands of trucks of dirt and elevate the property if that is possible. Something tells me that pond water seeps undergroud as well as overground(but I could be wrong) thus the non-stop flooding of Dr. Soper's basement to the tune of 9 feet twice a year.

But it is ludicrous to think we taxpayers should pay 4.1 million for this lousy piece of property. Let Crestview take a beating as one blogger said. The Markham Developer who eventually built homes on Spring Green took a massive financial beating after the Napergate Man and residents stood up to him despite his Brestal connections to City Hall.

And really Dick Furstenau should be leading us in Napergate Style battles instead of wasting his time in court and leaving us without leadership. If Mr. Furstenau is not going to replace the Napergate Man somebody has to step up to the plate or Brestal will ruin this town just as he attempted to in the Napergate Era. Where is Council Member Douglas Krause when you need him? I guess running for state elections!

And maybe as some man named Frank hinted on the Napergate thread, maybe it is not the duty of citizens like the Napergate Man to be spending tons of money on ads over issues that concern most residents....maybe it is the duty of the Naperville Sun to try to be more like a watchdog instead of having citizens like the Napergate Man try to take on the massive responsibility and duty of newspapers.

Melissa -

Good to see we at least agree that the park district shouldn't be buying the land, at least not for $4 million. I can mildly support the purchase for a (much) lesser amount if the park district came out with a plan for the expanded park. But I haven't seen anything expect people who don't want to see more development in their area.

As for the flooding, there were many flood advisories on the news the last few days. Seems the melting snow doesn't seep into the still-frozen ground well. I am NOT putting this forward for the flooding there in the past, just anecdotal regarding what you maybe saw today.

I wasn't arguing for or against any one blogger's credibility, just pointing out that I would reserve judgment until it was something more than he-said / he-said. Thanks for taking the ride out there for a first-hand account.

Melissa,

I was defending against only the stance that some are trying to build on these blogs lately that one error makes them non credible for anything else. Everyone is wrong at times.

Had we accepted that stance then every single one of us have zero credibility because over the course of blogging we have all been wrong about something. There are multiple 'lots' over there and also have been multiple 'hobson' things up in front of the planning commission over the last few years and people sometimes make mistakes when conveying information.

That's what appeared to have happened and I don't think anyone's going to accuse you of 'harassing and bullying' Mark or ask that you be banned from the blogs either, so thank you for actually going and looking and reporting back with eye witness facts.

Melissa,

I knew the property was there the whole time as I drive by it at least 3-4 times a week. So I never believed that it wasn't there and I also gave you some directions on how to get to the property per your request. All I was doing was trying to clear up the whole home flooding vs. living in a flood plain question. I agree with you that $4.1 million is a lot to pay for the land and the Park District should not pay that price for it. Before I decide whether or not they should buy it though, I would like to know what they plan to do with the property if they do in fact buy it. Has anyone seen what their plans are? I agree adding any sort of playing fields would be a bad idea for a couple of reasons...one the potential for the fields to be very wet and two the fact that the property is in-between two very busy roads. I would hate to see soccer balls flying into the road as people are driving by, it could cause some traffic problems or potential injuries for kids running into the road to retrieve their ball. If they are just wanting to put a playground on the property, than that might be a different story...although it would be one expensive playground! If anyone has heard of their intentions for the land if they do buy it, please share that with us.

Melissa, I like your passion and your writing style. I enjoy reading your entries to the various blogs (I assume you are the same Melissa on the Furstenau blogs) as they show real energy and have good insight on the various topics. You have some good ideas and I think you make some good points in your entries. I hope you don't think I was attacking you on this blog, I was just trying to clarify things.

Take care,

Kevin

Kevin,
Thank you for the directions. My remarks were not directed at you but at Mark who said there is no home on the property. You gave me the directions and I drove there to find out the truth.
This Mr. Randall guy seems very credible and I believed him over Mark. But I guess nothing counts unless you go verify for yourself these days. It seems like T.B., Joe and Mark were calling me out on this one, so I decided to go out and do a personal inspection inspired by Ameena's visits to the library to get us facts on Napergate instead of rumors. I must admit she inspired me and you made it easy with your pin point directions. So thanks to the both of you very much!

I am the same Melissa from the Furstenau blogs as you correctly noted. I just left that thread because I felt we were just repeating ourselves over and over again. People did blog after I left and Joe was somehow insinuating they were me when I was here focused on another topic. Joe, does seem to be toning it down just a bit and I appreciate that. But he made a mistake and I made a mistake thinking someone was impersonating Mrs. Police Officer. It just seems like 2 different people were writing, but as soon as Mrs. Police Officer said it was her, I just figured she can be moody like the rest of us. I guess I had her on a pedestral because she showed so much control and diplomancy, and suddenly she become one of us moody ones. I guess I realized she is human with strong emotions and took her off the pedestral and consider her one of us now. I don't know if that makes any sense!
But in no way was I trying to hurt her. I was trying to defend her from what I thought was an imposter trying to take advantage of her respect and credibility. How wrong I was....almost embarrassing but my intentions were good and I was not trying to deceive anyone like Mark who said there was no home on the property and I did not know what I was talking about.

Kevin, I agree with what you said about that plot of land. It needs a lot of work and even for a soccer field it is to close to 2 streets as you indicated. I just hope taxpayers don't buy it. I think it is a terrible parcel of land that should be donated to the Park District by Crestview as it needs a ton of work and I believe will always flood. My feeling is Crestview knowingly bought a retention pond and their real desire is not to build on it but sell it to the taxpayers for 1.6 million profit or more based on a 2.5 million purchase price. Why do they deserve to make a profit when land has gone down in the last year.
Even much better land location-wise and not so flood prone was determined to cost half a million an acre by a Judge. So how could these 6 acres that are in a worse location and flood prone be worth $683,333 an acre. Just does not make sense to me! The Judge's ruling for the District 204 land price was before the value collapsed due to the bad real estate market and sub-prime mortgage problems..

It just seems as Ameena and others have said the opposition to the Brestal Law Firm collapsed with the retiremant of the Napergate Man. The majority in the city council and Brestal Law Firm run this town with no opposition or serious input from residents. Residents are just not questioning their leaders like in the Napergate Days. Residents it seems are so much more passive and missing leadership and organization.

Even during Napergate we had an activist named Donna Rogers who was able to mobilize almost as much as the Napergate Man without the power of his ads. Of course, I know he ran several ads for her but she seemed to have done a lot even without those ads. And when they combined forces, they seemed to have the ability to move mountains.

Since it seems like no one these days is willing to pay for expensive ads to mobilize some opposition to some bad projects, I just hope us bloggers can one day find a way to solve some problems and have a strong voice before city council as the residents did in the Napergate Era.

I obviously don't have the solution or leasdership skills, but I am just going to keep trying. And thanks again Kevin for those directions as I could not find them on the Internet. You were so helpful!

Melissa,
PS. Yes, Kevin and the thought of a 4.1 million dollar playgroud with a few swings and slides is frightening. That would be the most expensive playgroud in the USA undoubtedly. Plus it would be a very dangerous playground since it is so close to 2 ponds that kids could accidentally drown in if their Mommies or Daddies took a cell phone call and lost some concentration. My vote is NO to buying the land. Seems crazy that the Park District is even considering it after making my visual inspection!

Let us make it a landfill for 5 or 10 years so we can get some higher ground and then cover it with dirt and build a castle on top for visual effects....OK, I was just kidding on my last point!

Melissa,
Along with Kevin, Joe and T.B., I want to thank you for making the personal visit and giving us an eyewitness account full of details that no one would know unless they visited....such as the wooden Snow Man you mentioned with the Sopers wishing everyone a Happy New Year. I guess that quashed any doubt that this was your dentist's home.

It just seems odd how you were so unsure of yourself while Mark was so sure of himself and we find out he did not know what he was talking about.

Anyway thanks for making the visit and of course I agree with you that I wish the Napergate guy was around to help us get some results.

For the record I agree with T.B., Kevin, and Melissa that this property may not be best suited for Park District and expensive at that.

I respectfully disagree with Joe's Blog,
******************************************************************
Do whatever it takes to keep it Open Space.

Posted by: joe | January 2, 2008 02:58 PM
******************************************************************
It just seems like Joe has no limit as to what he is willing to pay for open space. More open space that is unnecessary really increases ones Real Estate Tax bill and with all the economic problems we are having I just don't want any more increases in my taxes especially due to a 4.1 million kiddie playground. May God have some mercy on this one!!!

Ameena,

The reason for my short remark about open space is because I keep observing the habit around here where open space is being paved over in the name of 'progress'. I saw it happen before where I lived in places that are now completely 'built'. By that I mean no more land anywhere. Lots get further and further subdivided up until you literally have only a few feet between structures on different lots. Quite frankly, it's a disgusting inevitability with the 'just keep building on it' mentality. Once open space is gone, it's gone.

Look at Springbrook Prarie. It's been made more 'human compatible' over the last few years and it will continue to be encroached upon until one day (I fear) it will no longer be what it is that it may lose its 'preserve' status. There's talk of building golf ranges, archery ranges and other 'human compatible' facilities and structures there and in other 'preserves'. Someone forgot what the word 'preserve' actually means.

Ideally the land owner would donate the parcel to the city and follow in the lines of the Mitchel estate with gifting land for public use but I seriously doubt that will happen. Again, once it's gone, it's gone. Concrete jungles are disgusting places to live and it would be a shame to see Naperville continue on that path of eventuality.

You are mostly correct though, Ameena, having seen the extreme other end I have no problem opening up my wallet to preserve open space in the city I love.

I guess I am slightly embarrassed but not quite the serial liar that Melissa makes me out to be. I admit, I assumed that Crestview already demolished the house as most builders do for liability reasons (hate to have some child drown in the severely flooded house; there must have been water pouring out of the windows). However, a bad assumption on my part does not really change any of my previous statements.

I'm glad you did a little field trip out there, Melissa, because your own statements show that your claims have little merit. You drove into the property, so obviously it could not be in a flood plain, or prone to the biblical flooding you seem to say will happen. While many other areas in Chicagoland are experiencing major floods, you were able to get out and walk around the property(I assume this as you made no mention of needing a boat). Must not be that big of a flooding problem. While you were trespassing, did you check out the basement for water? Assuming that the electric has been off in an abandoned house, water should have been pouring out of the windows as sump pumps would not be running.

You say that one of the ponds had overflowed, "even though there has been no rain in the past 24 hours". So an old unimproved piece of farmland is supposed to magically drain when the experts are saying rivers in the are have not even crested from the rainfall we've had? And even with that flooding, your floodplain is even completely flooded?

You say I am not credible because of a bad assumption that really has no bearing on the discussion. Your whole field trip shows at least your lack of knowledge, if not your lack of credibility.

Flooding issues, engineering issues, and credibility issues aside, the real issue is that the NIMBY's want the rest of the city to buy land so they can keep their open space at someone else's (taxpayer's) expense. I wonder who didn't want your home built so they could keep 'their' open space?

Bottom line is, if people want open space so badly, they should spend their own money to buy the property and not saddle the taxpayer's with their problems.

Edward can build 120 foot building in somebody's back yard. Water Street developers can build condos that will tower 70+ feet over the Riverwalk. Developer gets higher density on Hobson Ponds property because he "can't make money" on prime land in the #2 city in the country. What do all of these have in common? A council that refuses to protect homeowners. But they have one other thing in common. All were represented (like many other developers asking for major zoning changes) by Dommermuth Brestal. And all were supported by Rosanova, whose son works for Dommermuth. Curious, with the hundreds (thousands?) of law firms in the Chicago area that the son of a member of city council finds employment with the most connected developer attorney in town. But, of course, Rosanova keeps on participating, agressively endorsing the plans proposed by the son's employer. Anybody else here smell a rat?

Here is a challenge for the moderators: Aside from the issue of Hobson Ponds, ask straight out whether Rosanova should be voting on issues brought in front of council by his son's employer. Run an online poll. Start a potluck thread. Whether or not it is a technical violation of the law, should a member of city council be voting on issues that favor a child's employer?

Mark,
You started up with Melissa assuming her assumptions were wrong even though she admitted she was vague and not sure.

Well, her vagueness exceeded your certainty about the house being taken down!

She did an honest eyewitness report. She had initially only said her dentist said the house floods 2 times a year. So she visited the lot one of the other 363 days and found partial flooding instead of full flooding. How does that make her inaccurate?

Now, you want to slam her for your incompetence by splitting hairs. That is really being ridiculous!

And she never called you a serial liar...you called yourself that! She said that you were lacking a little credibility...that's all! So let us not make a mountain out of a moehill.

Sorry, but your defense does not sit well with me! When you are wrong you are wrong, it is no big deal. You seem to want to make it a big deal by defending yourself by dicing and slicing!

She visits a vacant property that the Park District is trying to buy with her and our money. And you also accuse her of trespassing but yet you want her to break into the home and check the basement. Now, wouldn't that be burglary! I have never seen such a defense full with so much logic before in my life.

Fed up with spineless council,

You are echoing what all those Napergatians have been saying on all these blogs regarding the Brestal Connection for months.

They city council ran rampant pre Napergate Era...

The Napergate Man seemed to neutralize them in the Napergate Era...

And now they are running rampant again post Napergate Era...

Like many others you seem frustrated and we need some leadership to replace the retired Napergate Man. I am hoping it will come from the Naperville Sun as they really seem like the only ones with the resources to do it. The Napergate Man did it with black ink he bought from the Sun. The Naperville Sun owns tons of black ink. Are they willing to use any to help the residents? Don't know! Maybe the Moderator has the answers?

Jenny, Fed up with spineless council, et. al.:

This is a great forum, we're seeing good citizen participation and hearing a lot of valid criticism about decisions and