Experienced,

The truth is, they were not going anywhere else (Lexus) except in the same neighborhood after having already had a growing dealership in the vicinity.

Council is obviously too chicken to call a developer's bluff when they make claims like they'll relocate elsewhere. Go ahead and relocate and either hold onto the current property (and still pay taxes on it) or sell it to someone else who will put something else reasonable on it.

Approximately $125K in tax credits for some saplings would not have made/broken the deal and anyone who thinks it would have obviously doesn't have a clue about what real leverage is or how to use it. People tend to forget the 3 most important things in real estate.

The residents of the homes now sandwiched between Joe Rizza and the Lexus dealership would not have shed a tear if they did not build there and neither would anyone else. How much wonderful sales tax revenue have they been generating lately compared to what they claimed they would be generating for the city? Yup, thought so.

If a developer wants to build a 22,000 square foot shopping center outside the downtown area, he needs to buy a half of an acre for the building and 2 acres for roughly 150 parking spots. More parking spots are required for restaurant retail space as opposed to non-restaurant space.

These 2 acres will cost 2,000,000 dollars to purchase. To blacktop these acres after laying an 8 inch rock and gravel foundation will cost at least another 300,000 dollars. So this developer would need $2.3 million for his parking needs.

Here we have a Promendade Expansion in downtown Naperville that may be 100,000 sq. ft. only required by the city council to come up with 400,000 dollars for parking requirements, which pays for an insignificant 10 parking spots, based on a cost of 40k per spot at the library deck, NOT including land.

This is really subsidization to an intolerable degree at residential taxpayer expense. Almost 20 million dollars of subsidy costing each taxpayer 400 dollars on his or her real estate tax bill. This makes the subsidy of the Lexus Dealership look like piggy bank chump change.

By Anonymous on January 30, 2009 8:47 AM

You are one work of art. When I pointed out the amendment to the boundary agreement with Plainfield, you asked the question "By the way how many years of taxes, and consider how much the city gets from their share of real estate taxes, do you think it is going to take for Naperville to even break even on this?" When I responded that the developers paid the cost of the infrastructure as required by the Naperville Subdivision Ordinance, you said "If the benefits you extoll were truly as great as you make them appear then all cities would be fighting to annex as much as they can." In affect, you were denying that the Naperville Subdivision Ordinance required the developers to pay the infrastructure costs. I challenged you to prove that they didn't have to pay the costs. I guess you can't. Therefore, by Plainfield amending the boundary agreement, Naperville gained the tax dollars from the properties between 111th and 114th Streets with little if any outlay for infrastructure. Plainfield didn't have to amend the agreement. It could have said that the land was in their portion and Naperville and the developers could go and jump if they didn't like it or the developers could build in Will County.

The point started out and continues that the benefits of intergovernmental cooperation is not always how much "money" one government pays the other. The benefit to Naperville is how much the City has gained in tax dollars and other services.

By Original Joe on January 30, 2009 6:41 PM

And, first, why couldn't the dealership change it's name? The name of the corporation is DAN WOLF MOTORS OF NAPERVILLE, INC. The assumed name of Lexus of Naperville could be changed at any time.

Second, have your ever heard of Naperville Jeep/Dodge? It's located in Lisle. Corporate name is BURKE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.

Original Joe,

Did you know that the Promenade Expansion is being subsidized to the tune of at least $15,600,000, not including the cost of the land, for its parking needs? If you want details, please review my other posts on other threads.

Subsidies by city officials and council members to wealthy landlords and businesses are flying all over the place at the expense of the residential taxpayer.

Here is a link to a detailed essay I wrote which I hope will be posted shortly:

http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2009/01/state_of_the_city.html

Would love to hear your thoughts, Original Joe?

Experienced,

The dealership was/is called "Lexus of Naperville".

It would have looked pretty dumb planting that dealership in Aurora or Lisle and those cities don't have and had no plans for a test track.

The dealership was going nowhere but Naperville, yet they gave away $100,000 in future funds to it.

Experienced,

"But, did Naperville pay for the infrastructure or did Naperville require the developers to pay for the infrastructure? The Naperville model is for the developers to pay for the costs attributed to their expansion. Prove me wrong!"

Duh? Prove you wrong? I introduced this aspect of differences between local communities to the conversation.

Any your point on how this relates to Naperville getting a good or better deal as a result of cooperating with other governmental units is what exactly?

By Original Joe on January 28, 2009 5:08 PM

The City of Naperville gave the Lexus dealer tax credits for building a larger facility in the City and not going elsewhere. I think there is a difference between giving tax credits to a sales tax generating retailer and making residential real estate developers pick up the cost of the infrastructure within their developments that do not generate sales tax.

"The Naperville model is for the developers to pay for the costs attributed to their expansion."

I recall Council giving Naperville Lexus over $100,000 in tax credits for planting some little sapplings along Aurora and Fort Hill. Yes, the developer/property owner paid for the trees but they more than got it back on the tax side :)

Obviously that was not a Lisle/Naperville issue, but lots of things like this happened all the time where developers and property owners got plenty of 'perks' from the city to help them out with development.

By Anonymous on January 28, 2009 11:39 AM

But, did Naperville pay for the infrastructure or did Naperville require the developers to pay for the infrastructure? The Naperville model is for the developers to pay for the costs attributed to their expansion. Prove me wrong!

" don't care if Lisle didn't have the mindset and/or wherewithall to do what Naperville did to pass the burden on. Go to city hall and research the issue and get back to us all."

Now you are talking in circles. Naperville set certain examples that some communities choose to follow. Some of our practices were copied from other communities as well. We hardly wrote THE book and there continue to be hundreds of communities throughout Illinois who follow different practices. As for Lisle, because of their model they couldn't afford to pay for the infrastructure improvements on land that was previously agreed to eventually be annexed to Lisle. So Naperville paid for the cost of these improvements instead and you think this is a GOOD example of intergovernmental cooperation? Who am I to argue with this logic? I suppose you also think the decision by our past city fathers to not annex Fox Valley Mall was another great decision and another example of wonderful intergovernmental cooperation?

It's obvious you don't understand how storm water IS managed or who IS responsible for managing it. If you did you wouldn't have written your last paragraph. Rather than to continue to flog an already dead horse maybe you can come up with a better or more relevant example?

By Anonymous on January 27, 2009 8:04 PM

First, I have distinct memories of Ned Becker negotiating with the County/FPD for the routing and construction of Diehl Road thru McDowell Grove. If I am wrong after looking into it further, I'll admit it. It still doesn't change the County picking up part of the cost west of Rte 59.

Second, on the issue of developer costs for subdivision infrastructure, are you disagreeing with me because you know that developers don't pay for infrastructure or because you think what I said is too good to be true. Have you read the Naperville Subdivision Ordinance? Do you realize that when the boom was taking place Naperville led the way in imaginative private development requirements? Naperville wrote the book in Illinois. Naperville's ordinance was a model for other cities because the city leaders decided to use its authority to pass the burden of public cost on to the people causing the increased costs. It is exactly as I said. I don't care if Lisle didn't have the mindset and/or wherewithall to do what Naperville did to pass the burden on. Go to city hall and research the issue and get back to us all.

On the storm water and waste station, you have proved my point. The way you do this stuff is through intergovernmental cooperation. The county doesn't have to fund waste stations or stormwater systems. It does so to assist communities by picking up part of the bill for something that it doesn't need.

Federal court spanked Barrington who tried to block the sale. I suspect they will spank anyone one else. Kiss your $7,500 goodbye.

Hey Experienced,

Your argument about Diehl Road is all hogwash. Diehl Road expansion never was a city project from the get go. I figured you would figure it out on your own but you were so busy trying to shout others down you missed the fact that Diehl Road from Mill St. to Raymond is a county highway.

As for Plainfield and the cost of new subdivision you, true to form, missed the point altogether that the cost of development isn't the same in every city. If the benefits you extoll were truly as great as you make them appear then all cities would be fighting to annex as much as they can. Do your self a favor and go read up on all of the "deals" that Lisle passed by and let Naperville annex because they could not afford the cost of extending utilities.

DuPage County is responsible for stormwater management county-wide and holds the ordinance that all municipalities in the county must comply with... which is why they had to chip in on Huffman Street.

The hazardous waste disposal site at the fire station is a regional facility so the county should fund it.. and when the county had their own budget crisis it was on the chopping block and the city was making plans to close it without funding.... duh, I guess you weren't paying attention on that one either!

Keep digging... give us something that is even close to a reason... so far your rationale has been a big disappointment.

By Anonymous on January 27, 2009 1:41 PM

McDowell Woods has been a Forest Preserve for longer than the establishment of Cantera--since 1946. When the City went to extend Diehl through the Forest Preserve, they needed the FPD/County to go along with the idea and it was in doubt almost up to the time of bidding. The city public works director had to pull teeth to get it through. Right of Way cost is right of way cost. Easements cost money as does any other acquisition. Talk to a right of way appraiser and they will tell you that easements cost 1/3 to 1/2 of the fair market value of the fee simple estate. If the city extended the road without paying for right of way acquisition (easement or fee) it saved a ton of money figuring what it would cost to have acquired an alternate route through private property or even to pay the FPD for the right of way.

Now, what do you think it costs the City to accept a new subdivision? The developer has to pay for and install streets, sidewalks, water, sewers, electric lines, substations, drainage plus they have to pay impact fees for highway usage flowing from the development. If the mains for water, sewer and electric have to be brought to the property, the developer has to upfront the costs and then get the money back as others tap into the new lines (e.g., High Point). Plus they pay for city employee services during approval and construction through application and permit fees. Other than supplying services to the new residents that is funded by general taxes (police, fire, library, snow removal), what is the cost to the city? Remember that allotments from the state are made on the basis of population. The city not only gets the increased property taxes but it gets money from the state for the additional population. That is why the City does special census counts. The City got property taxes, sales taxes, state road funds, etc. from the change of the boundary agreement without expending any substantial money. All of this was accomplished by Plainfield agreeing to amend the boundary agreement--which it did not have to do.

All of your complaints are based upon your assumption that the City will not adequately benefit from the CN appeal. But, remember that the city is financially committed to the Star line. It has already acquired the land for the Metra Station at 91st St. and Normantown Road. If CN acquires the line, what will be the impact on the Star Line and the city's commitment thereto.

Finally, the County paid a portion of the Diehl Road construction from Eola to Rte 59 even though it is not a County Road. The County paid $3.2 million of the Huffman Street Storm Renovation project. The County paid the City $100,000 toward the operation of the hazardous waster disposal site at Fire Station 4. Aurora pays also but I can't find out how much. If I can think of more, I get back to you.

Keyboard Rambo

How right you are! There is no point discussing with Anonymous. There are no examples that will meet their approval because they insist on such a narrow definition of what constitutes reciprocity that the standard will never be met unless you can find an exactly like for like example.

Something tells me that Anonymous has oozed over onto this thread because there havent been any really good threads for the Napergate crowd to start foaming at the mouth about.

Hey Anonymous....is Dick Furstenau still a self-righteous bully?

@Experienced on January 27, 2009 12:40 PM

Don't bother, you can't win an argument with Anonymous. Just give up while you're ahead.

Like I said... it helps to know the difference. You're not confusing me with the facts... you simply don't even know what the real facts are. And even if you knew the real facts it isn't likely you would be able to confuse me on something as simple as this. But go ahead and give it your best shot!

I've lived in Naperville since the days when Cantera was a working quarry and all of that land was privately owned. Even back then the city had established an easement across the property for future growth and development. You would do yourself a favor to learn more about easements and how they work. Besides if you knew anything about the DuPage Forest Preserve they have a long, firm policy of never giving up land that they have acquired... they most recently reaffirmed that position related to the CN purchase.

What Plainfield did isn't any different that what Lisle has done recently. There fees and such for development are structured differently than ours and the cost of developing roads, sewers, water, and other utilities was simply more than they could afford... so rather than front those costs they let the land go to Naperville. By the way how many years of taxes, and consider how much the city gets from their share of real estate taxes, do you think it is going to take for Naperville to even break even on this?

Interesting that even with all of your pathetic examples you can't come up with even one example of another local government unit who has actually forked over any cold hard cash to Naperville for anything. Every example is nothing more than goodwill for goodwill and that is how it should be. Time for the City Council to put the city check book back in the drawer.

By Anonymous on January 27, 2009 9:02 AM

I know, don't confuse you with the facts! How much did Naperville pay the County/forest preserve for the Diehl right of way? Nothing! How much would it have to pay if it would have had to buy the land? Millions! Did the County have to give the land to the City? No, in fact the County did not even have to sell the land to the City because the City doesn't have eminent domain power against another governmental body in such circumstances.

The boundary with Plainfield. What did Plainfield get from Naperville in exchange for amending the boundary agreement to 114th St? Nothing except good will. Why would they want to give Naperville at least a hundred thousand dollars of taxes each year in perpetuity? Because someday they would want something from Naperville in return.

Why did the County finally agree to collect Naperville impact fees? Because the County wanted Naperville to collect their impact fees. It was a you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. That is how this stuff works. You don't scratch my back when I need something, don't come with your hat in hand when you want something.

Isolationism doesn't work.

We still don't have a single, valid example of how Naperville is benefiting from giving our money to other governmental bodies nor do we have a single concrete example of how other governmental bodies have handed over their hard earned tax dollars to our benefit.

Diehl Road? This road extension was planned and set aside back in the late 70's. There wasn't any savings of millions of dollars.

Aurora being a first responder? ALL communities participate in mutual aid agreements for police and fire. Aurora isn't doing anything that we don't do in return. Look at the Metra gun incident a week ago... the train was stopped in Lisle and all of the "police work" was handled by Naperville.

Plainfield boundary agreement? Please... everyone knows that boundary agreements are far more complex than this and the boundaries on all sides of Naperville have been in flux since at least the mid-60's and they still aren't completely and finally established.

The highway impact fees and the county dragging their feet for two years is actually a good example of how Naperville is loosing out on these deals... what if Naperville dragged our feet for two years on the CN deal and hedged our bets to better understand the likely outcome before making a financial commitment.

Is $7500 worth maintaining this type of relationship? First you have to have a relationship to maintain it. If these other governmental bodies want to horse trade...fine. We definitely have a horse... what do they have to trade? And as long as it is equal or better I'm open to listen to what they want or need. If it is equal or worse I'm not going to get too excited.

This is nothing more or less than the local equivalent of "foreign policy". For decades Americans have given aid to foreign countries and have received little or nothing in return. I'm against poor "foreign policy" whether it be local, regional, national, or international.

There is a difference between being a trading partner and being a trading sucker. It helps to know the difference.

"So, is $7500 worth maintaining this type of relationship that saves and brings in millions even if the other communities don't have to actually expend money? I think so!"

Was the City of Naperville given an ultimatum that cooperation in the future would stop if this attempt to potentially lose millions of dollars in funding by an outside company for RR Crossing improvements was not pursued in unison?

By Anonymous on January 26, 2009 4:53 PM

The measure is not necessarily what it costs the other communities but what Naperville saved or gained. When the county dedicated the right of way for the extention of Diehl east from Raymond through the forest preserve, the City saved millions of dollars in right of way costs. When Aurora is the first responder for the far west side of the City for fire protection, the City saves the cost of building and manning a fire station at a cost to Aurora of supplying those services when needed. When Plainfield agreed to move the boundary agreement south to 114th St., the City gained the tax base (and tax dollars) for High Meadow, South Pointe, Wheatland Highlands, Ashwood Creek, Old Farm Center, and Republic West (the last two are commercial with sales tax revenues) at the loss of tax base and tax dollars to Plainfield. For two years the City lost highway impact fees for construction in the 1 1/2 mile planning area before the County agreed to charge the fee through its building permit process, even though it costs the County little to do so. So, is $7500 worth maintaining this type of relationship that saves and brings in millions even if the other communities don't have to actually expend money? I think so!

Those are some pretty lame examples that don't even come close to what we are discussing. Of course you were only using what came to mind... there might actually be better examples... well good luck finding some... and when you do put some dollar signs behind them too!

Let's all know full well if the money is really flowing two way or one way and who is ahead and who is behind.

How pathetic...!

By Anonymous on January 26, 2009 8:44 AM

Gee, it's hard to know where to start. The County collects the highway impact fee for Naperville in the 1 1/2 mile planning zone. The County and Aurora worked on the extention and expansion of Diehl Road from Eola to Rte 59 and from Raymond to Warrenville. There is the new radio agreement with Aurora. And the fire and paramedic agreement that had Aurora serving the far west side because they can get there faster from station 8. And, the already cited efforts to solve the grid lock on Rte 59 between Aurora, Naperville and the County. And Aurora assisted in developing the Naperville side of the Route 59 station when Naperville had contiguity problems. And the boundary agreements--especially the one with Plainfield that was re-written a number of time to allow Naperville to expand further south than the original agreement provided. And the agreement with Aurora to develop White Eagle when Naperville had contiguity issues. Those are the ones that come to mind without doing any research. I am sure I could come up with more if I put my mind to it.

The movement of goods by rail is considered by the Department of Commerce to be vital to National Interests and Economic Growth in general. The little towns are not going to stop it; they will be railroaded. The best they can hope for are concessions. We got them. Unfortunately some short sighted officials around here can not see that it is a win for the area. They set the target on preventing the sale and they are like a horse with blinders on and fail to see the big picture. If the sale is stopped and the train numbers increase anyway don't go around acting like yall had no idea it could happen that way and don't go turning your pants pockets inside out like a set of elephant ears asking where's our overpass.

Be careful what you ask for.. you might actually get it. Enjoy.

Anonymous,

How do you know what the majority of the people in Naperville think about this issue?

-JQP

CM Bob:

Just want to say thanks. I'm glad Naperville is staying involved in the EJ&E protests. And I agree that $7500 is small price to pay. (especially compared to $350 billion federal "stimulus" packages that are pork laden, will not have much of any immediate impact whatsoever, and are based on the faulty premise that the public sector can distribute tax/budget deficit dollars more effectively than the private sector could have).

I understand O-Joe's point of view regarding the possibility that USS could just lease trackage to CN if the purchase falls apart, but to not fight based purely on that notion is downright defeatist.

To all: think about the big picture. Why SHOULDN'T we try to fight a deal which will increase train traffic 3x-4x along our border, with no real economic benefit for the area. Especially with the number of Naperville residents who will send their kids across the tracks to WVHS and the (oh so strategically placed!) new MVHS. I hate to be melodramatic, but eventually some poor Naperville teenager is going to get killed by one of these CN trains. It's just something to be expected.

But hey, Mayor Daley will be happy, eh?

By the way CM Bob, hope you don't think I'm "fringe". ;-)

Well since you and our City Council seem to think that the citizens of Naperville need to spend our time and money to support a fight that by and large doesn't affect the overwhelming vast majority of our residents in a silly and shallow expression of neighborly support.

Fine. Quid quo pro must be a two way street for it to be fair and equitable and worth continuing. How much time and money has Aurora, Plainfield, Lisle, Bolingbrook, Warrenville, and DuPage County provided to Naperville in return for issues that are important to us? Is this truly a two-way street or in reality is it a one-way street? And if it really is a one-way street then as I originally posted we have no business funding issues in other towns. Let's not forget that Aurora is a bigger city and has more people and money to fund their own fights than we do anyway.

Anonymous on January 25, 2009 10:05 PM

I am not sure what your point is. Are we talking law or politics? When one says that one broke an oath, that's a matter of law. The Council did not breach their oath of office as alleged. They have no legal duty to represent the collective will of the people that elected them. Politically, it might be expedient, but its not the law. Sometimes legislative bodies do what's right even if it's not politically expedient. And, sometimes what is right might not be what the populace perceives as right today, but what is right over the long haul. The City Council did what they perceived was right over the long haul and not what might be expedient or popular today. They might have perceived that $7500 is a small price to spend to keep the necessary relationship with Aurora, Plainfield, etc. on friendly terms.

Finally, you should know that there is a difference between a democracy and a republic (and even more so a commonwealth). You seem to have lumped the three together although they are three entirely different animals. The U.S. is a republic and not a democracy as those terms are defined by political scientists. A democracy has unlimited rule by the majority with no protections for the rights of the minority. In a democracy, even a representative democracy, the will of the majority, or as previously used, the collective will of the people who elect the representatives, always wins out. What you are trying to impose on the City Council is a democratic form of government. But, the U.S. is not a democratic form of government.

A republic, on the other hand, is a form of government where the majority is kept in check by principles of protections accorded to all. It is the type of government of the U.S. The voice of the people is heard at the ballot box. It is the ideals or rights that are to guide the representatives in their actions and not the collective will of the people who elect them. They are not bound by the popular plebiscite on any topic unless specifically set forth by law. They might not get re-elected, but their actions are not a violation of their oath of office as previously alleged.

Experienced,

I'm not sure what exactly you are familiar with... but the form of government by which we operate in the US, that being a republic does not appear to be one which you have any strength of familiarity.

"S: (n) democracy, republic, commonwealth (a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them)"

"faithfully discharge the duties of the office of..." yep that gets right at the heart of it and a City Council is a local legislative branch of government and citizens of Naperville, not Aurora, elect members to represent our interest, not theirs.

In a republic an elected official is not legally bound to act or vote in such a way as to represent the collective will of the people. Sometimes elected officials vote their conscience or for other reasons. That does not negate the expectations of most citizens and when elected official start marching to the tune of a different drummer there eventually is a price to be paid at the ballot box. Most politicians who survive the dog-eat-dog world of politics are savvy enough not to alienate those who vote for them.

By Anonymous on January 25, 2009 12:46 AM
Well Councilman Bob,

Despite your own diatribe you failed to adequately answer the question as to why you and your city council colleagues are not representing the collective will of the people who elected you and who you took an oath to represent?

____________________________

There is no such phrase in the oath of office prescribed of all elected officials in the State, including members of the City Council. The oath is:

"I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of
the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge
the duties of the office of .... to the best of my ability."

No where in the duties set forth in the constitution, statutes and ordinances is there a requirement that the council represent the collective will of the people. There is, however, a provision that the council "Promote the maintenance of the quality of life in Naperville through establishing intergovernmental relationships." And, I think that is exactly what Councilman Bob said he was doing.

Whether we agree with CM Bob or disagree with him, it seems we are all voting for him due to his honesty and transparency. Something lacking in poitics these days.

That should be a hint to other council members to join the debate.

Again, I urge the Moderator to delete the post with the A$$ word.
Otherwise we are discouraging other CM from visiting. Not everyone has thick skin like CM Bob.

I personally admire CM Bob for coming this blog site and will vote for him regardless of what side of an issue he is on. What matters is he has courage and speaks his mind in a consciousness manner.

Well Councilman Bob,

Despite your own diatribe you failed to adequately answer the question as to why you and your city council colleagues are not representing the collective will of the people who elected you and who you took an oath to represent? There is simply no way the vast majority of Naperville residents much less even a simple majority of Naperville residents give two hoots about the CN purchase of these tracks.

It is actually a little disturbing and alarming to read that you and the rest of our City Council are playing politics in such a way that you place the needs of those living in Aurora (and who don't get to vote for or against you by the way) higher than the needs and wishes of the citizens of Naperville.

And if the example of Rt 59 is the best example of why such political action is necessary.... please stop now and don't risk loosing any more of your credibility with this audience and even better... please don't BS us! The current situation on Rt 59 is an embarrassment to the City of Naperville, Naperville Township, DuPage County, and the State of Illinois. This is a glaring example of how inter-governmental planning, funding, and just plain cooperation in this state is both a joke and a total failure. Anyone who drives this road daily appreciates full well that the time to widen this road came and passed at least 10 years ago. The same people who drive this road day after day shake their head in amazement at how the southern sections of this roadway below Fox Valley Mall got widened even though the majority of traffic flows south from I-88 and passes through this section that was ignored year after year. The same people who drive this road day after day shake their head in amazement that nothing has been done to synchronize the traffic lights in even a basic attempt to move existing traffic better during this horrible period of waiting. These same people who drive this road day after day can only wonder how horrible their daily commute will become once the construction project actually commences. Only in Illinois would the section of road that should have been widened first gets done last! Trust me on this one... we don't need one drop of support from Aurora on this issue... the need to widen Rt. 59 stands on it's own merits with or without Aurora.

Oh, and if your city council colleagues are that timid or thin-skinned that they are afraid of a venue like Potluck then they really do not have any business being elected officials in this day and age. If hiding from the very citizens who elected them and who demand accountability and transparency for their actions is the best form of leadership they are capable of demonstrating then God help them come next election. While I may not agree with every decision or every vote that you make and will let you know the reasons why I think you may occasionally have done something really bone headed you can at least trust that I respect the increased level of transparency you are attempting to provide and will continue to vote for you and others like you. That is a definite improvement and a step in the right direction for the rest of the members of the current city council if they really believe they have a political future. And if they are not capable of demonstrating similar leadership, well that is OK because there is always a fresh crop of new blood ready to step in and fill their shoes.

Councilman Bob,

"then I'm confident there would be recourse to mitigation even in the lease situation."

I think you are completely mistaken in this instance. The roads cross railroad property, not the other way around. If EJ&J ups the number of trains on their tracks (even in a lease situation) there is nothing the STB can do about requiring anyone to fund anything. Any upgrades will come at our own expense and everyone can kiss the subsidizing from CN good bye.

I hope you seriously look into this and stop simply guessing or assuming about the lease scenario. Getting the STB to set funding conditions on the sale was the real win. A successful appeal will reduce the subsidy to $0.00. Naperville should have tried to talk the other municipalities out of the appeal and taken the conditional sale along with the extra funding and start the process of convincing Springfield to approve the over/underpass plan for Route 34. The STB also set a time limit on how long CN would be responsible for the extra funding. If it's not approved completely at the state level with a successful bid after 5 years, CN is off the hook 100% from ever having to pay a dime. If you have not read the report completely with the full conditions of the sale, I suggest you do. Also, I will point out that it says CN does not have to escrow any funds either. The ball is in our court to get the money the STB says we can have from CN. That should be the focus; not trying to actually TURN AWAY those millions of dollars.

Alienating neighbors who are going the wrong way is not a bad thing. There's a saying about taking the first offer on the table when you are not in a position to really demand anything... Take it... the rest just get worse after that.

O-Joe 1/24 @ 4:44p:

Your question about what happens if the appeal actually stops the sale is a fair one.

Right now, the Surface Transportation Board's ruling requires CN to fund 2/3 of the Ogden Avenue overpass/underpass at the EJ&E tracks. That crossing is located in Aurora but affects Naperville residents' east-west travel, especially those attending Waubonsie Valley HS. So yes, the funding concession from CN is being put at risk if the appeal succeeds in stopping the sale. But the appeal would have been gone forward anyway with or without Naperville joining in it, and the appellate court isn't likely to rule any differently because Naperville is in the case. So if the appeal fails, then the sale proceeds and the 2/3 funding for the Ogden crossing remains in place. If the appeal succeeds, everyone (CN, EJ&E, the STB, and all the municipalities) goes back to square one and starts negotiating again. And if USSteel (EJ&E's owner) at that point agrees to lease track rights for the greater # of trains per day CN wants (which I don't think USSteel is willing to do because that would have avoided all these past months' maneuvers with the STB), then I'm confident there would be recourse to mitigation even in the lease situation.

In the end, Naperville presence in the appeal isn't going to influence the outcome one way or another, in my view, so our pulling out would simply have alienated our neighboring municipalities whose help we'll probably want for some future initiative of ours.

Further thoughts??

BTW: On the anonymous name-calling, it doesn't dissuade me from reading & posting. It's just counterproductive if there's a desire to get other more timid public officials interested in blogging.

Councilman Bob,

"Avoiding that risk for $7500 and continuing to lend our city's name to the appeal was a small price to show our solidarity with our neighbors."

If the sale gets denied and they lease track time anyway and run the same number of trains anyway and then no one has to put up a penny to help with any crossing upgrades, will you all stand in solidarity with our neighbors and be proud to say you helped make that become reality?

It's a fair question, because that is what is at stake if the blockage is successful. The crossing conditions were only placed upon the sale, not upon how EJ&J may choose to operate their own lines if someone (CN) approached them with a future lease deal.

Seriously, give this some more thought and get back to us on that very possible reality.

By Councilman Bob on January 24, 2009 10:45 AM
To Anonymous 1/22 @ 8:11a:

Wow - I go to have a look at what's being said on this blog about city-related topics and I get hit by a diatribe calling me a foolish arrogant ass who doesn't represent the will of the peeps. Now, I have thick skin and know that criticism comes with being in the public arena, but anonymous word-ragers have got to realize that public officials don't visit these sites because of the impression that they're populated by fringe characters. I know this view is held by the majority of my city council colleagues, who shake their heads when I tell them I read and post comments on this blog.

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

I assure you this one blogger does not represent how most of us bloggers feel about you. I have complemented you several times for your transparency.

His use of the a---- word was uncalled for. I am surprised the Moderator would print that word as on previous occassions he has objected to that word and words similar. I would like to ask the Moderator to consider deleting that post as it is inflammatory and serves no purpose.

While this blogger made some valid points, his attack on you was uncalled for. You have been on here many many times to help the bloggers with facts and evidence.

I have blogged on here as "Anonymous" hundreds of times and felt a need to tell you that some of us "Anonymous" bloggers support your efforts 100% to make the city a better place to live in.

Having said that, I agree the city should abolish the legal department as it continues to hire outside legal firms to do its work. Cases that come to mind are the Napergate Case, the Fustenau Case and now donating money to other attorneys or towns to help in legal expenses to the tune of 7500 dollars for this EJ@E sale. It just seems ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer money. If we are going to fight this case we need to do it with staff on hand that are compensated very handsomely.

Anyway, I hope you and other members of the city council consider abolishing the legal department. While some conflicts of interest can be alleged in the Furstenau case, no conflict of interest could be alleged in the Napergate Case and at least 2 outside law firms were hired for that case over a sting operation involving a cheap bottle of champagne. And sadly, what was paid to these 2 laws firms was never disclosed to the public. When questioned by Editor Tim West the city simply stated we have no records and if we had them we would not give them to you. A decade or two later, we still don't know what the Napergate legal fees were for 2 lengthy cases that reached the Supreme Court once and 2 Appellate Courts the second time. Is that fair to the taxapayer? Do city officials have a right to cover up huge expenses from its constituents in order to be re-elected or maintain positions?

I hope you find this behavior objectionable, CM Bob. I think this city should be transparent and honest with the taxpayers. Not covering up. My criticism is not directed against you as I believe you were not a member of the city council at the time. But at those who were in charge at the time of whom some are still serving our great city.

It would be nice if we can get their names, so we can vote them out of office in this upcoming election for their prior cover-ups.

Anyway, please continue to have thick skin, CM Bob, and communicating with us. I for one think you have done an excellent job serving the community.....especially with your transparency. Kudos to you and keep up the fabulous job you are doing.

To Anonymous 1/22 @ 8:11a:

Wow - I go to have a look at what's being said on this blog about city-related topics and I get hit by a diatribe calling me a foolish arrogant ass who doesn't represent the will of the peeps. Now, I have thick skin and know that criticism comes with being in the public arena, but anonymous word-ragers have got to realize that public officials don't visit these sites because of the impression that they're populated by fringe characters. I know this view is held by the majority of my city council colleagues, who shake their heads when I tell them I read and post comments on this blog.

But to the merits of our approval of Naperville remaining in the appeal and contributing $7500 to the effort: Our bailing out of the effort would have been perceived as a betrayal of our neighboring towns, as confirmed by the comments of Aurora's city spokesperson in an article the following day. We need neighboring towns' help in promoting initiatives that affect Naperville primarily, like Rt 59 expansion, so breaking ranks with the other towns affected to a greater degree by the CN purchase would have unnecessarily alienated those other towns. Avoiding that risk for $7500 and continuing to lend our city's name to the appeal was a small price to show our solidarity with our neighbors.

Original Joe,

Well if I was the CEO of CN then I would do just that... I'd get a 99 year lease on this rail line and tell all of these stupid towns to go to hell and not pay them one red dime.

The concept is really very simple and it is unprecedented how many people simply don't get it. The railroad owns this land. It is their private property for them to use as they want, how they want, when they want, and for them to get the best economic use out of their investment. The railroad is not under any obligation to pay for improvements to public easements across their private property.

Since it is the public that wants access across the private property of the railroad and since it is the public who does not want to be "inconvenienced" by the number, frequency, or length of the trains using these tracks it is the public who should rightfully pay for any such improvements that may be needed.

Those who feel otherwise might take a minute to remember that the USA is neither a socialized nor a communist country.

The train issue is a regional and national matter. Daley has fought hard to keep the trains running through Chicago. The rail companies should have moved their operations downstate and get out of the mess. But if they had, the Chicago region would lose more jobs. That is why new railroad lines south of Chicago have been blocked for 30 years.

The crossing issues are not just on the EJE. They are present through the entire Chicaog metropolitan area. There is a proposal for $2.2 billion in funds to address rail congestion (CREATE). This money is currently more than spoken for in Chicago and near in suburbs. It would be more positive to seek either a share of these funds or to increase the funds to address the reasonable needs along the EJE.

The small diversion of train traffic by the CN over the EJE will not even impact the current plans. Instead, the Democrats will ignore the suburbs and put the money into Chicago. In fact, it might be too late for the EJE communities to get on the CREATE bandwagen. Oh, excuse me. A couple did such as Joliet.

TO: Anonymous on January 22, 2009 8:20 AM

It does not matter what city the crossing is in. If the CN sale gets blocked then CN can still lease track time and run the same number of trains while ownership of the tracks still belongs with the current owners. At that point, CN is not obligated to pay anyone a dime for any upgrade costs. The sale was contingent on them helping fund the upgrades. If the sale is not allowed to go through they are not obligated to pay any money and any upgrades, regardless of which city they happen in, will cost all of us the full amount because we all pay state taxes. Rt 34 is a state road. People tend to forget that.

This is why every entity now needs to let this go through so we can at least get their money to help pay for upgrades. If the sale is blocked, we can and will still get the high train traffic but won't have any help with funds to upgrade anything and with the state budget like it is a full-cost project has very little chance of being approved. A subsidized project (if the sale is allowed to go through) stands a better chance of being approved and put into motion.

Another waste of money by the city. Blind support of another city just indicates blindness by Naperville.

Original Joe,

The Rt 34 fight is one for Aurora to fight, not Naperville. That crossing is outside of Naperville city limits.

The Diehl Road and North Aurora Road crossings will be impacted by increased train traffic though North Aurora was already in the plans for widening and surely they took widening the existing underpass into consideration?

Once the Eola Road interchange with I88 is completed the volume of traffic on Diehl Road is expected to decrease substantially so the need for an underpass/overpass at that location may need to be studied some time in the future.

Naperville doesn't really have a dog in the fight with CN and I am opposed to the City of Naperville continuing to be involved in any lawsuits; especially since the purchase is going to be approved and all of the legal challenges are nothing but political pandering to the local electorate and a waste of time and taxpayer money.

WHY IS IT THAT WE CAN ALWAYS DEPEND UPON THE NAPERVILLE CITY COUNCIL TO THROW GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD?

DESPITE THEIR TERRIBLE WIN/LOSE RECORD WHEN IT COMES TO LAWSUITS THIS CITY COUNCIL NEVER KNOWS WHEN IT IS TIME TO CUT THEIR LOSSES AND JUST MOVE ON.

WE HAVE EITHER ELECTED THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF FOOLS EVER ASSEMBLED IN ONE PLACE AND TIME OR THEY ARE SIMPLY NOTHING MORE THAN A BUNCH OF ARROGANT ASSES WHO STEADFASTLY REFUSE TO REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM TO OFFICE.

THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF POOR LEGAL ADVICE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS OR SO HAS COST THE NAPERVILLE TAXPAYERS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SALARIES, BENEFITS, AND SETTLEMENTS. THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS AN ABSOLUTE MESS AND SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN AND OUTSOURCED. WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO PAY ALL OF THESE ATTORNEYS WHO SIT AROUND AND DO GOD KNOWS WHATEVER ESPECIALLY WHEN OUTSIDE LAW FIRMS ALWAYS END UP BEING THE LAWYERS THAT ACTUALLY TAKE THESE CASES TO TRIAL

IN THESE TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR TWO SETS OF LAWYERS ON EVERY SINGLE CASE... THE IN-HOUSE LAWYERS AND THE OUTSOURCED LAWYERS... THIS MADNESS IS COSTING US MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WE DON'T HAVE AND CAN'T AFFORD.

THE LEGAL PROCESS SIMPLY MUST BE SIMPLIFIED AND STREAMLINED. THE CITY COUNCIL SIMPLY NEEDS TO PICK ONE LEGAL MODEL AND GO WITH IT... ALL CASES HANDLED IN-HOUSE OR ALL CASES FARMED OUT TO OTHER LAW FIRMS. PICK ONE. PERSONALLY, I WOULD PREFER TO SEE ALL CASES FARMED OUT SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL CAN TAKE COMPETITIVE BIDS FROM LOTS OF LAW FIRMS AND GET A FAR BETTER HOURLY RATE THAT WHAT ALL OF THIS LEGAL REPRESENTATION IS CURRENTLY COSTING.

GOOD! We should fight this tooth and nail. CN thinks that we are unimportant and totally disregards the fact that all those "at grade" crossings were built during another era. When you want to pump 5 times as much water through a pipe that is already carrying it's maximum rating you will have problems.

Someone should tell them that if the purchase gets blocked, CN can lease rail time on the tracks and run the same number of trains. The kicker then will be that they will not have to put up any money for crossing upgrades.

What looks like defeat (approval of the sale) is actually a win (because of the monetary obligations, if IL can live up to their part of ponying up the money).

Elected officials need to take 3 steps back and look at the reality of CN's options. The real fight should be getting Springfield to approve and allocate funding for the Rt 34 (Ogden) over/under pass project before the time limit expires as set by the STB. If we dilly dally around too long, CN will be obligated to contribute $0 to the project instead of the hefty sum they can potentially throw into the pot to defray the cost.