Big, downtown and mysterious

As president of the Park Addition Homeowners Asn, I have been quite involved watching this proposal, so here are my initial thoughts.

Bev Frier is a well-regarded, long time Naperville resident who has a dream. She wants to create a large scale performing arts center in Naperville, that will rival theaters in downtown Chicago, in fact, the proposed 2500 seat theater (along with a 900 seat theater) would be larger than most major existing theaters downtown such as the Cadillac and Oriental. For comparison, the new North Central space is 650 seats approximately.

As nice as this might sound, there are however, some truly monumental concerns regarding the proposal.

1. This project will ultimately be owned by the city of Naperville. With the non-profit group, Omnia, serving as the theater administrator only.
2. The city (meaning the taxpayers) will be financially responsible for it’s operation. Any losses would have to be made up by the city.
3. The city will have to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds to finance it.
4. A TIF ($120 million has been mentioned) needs to be approved to help finance it.
5. Metra, the Boecker family, 5th Ave station owners, and city of Naperville all would have to agree to sell/give the land to Omnia.

And in a sense that’s the easy part. In addition, if approved, this project will require the city to “throw out” the Downtown Master Plan, and the controlling zoning ordinances for the downtown, due to the proposals massive height and density. The few elevations I was shown of the Metra parking lot and the Boecker property, portray downtown Chicago type density, with three buildings on that parcel. The theater building itself reaches 130’ at it’s top, along with a separate 130’(12-13 floor?) condo tower, and a small two story office/commercial structure. The site is built to overflowing. If there is any green space on the site it must be microscopic.

Commuter parking would be placed in three underground parking decks. The claim was made that the number of spaces would be doubled for commuters. What is unknown is how well sharing the commuter spaces with theatergoers and the residents of the tower, along with the 5th. Ave. Station parking that would be shifted there, would operate.

And then there is the troubling issue as to how this proposal has been marketed. Omnia offered highly detailed and sophisticated, one on one presentations to city council members that included 15-20 members of the design, and management team last fall. Council member were shown financial information, detailed site plans and elevations for the whole project. This level of sophisticated presentation made to individual council members, (in order to skirt the open meeting act requirement),when done in lieu of making a formal submission to the city and starting the public review process, stinks to high heaven, and should be prohibited. This is why this proposal is shrouded in such mystery, and it's wrong, wrong, wrong.

Unfortunately, when I watched the presentation made to the Rotary earlier this week it was instead, a “feel good, this is our gift to the city presentation”. I spent 30 minutes with Bev after the meeting and pressed her to make a complete, and detailed presentation to the residents next Monday. We deserve to have no less information that what was presented to council. Let's hope she does it.

I agree with Thom, these backroom "submissions" should not be allowed. There's too much that goes on in this City without enough input from the average Joe Citizen.

As for this being the best use of this property, I highly doubt it. The neighborhoods around the train station are croweded enough already with NCC and Metra commuters. How would you feel if you had purchased one of the McMansions in this area, are paying $18,000+ in property taxes and have all these additional people cruising the neighborhoods for parking, etc.

Let's see some other options for that property/location. PLEASE City Council members, don't turn your backs on the voices that live in this area and other Naperville residents. Let's give this area a thorough investigation of what the best use is for it for ALL of Naperville's residents.

This project could truly be a spectacluar finish to the long ignored 5th Ave/Metra train station area. However, if what Thom has said about 12-13 stories is true, that would be a Hotel Arista like height that is topped out up at City Gate Center. While something like 5-6, maybe even 7 stories is in my view more acceptable, a 130 foot building may be too tall for that part of downtown Naperville. Also, if anything, there needs to be TRIPLE the parking that there already is at the location.

This is probably YEARS away, so I am sure the City will properly study/plan/and take public comment on this exciting new project.

If what Thom Higgins has posted is even close to the truth all I have to say is this proposal is wrong, wrong, wrong and if any of our elected officials participated in any meetings specifically designed to skirt the open meetings law shame on them. That is not something I will forgive or forget come next election.

From what Thom has claimed this really is not a private development and in the end would be owned by the City of Naperville. Hushed discussions with private developers on land they own is understandable, but only up to a certain point. Hushed discussions on what is reported to ultimately be a public project is just plain wrong. Seems to me a whole host of elected and appointed city officials have a heck of a lot of explaining to do.

The downtown train station desperately needs more commuter parking to eliminate the 9-10 year wait for permits. City officials would be well advised not to forget that fixing the commuter parking shortage is their first priority. Right now a community theater complex isn't even on a list of priorities. After the city council fixes the shortage of commuter parking we can talk about other amenities that may cost hundreds of millions of dollars and whether we need a theater complex or not. Right now we need a fast track project to demolish the old city building as soon as the new one is open for business and convert the land to commuter parking before next winter.

If the city council ultimately decides our community would benefit from another community asset such a theater complex then the logical place to site such a facility would be on the Martin-Mitchell land that was bequeathed to the City of Naperville with these types of public uses in mind. The City of Naperville has no business of ever getting in the business of being a landlord for any retail or residential spaces proposed in this scheme or any others.

Talk about a year late and an opportunity short. Where was this group when North Central was designing their new theater? They could have and should have joined forces to build a combined facility that ultimately would have been much better than two individual competing facilities.

I look forward to the meeting on Monday. Hopefully there will be full disclosure of the plans. I was disappointed to hear that Wednesday's Rotary meeting still didn't have much of the detail that appeared to have been presented to Council.

If the plan envisions City funding and ultimate ownership, we deserve to hear that - even if the real details and proposals are quite far away.

Please respect our intelligence and give us the whole picture - not just the part you think we'd like to hear.

I agree with DPCBOSS - this could definately be a spectular addition to the area and parking parking parking.

DPCBOSS,

NO WAY do I want to see 10 - 13 story buildings in this neighborhood or anywhere else downtown. Buildings of this height are totally out of character in our town and this specific area of our town.

The city infrastructure was never designed to handle the density of this many floors. Look what is happening in other parts of downtown... the city council and the city hall staff lets developers get away with murder when it comes to height restrictions. Now we don't have enough parking and the streets are not wide enough to handle the volume. It would be insane to keep adding to the existing problems.

And just to go on record with this... the last few years the developers have all been nibbling away at the height restrictions. Look at how tall and bulky the more recent buildings downtown have gotten. Enough is enough or this will never end until we have a Sears Tower in our own backyard.

Not having heard any more than sketchy details about this plan, I have no firm opinion at this time. However, I do believe that a town the size of Naperville does need a larger performing arts space. The largest auditoriums that I am aware of are those at NNHS and NCHS, which seat about 900. It has been posted on this board that the new auditorium at NCC will only seat 650. Performing spaces of these sizes impose limits on what can be performed and staged in town. Although local large musical organizations such as the Municipal Band and DuPage Symphony Orchestra have coped with these cramped spaces for their winter/indoor performances, they and their audiences would certainly benefit from less cramped conditions. Clearly, stage productions would benefit from a larger stage and larger audiences. Moreover, a larger venue might attract other performers such as popular musicians and comedians that, for now, "fly over" Naperville. Such theater and concert-goers would certainly benefit downtown businesses, particularly if they were drawn in from out of town.

On the other hand, although it may be an eyesore for some, the old Kroehler Furniture Building is a part of Naperville's history, and it would be a shame simply to bulldoze it. A better idea would be to preserve at least some of the old building and incorporate it in the new development.

Certainly, a financial plan that evaluates all the costs and risks for taxpayers is a must.

Finally, I agree that if the procedures utilized thus far to sell this plan to elected decision-makers have been as represented, then those procedures are unacceptable. There had better be more information and transparency at the upcoming meeting.

To all,

Please note that my information regarding this proposal comes from three sources; extensive de-briefing from numerous council members after seeing the presentation last fall, conversations I personally had with Bev Frier, and lastly the presentation made earlier this week to Rotary. I stand by every detail

Let me say that although I have grave concerns regarding the way Omnia has decided to manage their presentations, and I have gone on record with council regarding this, realize that it is hard for individual council members to say no to powerful, long established residents and their equally powerful local legal representation. Rather than damning council, who I view as essentially blameless, a better course in my opinion is to push strongly to enact council rules that restricts the ability of developers and their legal council from enjoying such overtly "cozy" relationships. It's far more involved than just this one incident, although this one is particularly egregious.

Lastly I agree with DPCBOSS. The scale and bulk would co-exist well in the City Gate Centre complex, and is where it would be appropriate. Now, if we could get Calamos to underwrite it so Naperville, (meaning us residents) didn't have the financial liability, this could become a reality, and an asset to the community, although the huge size of the theater still is a concern to me.

This new development is one of the first things that makes sense.

Transit orientated development should be zoned within one mile of the Naperville Metra station. And most of the housing in this area particularly north of the train tracks is substantially below the Naperville medians. Few are worth saving, most are post WWII junk. And those that are worth saving should have never been allowed to be built in the first place.

Go out to Washington DC and see the spectacular development that has occurred in Arlington Virginia and Bethesda Maryland. They even have Fortune 500 headquarters and shopping malls in these redevelopment projects such as Crystal City and Ballston. Those areas were not even as dumpy as most of the houses north of the train tracks in Naperville.

And a major theater as an anchor. Hope there is more to come. This area is an eyesore in Naperville. It should be redeveloped as high density. The single family houses should remain further away from the central city.

The people in this area are holding Naperville back.

Make Naperville First Class,

I live in the area you want to bulldoze. I invite you to to take a drive in the Park Addition just north of the tracks with me some time. There, within only a half mile radius I will show you over 75 homes new and old, mine included, that are worth over $600,000.00 each.

I live in a particularly lovely 1897 Queen Anne, my neighbors have some wonderful Arts and Crafts homes from the 20's and we have had a large influx of million dollar plus teardowns. Are we all simply to disappear because you want to see something else?

Higgins always preaches about Naperville being first class. Except when it is in his back yard.

City Gate is a nice development, but in the wrong location.

Calamos should have told the City it would remain only if the City was to TIF, condemn and bulldoze the low value housing north of the train tracks and then let Calomos build his development to replace this "suburban decay". Then City Gate would have made Naperville First Class. Riva could be on the 15th floor of a world class building with a view of the downtown rather than watching the traffic come off from I-88 to Route 59--UGH. Don't know why Phil Stefani went there. Can't believe he will stay there.

And Higgins is a hypocrite. Criticizes the City Council for listening legally with developers. What about Diane McGuire's illegal coverup of union funding for PURE?

Let's give Calamos an option on the land north of the train tracks and we can have 21st Century redevelopment including a new performing arts center.

I am confused. How does anyone think that this area could handle traffic for a 2500 seat venue??? We already have to keep our children in the house during commuter train times. How in the world is this area supposed to handle that kind of traffic? The roads and infrastructure would have to be totally rebuilt. If you tried to dump 1000 cars onto existing roads after a concert, it would take 3 hours to get out of the parking lot. I agree that there are probably much better locations in this city for a project of this size. And by the way "Make Naperville First Class"--I am raising my children in that "post WWII junk" as you call it and we are far happier than you may think. We have trees and yards that are the envy of most of Naperville. This neighborhood was built on the backs of working class people who took great pride in their homes and community. Their values and hard work are what made Naperville a First Class City. Be careful of your pompous declarations--you do NOT speak for those who live here!

Thom Higgins, the king of NIMBY whiners. I love the idea and I hope the city supports it full tilt. Since when has Thom Higgins given a rip about the taxpayers of this town? Oh I forgot he doesn't care, only when it's something he doesn't like in has backyard, then the old taxpayer argument is good to go. What a hypocrite.

Grow up, people. Stop pretending like this city is in the middle of Nebraska. We're one of the best places to live in the country, our tax dollars show it.

Have a little faith in the people running this area. For the matter, I can say that this project means well. Is it so bad that we have to drive out of the area for everything that has to do with culture?

Yes.

Chicago is beautiful but it's not very close, and why should other cities have all the amenities. I'm hoping we can bring this one place closer to class...like Kenelworth, Evanston, Northbrook or place worth saving.

I get the sense the education level here is dropping.

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING MONDAY NIGHTS MEETING

Earlier this afternoon I was informed by a reporter that Monday nights meeting has been canceled by Omnia. I have verified this with the city.

In response to this news I unsuccessfully attempted to contact Bev Frier by phone. A few minutes ago I received an e-mail that simply said "an e-mail is coming"

Stay tuned....

Wow - housing well below Naperville medians. Since when are the little people not allowed in town? This type of attitude is what gives our city a bad name.

I have tremendous problems with this statement as received minutes ago by the Omnia board. More later...

To Whom it may concern:

Omnia is choosing to postpone its presentation of the OMNIA Performing Arts concept proposal to a later date. The meeting was to have been held at the Naperville Municipal Center on July 21st at 7:15 pm.

It was Omnia's intent to present to the Park Addition Homeowners Association on Monday evening and have a thoughtful, open and constructive discussion. We believe this is appropriate as this is the neighborhood association that is the most immediate neighbor of the site area being considered.

It is important to know and understand that Omnia's intention was to have further similar individual meetings with each of the other nearby neighborhood associations shortly after the meeting on the 21st. This was to be followed by a presentation made to the community wide Naperville Homeowners Confederation.

The proposed Omnia site lies at the south edge of a residential neighborhood but is, and has been for many decades, located in an industrial/commercial zoning area. Omnia, like the Metra train Station, Downtown and the Riverwalk is intended to be an asset for the whole city and its residents.

The OMNIA proposal is both simple and complex to understand. It has facts and nuances that must be explained carefully and fully to be understood properly. It should, we believe, be properly understood and we intend to do this via small group presentations to all of the community. This method allows questions and answers to be factual rather than rumor based. Unfortunately, a significant number of statements made are either untrue or mis-construed in both the Sun article and its related blogs.

We have nothing to hide or apologize for, but It was not our intention that the meeting be a large one. A large meeting would not be productive for meaningful interaction. When we present we wish the dialogue from all directions to be courteous, open and professional and the Sun article points to a possible contentious meeting where we feel interaction is not possible.

It should be noted that the concepts that will eventually be presented to any and all neighborhood associations have been shared with many people from all around Naperville and the surrounding communities as the Omnia proposal was evolving. Most are quite intrigued and supportive if our assumptions prove out.

Members of City Council and Staff were briefed about Omnia for background and understanding. The meetings with Council members were respectfully held individually in order to prevent them from violating the open meetings act. This is a common way to brief Council members and Trustees in communities throughout the Chicago area and was done as a courtesy to the Council members so that they would know what their citizens were talking about when the more public association meetings were held. The requirements of executing the project were discussed. We opened each meeting indicating our intention to go through the normal city public review process and the Council members agreed to that intention as necessary.

Omnia naturally listened to their, and other, comments and has, since those meetings, continued the detailed study needed to allow Omnia to truthfully state it is a feasible project should the residents of Naperville, through actions of its City Council, desire it.

The project is conceived in its entirety as an economic way to bring a true performing arts center to the people of Naperville.

Thank you,
Omnia Board

Anyone remember Gladys Kravitz from Bewitched? You know, that nosey neighor that's into everyone else's business and thinks she knows more than everyone else.

We have our very own Gladys Kravitz in Naperville. Her name is Thom Higgins. I have this mental picture of Higgins peering out of his house from behind his curtains ready to pounced with his opinion whether wanted or not. Everyone community has one and Naperville is no exception.

Thom, Your inflamatory and incorrect blog forces us to respond.
Please read our comments inserted and between all the paragraph signs.

By Thom Higgins on July 18, 2008 7:45 AM
As president of the Park Addition Homeowners Asn, I have been quite involved watching this proposal, so here are my initial thoughts.

Bev Frier is a well-regarded, long time Naperville resident who has a dream. She (there are many who want this) wants to create a large scale performing arts center in Naperville, that will rival theaters in downtown Chicago, in fact, the proposed 2500 seat theater - along with a 900 seat theater - would be larger than most major existing theaters downtown such as the Cadillac and Oriental. For comparison, the new North Central space is 650 seats approximately. (They will have 605 seats.)

(But it would still be substantially smaller than Rosemont, the Auditorium, Lyric Opera House and Symphony Hall. The main hall of Omnia would be larger than the Paramount or Rialto and would have a state of the art stage and fly tower to allow it to hold any type of performance. The Paramount and Rialto are examples of facities with less than adequate stages and too few seats to be economically attractive to many artists and producers without large subsidies given to make up the difference. The feasibility studies indicate that 2500 to 2700 size is most feasible and within the construct of the Omnia plan requires NO financial assistance from the city of Naperville for operations.)

As nice as this might sound, there are however, some truly monumental concerns regarding the proposal.

1. This project will ultimately be owned by the city of Naperville. With the non-profit group, Omnia, serving as the theater administrator only.

(This has not been decided yet, but the city could, if it desired be, the Owner.)

2. The city - meaning the taxpayers - will be financially responsible for it’s operation. Any losses would have to be made up by the city.

(See above, no losses have been projected if the Omnia operations plan is utilized and the facilities are designed as proposed. The Omnia plan requires NO financial assistance from the city of Naperville for operations.)

3. The city will have to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds to finance it.

(Your Numbers are greatly exaggerated. The city may be the bond issuer but that has not been decided yet by anyone.)

4. A TIF - $120 million has been mentioned - needs to be approved to help finance it.

(The tightly confined district- Currently asphalt or industrial type building - if developed as proposed can support bonds thru TIF of more than $120M. The methodology proposed by Omnia minimizes Bondholder risk by their not being issued in advance of TIF tax base being in place and certainty of revenues being received. At the expiration of the district, the annual revenue increase received by the taxing districts are many millions - Such as Warrenville is receiving from Canterra - and the community will have received a fully paid for and improved commuter parking and a state of the art Arts Center paid for via the TIF. No tax increase is contemplated for the project.)

5. Metra, the Boecker family, 5th Ave station owners, and city of Naperville all would have to agree to sell/give the land to Omnia.

(This is false. The Fifth Avenue Station is not proposed as an acquisition. Boecker has been the subject of city foreclosure already and is a nonconforming use in the area. It has been for sale for some time with no buyers at the owners asking price and no certainty of what the city would allow to be constructed. In the Omnia Plan the properties are purchased by the residential venture and it is requested that the sale proceeds be reused for construction of the commuter parking deck.)

And in a sense that’s the easy part. In addition, if approved, this project will require the city to “throw out” the Downtown Master Plan, and the controlling zoning ordinances for the downtown, due to the proposals massive height and density. The few elevations I was shown of the Metra parking lot and the Boecker property, portray downtown Chicago type density, with three buildings on that parcel. The theater building itself reaches 130’ at it’s top, along with a separate 130’(12-13 floor?) condo tower, and a small two story office/commercial structure. The site is built to overflowing. If there is any green space on the site it must be microscopic.

(The city can make exceptions to its Master plans and grant zoning variances for projects and has previously in many instances - all communities that thrive do this. Variances in our opinion should rarely be granted and should only be granted after deliberation and determination that an improvement or amenity results from that variance. The request for variances in this instance would be based on four - and other - reasonable benefits, considerations or tradeoffs.

1. The city receives a civic benefit of a fully paid for performing arts center.

2. Tax revenues generated by the project would be tremendous.

3. Minimal services will be provided from the city , the park board, the school - only 203 - board, Note:few children would likely reside in the projects and there is agreement that tangible advantages accrue to the schools from the arts center.

4. To be a functional stage house, 130 ft are required. The height in question already exists in Naperville which implies that its Fire Department is skilled and has equipment for this size building. The buildings would be fully fire sprinkled. Edward Hospital, N-Office Building and the soon to open Hotel Arista are similar or more in height.)

Commuter parking would be placed in three underground parking decks. The claim was made that the number of spaces would be doubled for commuters. What is unknown is how well sharing the commuter spaces with theatergoers and the residents of the tower, along with the 5th. Ave. Station parking that would be shifted there, would operate.

(The residents of the condos will have their own spaces per code in an unshared arrangement and are accounted for separately. Fifth avenue station would not have its parking relocated to the 3 level garage and would have its parking contained within its property. Fifth Ave. station is privately owned and is not technically a part of this our plan, just a recommendation.

The other parking for commuters and theater doubles the number currently on the site used by commuters. One could look at it as if the theatres provide their own parking and commuters maintain their current and inadequate number. However, because the theater operates generally on evenings and weekends, and the commuter lot is mostly empty by 7:00 PM in the evening and on weekends, why not share the spaces and relieve the 7 year demand from commuters for parking passes. We have been stating that commuter parking is doubled as it is quite wasteful not to utilize them this way. A notable parking consultant reviewed the plans and indicated it would function appropriately and had sufficient spaces.)

And then there is the troubling issue as to how this proposal has been marketed. Omnia offered highly detailed and sophisticated, one on one presentations to city council members that included 15-20 members of the design, and management team last fall. Council member were shown financial information, detailed site plans and elevations for the whole project. This level of sophisticated presentation made to individual council members, - in order to skirt the open meeting act requirement -,when done in lieu of making a formal submission to the city and starting the public review process, stinks to high heaven, and should be prohibited. This is why this proposal is shrouded in such mystery, and it's wrong, wrong, wrong.

(It is neither wrong or uncommon to inform council members privately of projects, especially complex ones, that may be proposed in their city. It is done all the time and in every community in the area, not just "big bad Chicago".

You have implied that there were potentially secret "deals being cut" or other improper behavior occurring in these meetings. There was none. The number of people in a room is greatly exaggerated. Only Board members or consultants with special expertise were present.

Discussed were the details of a complex project and the necessary framework for allowing the arts center and parking to be constructed. These were explained. Preferences were stated by Omnia. We don't believe the council would operate in a "stinky" manner nor would Omnia. Rather we believe it was clear that the individual- or paired - meetings were needed to explain a complex and intricate concept to the council for their best understanding of it before the more public process.

Each meeting opened with the statement that it was fully expected that we would go through the normal public process for the project. These meetings were held so that the council members could share their opinions confidentially and constructively. They could have said "go away we don't want this" but did not. In fact, similar but more conceptual meetings were held with all but one council member a bit more than a year prior to the more detailed ones last fall. The concepts were deemed interesting enough for further study and there were statements encouraging the detailed study of the issues of traffic, parking, finance, operations pro forma, etc. They would need to be fully studied before it went public. In these meetings it was stated and clearly understood that nothing was approved.)

Unfortunately, when I watched the presentation made to the Rotary earlier this week it was instead, a “feel good, this is our gift to the city presentation”. I spent 30 minutes with Bev after the meeting and pressed her to make a complete, and detailed presentation to the residents next Monday. We deserve to have no less information that what was presented to council. Let's hope she does it.

(Finally and with all due respect, you, despite being an active leader of a neighborhood association, are just one of +/-150,000 residents or business owners in Naperville. You will receive the information you wish in due time, along with others in the community. We recognize that you are entitled to your opinion, but we believe it should not be formed without proper deliberation of all the facts - which have admittedly not yet been available to you. Currently it is clear you are not open to the Omnia idea though you have perhaps less than half the picture. With time you will have the information and we hope you weigh the benefits and we expect you will maintain an open mind about it.

Also, Omnia believes you should understand and be more respectful of the effort Omnia has undertaken. It is not dissimilar to the now beloved Riverwalk, Naper Settlement, and Downtown in that the results could be fantastic and of similar impact. They were similarly bold, perhaps inconceivable ideas when they started. As with those, the Omnia project is privately led by residents and requires government involvement. Most of the people involved in Omnia - including many of the consultants - are residents or business owners from Naperville. Additionally they are experts in their respective fields and have substantial track records of long and serious philanthropic and civic activity. Respect is appropriate, even if you disagree.

Omnia is attempting to put forward a serious proposal that it believes will benefit all 150,000 of the above mentioned people plus some in the nearby surrounds. Is that not worth a more open mind on your part?

Your neighborhood near the train station will soon change and frankly that should be welcome given its awesome acreage of ugliness and asphalt. The area has been a regional asset for the whole community for a very long time. The Train Station, the Metra parking, Naperville Art League the retail of 5th Avenue Station and the Children's Museum are used by the whole city. It would seem reasonable that an arts facility would fit into this situation quite well.)

Omnia Board

Who's Blog is this, The Sun's or Thom Higgins'

Thom sounds so Judgemental and contentious! Sounds like Omnia should get a fairer shake!

The idea doesn't sound so bad to me, actually it sounds fantastic, The city needs more parking for commuters and why not set this location up as a transit hub that is enjoyable to be at versus just another endless asphalt neighborhood.

Anyone that goes to Downtown Chicago would surely prefer this location for a show. And I get the best charge when I'm going to a big beautiful and grand facility to see a show and a place with several theaters in a group means more choices.

First real good and positive idea for Naperville I've heard in a long time. I can't wait to see the project. Why is everyone so afraid of height. How tall is that big Water Tower near the parking lots. That should be the height limit.

Thom Higgins the real estate appraiser. Glad he is not one, otherwise more banks than Indy Mac would go bust. His $600,000 doesn't even hold a candle to the "Cobb" teardown house at over $700,000. Shows the low values in the neighborhood.

Per Zillow, the prices in the neighborhood are primarily in the $250,000 to $350,000 range, teardown land value. Of course, some people built expensive houses on too small of lots hoping for some appreciation.

But the Supreme Court allows cities to condemn undervalued property for economic development. So Higgins, get a good appraisal for the condemnation hearing. In fact, if you love your house so much, you can buy a more suitable lot and move it. Or take your money and move to a higher priced area.

The people in this area have their rights. They will get their appraised value plus 10% (based on an Illinois law to prevent arbitrary economic development condemnation). I suspect most people will grab that deal since their houses are valued as tear downs.

But Higgins the hypocrite, not in my back yard. Oh Thom, you can go to court and try to stop the actions of the City. You will be lonely as most of your neighbors sell out.

Dream big Naperville, put a project by the train station that should be by the train station rather than in the outskirts by Warrenville!

STATEMENT REGARDING THE OMINIA BOARD MEETING CANCELATION

I feel it is extremely important to get the facts out regarding what is happening with the Omnia proposal and their sudden cancellation of Monday’s meeting.

Regarding this statement;

It was Omnia's intent to present to the Park Addition Homeowners Association on Monday evening and have a thoughtful, open and constructive discussion. We believe this is appropriate as this is the neighborhood association that is the most immediate neighbor of the site area being considered.
It is important to know and understand that Omnia's intention was to have further similar individual meetings with each of the other nearby neighborhood associations shortly after the meeting on the 21st. This was to be followed by a presentation made to the community wide Naperville Homeowners Confederation.

The statement above is categorically false.

The following are e-mail exchanges between myself and Bev Frier including my electronic introduction of Bev to the leaders of the other homeowners groups who’s residents were going to attend Monday’s now canceled meeting. Bev frier’s comments in Italics

I talked with the city this afternoon, and they have reserved the council chamber for us at 7:15 on Tues. June 24th - Next Week. (changed to 7-21-08 TH)

Would you all kindly take care of sending this to your 4 Homeowners groups.

Thanks so much,

Bev

NEXT E-MAIL

All,

Below is an e-mail from Bev Frier of Omnia. Please consider this an e-mail introduction, and, as this involves all of us, it seems to me we should start corresponding collectively.

To answer for Mike, Naperville Station is the townhouse development directly west of the Children's Museum.

Steve, you will have to give Bev your western boundary.

Bev, as far as your presentation, we all discussed it briefly last week and feel that it is important that everyone get to see the same presentation and hear any questions and answers. That way everyone stays on the same page. I didn't ask, but I assume you will be making the same PowerPoint presentation you made to council and business groups? I hear there is some very sophisticated animation of the area with the development in place. I'm looking forward to seeing that.

As far as total participation, it's summer; I would think we would get upwards of 150 people tops. It's hard to get too much more specific than that. When we had the city do their first public presentation of the TOD study at NCC we had about that number. Can't see it being more than that.

Hope this helps.

Thom Higgins

Hi Thom,

Thanks so much for your time to meet with us. I feel that together we will be able to accomplish something good for our town for all concerned.

Question:

Who is this?? What is Naperville Station? Are these the Rott condos? Or?

Naperville Station is the town home development behind the Children's Museum

How far West do they go? To Mill St?

Pilgrim Addition is the area West of Washington, South of Ogden

Is it your thought to invite all 4 areas to the same presentation? I was thinking to do all 4 separately. Your area will be the most impacted. We can do it either way. Your call?

How many approximately would attend the presentation from each group. And then a total for all 4 groups. I know it is hard to judge, but I will need to know some figure when I call city hall to reserve the space.

Thanks,

Bev

All,

I had requested we see the same presentation that was shown to city council members and business groups. Below is green is Bev's response.

Personally, I think as we are living, directly adjacent to the proposed project, seeing the full hour presentation will not be too much for the residents attending. I'm always for more information than less. That's my personal opinion. What say the rest of you?

Also, I will start including XXXXXXX of ECHO and XXXXXXXX of WHOA on these e-mails as my understanding is they will be involved following this issue.

TH

Hi Thom,

Yes, you will see virtually the same we showed the city council members. Actually, our computer gal is redoing the presentation. We had quite a bit of flak about the other one in that it ran too long - over an hour. So it will be the same, only a condensed version. I'm told peoples' interest wanes after 15 to 20 minutes. I'm so into this that I could go on for hours and hours. We will be making presentations to the different service clubs, and they limit us to 20 minutes. We will do the very same for you, and have time for Q & A after.

Is that OK with you?

Bev

I will gladly make these and other e-mails I have regarding correspondence with Bev Frier available to the press, city staff, and council for their inspection.

Regarding this statement;

Members of City Council and Staff were briefed about Omnia for background and understanding. The meetings with Council members were respectfully held individually in order to prevent them from violating the open meetings act. This is a common way to brief Council members and Trustees in communities throughout the Chicago area and was done as a courtesy to the Council members so that they would know what their citizens were talking about when the more public association meetings were held. The requirements of executing the project were discussed. We opened each meeting indicating our intention to go through the normal city public review process and the Council members agreed to that intention as necessary.

I have had detailed conversations with numerous city council members and it is from them that I learned that the Omnia presentation was extremely detailed and elaborate, lasting 2 hours. 15-20 members of the design, and management team were available to answer any questions. I will categorically state that there has never been even remotely as detailed and elaborate presentation made to council members, ever. While it is reasonable and customary for developers to have conversations with a few council members to discuss their dream, the sophistication and detail Omnia presented to the council members stepped over the line of appropriate behavior by a thousand miles.

The sentiment I heard from numerous council members was shock and dismay at the audacity displayed by Omnia with this tactic.

Further, Marcie Schatz, group leader of Naperville’s TED (Transportation Engineering and Design) group has never seen the presentation, or even had a preliminary meeting with the Omnia people. In fact, after learning this from Ms. Schatz, I elected to invite her Monday so she could see the presentation.

If you ask any person who follows development issues in this town you will find out quickly that the path Omnia has followed is a strange one indeed. And again, for those of us who understand the process, the intention is clear. The only thing that stands between a developer and a building permit is 5 votes on council. When you have a controversial proposal it’s tough sledding going through public review process. Since Omnia is the mother of all controversial development proposals it seems clear that they have attempted to make an end run around the standard review and citizen input process and appeal directly to council for those 5 votes.

Unfortunately for them council last November pointedly told Omnia they had to talk to the residents. Now, 8 months later, after a lot of time and effort by all the affected residents they have decided to cancel at the 11th hour that very meeting.

Stay tuned………………….

To the Omnia board regarding your statement of 7-18-08 8:16 pm.

The information I have stated previously was relayed to me by numerous council members.

If, in fact, the city does not have to own the theater building, or be responsible financially for any possible losses, or issue hundreds of millions of dollars in finance bonds, then may I gently suggest you make that statement here, and also apprise the city council of this? Because they all are of this belief, each and every one of them.

Further, will you please explain how canceling a meeting with area residents helps further your goal of disseminating information?

I live in the area around the train station and witness the congestion of commuters and traffic daily. If you don’t commute and don’t live in or frequent the area, while entitled to your opinion, please understand when we simply disregard what you have said as pitifully uninformed.

To Make Naperville First Class – have you missed the news over the past ten years? Naperville is already First Class. Naperville is the only city in the US to make the top 10 list of places to live 3 times. We are blessed with a thriving business sector and we have a “world class” school district by every measure. While the area immediately to the north of the tracks is unsightly, it is not even close to meeting the demands of commuters. The area to the north of the parking is zoned residential. Omnia has asked Thom for respect (a little on the holier than thou preachy approach).

Perhaps you should be more respectful of the people who live in this area. If this is such a hot idea, why don’t you own up to where you live and offer that subdivision up for placement of the Omnia center? I have no idea of your economic standing, but to have such a cavalier attitude towards what for most people is their single largest investment (their home) is beyond understanding. These neighborhoods are tight knit, social and filled with people who are active in their schools, community and church organizations. Who are you to suggest that we would sell out? It isn’t just the structure, but the neighborhood that brought us and keeps us here.

The city has achieved the standing without this center. Am I opposed to the center in general? No. However, there are reasons that the city has a master plan for development. Will there be development in the future in this area? More than likely. However, we trust that the City Council will properly represent and respect the nature of the area and encourage developers to respect that as well. As should you. Otherwise, we could change the zoning in your neighborhood and put Naperville’s first 24 hour Jack in the Box in your back yard. Sound silly? It would fit just as well as the Omnia Center does in this area. Common sense should prevail. Naperville is not the City of Chicago, and the home town feeling that we are known for thrives in this neighborhood. All we ask is that you and Omnia respect that and put this development in a more appropriate setting.

Perhaps Omnia can explain a few things to me? Is there a pent up demand in Naperville for a development of this size? A theatre venue of this size? Gosh, I don’t recall anyone saying that they wished we had a 2,500 seat auditorium.

The Omnia development is completely different than the Riverwalk or Naper settlement. These two completely respected the areas in which they were built and were driven by leaders with foresight, common sense and a true sense of community. They were planned and executed under the light of day. Hiding the plans, backing away from the press and the opportunity for public exposure displays a lack of conviction and transparency necessary for such an endeavor.

The arrogance of the Omnia statement is staggering. So much like a parent chastising their child for not knowing better. Omnia, stop dancing around the development. The residents of the area are not so foolish as to not recognize your attempts at divide and conquer. If this is such a fantastic idea then have the meetings with the homeowners associations and invite the press. Submit the proposal to the City and have the public hearings. How would we know what your “efforts” have entailed? You’ve not deigned to share these plans with the “rabble.” The lessons we learn as we age is that respect is earned, not given. Earn our respect. Disclose.

You say that the meetings you’ve held individually and privately with the Naperville City Council members are similar to other meetings that occur in other communities? Maybe, maybe not. This state has a public meeting law for a reason. Intentionally skirting or subverting the law is not taken lightly. Just ask the Village of Lisle and Meijer.

re “Make Naperville First Class” comments:

And most of the housing in this area particularly north of
the train tracks is substantially below the Naperville
medians. Few are worth saving, most are post WWII junk.
And those that are worth saving should have never been
allowed to be built in the first place

replace this "suburban decay"

I am shocked beyond belief! And I wonder if this blogger's Mother would be proud to know she raised someone so outspokenly disrespectful and insensitive to the owners of these homes.

Shame on you, “Make Naperville First Class”~ my suggestion to you, for everyone’s benefit, stay on your high horse and ride out of town. Attitudes such as this do not promote friendly negotiations.

I find it both amusing and enlightening that "anonymous" has chosen to compare Thom Higgins to Gladys Kravitz. My recollection of Bewitched was that Gladys knew that something was going on across the street, but no one wanted to believe her, and, some took her to task and derided her.

From this perspective, I guess Thom and Gladys do have a lot in common.

Omnia is an interesting proposal, but the sad truth is that it is planned for an already gridlocked area where much of the traffic goes through residential neighborhoods to reach its destinations. Cloaking the proposal in "added train station parking" is a joke. With gas over $4 a gallon we don't need more parking, we need public transportation to and from the train station.

Thom, thanks for keeping an eye out the front window!

I also grew up in a "blighted" house very near this area that really is only worth the land value. Where should I now live? Should only those that can afford $700,000 to $1,000,000+++ be allowed to live within Napervile's city limits. If so, who will work all the service jobs and low paying jobs in town? Oh, that's right, if you can't afford it here, live somewhere else, right? Then we can have everyone driving here from Sandwich and beyond -- that makes a lot of sense with gas at $4.22+ per gallon.

Yes, Thom lives in this area that some think should be bulldozed -- but there are also many, many McMansions and other fine old homes that are absolutely beautiful. Let attrition take its course. As the "blighted" homes are torn down, the neighborhood will become a showpiece. And "confused" is right, these streets really are not made for the influx of an additional 1,000+ cars for a large performance.

If a large venue really is needed I would like suggest somewhere (and I don't know exactly where) that would be more readily accessible by major roads (other than Ogden Ave & Washington St -- those streets are already too crowded). Maybe the theater could have a shuttle available for a couple of hours before a performance from the train to the theater and for the reverse? I wouldn't imagine that a lot of folks would take the train from the City to Naperville for this sort of thing, but maybe.

Commuter parking at the downtown train station needs to be the first priority for any redevelopment at the train station. Maybe some mixed-use as well, condos and stores. I really haven't figured out why there isn't a Starbucks right at the train station -- to me that seems like a no brainer.

Lastly, for me, the whole approach Omnia has taken really leaves a bad taste in my mouth -- and now they have cancelled Monday's open meeting! It sounds like they are afraid to face everyone

The real questions to determine the viability of this proposal have yet to be asked:
“What is the economic feasibility of it NOT being a drain on taxpayers?”

Despite the want of some to “be just like D.C.” (now THERE is a role model for any modern city!), or those who want it canned because it is big, etc. we first should be told what the projected financials are on the project AND what the actual financials are on similar venues. These financials need to look at ALL the costs --- entire bonding, lost opportunities, yearly operations (including traffic control, police and fire department additions, roads, etc).

If you search deep enough, you will find that most, if not all, arts venues lose money without public financing. We should expect that our little folly will be no different and will lose money in the same manner. The result? Taxpayers will have at least some de facto ownership (though, if history is a good indicator, said ownership will exclude any profits from future sales).

Also, when analyzing all of this, we need to keep in mind the concept of competition. In the immediate area we have the new NCC center, the College of DuPage center, the Rialto, and not that far away we have the city of Chicago and all of it’s venues. This seems like a pretty “crowded house” to me! Economically, they all represent alternatives to each other, and this doesn’t even approach the idea of substitutions (travel to Vegas, go fishing, etc).

So, before we even approach the emotional aspect of possibly ruining an established neighborhood to build an iconoclastic edifice of small town destruction, we have to closely understand the financials. These financials WILL BE DISMAL!

to "By Make Naperville First Class on July 18, 2008 8:35 PM":

Ironically given the leanings of Mr. Higgins, the left side of the Supreme Court created the Kelo decision, which allows communities to destroy individual homes for private enterprises.

In reading this blog over the summer, it seems somewhat odd that as a town we acknowledge the following:

>>we were publicly hustled and flowed on the Carillon monstrosity

>>we are fed up with the size of the RibFest, it's marketing to such a wide demographic area, and the pushing-out of Naperville citizens at the sponsored events

>>we are tired of the cozy relationships between our city officials and developers and their lawyers

>>we suspect our elected individuals untrustworthy and of being small-minded and vindictive (see "Napergate" comments)

Yet, given all that, we are so naive as to actually entertain and discuss ANY possible merits to building a monsterous building within a highly-competitive niche that will not pay for itself AND which will draw even more non-Napervillians from a radious exceeding 50 miles! In other words, we appear to be supporting the "same old, same old".

What is that definition of insanity? Something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Something's not right here. As a resident of the area, I have followed this Omnia thing with some interest and have the following observations:

With all due respect to the folks pushing this project, I find it difficult to believe that they are doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. Bringing culture to the masses and so forth. Someone is planning to make a ton of money. They have already invested in plans, 12-person design teams, lawyers and who knows what else. They expect a return on their investment at someone's expense. Who stands to make the money and how much?

Where is the need for this thing? At the end of the day, this place will have to pay for itself or somebody will be stuck with the expense. What assumptions were used to financially justify this and how sound are the proforma's? What is the "exit plan"? If this this fails to generate enough revenue who will be stuck with the burden? How many plays a month is it going to take...month after month, year after year? I just can't see this thing being self sustaining, although some optimistic assumptions, some clever financial manipulation can produce a proforma that looks great I'm sure. This would not be an attractive addition to the city if it were sitting vacant in receivership three years from now.

The traffic congestion in this area is already an issue. The addition of condos, theater traffic, etc. will only make this worse without very substantial infrastructure enhancements. Who will pay for that? How are you going to get these people to and from this place? I can see bumper to bumper traffic jams from the 88 exit to the front door trying to make the eight o'clock curtain. Failure to make this investment will result in chaos that we don't want.

Given the current state of real estate values and the economy in general, I can't believe the addition of a large condo development makes sense. How many unsold homes and condos are already on the market? I do understand why a developer would be interested in buying up existing homes in the area right now and bull dozing them. They are cheaper as compared to a few years ago and they can get real estate for a song relativey speaking right now. Very opportunistic play.

The additional parking is nice, but my understanding is that even that will only mke a dent in the demand. I don't think you can pour enough concrete to make a parking space for everyone that wants one. I think there needs to be another solution to that problem.

I don't understand how all of this is to be financed, but I do understand that it will take many tens maybe hundreds of millions of dollars to get it done. I also suspect the developers will try their best to use other peoples money, and this thing has taxpayer money written all over it one way or the other.

I think this area can use some responsible redevelopment. The fuss over the TOD, now this thing tells me that change is coming. I think we should take our time as a community and figure out what we want. Decide up front what the parameters should be regarding height, density, traffic congestion, etc. Let's see some leadership from our city government and homeowner associations and residents and stop reacting to every fast-buck developer who comes along. Take our time with these important decisions that can not be easily reversed. You can't un-build a 130' condo tower so we need to get it right the first time. This thing sounds like something we don't need and money we can't afford to spend. I am still getting over my last tax bill. It seems to me that on things like this; the developers make their money and go away, leaving the taxpayers and resident to live with the consequences. As both a taxpayer and resident, I want to see that the consequences are positive.

PS
I'm sure Thom Higgins would be happy to take Mr. "Make Naperville First Class" for a walking tour of the neighborhood and introduce him to some of the residents. Unfortunately, Mr. "MNFC" seems to be
operating without the benefit of any facts or experience. He might have a different attitude toward our neighborhood if he actually knew what he was talking about.

Whether or not the Omnia development occurs, things will have to change in the area surrounding the train station. It is not just a matter of $4 (next year $5-6) gas. The long term depletion of oil means that our town can't continue to support low-density development near the train station. Yes, public transportation to and from the station is part of the answer, but only part. Thousands ride the train everyday. More people will need to live within walking distance of the train. The best way to achieve that is to build high-rise condos, such as Arlington Heights did a decade or more ago. Does anyone believe these will be difficult to sell? Notably, Arlington Heights has a theater near its train station. I've never heard anything but praise for the way Arlington handled its development near the train station. Arlington also has beautiful old housing near its downtown. Some of you might want to walk around Arlington Heights and talk to people there to see what can be done with the land around a train station.

I'm sorry, but the status quo is not the answer. Any plan for the train station area must take into account the need for higher density development and more energy-efficient transportation.

It is still a concern of mine that the people behind Omnia, who seem quite well-intentioned, are seemingly shrinking from this important conversation about what we need to do for the future with our train station. For my part, I agree that the larger theater space would be an asset to the community that can't be valued simply by the theater's books, but by all that it brings to the community. I appreciate their response to Thom, who after all, is not unbiased in all of this. And Thom's complaints about the process need to be weighed against his backing teacher's unions that conducted inappropriate secret dealings themselves. But I do think Omnia is making a mistake by not engaging the larger community. Let's have this conversation and make wise decisions for our future.

Whether or not the City of Naperville needs or wants an entertainment complex of this scale is up for debate. Clearly a venue of this scale would draw more people to Naperville thus placing an even higher demand on roads, parking, restaurants, possibly hotel/motel rooms, etc. The profitability of such a venue must be fully understood before one penny of public money is invested. The citizens of Naperville can not afford to take in on the chin if this dream fails to be profitable or if the financing fails like the carillon.

I do think most residents will agree that Naperville needs, and has needed for quite a long time, a much more efficient transportation center in this exact same location. At present there is woefully inadequate parking, both daily and permit. Mortorcycle, scooter, and bicycle facilities need to be expanded. Parking for car/van poolers has not even been considered or offered. In the evening it is a real safety hazard waiting for an accident to happen with busses, taxi's, and automobiles all waiting to pickup commuters.

The City of Naperville has sat on it's thumbs for decades and done nothing to improve the facilities, the congestion, or the efficiency of these facilities. Every commuter who depends upon these facilities to commute to work on the train has a vested interest in demanding that the city finally start taking action.

Naperville residents have been waiting far too long for these long standing problems to be resolved once and for all. It is unconscionable for the City of Naperville to consider any other proposed use of the area immediately adjacent to the downtown train station before the needs of commuting residents have been met.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Mine is that a developoment similar to suburban DC (not the city, although it is improving as well) is what should happen within a mile of the train station. In fact, Arlington Heights is not enough. This should have been done 20 years ago.

I bet that when the government comes with a check for 110% of appraisal, at least 75% of the land owners will quickly take it. I would in this economy--2,000 houses on the market in Naperville alone, cash would be great. In fact, the banks that own the unsold McMansions in the area would jump at the offer. Better than taking a 40% loss.

Think big, this town is 150,000. The area even more. Don't let a handful of people stop progress. And I think the developers can accomodate the die hards like Higgins who want to keep their house. It would look nice between two 30 story condo towers.

JW and others

I am on the record, in writing, stating that PURE erred by not disclosing the funding relationship it had with the State (rather than local as I remember) teachers union. That position of asking for greater openness and disclosure exists in harmony with my position in Omnia's dealings with council, although the situation is not exactly comparable.

As we get closer to school board elections next year, QE203.org will press all candidates and any advocacy groups to fully and completely disclose any relationships or funding they have with other organizations in advance of the elections. FYI our disclosure forms, like all other advocacy groups, are on file available electronically through the state board of election. We have no funding, or any kind of other relationship with any teachers union or group, nor will we do so in the future.

NO to 30 story condos

NO to 20 story condos

NO to 10 story condos

What Edward Hospital has been allowed to do adjacent to existing residential is inexcusable and a total thumbing of the noses by our city council to residents who elected our city council to represent their best interest. This was a tragedy that should never be allowed to happen again in Naperville.

Maintain our existing zoning and height restrictions.

If someone has an itching desire to live in a 20 or 30 story tall condo tower they are free and welcome to move to Arlington Heights where they are available. What was needed or what works in Arlington Heights or anywhere else for that matter is not relevant to a discussion of what is needed or wanted in Naperville.

Brenda Avalong...Naperville is not and never will be as nice of a community as those in the north shore. Big difference $. Yes Naperville has some very fortunate families with $ but the big difference is old versus new. Those in the north are what you call old money, handed down from one generation to the next. People who live in homes 2-3K SQF worth multi-millions $. Not new construction like we have in Naperville. They don't all have to out do their neighbors in size of home, car, etc. They are comfortable with who they are and don't have to make sure that everyone knows what they have. Yes they have new developments like everywhere else but what made those communities is still what they have today.

In Naperville people wear their wealth on their sleeve and are always trying to prove their status. From the size of their home, car, clothes, etc.

Let Naperville naturally develop to what it is us to stand for. A community where all can live in peace and accept each other for who they are. Unfortunately not everyone is accepted if they don't fit the "Brenda Avalong" mold.

JW,

I am for building high rises near the train station. If the people who buy them are the people who use the train daily, it would help immensely with decreasing traffic congestion.

However, the roads in Arlington Heights around their theater are larger and not as congested as the roads around our train station. Most roads near our train station are simply 2 way roads that are narrower than the newer roads in Naperville.

Las Vegas was designed to handle density on the strip with 14 lane streets and despite that when I was there recently the 14 lane streets could only be traveled a mile an hour....they were gridlocked despite Vegas being 16.6% down this June over last June in revenue! How is a two lane street going to handle this Performing Arts Center, the Train Station, and all the athletic events at NC College which is also in the same area. It would be gridlock to the maximum.

If Naperville wants to develop that area, the first thing it needs to do is buy all those houses when the market is down through eminent domain and make 4 or 6 lane streets. Develop a small Las Vegas Style Strip that could handle decent traffic and many developments could take place if we had that simple infrastructure combined with high rise parking garages. At that point we can not only have one Omnia but a few and become a center for the arts if we wish to be one. Also at that point we can also support high rise condominiums like not only Arlington Heights but also like Wheaton by the train station.

If Naperville bought these homes and developed this strip, it could sell the land along the strip for several million dollars an acre and hopefully the profits will benefit the taxpayers for once.

Another thing is parking on Washington Street has to be eliminated completely not only during rush hour but at all times. It seems that our city officials allow this parking as a trap to ticket and tow all the violators that lose track of time. The few parking spots available on Washington are of minimum help to the parking problem but are a real DISASTER to TRAFFIC FLOW! How can our city council members not notice this??? Is there anyone in the City of Naperville who does any kind of benefit analysis???

At the present time, the Omnia dealings sound like another Napergate with underhanded negotiations. How dare they not want to face the community in large numbers? If they have a non-Napergate plan or agenda, they should put it right in the open for all of us to see and evaluate!

And since this project appears to be by old timers with strong connections to city council members, it has to be put to air and dry in public.

Our city officials can not be counted to represent us in such delicate matters as has been proven over and over again by the Napergate Man. Let us not so quickly forget about all those Golfgate connections exposed in the Napergate Series that involved city officials. Let us not forget about all those contributions from the Brestal Law Firm exposed in the Napergate Series. Let us not forget that we have Councilman Rosanova who sees no conflict of interest in voting on Brestal Proposals despite his son working there as a LAWYER! Let us not forget Councilman Wehrli will not recluse himself when projects come before the Council that involve his first cousin who is a partner in Crestview Builders!

We don't need another Napergate in this town. We need FULL DISCLOSURE on OMNIA! We need a guarantee if it fails the taxpayers don't get socked for the failure. The developers better have deep pockets and be ready for failure. We need to see the PROOF IN THE PUDDING!

Let us not do what the banks in America did. They took on risk they could not handle. Most banks stocks lost 90% of their value in the last 6 months. The government is bailing out Freddie Mac and his brother or sister. Thornburg Mortgage(TMA) stock which I currently own went from 28.75 dollars to .20 cents. It was not suppose to fail because all its loans were jumbo loans to the wealthy McMansion folks. Well guess what? It failed as the McMansion folks in Naperville and elsewhere could not afford the homes they built. It seems to me if they could not afford their mortgages, they probably also could not afford their 20k annual tax bills to the City of Naperville. Another good reason Naperville should be watching its expenditures and return to home rule where they could only increase taxes by the lower of the CPI or 5%. Allowing Naperville to increase taxes 20% as it did last year, will result in more and more McMansion failures putting additional burden on the middle and lower upper class folks of Naperville who are trying to play fair and paying their taxes while warning City Officials of the impending disaster developing. Are city officials listening???

The City of Naperville Taxpayers currently have the burden of bailing out the Naperville Police and Fire Depts. to the tune of $51.5 million dollars because SOMEONE screwed up and assigned the risk to the taxpayers instead of those who invested the money and lost it. The risk should have been assigned to the Police and Fire Unions and not the taxpayers! It appears with the downturn in the market, they may have lost their money a second time! Are we no indebted $103 million to the Police and Firemen. Where does it END!!!

We can ill afford another 51.5 million loss. The city council must have warranties that these Big Shots trying to build this huge project can back it up both in SUCCESS or FAILURE! They need to put their money where their mouths are. Right now they are hiding both their MOUTHS and MONEY! I sense DANGER LOOMING! Does anyone else sense danger?

As noted above in this blog, Omnia canceled the meeting with area residents late Friday afternoon.

I contacted Ms. Frier regarding this, and in addition to the press release that was issued announcing the cancellation late Friday, I have now received this e-mail this afternoon (Sat) from her.

It was untimely, we know, to cancel when we did, but it was decided to give everyone the TOTAL story and to allow time for lots of discussion, it was more fair to do each homeowners group separately, even though it will take more of our time.

Bev

During conversations between the leaders of the nearby homeowners assn's (Park Addition, ECHO. WHOA, Pilgrim, and Naperville Station), and Ms. Frier, it was agreed that a joint presentation was most desirable so everyone saw the same presentation and heard the same questions and answers. In response to Ms. Friers question of expected attendance I estimated 150 people. Initially, she had no issue with that. Indeed, she made arrangements to move the presentation to council chambers to accommodate the crowd.

Now suddenly after a great deal of effort by the various homeowner's assn's to notify all residents of the meeting, Ms. Frier, at the 11th hour, cancels the meeting without any advance notice, or consultation, to ourselves. She now apparently aims to change the rules and require there to be separate meetings with individual groups, for what ultimate purpose I have no clue.

I do know that the issue of this meeting has been terribly mishandled, and only furthers the atmosphere of concern that exists regarding this proposal.

Cross posted at Tim West's All Points West blog

It was reported earlier that every single one of our city council members met privately with this group called Omnia.

What a sad disappointment that not a single one of our elected city council members had the personal integrity and moral fortitude to tell Omnia that they would not meet with them in private, not now or in the future, and as a person elected to represent all of the people of Naperville that they would only meet with representatives of Omnia in a setting that was open to the public.

We have been led to believe that at least a couple of our city council members are committed to serving their constituents best interests. We have also been led to believe that the rest of our city council members have sold out to the developers and lack sufficient intellectual curiosity to question literally anything that city staff passes beneath their noses. With what has been reported on the latest private dealings with Omnia it would suggest that even the couple of city council members who have previously been reported to be looking out for residents may have sold us out on this deal.

Personally I am fed up with what is going on and what has been going on for way too many years. To deliberately design a meeting process that was expressly intended to circumvent the open meeting law is unethical and a violation of public trust for each and every elected officials who choose to participate in this charade. The open meeting law does not require any closed meetings. It does permit closed meetings and only to discuss specific topics. If nothing else it appears that the state legislature now needs to work to eliminate this circumvention of the law.

Come our next election for city council members one of the criteria that I will be looking for in the pool of candidates is the level of transparency in city government that each promises to deliver. Transparency will be one of my higher priorities in deciding for whom I will vote.

Let me see if I understand some of you correctly:

We should spend a couple hundred million dollars to have better parking near the train station, partially as a knee-jerk response to the voodoo claims of science which try to support the theory of global warming?

Uh ---- No!

First for all those readers, I will declare that I live even closer to the proposed development sites than Thom and I am a board member of ECHO - the home owners association that covers the residential neighborhood south of the train tracks which encompasses the historic district.

It seems clear to me that there is currently only one true fact: In the two years that this proposal has been floating around behind various closed doors, no public proposal has ever been presented.

This is the first thing that worries me. Until a real public proposal is made, I can only take what I hear as rumor and he said/she said.

The second thing that worries me is that at the moment the Omnia group are about to publicly unveil their grand plans, they cancel the event with the excuse that it is better to have several smaller group meetings. Perhaps this is an example of their grand planning capabilities. Did it really take two years to decide to have a public meeting at city hall and then in the last week decide it wasn't the best approach? If that is the kind of planning skills the Omnia group have, I do not want them planning an entire theatre district using public funds (as is rumored to be the case)

Convenient that this occurred the day the equally uninformed press print a story about the mystery development.

If the rumors surrounding the development are true, and it includes a 130' building I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Naperville who would say it 'fits' with the existing neighborhoods, even if it were the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm very happy that over the years the council has demonstrated solid commitment to ensuring that new development fits the location. In this case, (if the proposal is as rumored) it clearly will never pass council judgement. It is our job as residents to remind the council of what does and doesn't fit and I have confidence they will do the right thing. Developers need to know, we as residents and investors in the neighboring properties will fight to ensure that new development fits.

If the proposal does include a theatre larger than any other in Naperville, I have to truely question the market need. I would love to have great shows on my doorstep, but I don't see the large theatre companies knocking on our doors to have one. If they were, I don't imagine that public funds would be needed to build one. The city does not need to be the one who ends up owning such a facility.

I'm sure that any development abutting the train station that occurs within the scale of existing property and traffic density and includes resident input will be fully endorsed by Park Addition, ECHO, WHOA and other stakeholders but to continue hiding behind closed doors with secret meetings is not the way forward.

It is difficult to envisage any large scale development at the proposed location, be it a theatre, bus station, offices, condos that won't significantly increase traffic on the Washington corrider or through the abutting neighborhoods. The streets on Washington are already limited in capacity and the sidewalks are dangerous to walk on.

I trust the council to stand steadfast behind the norms of the public process (as they have in the past) and ensure that all stake holders: residents, commuters, the childrens museum, schools etc all have a fair say in any proposal put to them.

I do not oppose a new theatre, office space, condos or parking etc at this location. But they absolutely have to be within the scope and scale of the existing neighborhood. Be open in the development plans and you will be rewarded by a solution much faster than hiding behind closed doors, cancelling public meetings at the last minute etc. I look forward to seeing a realistic plan for the city works building and the 5th Ave train station properties.

I find it curious and interesting that after the first set of comments by Mr. Higgins, some of those who respond do so by attacking the messenger rather than addressing his message objectively. Now, he is defending himself rather than engaging in a fruitful discussion of fact and opinion on the project.

Am I correct in assuming that everyone here has now seen this project and had it's costs, benefits, traffic study, and potential pitfalls thoroughly explained? Oops, that's right, no presentations to those who will be asked to maybe sell and move, or have their neighborhood traffic drastically changed.

When I read the "we feel compelled to respond" post, the whole project starts to fall apart and look more like a proposal rather than an actual doable thing. Come back when you have land acquisition costs, a hard number on needed city financial assistance, an idea of who will own it, who will staff it, and what the break even points might be so there's an idea of what the needed revenue stream estimates will be. Until then, this is just running an idea up the flagpole to see who salutes.

As an old money Napervillian (we have handed down the same $20 bill since the city's west side was Mill Street)I am not impressed by people who want Naperville to be like some other town. If you want to be like some other town make it easier on us all and just move there.

Be well, friends.

Thanks Omnia Performing Arts Board for showing everyone what Mrs. Kravitz is really all about. He twists the facts to suit his argument more than Barack Obama.

Build it Naperville and they will come!! I'm in favor of this project. My children will truly benefit from it and after all in Naperville the kids are top priority, right Mrs. Kravitz?

To Follow the Money –

As hard as it may sound that someone would actually want to give something back to our community, I believe Bev Patterson Frier’s intentions are genuine.

I had the good fortune to meet her several months ago and we discussed Naperville in general and her experiences in our city. She lost her home when her husband died many years ago. The merchants of Naperville’s (then much smaller) downtown helped her find an apartment, encouraged her to buy an old gas station for $40K in 1966 to turn into a music store, taught her how to handle her store’s bookkeeping, and also taught her how to rotate her inventory. Frier went on to own several music stores in the Chicago suburbs and is very grateful to the assistance she received from Naperville and its citizens.

You and I may both doubt the density and height of this ambitious project but I would never doubt the integrity, ethics, or sincerity of Bev Patterson Frier.

Oh, and that old gas station is now the location of Jimmy’s Grill, real estate I believe she still owns to this day.

**********

To Thom Higgins and Dave Trollope –

While I both understand your objections to this project being as it is so close to your homes, I would hope that you would oppose the project without writing in such a way as to heap innuendo and ulterior motives at those who support the project such as Ms. Frier (please note above that I have my own doubts about the density and height of this project).

Ms. Frier’s explanations are perfectly reasonable. Does anyone doubt the proposed Monday meeting would have been a complete cluster after the write-up in the Sun and back-door insinuations made on this thread? Would anyone have had all their questions answered?

Thom, I believe you helped create the atmosphere in which this meeting would be completely unproductive and now you bemoan the fact that the meeting was cancelled. Nice job.

Oh, and Thom--PURE didn’t error, they defrauded the taxpayers and voters. Stop being their chief apologist.

T.B.

To Ted.

You are correct. Other towns are building new downtowns. And they are thriving rather than dying. People are moving to them.

Northern Virginia has had record employment growth with their developments. They do not have to pay $20 million to get 200 corporate office jobs like Miller and Boeing. How much did we have to pay to get Office Max in Naperville, the last company to come here?

A City Gate should be planned for the area between the train station and Ogden. Too bad this was not started 20 years ago when there were only a handful of houses worth saving. Even today with the teardowns, it would still make sense to redevelop this land. Move all of the traffic out of the historic district, reorientate it to the north, have the traffic drive down Naper and Rickert to the south. That way, the neighborhoods worth keeping will be improved.

This would also help the tax base by eliminating lower priced houses that do not pay sufficient taxes for schools and other services. In order to support our high priced teachers and policement, houses need to start at $500,000. Also, the banks that hold the empty McMansions would be glad to sell to cut their losses. With 2,000 houses on the market, lowering supply will help the rest of the town.

Why should 150 people outweigh the needs of 150,000? Let's fix the train station and create a new employment center.

To T.B.

Your defense of Bev Patterson Frier's motives is admirable, and I have no reason to challenge anything you've said. I can't help but wonder though, if there isn't a way to express one's gratitude to the city in a less intrusive, expensive and disruptive way than this Omnia thing. There must be many things that our city could use that support the arts without all of this upset. If this is really about giving back to a city that has been good to someone, then there must be an easier way.

To MNAFCC: I cannot afford $500,000 for a house. Since all homes in Naperville will now be starting at $500,000, where may I live, oh wise one? Certainly not even the teachers, who are so well paid, can afford that.

By Make Naperville First Class on July 20, 2008 12:36 PM

"This would also help the tax base by eliminating lower priced houses that do not pay sufficient taxes for schools and other services. In order to support our high priced teachers and policemen, houses need to start at $500,000."

_________________________________________________________________

I respectfully disagree with you. The average home price in town is already near $500,000 and we can not afford our policemen, firemen and teachers. How can we afford their pensions? We are already in the hole to the tune of 51.5 million dollars for the police and firemen pensions. I know nothing about the teachers. Maybe Mr. Higgins can shed some light as this area appears his specialty.

I think in order to afford what is going on in town including the pensions and downtown parking decks, we need to raze every house under $750,000 dollars and replace it with a million dollar plus house.

Even this extreme measure will only work if we can cap our city officials appetite to spend and spend by going back to non-home rule. There was nothing wrong with our beautiful Riverwalk and we were voted highly by Money Magazine as it was and use to be. Yet our city officials are spending 1.5 million to remodel a small portion of it. We are talking about a grassy area with some sidewalks and they found a way to spend 1.5 million dollars...ouch...ouch!!!

I wish someone can guide us to signing a petition to return to non-home rule and put some constraints on City Officials. We only need about 1200 petition signers. In the old days the Napergate Man use to average 3500 petition signers with each petition he put out. If he could do it, we should be able to do it with the population twice as much these days. We just need some organization or grass roots movement like he had to move forward! We need some leadership not on this blog site but on the streets of our subdivsions!

I just can't believe no one in this town of 150,000 has the talent to step up and fill one of the Napergate Man's shoes. Forget both! Is there not a lawyer who can prepare the petition and a few retailers willing to put it in their stores for people to come sign!

Starbucks smelled its own coffee and has started taking cost cutting measures which included shutting down over 600 stores and laying off 12,000 employees. They could not go to the taxpayers for a rescue parachute. When are city officials going to lay off a few workers and reduce starting pay for police and firemen which is the highest in the nation outside of a few California towns who have filed bankruptcy or in the process of filing bankruptcy. Is that the path we want to follow....the Cal Path!!!

And McMansions do not provide security to the tax base. I put my money in Thornburg Mortgage that only loaned to the wealthy McMansion Folks who could do no wrong. Well they defaulted on their mortgage and my stock went from 28.75 to .26 cents. I expect bankrupty soon and will let them have the last .26 cents I own in each one of my shares. TMA is the symbol of this mortgage companied who only loaned "secure" jumbo loans for McMansion homes! Check it out if you don't believe me. The CEO of that company and his cronies said they would never be swept by this sub-prime mortgage mess. Yeah sure! They were annihilated!

City Officials need to smell that Starbucks coffee if they think those 2000 McMansion homes in Naperville will be paying their real estate taxes next year to the City of Naperville. If they can't pay their mortgages I guarantee you they can not continue to afford to pay their 10k to 40k real estate tax bills to the City of Naperville and County of Dupage!

If Starbucks can begin to unravel, the City of Naperville with its arrogance of "keep taxing and they will pay attitude," will also begin to unravel. At least Starbucks is attempting to take some corrective action. City of Naperville is leading us to bankruptcy...especially if we get that petition signed to veto home rule and tell them ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Time for our City Officials to be frugal like Host Ted and think before they act!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. Needless to say, I was very impressed with the research Host Ted did before he moved to his new home. I like how he studied the tax base in Joliet and understood what his taxes would be. It is smart to live in a town where 4 casinos contribute to the tax base and take pressure off the homeowner. Kudos to Host Ted!!!

Do you know Host Ted, if Joliet is home rule or state rule??? I am thinking of moving there as Naperville is no longer affordable to me and my family!

Omnia says the proposed theater would operate generally on evenings and weekends, and the Metra commuter lot is mostly empty by 7:00 PM in the evening and on weekends, so why not share the spaces and relieve the demand from commuters for parking passes.

Hope there will NEVER be weeknight show sheduled (yeah, right), because the lot is not quite "mostly empty by 7 p.m." That's dead-red in the witching hour at the downtown train station, with all the cars from the 6:42 and 6:45 Metra arrivals (which are late, more often than not) waiting to crawl out of the lots. That's the most chaotic part of the day over there.

Unless these shows are going to start at 8:30/9:00 on a weeknight, you're not really giving much time for the commuters to clear out of the area's roadways for a Night at the Opera ...

Fletcha,

Of course that is a potential overlap traffic problem now. Though once the city council sells out to the developers on this one the solution is simple. The City of Naperville will change the rules for commuter parking and require all of us morning commuters to be out of the lot before 6:45 or so and if we are still there we will get another wonderful City of Naperville parking ticket. Either way we loose and the City of Naperville wins.

And if you think this isn't exactly what is going to happen, just wait and see.

I cannot believe the arrogance and lack of intelligence that I have been reading from supposedly educated and successful residents in our town. I DO NOT LIVE in a JUNK house!! I live in a house that was built in 1938 and it is a better built house than these new McMansions.
Do you really think that commuters will sell their houses and move into town houses next to the tracks? And then on top of that let's add more traffic by building something, that is not needed, to fill the pockets of investors.
Do those of you who are not familiar with the north side of the tracks-east and west-really think we are any less than you? We moved here in 1966 and chose this neighborhood specifically because of its diversity in homes. We could have moved into one of the new "cookie cutter" subdivisions but chose not to. As a result our children learned that it is not where you live that makes a person successful but rather how you treat others. Our neighbors were doctors,dentists, judges and teachers as well as carpenters, truck drivers and laborers. And what wonderful neighbors they are. This is not a neighborhood of "junk" houses but a neighborhood that appreciates what life gives them and cares about those around them. Open your eyes to what is around you. Can you say the same about your neighborhood?

Follow the Money –

As I said, I have my own doubts about the size and density of this proposal. It'll be very interesting to see how this unfolds.

**********

Thom Higgins –

On second thought, please remove “defraud” from my July 20th 11:02 AM post and insert “intentionally misled”. I think that better describes what PURE did to us.

T.B.

A couple of points.

To Make Naperville First Class- You think everything within 1 mile should be torn down? You obviously aren't aware of the original TOD study that encompassed a 1/2 circle centered at Washington/5th. That circle went south to Chicago Ave., and north to Bauer including part of Cress Creek. Your 1 Mile teardown area would reach Hillside, Iroquois, most of Cress Creek, and the entire Historical District. Yeah, that's going to happen! By the way your property values are incorrect. A resident across the street from me just bought the home adjoining his. He paid $400,000 for a teardown. He is putting a rose garden in it's place. You couldn't touch a lot around the train station for less than $350,000 much less an improved residence. I do agree that a lot the rentals (eventual teardowns) look bad.

Traffic- It's horrendous now during the morning and evening rush hour. Adding more parking only adds to the traffic problem, that's not a fix. The city needs to utilize more off site parking than it already does.

Thom Higgins- As many posters have pointed out Naperville is a large city. Thom Higgins is an advocate for his interests and neighborhood. There are many like him around town voicing their opinions for their neighborhoods or interests. Why do you have a problem with that?

The property discussed- My understanding is that the city property in question is the Kroehler Lot, the city garage, the parking lot north of 5th Avenue Station, and some of the parking at the corner of 5th/Washington (some of the 5th/ Wash. lots are owned by Burlington Northern and Naperville leases them). I measured the Kroehler Lot. There are ten teardown size lots in that parking area. At the current rate of $350,000 each that's $3.5 million. Including the other city properties the value has to be at least $10 million and I may have undervalued them. I believe that Omnia is asking for the city to donate some or all of that property. EVERY TAXPAYER in town should have a problem with that.

The fact this issue has generated this large response is not suprising, especially in light of the 204 school location fiasco of late. Thom, keep up the good work! It would seem that most of the blogs have been composed of some very informed folks on both sides of the issue. The whole issue still smells like week old fish. Omnia bills itself as a "not for profit" organization but appears to me to be a consortium which is a thin vail for a group of contractors hoping to generate profits. Returning to the questions posed by the Sun, No the taxpayers shouldn't pay for this, No we don't need a PAC in Naperville and if we are going to do this let's wait for a better economic environment at the very least.

To: Fletcha,

...The City of Naperville will change the rules for commuter parking and require all of us morning commuters to be out of the lot before 6:45 or so and if we are still there we will get another wonderful City of Naperville parking ticket. Either way we loose and the City of Naperville wins.

And if you think this isn't exactly what is going to happen, just wait and see.

This will work very well based on the fabulous on time history of METRA and the BNSF.

This whole thing reminds me of that stupid bell tower.

Some guy has a dream, can't afford to finish it and the city comes in and spends taxpayers $ to complete.

I have lived in the "blighted" area north of the tracks for 15 years and have many,many propsals for development. Lots of stores and restaurants have attempted to set up shop in and around 5th avenue station--they are all gone. No one wants to stick around the train station. They want to go home. And we all know that NO ONE will walk between the downtown "food court" to the new theater develpment, so more traffic will be added to the area that already lacks parking and roadways.
As with all new proposals, I am interested to see where the money will come from. I don't think the taxpayers of Naperville are willing to take on this cost. A project of this size will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure and roadway development. It sounds like an interesting project, but we all know that it isn't going to happen in this economic climate--so calm down and take a breath and enjoy what's left of the summer.

to Make Naperville First Class:

You sound like an elitist builder/developer.

I love the idea of the Omnia theater. Great location too. I say build that sucker.

The whole theater proposal just doesn't make economic sense for either a private developer or the city. This won't fly because the demand isn't there. It's pie-in-the-sky thinking that will go away. In the future, other plans will develop, but they must be done with the proper balance of scale and density with respect to the surrounding area. New and big isn't always better.

Make Naperville First Class certainly does not come across as someone who actually cares about theater or what is logical and advantageous for the Naperville community. I wonder from what aspect of this development MNFC is planning on making his windfall.

Surely traffic studies will prevent this project. It's like filling a five gallon bucket and having two tiny holes to drain it. The potenial of the tracks is limited by the tracks themselves. There is not sufficient access for the density of this project. You can't take an area that already has congestion issues and make it better by increasing traffic by the thousands. The impact on public services, schools and traffic surely will outweigh whatever benefits are touted.

Highrises and overcrowding is not what makes Naperville one of the best places to live--nor are million dollar homes. You can bet we wouldn't make the top 100 if we overpopulate and gridlock the downtown area. There is plenty of other space to get that big city feeling...a theater in a CityGate enviroment makes much more sense.

I would love to see the charm and convenience of a "downtown" train station achieved by buying up the crap between Benton and the tracks on Washington, including the museum and west parking lot to create a corridor of authentic looking downtown buildings (lowrise at most)and give Washington Street a true "Main Street" feel that leads from the train station south all the way through town.

Higgins, thanks for all of your hard work and concern over not just your own backyard, but all of Naperville's residents--whether they know it or not, they will benefit from the efforts of those opposed to this and similar projects.

WE NEED TO RETURN NAPERVILLE TO STATE RULE FROM HOME RULE!

THAT WAY CITY OFFICIALS WILL THINK TWICE BEFORE UNDERTAKING ENORMOUS PROJECTS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

IF THEY ARE LIMITED TO THE LOWER OF THE CPI INDEX OR 5% AS FAR AS ANNUAL TAX INCREASES, WE ALL WOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT EVERY PROPOSAL FLYING IN THE SKIES OF NAPERVILLE!

THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT EVERY PROPOSAL AND THEY SHOULD AS THEY ARE PAID TO MAKE SURE WE CAN AFFORD WHAT WE BUILD WITHIN OUR BUDGET CONTRAINTS WHICH SHOULD BE BASED ON STATE RULE AND NOT HOME RULE.

THE NAPERGATE MAN ALWAYS ADVOCATED REVERSING HOME RULE. I AGREE WITH HIM. THIS HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL THAT HAS LED TO ALL OUR INCREASED RUNAWAY TAXES THAT HAVE BECOME A SERIOUS BURDEN IN THIS DISASTROUS ECONOMY.

PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD THEIR STARBUCK LATTES LET ALONE THEIR MCMANSION MORTGAGES AND CITY OFFICALS ARE CONSIDERING BUILDING A LAS VEGAS MINIATURE STRIP AT THE TRAIN STATION AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!

IN VEGAS THE GAMBLERS SUBSIDIZE EVERYTHING WITH THEIR STUPIDITY. PEOPLE IN NAPERVILLE ARE NOT STUPID AND ARE NOT WILLING TO SUBSIDIZE THE UNAFFORDABLE WITH THEIR TAX DOLLARS.

I don't see a theater like the one envisioned in this project becoming a major draw from outside of the western suburbs. Sure, it would lie right next to a commuter rail line, but that line is just one spoke on the Chicagoland transit hub. Given a choice between a centrally-located site in Chicago, and one thirty miles outside the city, I can't imagine many world-class event organizers choosing our site. So if this hall can support itself with events of more local interest, such as community theatre, the DuPage Symphony Orchestra, etc., then it might be worthwhile. Otherwise it will be a white elephant. I'm leaning toward the elephant side of the equation, though.

Will the mayor have to recuse himself when they vote since his house on 5th Ave could easily make the list to be "discarded"?

Mason –

Just a thought…

While not advocating for this deal as I have some issues with its size and scope, the land donation you mention may not be that bad of an idea if it takes non-taxed government land and converts it to property which is added to the city’s tax base. Obviously, free would not be good but a discounted rate could pay for itself in a short time period.

T.B.

Regarding the Sun article of 7-22-08

My comment about the land required for the Omnia proposal included 5th. Ave. Station, meaning the Kroehler building. What was presented to me by a councilman, who drew me a rough site plan was for the building to remain, however, the parking lot in front of the building was replaced with a condo structure(s). Again, the building remained. Only the parking lot changed. Further, when I attended the Rotary meeting last week, Ms. Frier made the statement that the Farmers Market could be moved to the driveway area of their complex, suggesting to me that indeed they did have plans for the 5th Ave Station parking lot.

A complete presentation to the residents in the area could have put to the end speculation as to exactly what Omnia had in mind. Instead we are left to "read the tea leaves" when trying to understand the scope of the project. Their statements in response on Friday seems unnecessarily vague "Fifth Avenue Station would not have its parking relocated to the three-level garage and would have its parking contained within its property." The word “would” seems to indicate some change to me. They also indicated elsewhere to my comment thusly; “This is false. The Fifth Avenue Station is not proposed as an acquisition.”

If they indeed have not previously shown plans for the Kroehler property, then a forceful "we have shown no plans what so ever regarding the Kroehler property, nor do we have any plans for acquisition of the property" statement would end the speculation of this. It should be recognized that planners often take great liberties with other peoples property. The preliminary proposal made by the TOD consultant placed a parking deck on the Children’s Museum parking lot and wiped out whole blocks of existing single family residences for condo’s and town homes, so the practice of playing wishful thinking on other peoples property is not an un-common one.

As it happens I talked to the manager of the complex yesterday. She informed me that she has never spoken to Omnia regarding this project..

I have one small quibble regarding the Sun article and this statement;

“ Higgins took issue with the way the proposal is being presented, to council members quietly last fall, and to small groups such as Rotary more recently.”

While I have grave concerns about the way the presentations to individual council members was handled, please note, I have no problems what so ever with the Rotary presentation. Making detailed public presentations is exactly what is needed at this juncture.

Following this fiasco to date, I have noted one brilliant move by the Omnia group: They have elected to overtly practice the deception of "divide & conquer" to get their idea to the next level.

It started with the manner in which they "informed" the councilpersons INDIVIDUALLY. They claim to have done this to avoid violating the open-meetngs laws.
It is not a stretch top point out that what they did clearly violated the spirit & intent of that law, as the intent of the Illinois Open Meetings Act is to ensure that public business is conducted in public view by prohibiting secret deliberations and actions on matters that should be discussed in a public forum.

[I would put out a loud "shame on you" to the council members that met with them (or any other groups on any issue) when it is so absolutely obvious what they were doing!]

It continued with their cancellation of Monday's meeting --- they will now move forward and "inform the public" with many, perhaps dozens, of little meetings where they can control the environment and ensure more influence.

Yes, divide-and-conquer IS a strategy that is used often in politics and that is exactly what they are doing to us right now!

Anonymous,

I talked at length to a councilman this Am regarding the presentations and he made the comment that the expectation was that this proposal would be submitted to the city, and go public shortly thereafter the council presentations. The delay in this is one of the factors that has created this controversy, and some real discomfort for city councilmen.They are not happy. I can appreciate that.

If I can defend council a bit, I know these people and they are all honorable, well intentioned, and committed to making Naperville a better place. While I often disagree with one, or many, they all have shown me respect and a open door. Many communities don't bother with that kind of nicety.

Are they happy about how this has all gone down? Call and and them, you might be surprised at the response.

I will also mention that Councilman Rosanova refused to view the presentation, as he does any presentation offered that has not been submitted to the city. Other council members went but refused to sit for the full two hour presentation. So please do not tar all of council with the same brush.

Traffic in downtown Naperville is already at capacity. Many hours of the day and night it is backed up from one light to the next. Where are all these cars going to go before and after the shows, not to mention from the huge ramp up of housing? Washington is already a choke point. Had the city had any sense they would have required all the new buildings along Washington to be set back further to allow for widening. Instead city council has allowed buildings to be as close as possible to the street and eliminating the possibility of increasing its capacity. There is no other way in and out of the proposed site, excepting narrow residential streets. Why would anybody want to put that kind of traffic into a landlocked piece of land like that.

How about putting something near the new I88 interchange at Naperville Road? Or at the Route 59 exit. Or anywhere along Route 59 where you have wide roads, planned to get wider. I understand the Brach estate has some land they want to dump. That would work out great and would get the school district off the hook in their current fight.

So go ahead and build it, but put it someplace where there are actually roads to get there.

I am a little concerned about all the “it could” and “it may” type vague talk about this project. And if the deal is so complex that the planners are reluctant to share it en masse, I have to believe that there are a lot of “ifs” that would have to come true to make this happen.

I am also left wondering why the Naperville Carillon was conveniently left off of Omnia’s list in their statement: “Omnia concluded that its proposal was "bold" on the scale of Naperville's Riverwalk, Naper Settlement and downtown.”. I would hate to get stuck again with some multi-million dollar boondoggle that a few residents sold as being built with private funds only to fail half way through and make the City pick up the pieces and finish the thing. The City should not be in the business of owning and running Carillons or Art Centers.

I was impressed with some of the responses here. Reading this blog along with the blog on train parking, it is clear a more rational approach to commuter parking, including one or more decks, and possibly some parking dedicated to car-pools, needs to occur. That should be one objective in a plan for the station.

Replacing the public works building with high-density living space is a must. For those of you still living with the illusion that gasoline will always be cheap and plentiful, and thus, Naperville, 30 miles from Chicago, will always be the same, you are in for a rude awakening. You think $4.50/gallon is bad--just wait! More people will have to live within a walk from the train. What are you going to do about it? Build a few two-story apartments or condos on the site of the public works building? That's not a wise choice now or in the future.

I'm not at all insensitive about the feelings of people that live in the area, and I appreciate the efforts I see of people south of the tracks restoring and beautifying their old homes. I would not want to see those homes torn down just as I would like to see the Kroehler Furniture Building preserved in part or whole. But telling someone like me who has lived and commuted in this town for years to go live somewhere else, because I see that the area around the station can and must be handled and developed more rationally for the benefit of the entire town, neither impresses nor persuades. If you don't like my analogy to Arlington Heights or others to Wheaton, what do you propose instead? The status quo is not the answer. What is yours? Does it take into account the need to place more people and more parking near the train? Why not? Are you thinking of the larger good?

As for the theater itself, Omnia needs to get its act together and make a more public presentation to the City. In his knee-jerk reaction to me, Thom missed the point that he and I totally agree on this. Maybe this would be great for Naperville and maybe this would be the perfect location for it, or maybe not. But let's have this discussion now.

Even more importantly, we need to have a discussion about saner use of the land surrounding the train station--a most precious resource for Naperville. A resource that we are squandering day by day.

I'm going to reserve judgment on this project until I hear more actual detail provided by Omnia, but I'm a little disappointed and suspicious since I didn't hear about any land use study in my area until I read about it in the Naperville Sun. I live just about a block east of the NDPW.

The City of Naperville has notified us in the past regarding current studies of this type for re-development of the area, but now I'm hearing about it just prior to a planned presentation. I don't consider that sort of withholding of information to be acceptable and it doesn't provide me with much confidence in those individuals involved with this project.

Paul

July 22, 2008

Culture, at Last!

The Omnia proposal offers an exciting prospect: to bring real culture to our fair city, and to hordes of people hurrying from far-flung towns. Similar to such local philanthropic venues as the Ribfest. Presumably the Omnia philanthropists have already made promising overtures to world-famous symphony orchestras, the Kirov ballet, and Shakespeare companies. Indeed, how exciting!

Of course, it should be expected that filling a 2700-seat auditorium for events of such high culture could offer significant problems. After all, even the Chicago Symphony Orchestra concerts in Chicago are rarely packed, in a smaller concert hall. One idea would be to partially placate the outraged citizens of the immediate residential areas by offering them reduced-cost, or even no-cost, tickets—at the highest reaches of the auditorium, of course.

I assume that the genius of Omnia extends also to the matter of transportation of concert-goers. Have tentative arrangements been made with Metra to schedule special trains so as to afford time for a large percentage of the concert-goers to do some shopping, dining, etc., at the associated Naperville shops and restaurants prior to the concert, and added time for light dining subsequently? Nevertheless, it must be recognized that most of the 2700 seats would be occupied by people who drive their automobiles. Some could be accommodated in the lowest reaches of the planned tower, perhaps, indeed, many. However, what has the Omnia genius concluded about handling such huge surges of traffic approaching and leaving the tower? How would this affect travel by Naperville citizens who are not attending the concert? Of course, perhaps I am ignorantly exaggerating this traffic problem, for surely the Omnia genius already has planned an adequate solution, a solution that would be reasonable for the residents of the immediate neighborhoods—and for the city.

Perhaps more thought should be given to making the tower much higher, and to hire an architectural firm to design a stunning spiral tower, further enhancing Naperville’s appeal as one of the very best places to live, and to drive to from far distances to advance the business interests of our fair city.

Incidentally, perhaps the collective philanthropy of Omnia could help our great city also by grants of money to provide decent privies for attendees of the real Naperville culture provided by the Municipal Band.

A Fan of Culture

To : By Thom Higgins on July 22, 2008 11:39 AM

That is all fine, but they still deserve the "shame on you" as a group. Saying they were outraged after-the-fact means nothing to me.
There was nothing to prevent them ALL from doing as Rosanova and refusing to attend it as it was what it was --- a sneaky, though legal, move by Omnia.

Thom Higgins –

I completely understand your opposition to this plan based on the facts that are known—-height, location, and traffic concerns.

However, it is clear from your posts and your Sun letter today that you’re going to focus your opposition on assumptions and innuendo regarding the process this has taken and leave the facts behind. You imply impropriety where you cannot prove any and you torpedoed the only real open meeting which was to have taken place.

If you really want to “help” as you said in your letter today keep an open mind, stop insinuating corruption where there is none, and attack this proposal on the known facts.

Why is it that someone privy to so much inside knowledge about this project such as you claim can’t focus on the real issues and instead chooses to focus on the process this has gone through?

T.B.

T.B.

I have purposely said very little about the proposal, as I personally haven't seen all of it. While I did see the Rotary presentation, and have gotten bits of information from my conversations with Bev Frier, a great deal, if not most of the information I have received, as I have stated before, is from various council members. I would like to see the entire proposal, especially including the financial assumptions and their traffic study, before I make any real comments on the proposal itself.

I must gently take exception to his comment of yours,

stop insinuating corruption where there is none, and attack this proposal on the known facts.

I'm not insinuating, I'm making the charge outright. I'll spare you another recitation, but put bluntly, what Omnia attempted to do with their exceptionally elaborate closed-door presentations to council was wrong. Period. And looks to become an issue that needs to be resolved separate form the Omnia proposal.

It is rather apparent that this gambit has backfired badly on them, with the very people they attempting to curry favor with. Let me also mention that it's not just my opinion. The combined boards of the Park Addition and ECHO sent a statement condemning this last fall when the issue first arose, and a representative of ours spoke at council regarding this.

Further, if you look back at the articles about this last November it will be apparent that something odd was afoot, and council was aware even then. Here’s a quote from one of them;

"I wish they would have been talking to staff before we even saw the presentation, this stuff should be made public from the get-go. That's what we have our staff for."

And of course Krause told Omnia at that meeting that they had to come talk to us.

Another aspect that causes me great misgivings is Omnia apparently attempted, or is attempting to, be named “Master Developer” of the DPW site. That would in effect shut out any one else who wanted to make a proposal for that site. One council member I talked to this week said he would categorically not look at Omnia’s proposal in a vacuum, and will demand that the city follow the standard process of issuing a RFP (request for proposal) on that site. To me this is once again attempting to back door this proposal, and again I’ll say, it’s wrong, wrong, wrong.

Omnia has mishandled this entire process badly from the start. From the presentations to individual council members, to their secretiveness with the press last fall and now, (why in the world did Bev Frier refuse to talk to the Daily Herald reporter last Friday?) to their decision to, at the 11th hour, and without the courtesy of even contacting me who set the meeting up, cancel the meeting with the residents.

I also will again point out that the meeting was to be with residents of all 5 HOA's. The explanation for canceling the meeting was ridiculous, and the statement that it was to be only Park Addition residents categorically false.

So, in essence, by mishandling this proposal so badly, it has become an issue in and of itself, and a legitimate concern by people such as myself.

Hope this helps.

By Thom Higgins on July 23, 2008 7:21 AM:
“I must gently take exception to this comment of yours,

stop insinuating corruption where there is none, and attack this proposal on the known facts.

I'm not insinuating, I'm making the charge outright.”

Way to go Thom! If the Omnia group was as plain speaking and straight forward as you are they wouldn’t be having these problems now.

There is the old downtown Las Vegas and the new strip Las Vegas.

When Vegas decided to go big time, they built the infrastructure first. They built that famous 14 lane strip street in the desert that could handle these 2 to 8 billion hotels that are each the size of a town.

If they would have tried to go big time in their old downtown it would have never worked. Gridlock would have been an understatement. Standstill would have been the word.

As I said in an earlier post the infrastructure and especially the street capacity has to be there. If it is not, it will not work. You simply can not build 30 and 40 story spiral towers on old narrow residential streets.

Abu Dubia on the Persian Gulf decided to be big "Vegas Style" and they built their 14 lane street first. Now they are building 150 story spiral towers with a 200 story one planned for 2010. These are BEDOUINS with little education who realized the need for infrastructure before you build. They were smart enough to consult with Dutch Engineers who advised them well. It is really a sight to see if you get a chance to take a vacation there. It makes Vegas look tiny!

First comes first! If Naperville, Omnia, the train station,and developers want to implement their grnadiose ideas, that is a marvelous. But first a row of houses must be razed to make room for a 6 lane street or at least a 4 lane street with extra TURN LANES.

I hope someone on this blog site, in the Naperville Sun or City Hall comes to their senses and realizes without a new wider STREET none of this speculation is even THINKABLE! LET ALONE DO-ABLE!

There is the old downtown Las Vegas and the new strip Las Vegas.

When Vegas decided to go big time, they built the infrastructure first. They built that famous 14 lane strip street in the desert that could handle these 2 to 8 billion hotels that are each the size of a town.

If they would have tried to go big time in their old downtown it would have never worked. Gridlock would have been an understatement. Standstill would have been the word.

As I said in an earlier post the infrastructure and especially the street capacity has to be there. If it is not, it will not work. You simply can not build 30 and 40 story spiral towers on old narrow residential streets.

Abu Dubia on the Persian Gulf decided to be big "Vegas Style" and they built their 14 lane street first. Now they are building 150 story spiral towers with a 200 story one planned for 2010. These are BEDOUINS with little education who realized the need for infrastructure before you build. They were smart enough to consult with Dutch Engineers who advised them well. It is really a sight to see if you get a chance to take a vacation there. It makes Vegas look tiny!

First comes first! If Naperville, Omnia, the train station,and developers want to implement their grnadiose ideas, that is a marvelous. But first a row of houses must be razed to make room for a 6 lane street or at least a 4 lane street with extra TURN LANES.

I hope someone on this blog site, in the Naperville Sun or City Hall comes to their senses and realizes without a new wider STREET none of this speculation is even THINKABLE! LET ALONE DO-ABLE!

Another Anonymous post on July 19, mentions Police and Fire pensions funds. Your statements should be examined by "the public relations department for the City of Naperville" aka The Naperville Sun.

These plans and payouts are detached from reality. the only way these plans can exist is on the back of all property owners. But
Since this blog is about Omnia, if the City Cuncil should bestowe its blessing on what is called a public private partnership,the Council should demand establishment of an endowment fund. The first contributor could be Bev Frier. A minimum donation of $2,000,000 would prove committment to this project. The secretive board of Omnia should raise at leas$20,000,000 to help underwrite the expenses of the theatre.

Also personal collatertal should be pledged, in case the project fails. In other words, Omnia should buy private property and build to their heart's content
and leave the taxpayers out of their self serving enriching plan.

What is this, the daily relevation?

Now we hear that Omnia is trying to corner the development rights for the public garage site so nobody can compete with them?

The press should start calling this Omnia-gate.

Better yet, why don't we show these bogus philantropists the door.

Naperville is better than this.

Omnia-gate sounds almost as good as Napergate. Whatever you call it, we have to find a way to chop its feet off before it infects every taxpayer in town.

We have not even resolved Pension-gate with the 51.5 million deficit and we are suppose to start Omnia-gate. No thanks!

HOW DOES A TOWN "RANK 5" WHEN NO BODY IS HAPPY. I HAVE YET TO READ ANYTHING ON THESE BLOGS THAT IS POSITIVE NO MATTER WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.

To "A Fan of Culture"

I agree that upgrades are needed for the seating and "privies" for the sometimes 5000 or more people who attend the weekly concerts in Central Park. The Park District took a step or two in the right direction this year, but now apears hindered by its chronic dysfunctionality. What will it take for the Park District to right itself and for the City Council to join with the Park District in delivering better seating and accomodations for all those actual, not hypothetical, concert-goers? How many more seniors have to endure porta-potties?

The Concert Center itself is a cultural gem for Naperville and provides a great service to many groups in town, not just the Municipal Band. It has served as the site for Naperville's Jazz Festival, and other performers have appeared on its stage. I am proud that the city built this facility for the benefit of many in Naperville. Could the City and Park District please now do more to look after the needs of the many concert-goers?

Thom Higgins –

First of all, I would take issue with your statement that you “have purposely said very little about the [Omnia] proposal”. While your most recent posts (and letter to the Sun) have been centered on the process the proposal has taken, I think if you re-read your earlier posts (June 18 @ 7:45 AM, for example) you will see that you have said plenty about the actual proposal.

I find it hard to buy your statements that this is a project “shrouded” in mystery. By your own admission you’ve discussed this project with council members, seen the Rotary presentation, met with Bev Frier, and had e-mail correspondence with Bev Frier. It appears that this information has been circulating for some time and you’ve been pretty plugged in to what’s going on.

Now, as to the public meeting...I understand that this process could have gone better; however, your statements such as “I'm not insinuating [corruption], I'm making the charge outright” are not helpful to the process and are, in fact, defeating the openness you seek. You torpedoed the meeting last Monday with your statements and accusations and then you complain about the lack of a meeting? I find that to be completely disingenuous. Instead of attacking this project on the facts, you instead chose to attack the character and reputation of those associated with Omnia such as Bev Frier. I hope she sues you.

I understand your opposition to this project. I have my own reservations. But it’s clear that there’s nothing that Omnia can do that would please you. Your continued character assassinations are not helpful to this process, detract from true questions about this project, and makes you appear to be nothing more than a petulant child.

Thom, you can do better and your association would be better served if you would refrain from these attacks and accusations.

T.B.

Please, Central Park could have been a real gem. It is a shame that this park is tucked away and less than visible and that parking has been allowed to nibble away at it's edges for decades. Add to that the overall neglect, overgrowth, and lack of landscape planning and this park is a borderline eyesore.

Adding insult to injury is the size and bulk of the stage which would be out of proportion in any park less than three times the size of Central Park.

What is even more astounding is that the city now requires US to have a porta potty in our driveways if we do any remodeling yet this same group of dunderheads approved the new facility with nary a thought to the public restrooms. How many more mistakes are we going to afford these clowns before we throw them all out of office?

By Anonymous:

the dunderheads you referred to did approve the band shell for Central Park, because of the citizens committee report that gave points to various sites. Central Park received points for having public restrooms and adequate parking. These two extra points gave CP the highest score. Of course as you know their is not adequate parking or public restrooms. The whole exercise of selecting a site by the citizens committee, was how to get the bandshell located in CP

The fact finders for giving the OK to Omnia will be of the same mindset. Do what ever it takes to give a favorable spin to the project. The taxpayers deserve the best and the developers deserve the best in subsidies.

TB

Regarding your accusing me of personal attacks against Ms. Frier, I reject the characterization completely. My words from my initial post

Bev Frier is a well-regarded, long time Naperville resident who has a dream. She wants to create a large scale performing arts center in Naperville, that will rival theaters in downtown Chicago..

I started my post complimenting Ms. Frier. I meant those words then and I still do. If you are equating my comments regarding the manner in which this proposal has been marketed as attacks on Ms. Frier personally, I can tell you they are not. Omnia is more than one person. There is a board, and, outside consultants advising them. That board and those consultants collectively do have to bear the responsibility for the debacle so far, and I’m far from being the only person who feels this way. Allow me to quote Bill Mego from his column Friday in the Sun;

If there were an award for worst public relations by a well-intentioned group, the board of the Omnia performing arts center, a proposed Naperville theater complex, would win it hands down.

Admittedly, their public relations advisers, who should have known better and whose motives I question, have advised them very, very poorly.

I agree fully with the above statements. Everything that I have been told by people, confirms that Bev Frier is a fine person . All Ms. Frier and Omnia want is a performing arts center, but they lack the means to fund it. They don’t care about condos, or retail or commercial development. From what I have pieced together Omnia turned to people who took advantage of them by tying their dream to a huge condo/retail/commercial development project (gee I wonder why), and then further betrayed them by convincing them not to talk to the public but rather back door the project with council(a fatal error). To more than a slight extent, Omnia is a victim of those people.

Regarding this statement of yours,

I find it hard to buy your statements that this is a project “shrouded” in mystery…….It appears that this information has been circulating for some time and you’ve been pretty plugged in to what’s going on.

This is again hardly my exclusive view. It was the Sun who used that adjective (repeatedly) this week, and the Daily Herald used this as their headline last fall Mystery project has Naperville abuzz So it is not I who have framed the debate in this manner. Again read the Sun’s coverage. If Omnia’s attempt to control the debate by limiting the information made available to the general public, and their reticence to talk to the press, and city staff, last fall and now, doesn’t lend itself to being characterized as mysterious, I don’t know what would.

As far as your comment that information has been circulating for some time, No, that is incorrect. While I have made it my business to learn everything possible regarding the proposal, it has been due to my digging and reaching out to people, and frankly as many people reaching out to me that has led to my knowledge. As for Joe Naperville, they remain woefully uninformed.

Lastly, you accuse me of torpedoing the meeting that was canceled. I will simply refer you to the first two posts I made . They were the only public comments I made on this blog before the meeting was canceled. Were those word so inflammatory to necessitate canceling the meeting? Hardly. The strongest charge was subverting the Open Meetings Act by doing such incredibly elaborate individual meetings with council members. Had their been a reasonable explanation, could they not have disarmed that argument at the beginning of the meeting? And frankly, Omnia has to have known this was not only my view but the view of the combined boards of Park Addition and Echo, as both a representative from Echo and myself addressed this issue at the 11-20-07 city council meeting. They had plenty of advance notice.

The fact remains that if Omnia had followed a transparent procedure from the start, by not engaging in such heavy handed lobbying of council, and, talked to city staff, the press, and the residents freely, we would not be in this place.

I’ll end this with some excerpts of a Sun article after the 11-20 council meeting. Omnia was attempting to, as I remember, make the coming 5th ave study a study of their proposal only, and not allow any competing proposal or concepts compete with it. Staff and Council disagreed.

The following is an excerpt from a Naperville Sun article by Kate Houlihan “I cannot support the Omnia component of the TOD study for the six reasons outlined in the city memo,” Councilman Grant Wehrli said. “If they want to come in to the city as a development they need to follow protocol. I cannot give any credence to Omnia at this time, unfortunately.” Councilman Doug Krause called for the Omnia group to meet with residents, and Councilwoman Darlene Senger said, at this point, the last thing she wanted was to make the pending study more complicated than it needed to be with the Omnia card mixed in the bunch. “Before we get everyone up in arms and discussing this, I do think it is essential that staff draw down with the Omnia people some of the ‘must occurs’ financially so that this staff can say we will consider that or no, we won’t,” Councilman Jim Boyajian said. “What little I know right now is that there is no appetite up here for the public improvements. I also don’t think there’s any appetite for owning it.” The 5th. Ave. study will commence in early 2008. What will be the fate of the Omnia Proposal? Stay Tuned.

Thom Higgins –

My comments about how you’ve handled yourself in this matter can be summed up by simply stating that you should make sure you read yesterday’s letter to the editor by Douglas Dallmer. Mr Dallmer’s letter did what you’ve been trying to do without your accusations. The letter was on-target and states the case for more open discussion with Omnia in a way they are likely to be receptive to.

Yes, the Omnia board is more than one person; and yes, you did compliment Bev Frier in your opening post. But Ms Frier is the only person from the board you’ve mentioned and you openly stated you accused Omnia of corruption. The conclusions regarding what you meant about Ms Frier are clear, even as you try to back away from criticizing Ms Frier now.

While I would agree that most of you accusations have come out after the cancelling of the meeting, I believe you threw enough innuendo of wrong-doing at the Omnia board that nobody would have gotten their answers from the scheduled meeting. It would have deteriorated to the point of name-calling and unfounded accusations—or exactly what you’ve been doing on this thread.

Though the newspapers have used the word “mystery” to sell copies, you seem to have a great deal of info regarding this for it to be a true “mystery”. Ms Frier spoke with me about the project after meeting me for just 20 minutes. The council members and Rotary members who saw presentations were free to speak about what they saw. The info was available, just not in the large meeting you desired. I find nothing wrong with how Omnia handled themselves except for the public relations aspect of this, of which you have helped fan the flames to meet your goal of complete opposition.

It appears to me that you’re just upset that the board isn’t catering to your desires. Even though you have legitimate questions regarding this project, I wouldn’t blame the Omnia board if they cut you out of the discussions completely. Who would want to deal with someone accusing them of corruption? You’re putting yourself in a position where you may no longer be able to best serve the association you head. Who’s good does that serve, except maybe your own ego?

T.B.

P.S. I think what maybe you miss here, Thom, is that I too have serious questions about this project, but take issue with how you are handling the situation. If you come off looking worse than the Omnia board, nobody will listen to you.

Having read all the blogs and the articles in the Sun about the Omnia project, in reflection, my first thought is how sad that so many people immediately jump to criticism and name calling. Granted, most of that is from people who live in that area, and would be upset no matter what was suggested. First of all, it must be accepted that there will be change in that area, it has been neglected and not an asset for many years. THERE WILL BE CHANGES so whatever is done will affect those homeowners in the area. Let’s realize most of the degrading and insulting comments about the project are from the homeowner groups in that area. But Naperville has over 150,000 people now, we have to widen our horizons with our future plans. As far as the master plan for Naperville, it will change as naturally as everything else has changed for us through the years. Aren’t you as individuals changing your own plans through the years? We have to change with the times and conditions as they occur.

It is also too bad that Omnia has been criticized for being secretive and behind closed doors. This is a group of respected citizens of our town, have lived here for many years, not planning to spend a few years here and then move on as so many do. They took the time and effort to research this project, calling upon the knowledge and expertise of experts in each field. Now they are at fault for not trumpeting this project before it was thoroughly studied and planned and found to be feasible by their exhaustive efforts.

Yes, Naperville needs the Omnia project, what a great thing this will be for us -- people will support it, both here and in the surrounding suburbs. Naperville has always set its goals extremely high -- this project is such an asset to our community. Let’s build it before another close by town does and we lose our advantage. If Schaumburg and Arlington Heights can do it, we certainly can. We would be drawing from all the western suburbs to our area. The 3 story parking deck would take care of parking, and the theaters and the commuters will be able to share this facility. It would be mostly emptied out from commuters before any Omnia activity took place.

I agree with whoever quoted Daniel Burnham, make no small plans. We have the ability and drive to carry this endeavor forward. Give the Omnia group a chance to make their plans public, but also understand they researched and investigated their project thoroughly and that is why they didn’t rush to put it before the public in the beginning stages. Isn’t it better to know how thoroughly it was studied by experts in their field, rather than just being tossed out to the public half planned? Give them a chance to explain all the facts, but most of all trust that this project will be for the benefit of Naperville, for all of Naperville. Listen to the plans instead of rushing to question their integrity or financial gains. Do you find it impossible to believe Naperville has residents who DO put the good of the town first and are dedicated to that goal? I don’t, I’m proud to live in Naperville and am glad we have these dedicated citizens who have devoted so much time and effort for the good of our town. Let’s listen to what they have to say with open minds.

TB

Well, we will have to agree to disagree regarding your problem with my concerns regarding the path the proposal has taken. I'm not going to take the time to rebut your characterizations, but know I disagree with them strongly. My comments above accurately reflect my views, anyone who has read them can form their own opinion based on them. I re-read my posts above, and am content with them with the exception of the following:

I never used the word "corruption", you did, and in replying to your characterization of my implying corruption it seems clear I erred in not being more clear by stating instead "I'm not implying, I'm claiming outright that what Omnia did was wrong", as now you are now stating that I am accusing them of corruption. It is your word sir, not mine. I stand behind my comments above regarding this issue, but I do regret that I didn't respond to your provocative adjective more intelligently.

The ball is in Omnia's court to do with it as they will at this point We will all have to see what happens next.

AJT

I (and I will wager my neighbors) take exception to these comments of yours.

my first thought is how sad that so many people immediately jump to criticism and name calling. Granted, most of that is from people who live in that area, and would be upset no matter what was suggested…..Let’s realize most of the degrading and insulting comments about the project are from the homeowner groups in that area.

The following is hardly coming from the area residents,

most of the housing in this area particularly north of the train tracks is substantially below the Naperville medians. Few are worth saving, most are post WWII junk. And those that are worth saving should have never been allowed to be built in the first place.

Anyone remember Gladys Kravitz from Bewitched? You know, that nosey neighor that's into everyone else's business and thinks she knows more than everyone else.

We have our very own Gladys Kravitz in Naperville. Her name is Thom Higgins. I have this mental picture of Higgins peering out of his house from behind his curtains ready to pounced with his opinion whether wanted or not. Everyone community has one and Naperville is no exception.

Calamos should have told the City it would remain only if the City was to TIF, condemn and bulldoze the low value housing north of the train tracks and then let Calomos build his development to replace this "suburban decay". Then City Gate would have made Naperville First Class. Riva could be on the 15th floor of a world class building with a view of the downtown rather than watching the traffic come off from I-88 to Route 59--UGH..

Think big, this town is 150,000. The area even more. Don't let a handful of people stop progress. And I think the developers can accomodate the die hards like Higgins who want to keep their house. It would look nice between two 30 story condo towers.

A vigorous debate is never a bad thing, and sure, if you want you can criticize me for my comments (and if you choose to do so please be specific), but using such a broad brush to paint the residents living nearby as you did above is, with all due respect, disingenuous in my view.

AJT,

I understand your point of view. I live near the area of the proposed project and will make a few points.

Area residents I have spoken to understand there will be development of the city garage property. As taxpayers we want to see the city sell the property for several million dollars to put in the city coffers. As neighborhood residents we want to see a building similar to 5th Ave Station or the brownstones adjacent to the children's museum constructed on the site.

As you know the area is residential. A 30' wide street and a couple of parking lots is not enough of a buffer for two 130' buildings.

That is the aesthetic side of the argument in a nutshell. Now let's look at the common sense side.

The Paramount Theatre in Aurora and Rialto in Joliet are negative profit institutions. Specifically, the Paramount in Aurora used $5.7 million in taxpayer funds for a restoration in 2006. Their website says that their funding is 70% ticket sales and 30% donations. They have 1,888 seats. The Rialto is seeking $4 million in donations for a current renovation. They have 1,400 seats. Both advertise broadway shows and star entertainers. They also have the added attraction of casinos to entice theatre goers. These theatres have been in place for decades and still haven't figured out a way to be profitable. How will Omnia be different?

In regards to parking, the Omnia response on this blog says that "However, because the theater operates generally on evenings and weekends, and the commuter lot is mostly empty by 7:00 PM in the evening and on weekends, why not share the spaces and relieve the 7 year demand from commuters for parking passes. We have been stating that commuter parking is doubled as it is quite wasteful not to utilize them this way. A notable parking consultant reviewed the plans and indicated it would function appropriately and had sufficient spaces."

I'm quite sure that the spaces would be used. It's the morning and evening rush that concerns area residents. It's jammed now at those times, imagine doubling commuter parking. I agree it is needed. However, it is not feasible with the current road conditions. The vehicles could not exit and disperse easily. I have heard commuters at the 59 station can wait 20 minutes to get out of the lot.

In closing, the residents I have spoken to know there will be development, we want the development to be conducive to the existing residential environment that has been here for 50 years. The city needs to make money on the property(s) it sells while keeping the impact of the new development(s) at a minimum to the existing residents.

On a side note. Omnia states that " To be a functional stage house, 130 ft are required." 5TH/Washington is 35' higher in elevation than Chicago/Washington and 5TH/Loomis is 42' higher. That means from downtown when you look north it will be like looking at a 165' building because of the elevation difference. That's 165' of large mass. It will dominate the skyline in downtown Naperville.

Mr. Thom Higgins.

As far as this T.B. character he is a trouble making instigator. On many of the blogs that concerned Napergatians he tried to twist and turn words. He became known as the man or woman who speaks in circles.

He had no credibility. Approximately 300-500 Napergatians exposed his lack of credibility on a daily basis. It is all documented.

How shameful that he would use the word corruption and insinuate you used it first.

He wants Bev to sue you....lol...you should be suing him!

You are a brave man to be using your real name and standing up for what you believe.

T.B. is a wimp who hides behind initials suggesting libel, slander and lawsuits that he is immune to because he won't reveal his identity as you so bravely have.

Do not be intimidated! I know your not! The Napergate Man was faced with such attacks. As you may know he ignored all attacks against him, never responded to one attack and continued plugging away on the issues ad after ad until he decided to retire after Napergate XXXXIV. Keep pluggin away Mr. Higgins. The truth always prevails in the end.

They tried to do the same to the Naperate Man. Assassinate his character and reputation as they are trying to do to you. In the end all the courts ruled in his favor and all the accusations against him turned false.

I suspect all the accusations against you will also prove to be FALSE.

I am not saying I am for or against OMNIA. I am just saying you have a right to your well thought and articulated opinions and no one has a right to attack your reputation and character. Especially a guy like T.B. who the Napergatians made shredded meat out of. I guess he is trying to rebuild his reputation a second time on your BACK!

Thanks for exposing him and putting back in his place. I suggest you ignore him in the future. He is one of those who thrive on rises and highs from issues as opposed to having a genuine concern for those issues!

Keep up the good work Mr. Higgins. I believe you are a truthful man.
I may disagree with you on Omnia but no one can dispute that you are providing actual facts.

I hope Omnia works one day. But without a 4 lane street with additional turning lanes in that area, obtained through condemnation of existing homes, I do not think the infrastructure can handle the high density of such a large project that far exceeds simply a performing arts center. Even with a 14 lane street, I recall traveling a quarter mile on the Las Vegas strip in a full hour on the 4th of July. I will never go back there again to be tied in that kind of GRIDLOCK in 117 degree weather. Thankfully the air conditioning in the car was fully functional!

If we are going to build Omnia let us do it right and have the INFRASTRUCTURE in place. And let us make sure it is not SUBSIDIZED by taxpayers. It is enough we are SUBDIZING the wealthy downtown landlords who "MAY" have had secret meetings with Council Members to avoid their obligation of downtown parking.

TB and Another Anonymous

Guy's it will be better for all of us if we limit ourselves to discussing the subject at hand as opposed to personal attacks. "flame wars" are not pretty to watch.

To Tb,

I never complimented you on your retracting "defrauded" and substituting "intentionally misled" for your characterization of Pure. Thank you, I won't argue with the characterization.

To Another Anonymous,

I sincerely appreciate your kind words in support. All of us can perform a valuable service to this community by vigorously debating the matter, and bringing information and different viewpoints to the table. I welcome that clash of ideas.

Thom Higgins –

We can agree to disagree.

Although you’re correct that “corruption” was my word, you adopted it in your statement. I used the word because I believed that you were insinuating corruption in your discussion of the Omnia board meeting with the council one-on-one and being so “secretive”. You still say it was wrong…just not corrupt.

Also please understand that you mentioned nobody from the Omnia board except Bev Frier. I took your attacks to be personal attacks on Bev. Now that you’ve made your true intent known, maybe we can focus on the issues and not the process?

Thanks for the comments regarding PURE. After I sent the post, defraud seemed a bit harsh. I hope the teachers union finds the courage to stop any future anonymous election meddling. If they have an opinion, they should put their name on it and not hide behind election disclosure laws.

T.B.

One fatal flaw in the Omnia proposal that makes you wonder about the credibility and competence of their so-called parking consultant is the ability of such a venue to efficiently exit automobiles for aprox 2,500 patrons.

Anyone familiar with the downtown train station in the evening rush hour knows what what type of problems exist. And this is with 15-20 trains dropping off relatively small groups every 15 to 20 minutes.

It would be an absolute nightmare trying to discharge all theater goers all at once. Anyone who thinks any of the local streets surrounding the proposed site can handle this kind of a surge in volume doesn't understand traffic or reality. The only way it could possibly work would be with dozens of police officers manually directing traffic after every event. And who is going to pay for that?

To Another Anonymous –

You showed the depths of your hypocrisy by calling me a “wimp who hides behind initials”. Big words coming from someone posting as “Another Anonymous”!

Thom Higgins and I may disagree on some issues, but at least he sees the value in hearing from other points of view and having a “clash of ideas”.

On the other hand, you and the Napergatians abhor contrary points of view. You obviously must not believe your myopic opinions can withstand debate because you choose to attack those who question you instead of engaging them in any meaningful debate.

T.B.

To all who support the Omnia Performing Arts Association, so far not one nickel has been collected for support of Omnia. I have not heard of any pledges.

Also are each and everyone of you willing to put your homes up as collateral in case the theater cannot make ends meet. Of course not you are waiting like foxes in the chicken coop, to devour the taxpayers.

Also I am interested who will have ownership of this total developement, sounds as if secrets of the project are the best known detail.

The total subsidy that will be provided by the City should result in a percentage of ownership to the City based upon the downpayment by the investors. Of course do not expect the bright lights at the City to insist on anything.

As outlined so far in order for this project to be sucessful, Naperville needs a minimum population of 500,000. Within a ten mile radius a population of 1,000,000. (My estimate)

Not one tax dollar belongs in this project. Those of you who need the performing arts could try going to Chicago. Not a bad place for the performing arts. thank you for reading my random thougths

T.B.,

I stand by my comment that you are a WIMP. You called on Bev to sue Thom Higgins who is brave enough to use his own real name. You are not brave enough to use your own name so Mr. Higgins can sue you for libeling him for stating he alleged corruption when he alleged no corruption. You are a WIMP to make a FALSE ALLEGATION against him.

I am not using my name but I am also not calling on individuals to sue other individuals for their opinions. You are..just like a WIMP!

The Napergatians do not abhor contrary point of view. They abhor dishonest people who attack innocent people like Mr. Higgins who may have a contrary point of view.

You attacked him. You called on Bev to sue him because of his OPINION! You are a WIMP!

The 300-500 Napergatians exposed your colors a long time ago. Just as it is hard for a zebra or a tiger to changes its stripes, it will be hard for you to change your stripes.

Why don't you try to grow up and be credible like a mature adult! Quit acting like a child on this blog site and asking people to sue people for their opinions while you hide behind your anonymous name.

I have not acted brave by being anonymous and asked no one to sue anyone for their opinion. It is you who lie about what people say and than ask people to sue them. You are the Mother of all WIMPS!

This has been a great discussion so far, unfortunately marred by Mr. Higgins' distatesful and unsupported allegatioons of "corruption." That's a powerful word, with horrible connotations, and, when considered along with some clearly erroneous statements on his part,it's the sort of nastiness that leads me to dismiss most of what he has said.

Having said that, I don't think Omnia handled the early discussions of this development well--when projects of this magnitude, with far-reaching implications for the City, are held with politicians behind closed doors, it smacks of the sort of unsavory wheeling and dealing that occurs too often in our neighbor to the east, Chicago. So, having noted that Omnia blew it in the early stages, I'd suggest that the best approach would be to now examine the proposal--and the alternatives--on their merits.

It seems to me that Mason has it right. Development of the land is inevitable and, in fact, if done right, will benefit all. My first concern is as a taxpayer; having seen some fairly disturbing debacles of late--the Carillon rescue and the deception underlying the District 203 tax referendum come immediately to mind--I am among those who has to be convinced that the assertions of fiscal benefits have some reasonable chance of coming to fruition. We've been fooled too many times in the not-too-distant past to accept Omnia's assertions at face value. I'm willing to listen, but I have to be convinced. As noted by Mason, the extent to which comparably-sized entertainment venues in the metro area have had to rely on government support makes me skeptical. I'm particularly concerned about the concept of giving away millions of dollars in property and tax concessions in an area that has clear commercial value. In my humble option, land give-aways and TIFs should be reserved for situations where the land in question is blighted and the free enteprise system cannot be reasonably expected to respond expeditiously. While we're in the midst of an economic downturn, I cannot imagine that Naperville will not attract willing investors, even absent the notion of free land and TIF districts.

I also would note that a very hard look has to be given to the question of traffic. Truly, it is already abominable in this area and, even as things presently stand, has a negative affect on the quality of life in the neighborhoods surrounding the area of the proposed development. It would be great to see the vast acreage of surface blacktop lots put to better use, but it should also be noted that this development offers a substantial net additive to the daily flow of traffic and would extend it well into the nighttime hours. At least as things presently stand, there's some relief for the surrounding neighborhood after 7 p.m. or so. With a regular influx of somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 cars in the evening hours, there would be no respite.

So, here's what I'd say: Cheers to Omnia for attempting to be forward-thinking, and offering a plan to make positive community use of property that will inevitably be developed. But, raspberries to Omnia for conducting their initial campaign behind closed doors . . . regardless of intent, it doesn't sit well.

Now that the cards are all more or less on the table, let's engage in a spirited and respectful discussion of what is best for the surrounding community and for the City as a whole.

Another Anonymous –

Not “the Mother of all WIMPS”. Please, anything but that. In caps, too. That must be serious.

On July 29 @ 2:29 PM you wrote “It is you who lie about what people say and than ask people to sue them.” Obviously, you are referring to the use of the word “corruption” and Thom Higgins.

Look, my reading comprehension-challenged friend. Re-read the posts and you will see that I did not lie about what Thom wrote as you have alleged. I never said Thom used the word “corruption”.

What I wrote to Thom on July 22 @ 10:45 PM was “keep an open mind, stop insinuating corruption where there is none, and attack this proposal on the known facts”. I was writing about Thom’s attacks on the Omnia board (specifically mentioning no one but Bev Frier) and the process they chose, rather than attacking the proposal based on the merits put forth such as height and density (which I, too, have reservations about).

Now, and you may want to look this up because obviously you don’t understand, but to insinuate means that you are hinting at something and getting to the point in an indirect way. I never said that Thom used the word “corruption”. I said he was insinuating corruption—you know…hinting, implying, suggesting, etc. Is that dumbed-down enough for you?

So now go to Thom’s reply (the post immediately after my own) on July 23 @ 7:21 AM. He wrote “I'm not insinuating, I'm making the charge outright”. So where I said Thom was insinuating (that’s suggesting to you) corruption, he went further and actually adopted the word. That comment (the “charge”) is what caused me to believe that Bev Frier had been libeled. I thought it was an outrageous statement and unsupported by the facts. It is contrary to both what I know about Ms Frier and what Thom has written about her, too.

You may not have noticed it, but Thom corrected his statement three days later when he wrote on July 26 @ 5:24 PM that “…it seems clear I erred in not being more clear by stating instead "I'm not implying, I'm claiming outright that what Omnia did was wrong"”. So he said he erred in adopting my word and explained his true intent. I believe Thom and told him so. I also thanked him for the clarification.

Thom and I have agreed to disagree on some issues and I believe we both think this proposal can be fought on the merits. He believes the process is important, too, while I think it detracts from the proposal arguments and is a red herring. Either way, Thom wrote to both you and I that “…it will be better for all of us if we limit ourselves to discussing the subject at hand as opposed to personal attacks” (July 27 @ 11:14 PM). Obviously, you must have missed that post, Another Anonymous.

So your allegation that I lied about what Thom Higgins wrote is completely false. So what are you going to do now? Are you going to be a “mature adult” (your words) and apologize? Or will you be the “trouble making instigator” you accused me of being and go on the attack yet again? The ball’s in your court.

T.B.

MWB

Here are my words regarding the Omnia presentations to council members.

And then there is the troubling issue as to how this proposal has been marketed. Omnia offered highly detailed and sophisticated, one on one presentations to city council members that included 15-20 members of the design, and management team last fall. Council member were shown financial information, detailed site plans and elevations for the whole project. This level of sophisticated presentation made to individual council members, (in order to skirt the open meeting act requirement),when done in lieu of making a formal submission to the city and starting the public review process, stinks to high heaven, and should be prohibited. This is why this proposal is shrouded in such mystery, and it's wrong, wrong, wrong.

TB introduced the word "Corruption" and I've gotten tangled up with it. Please see my comments here,

I never used the word "corruption", you did, and in replying to your characterization of my implying corruption, it seems clear I erred in not being more clear by stating instead, "I'm not implying, I'm claiming outright that what Omnia did was wrong", as now you are now stating that I am accusing them of corruption. It is your word sir, not mine. I stand behind my comments above regarding this issue, but I do regret that I didn't respond to your provocative adjective more intelligently.

The strongest adjective I have used is "wrong". I stand by that adjective, and feel strongly that what occurred in these presentations must not be allowed to happen again.

To help everyone better understand what is at stake here I leave you with a paragraph that was included in a letter I recently wrote to the city.

"It is reasonable and customary for staff and individual members of the City Council to discuss preliminary development concepts with developers, prior to formal submission to the city. Such presentations that I have witnessed through the NAHC were relatively brief, consisting of a few people, with a few sheets of paper, asking for feedback on their proposal. Had Omnia done this there would be no issue. However, based on my conversations with several City Council members, it appears to me that, rather than requesting guidance, the 2-hour extravaganza that Omnia put on was designed specifically to exert undue influence on Council members. Attempts such as this to overtly influence Council, damages the credibility of City Council members, and the institution itself. Additionally, it has the corrosive effect of marginalizing staff, and makes the public review process a farce".

TB

Thank you for your comments. In light of MWB's post it is important that it is clear to all exactly what I have said. I don't mind if people disagree with what I say, but I really don't want to be misquoted.

Thanks again.

MWB -

Thom is right regarding his use of the word "corruption". To attribute the word to him is factually not correct. I said he was insinuating corruption on behalf of Omnia and he initially agreed, but later said that he was in error and should have chosen his words more carefully.

While I may disagree with Thom regarding Omnia's intent when they met with council members, I believe Thom's corrected statement and do not think it was his intent to agree with me to the degree he did.

That being said, I do not believe that Omnia's "extravaganza...was designed specifically to exert undue influence on Council members". Maybe attempts "to overtly influence [the City] Council" aren't corruption, but it's certainly hinting at something "wrong" or worse.

T.B.

TB,
I stand by my letter.

As I said you are known to hundreds of Napergatians as the master of spin and twist.

Mr. Higgins clarifies for all of us.

He came on said what they did is WRONG. I agree with him.

He never said it was CORRUPTION.

It was you who turned it all into CORRUPTION.

WRONG has nothing to do with CORRUPTION.

Using your own words, TB, is "Is that dumbed-down enough for you?"

You need to apologize to Mr. Higgins and we need to move on.

As I said try being a MAN and not a WIMP for once!

Let us stop spinning and twisting and get back on topic.

As the Napergatians advised you before me, stop talking in circles all the time. Please!!!

Just when I think Tim West has outdone himself by writing the stupidest editorial possible he goes and writes another one.

Today he wrote: "In the case of the council, which has nine members, a quorum is five members and a majority of a quorum is three members. So three members shouldn't be meeting together on public business - but one or two can."

Tim, do us a favor and try to stay up with the conversation. Omnia didn't meet with one or two or three council members. It has been reported that they met with every single council member. Not collectively, but individually. Is it not reasonable to infer that Omnia dragged out the same dog and pony show in front of each and every one of the nine city council members?

Knowing how these presentations go I am sure every one of the city council members had one or more questions for Omnia. Not only has the public been cut-off from those questions and the answers, but so also have the other council members. In a public presentation hearing what is being presented tends to generate questions, sometimes lots of questions. Hearing other council member's questions and the responses usually generates thoughts and additional follow-up questions. All of that input and give and take that is supposed to happen within public view simply did not happen.

Omnia clearly exploited a loophole in the Open Meetings Act and council members played along. It could be they played along out of ego or just a lack of sensitivity to the very people they represent. Clearly Omnia technically could have cut the number of meetings in half by meeting with two council members at a time. If they had met with three or more council members at any one time then they would have technically been afoul of the law, unless it was a public meeting.

Omnia could have and should have made one single public presentation to the entire city council in an open meeting. For them to accomplish the same goal by breaking it up into nine separate meetings deliberately circumvented the Open Meeting Act and it's intent. By circumventing the law it is possible that they preserved their interest, but what they did was at the expense of the interest of the public. What Omnia did is not consistent with the intent of the public policy of the State of Illinois.

If Omnia had met with one, two, or even three council members of their choosing to get a general feel for how the council might feel about such a proposal most people probably would not have a problem with that. However, that is not what was done. What was done was a deliberate and calculated move for Omnia to test their proposal in front of each and every city council member without any public input or scrutiny and that is not right, not even close. It is wrong. That is back room, closed door politics and outright lobbying at it's very worst.

If Tim West thinks it is perfectly proper for Omnia and the city council members to be circumventing the Open Meeting Act then I have to question his ethics and morals when it comes to simply knowing right from wrong. In a litmus test of knowing right from wrong I'm now willing to hazard a guess that most twelve year olds would know better. This was a deliberate and blatant move to violate the spirit and intent of public policy and if Tim West thinks that is perfectly proper then hopefully the Naperville Sun and its parent organization will find something more appropriate for him to do in the future than write editorials in Naperville.

A.A.

TB and I are just fine. As you say, lets move on.

Another Anonymous –

Look, I don’t know what your problem is since Thom Higgins doesn’t seem to have an issue with our back and forth. I think he and I have come to some common ground and understanding, if not agreement.

It makes me wonder if your antagonism towards me is really about this issue at all, or if you’re just trying to continue a Napergatian attack just based on who I am. Do you get brownie points from that group for unprovoked attacks on me? Or do you just enjoy being a bully?

Once again, I agree with you that Thom never said Omnia did anything corrupt. I never have said that Thom used that word. I said I thought he was insinuating that they were doing something corrupt. You just don’t get it, do you? Why do you have such an issue with this when Thom doesn’t?

Now, Thom has written that the Omnia board did not take the “reasonable and customary” route that most developers take. He also has said that “based on my conversations with several City Council members, it appears to me that…the…extravaganza that Omnia put on was designed specifically to exert undue influence on Council members”. Thom also said in his first post on this subject that Omnia presented their plan in one-on-one meetings “in order to skirt the open meeting act requirement”.

So Omnia was acting outside the customary manner for a developer and was “skirting” laws? Sort of sounds corrupt (that’s “guilty of dishonest practices” for the Napergatian crowd) to me. I’ll agree with Thom that it’s definitely wrong. So I guess the question is if you do something wrong with intent (not by accident), then isn’t that dishonest and corrupt? If you skirt a law, is it just wrong or is it worse?

Thom and I have agreed to disagree, Another Anonymous. So what’s your problem?

T.B.

Anonymous –

While I think more public debate on this issue is needed, I don’t think Tim West’s column yesterday was too off the mark. Just because you meet with council one-on-one, that doesn’t mean that they were doing so for some nefarious reason.

Thom Higgins has said that he’s had “conversations with several City Council members” regarding the Omnia issue. Did he speak with them one-on-one or in groups? I don’t hear anyone crying that Thom was skirting any laws and I’m also not implying that. It all goes back to intent. I don’t think Thom had any intent to skirt a law, and I haven’t seen anything which would make me believe that Omnia did either.

T.B.

HIGGINS THE HYPOCRATE!!!!

Does wrong mean illegal? If politicians undertake illegal acts, aren't they characterized as "corrupt"? Isn't that what Higgins is alleging in his WRONG comment?

For the record, meeting with City council men TWO AT A TIME is not wrong. If Higgins thinks so, then change the Open Meetings Act in Springfield.

But then look at Higgins and his 203 cronies. Why not focus on the "straw polls" taken in executive sesssion by the 203 board that are illegal (or WRONG).

Then their is Higgins. He openly patronizes with Diane McGuire, a fellow Naperville Democrat and union teacher supporter. Diane McGuire's last election initiative, head of PURE (even Higgins says so). PURE was WRONG. Based on this COZY arrangement, is QE203 and Higgins also WRONG?

You can NEVER trust a HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dan D.

Help me here with your logic please. I have a fundamental problem with the elaborate private presentations Omnia made to council members. Please see detailed comments above. I doubt anyone would consider me on their side.

You claim I openly patronize with Diane McGuire (does she have a hot dog stand I'm unaware of?) So you are apparently claiming we are on the same side I guess.

However, I have publicly stated numerous times (including above in this very blog) that I think what PURE did in not disclosing the State Teachers Union funding was wrong also.

So in both case I have said that I think what was done was wrong.

Wherein lies the hypocrisy?

So Omnia was acting outside the customary manner for a developer and was “skirting” laws? Sort of sounds corrupt (that’s “guilty of dishonest practices” for the Napergatian crowd) to me. I’ll agree with Thom that it’s definitely wrong. So I guess the question is if you do something wrong with intent (not by accident), then isn’t that dishonest and corrupt? If you skirt a law, is it just wrong or is it just worse!

T.B.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

TB,
Corrupt is a word that should not be implied or used unless one is convicted in a court of law. It is a very serious accusation with strong implications. If you accuse somebody of corruption before he is convicted he could sue you. If someone is corrupt and a prosecutor can not successfully prosecute him, he is not corrupt. A prosecutor who is prosecuting in a court room can say many things and be immune from a retaliatory lawsuit. A person like yourself making or implying statements of corruption in public before a conviction is obtained is libeling if in print and slandering if it is by the spoken word of mouth.

The issue between you and Mr. Higgins is neither a Napergate issue or a private issue. Mr. Higgins and yourself are debating publicly on a public forum. Others have a right to jump in!

If you do not want anyone to interfere between yourself and Mr. Higgins exchange e-mails with him and have your discussion privately and not in a public forum.

If I or anyone wants to comment, we have a right to comment. Just like you have a right to comment. It seems like you are trying to muzzle others out of debating while accusing the Napergatians of not accepting differences of opinions or allowing debate.

I have spoken to many libel attorneys in my life. I know without a DOUBT if you call someone CORRUPT, he better be convicted or about to be convicted with 100% CERTAINTY. Otherwise, you would be very wise not to use that word unless you want a LAWSUIT on your front porch left by the Sheriff!

For your sake since you seem like a uneducated MBA who may have bought his degree online, the safe word to use is IMPROPRIETIES. You will NOT be sued successfully if you use that word. You could also be safer if you state it APPEARS or SEEMS IMPROPRIETIES MAY have POSSIBLY been committed.

Your own statement "Is that dumbed-down enough for you?" really applies to you. I hope I have enlightened you a bit by "dumb-downing my explanation enough for you."

I think in hind sight the problem the Napergatians had with you is that they could not "dumb-down" enough for you even though you claim to be an MBA!

Don't think you are smarter than others! You really are not! You would like to think you are. If you were, you could talk direct and not in CIRCLES.

Again, this is a public forum and if I want to participate and criticize you, I have every right to do it. Deal with it! Grow up!
It is time to be a MAN and not a BOY, TB! Time has a way of escaping all of us and it is time you MATURE!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. By the way many taxpayers "skirt" IRS laws but do not break them. That is not illegal! If the IRS leaves a loophole and someone takes advantage of it legally he is "skirting" a law but not BREAKING THE LAW. He is acting in a lawful manner. It is the duty of the IRS to plug the loopholes when discovered and they usually do in due time.

T.B.,

You just don't "get it". Don't feel bad though, Tim West doesn't get it either. I'll spell it out for both of you a little more clearly.

Example A - Omnia develops a presentation and delivers it to all nine members of the city council, open meeting rules apply.

Example B - Omnia develops a presentation and delivers it one at a time to all nine member of the city council, open meeting rules do not apply.

With either Example A or Example B the same net end result of Omnia presenting their proposal to the entire city council has been accomplished. The only meaningful difference between these two examples is that in Example B the public has been cut out from the process which IS a circumvention of the INTENT of the law.

Possibly it is technically legal to conduct meetings in such a manner, though that makes it neither right nor proper. Possibly those who drafted the Open Meetings Act never thought it would be circumvented or abused in such a manner. We would have to look to those who drafted the legislation to state their intent. Hopefully one of our elected representatives will take it upon themselves to introduce some legislation to close this loophole and keep public business where it was intended to be... out in the open and not hidden behind closed doors in private meetings.

Anon –

I guess the key word here is intent. Was this “loophole” placed in the open meetings act quite by accident? Or did the writers of the law realize that some small group meetings were necessary for politicians to do their jobs?

So, back to intent…. Did Omnia take advantage of these legally allowed meetings to pull one over on the citizens of the city? Did they do this because it was easier or because they had ill intent? So far, I haven’t seen anything to indicate that their intent was dishonest.

T.B.

Another Anonymous –

For the last time….

I never said Thom Higgins used the word corruption. I said I thought Thom was insinuating corruption. He initially agreed but then said it was a mistake. I accept what he said. Done. Thom has insinuated and said that he has openly charged wrong-doing. Fine. Do I think his descriptions go past being just “wrong”? Yes. That’s all there is.

I never said you had no right to jump into the discussion. I said it was rather odd that you were far more upset about what I wrote than Thom was. Open discussion and an open mind can lead to understanding, such as between Thom and I. Closed-mindedness and anger issues lead to posts such as yours. So be it.

More Napergatian crap. Spare me. I don’t care.

Yes, capitalized letters and the liberal use of exclamation points really shows that I’m the immature one in this “conversation”.

Hmmm…the IRS example is amusing…and, I believe, wrong. To skirt a law is to go around it. Do you think you’re following the law if you skirt it? Or are you going just around the law? Maybe breaking it by just a hair? Like speeding, but only by a little bit.

To take advantage of an IRS loophole is not skirting the law; it’s actually following the letter of the law and doing what the law allows. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. Tax evasion is not. You can legally avoid taxes by, for instance, contributing to an IRA (if you qualify) and not paying taxes on the money you contributed (with limitations). You cannot, however, skirt the law and just not report your cash tips as income each year. That would be a felony.

Ever notice that most IRS loopholes never get plugged? Because they weren’t put there by accident. Some group or Senator lobbied for the inclusion of the loophole, or exception, so it usually stays.

Adios, my angry friend. A busy day at work tomorrow and then a week on a beach. By the time I get back this thread will be off the main page, you may have “seen the light” and found reason, and I will long ago have ceased giving a rat’s ass about what you think (as if I ever cared at all).

T.B.

Two points on Thom "Gladys" Higgins Hypocracy

1. Illinois law allows any citizen to discuss business with ANY elected official as long as a majority of a quorem is not present. In both the City and 203 cases, you can discuss government business as long as no more than two elected officials are not present. When the third steps into the room, it has to become silence.

It appears that Omnia totally followed the law. It appears that Thom has done this as well since he has talked to the councilmen as well. Thom and his homeowners association could hire professional help to put up a credible alternative, but have chosen not to do so. Instead, just calling it wrong.

Same with school board issues. I met with Board members on my concern of the deception of the taxpayers and not just Jim and Mike.

In fact, Omnia does not have to meet with the homeowners. Instead, they could force the homeowners to attend all of the public meetings and hire lawyers, land planners, and others to provide alternative "facts". I think that the City Council and Omnia are doing more than they are required.

2. Thom, there have been pictures of you and Diane McGuire together at events on the various Naperville Democratic web sites. If you mean what you say about PURE, then you should publicly denounce her as not fit for any office since she was the leader of the effort. We wait for your words. Then I will pull back the "hypocrate" label.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION

The Open Meetings Act is at question here. The intent of the law is to prevent governments from TAKING ACTION in private, not discussing government business. That is why the exemption for less than a quorem was included in the law.

Thom "Gladys" Higgins said Omnia's actions are WRONG (inferring corrupt legislators). However, they were not only legal, but consistent with the intent of the law.

The real controlling factor should be the required public hearings for the project based on the Lisle Claren decision. Thom will be able to hire professionals to refute those of the developer. He will even be able to cross examine their witnesses. Of course, he needs to spend the money to raise credible issues or he loses his right to question.

T.B,

For argument sake let's not try to muddle two very different concepts and those are: deliberately violating the intent of the law and deliberately violating the intent of the law to do something illegal.

Just because you are not currently aware of anything illegal having been done doesn't factually resolve the question of whether or not anything was or was not done illegally. The question simply remains unanswered.

That leaves us with the single fact to deal with and that is Omnia deliberately circumvented the intent of the law. An apt expression for what was done by Omnia is know as "divide and conquer".

The Illinois Attorney General has the following to say on the matter of open meetings:

�It is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people�s business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business.� (5 ILCS 120/1)

The intent of the Illinois Open Meetings Act is to ensure that public business is conducted in public view by prohibiting secret deliberations and actions on matters that should be discussed in a public forum.

The Act reflects the balance between the rights of the public against the needs of government officials to be able to discuss sensitive matters candidly by excepting particular narrowly-construed circumstances under which a meeting may be held in closed session. The Office of the Attorney General understands that access to meetings helps to ensure the accountability of government to its citizens."

All,

Some hopefully final thoughts before this falls off the main page.

The Open Meetings Act is designed to prevent members of a government body from discussing matters of public interest in private. The determining number is the number of members attending that constitute a quorum. In councils case that number is three.

As said previously Omnia could not do what they did for more then two people unless it was a public meeting. They did it individually except for one case there were two. Thus the OMA was not violated. There was no illegal act here.

The adjective “corruption” has been tossed around here. My sense of the word is it means, put crudely, money is being exchanged. I have to believe that didn’t happen here. We should all sleep assured that this council is not for sale.

In describing what happened I said this, ”Omnia offered highly detailed and sophisticated, one on one presentations to city council members that included 15-20 members of the design, and management team last fall. Council member were shown financial information, detailed site plans and elevations for the whole project. This level of sophisticated presentation made to individual council members, (in order to skirt the open meeting act requirement…….”

I was very precise in my adjective. Under the OMA no one can make a presentation to the combined council, and do it in private. Omnia chose to do the next closest thing. Big presentation, everyone sees it, but still kept it private. Legal certainly, but skirting the law from my point of view.

Had they contacted the NAHC in advance and explained they wanted to make a public presentation to council and to the public in advance of formally submitting to the city, I have to believe that answer would have been yes given enough advance notice, and council chambers could have been used. Something like this is what should have happened.

It should be noted that any development proposal requiring council approval always has one or more presentations, in public meetings, in council chambers. That notwithstanding, I will say that by all accounts what Omnia presented was far in excess of what is presented typically in a public meeting(and I've seen a bunch). A comment made to me by one who saw it was that the PowerPoint presentation had incredible production values. He described it as Disneyesque in quality. Omnia’s getting ready for Epcot I guess. I sincerely hope that if, and when, the residents see the presentation and again, if, and when, Omnia presents at council we all get to see this show. I’m told the animation used to “tour” the district is superb.

Lastly there was a comment made that what I did in discussing Omnia with councilman was “equivalent” to what Omnia did. Allow me to disagree.

I have had personal contact, phone conversations and e-mail exchanges with various council members. In these exchanges various aspects were discussed. This is, in my view, comparable to what happens typically when a developer wants to communicate with council. (I’ll add as an aside here that some council members are feeling barraged by the number of people that by-pass staff and go direct to them on these issues, others welcome it). Further I didn't initiate most of the contact. I've never had so many council members contacting me, ever.

Had I done the following yes, it would be equivalent to Omnia’s actions.

1. I invite every council member and the Mayor to a presentation with a specific agenda.
2. I rent a facility and arrange for asst treats/lunch to be available.
3. I drop say $25,000.00 on a PowerPoint presentation to “wow” them.
4. I have 15-20 experts there to help me pitch the deal.
5. Public not invited.

Needless to say that didn’t happen. And lets all remember I am here in the blog talking freely, so for a number of reasons, the analogy fails.

My point to all of this is this: Anyone who wants to propose a major development needs to do it by the light of day. Had Omnia made the same presentation in council chambers at a public meeting, fine. Had they done exactly what they did, but concurrently show it to the public, still fine.

But no one should lobby all of council, in private, out of the public's view. And we need to figure out a way this doesn’t happen again.

Fini (I hope)

Dan D,

Sorry you are just plain wrong. Failure of a public body to have taken any action while meeting in private is not the correct test of whether or not the Open Meeting Act was violated. The law applies a very narrow list of criteria for subjects that are allowed to be discussed during a closed meeting and the content of the Omnia proposal does not meet any of the criteria allowing for such a closed meeting. Once in closed session a public body is free to discuss and adjourn, discuss and table, discuss and take action, or a few other possibilities. There is no requirement or assumption under the law that any action must be taken by a public body during a closed session.

For context and as a reminder... �The intent of the Illinois Open Meetings Act is to ensure that public business is conducted in public view by prohibiting secret deliberations and actions on matters that should be discussed in a public forum."

The Omnia proposal was and is a matter that should have been discussed in a public forum.

To a certain extent I guess the biggest burden of blame shouldn't be placed on Omnia. They are obviously rookies at this game. The city council and city staff, certainly the city legal department are the professionals and experts. They should have been savvy enough to spot and end run that was going to put them in the hot seat. After all it is they who get charged with violations. Hopefully all of the city council members are fully embarrassed by now of having been caught with their pants around their ankles and won't let another group try to pull this same stunt again. What is the old saying... fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The important lesson for the city council to learn and learn well before next election... heck the city attorney probably ought to pay close attention as well... is that what is legal doesn't really matter. What matters most is the voters perception of right vs wrong. Even if what the city council members did was "technically" legal, but the voters believe what they did was wrong... well guess how they are going to vote? Sometimes you can be right and still be dead wrong and understanding the difference and having sensitivity to the voters is the difference between who gets elected and who does not.

To Dan Denys,

Look, I understand you're unhappy you lost the 2007 School Board election, and you're unhappy that the D203 facilities referendum passed.

While I'm sure you blame me partially for both, I can offer no apologies. It’s the way electoral process works. I have the right to advocate for what I believe in, as do you. Your constant attempts at revisionist history, and your desire to re-argue the election are both un-seemly.

As are your constant fabrications and attempts to create scenarios out of “whole cloth” . Your claim that I’m some kind of close confidant of McGuire, and that Democratic websites have pictures of me and McGuire together is childish

For the record. I first met Diane McGuire, who, by all accounts, is a lovely person, at the West Suburban Irish Emerald Dinner this spring. While I talked to her a bit, I spent a lot more time talking to Darlene Senger, a current Naperville city councilperson who I have had a long association with, and consider a personal friend. She is, of course, running against Diane. Anyone who watched the last council election closely will remember an ad in the Naperville Sun that I, and a few others, ran supporting Darlene for her city council re-election campaign. I donated to her campaign, walked in the parade with her, and held a fundraiser in my home on her behalf. I think we were the only independent ad run in support of a candidate in 2007 btw. To help people remember, the ad supported Patricia Meyer, Darlene Senger, and Dick Furstenau, in that order.

I do believe I ran into Diane a second time but I don't remember where. But I do remember talking to her again. At another public event most likely. That’s it.

I don't live in the 96th district, so I can't vote for either one. Further, I am completely conflicted regarding Darlene's campaign for one simple reason. Darlene has been a mentor and guide to me as I struggled to learn the intricacies of Naperville city government. Simply put, I'd hate to loose her on council, but I respect her desire to be elected to the Illinois House.

From what I know about Diane McGuire, she is an extremely bright person, and a talented, energetic, and qualified candidate. My comment to all voters in the 96th. is, look at both candidates, and decide who you feel will best represent your district.

Me? I'd have no problems voting for either one, and either one will represent the 96th with distinction. Let us celebrate that. I’m glad I don’t have to decide which one to vote for.

Lastly Dan, and, as per usual, you are sloppy/incorrect in your analysis of the issues. This is your statement;
The Open Meetings Act is at question here. The intent of the law is to prevent governments from TAKING ACTION in private, not discussing government business. That is why the exemption for less than a quorem was included in the law.

In actuality it is both action and deliberations that are prohibited behind closed doors. Please see this quote from Lisa Madigan’s Guide to the Open Meetings Act, revised 8-2004

The public policy provision states that "[i]t is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business. In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly." 5ILCS 120/

Anonymous.

A few thoughts.

While it's probably a fair characterization to call the Omnia board "rookies" realize they are being guided in this matter, (disastrously in my view) by Naperville's preeminent land use attorney. This is big time firepower.

As far as council, well, hindsight is, 20/20. When they were invited I'm sure they were not told about the extravaganza awaiting them, including all the "suits" in the room. So please cut them a little slack.

It was apparent that council and staff were discomforted after the presentations last fall. Omnia's strange actions since then haven't helped. So is there a discussion to be had at city hall about not making this kind of mistake again?

Yes.

To Thom "Gladys" Higgins and AA

Councilmen can listen to any presentation from any party and discuss them matters as long as only two are present. VERY SPECIFIC IN THE LAW. Two councilmen cannot vote to act, the INTENT of the law. Omnia could ask all of the councilmen in "twos" for their vote and that is not illegal. However, they cannot get a quorem together to take these actions.

Gladys confirmed what I said. He is simply TOO CHEAP to present his side of the case. He could hire traffic consultants and planners to counter the plan, he has adequate details to do so. HE AND HIS NEIGHBORS HAVE NOT DONE THIS. There is nothing preventing them from preparing an alternative presentation. Maybe the reason they have not is that they do not have any justification for their opposition. The train station and the downtown corridor should have dense traffic and parking. That is why I would never buy a house in that area.

In my neighborhood, we had an objectional project with actions that WERE ILLEGAL. We had to hire a lawyer and go to court to preserve our rights. We won in court.

Before Omnia can be approved, it will have to go to the public hearings where Gladys can hire professionals to counter the proposal. If he does not, they will prevail. If they present their case and the council approves, then Gladys's only recourse is to vote them out of office.

The standards for approval of development are VERY HIGH based on the Claren case (Meijer). In fact, the Meijer opponents also went to court and blocked an improperly approved project. These people did not whine like Gladys and AA, they exercised their rights including going to court when the Village of Lisle tried to railroad the project through (that does not appear to be happening in Naperville).

Follow legal procedures, don't be a HYPOCRITE!

****

Notice how Higgins ignored the Diane McGuire issue? He had a chance to shed the HYPOCRITE label in this case as well.

May my words to Gladys and AA were to mean.

HUH? If they really believe in what they said, then maybe they are truly NAIVE. Every time a new development goes through, lawyers from a specific law firm (and a couple of new ones) meet with many of the City Councilmen to brief them on the project and get their input. They do their homework. But if citizens object like Mainline Farm by Cress Creek, this lobbying does not work.

By the way, the same way the union has seven board members in their pockets. Don't they report to David Griffith?

HYPOCRITE OR NAIVE--you make the call.

I hope they build it and roll over Gladys in the process. Naperville needs something like this project and I for one am tired of the Gladys' of the world whining about stuff like this constantly. If you don't like it Gladys move.

Oh and for the guy that said Gladys was a nosey neighbor but she was always right, well remember this NO ONE liked Gladys. They all thought she was nuts.

Dan D wrote:

"Gladys confirmed what I said. He is simply TOO CHEAP to present his side of the case. He could hire traffic consultants and planners to counter the plan, he has adequate details to do so. HE AND HIS NEIGHBORS HAVE NOT DONE THIS. There is nothing preventing them from preparing an alternative presentation. Maybe the reason they have not is that they do not have any justification for their opposition."

Maybe. Or maybe the reason they haven't done this is that Omnia still has not deigned to let the homeowners in the area know what the proposal is all about. It's kind of hard to counter a proposal that you've never seen.

Two quick points in less than 10,000 words.

1. All of the cites on the open meetings act say "conduct business." That means take action. When an elected official is "lobbied" by himself, they are not taking action. The law ALLOWS such actions. IF YOU THINK THE ACTIONS ARE ILLEGAL, FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR STATES ATTORNEY. Again, Gladys and AA know that they will not take the case, so they WHINE.

2. Per Thom, PURE was WRONG, Diane McGuire headed PURE. But he will not renounce her. We did not ask if he could vote for her, we asked for him to RENOUNCE her. In fact, he said the head of PURE is a competant candidate. A page in from the Obama book.

Is Gladys a HYPOCRITE or simply NAIVE???????????????????

Dan D,

Go back and read the posts. Better yet, go back and read the posts three or four times if you are having trouble comprehending what your read the first time.

Everyone has acknowledged that these meetings were not illegal. That has never been alleged nor has it been a point in this discussion. The point is not that the meetings were illegal, rather that they were deliberately designed to circumvented the clearly stated intent of the law.

This is not a question for the Attorney General. But again we have to suffer through your "ready, fire, aim" approach to making unfounded accusations. This is an issue for the state legislature to take up to close an obvious loophole that allows public business to be discussed in private. Discussing public business in private violates the intent of the Open Meeting Act and public policy.

And pointing this out isn't whining; it is responsible citizenship. You should know and understand the difference. Laws are not perfect. Laws are changed all the time because honest mistakes were made in writing and for lots of other reasons. And of course there are those bottom feeding scum bags, regardless of their reputation for supposedly being big time firepower, who's own personal ethics suck and who don't know the simple difference between right and wrong and even when they do know the difference they choose to play games and exploit the system. Professionals who deliberately advise clients in a way that abuses public trust and violates public policy should not enjoy any reputation and the powers-to-be in city hall shouldn't put up with egregious actions like this from them. Not now, not ever. To make up for these shenanigans the city council should be united in expecting these clowns to dot all the "i's" and cross all the "t's" and not get any slack on any future "deals" with the city council for quite a long time to come. Pay back is hell, but then these clowns designed the plan that put the city council on the hot seat in the first place. Who would blame city council members for each wanting at least a pound of blood out of every single one of the jerks who work at that firm?

I don't know and could care less what your beef is about PURE. All I know is that it is not relevant to this discussion. You can go on and on about whatever axe you have to grind about PURE. That part of your rant I just skim over and ignore as I suspect most everyone else is doing.

To AA

Higgins said the process was WRONG and you supported him. Now you admit it is legal. That was simply my point. Not ILLEGAL or WRONG.

Now, you either change the law in Springfield or you play the game by the current rules. Don't whine. As to changing the laws, MANY people want to preserve this exception for many reasons. The most basic is that an elected official would have to become a hermit, he could talk to nobody. Do you think that all of the 2016 Olympic decisions are made on the City Council floor? How about all of these townhouses that have been put into single family neighborhoods? Have they been first debated and reviewed on the City Council floor. NO!!!! This exception was done on purpose and is used FREQUENTLY.

The key is you ALSO have the same access. Thom has admitted that he has talked to council members. He could present them with power points, but instead he WHINES!!!!! As I said before, if you act professionally, you can get the appropriate information in the public. There are many steps to be followed.

I personnally do not think that this proposal will go anywhere. It needs public money and Naperville will not spend its money. They did not bother to bid to get the Fire. They let Aurora get Fox Valley. We'll see.

All,

The question to me is this. While everyone agrees that what Omnia did was legal vis a vis the Open Meetings Act, the question is does it represent the kind of practice that promotes good government? Were their actions something that we are willing to accept as reasonable and customary?

I think I’m on pretty safe ground stating the overwhelming majority who understand what went on feel that Omnia’s presentation extravaganza was intended to overtly influence council members in advance of the project being submitted to public review, and that any meeting that is so far “Beyond the Pale” should not be allowed to happen in the future.

Everyone should realize the essential issue is not that a meeting took place, but that the presentation made was so completely in excess of what is reasonable and proper.

In the next few weeks I, along with others, plan on raising the issue with Naperville City Council, which is where the issue needs to be resolved (it would be incredibly difficult to make a state wide case). We are in contact with council members who share our views. The only question is whether there are 5 votes ( a majority) to put and end to this practice.

Stay tuned.

Dan D,

What simply hasn't sunk in with you so far is that there is a distinct difference between right and wrong and legal and illegal. Right does not automatically equate to legal and wrong does not necessarily equate to illegal. Case in point, salesmen and business people lie to customers all the time and can get away with it because it isn't always illegal.

Something can be legal and still be wrong. Our laws fail miserably when it comes to not only justice, but also fairness, ethics, and morality.

As to what the city council does with this there really is a pretty simple solution. When groups like this want to meet with a city council member it is only because they intend to have some type of business in front of either city staff or the council itself at some point in time. Meeting with city council members is in fact doing business with the city otherwise these groups would not be seeking these meetings. All that is needed is an open and transparent process where everyone who is seeking a meeting with a city council member must go thru the secretaries to gain access to the council members calendar. The secretaries would know who is meeting with which council members on what topics on which date, time, and location. Once a certain group crosses a council established threshold by scheduling meeting on the same topic with, say 3, council members the scheduling process stops and the group is told they can do one of two things... continue with the scheduled meetings with the 2 council members or cancel those two meetings and request to added to the agenda at the next available meeting of the full council, but that meeting with any more than 2 council members on the same topic simply will not be permitted. The number of 2 council members is in my opinion fair, but in the end the council itself would need to establish the threshold which can not be exceeded. This type of voluntary restraint and cooperation will help ensure the full council is informed of all business pending or about to be pending before the city without any cliques developing that simply steamroll over other council members or blindside them with proposals and discussions to which they have not been privy.