Tuesday, December 1, 2009

ALAW Presents Conflict of Interest Ordinance to County Board

To: County Board Chair Kenneth Koehler, Honorable County Board Members:
From: Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water (ALAW)
Re: Restoration of the Public Trust

“Transparency in Government” has become a heavily used phrase. It is popping up in the news media, better government groups and in conversations between county residents. Illinois has recently upgraded its Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act. Declarations of openness and transparency are campaign issues for candidates for upcoming elections.

The perception that public officials commonly violate the public trust, by placing personal gain over their duty to their constituents, is insidious and has recently gained momentum here in McHenry County. This creates a climate of distrust, dissatisfaction and speculation that is harmful to all county residents and unfair to those public officials who are brought under suspicion simply by virtue of their office.

We think it is time to put a stop to this. ALAW attorneys researched and compiled pertinent ordinances from other governmental entities in the state and nationwide, and used them as a basis for this proposed McHenry County Economic Interests and Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Ordinance that we present to you today on behalf of your constituents.

Its purpose is to restore the confidence of McHenry County residents in their elected and appointed officials, by clarifying their responsibility of fair and transparent representation in the best interest of their constituents, and by requiring up-front disclosure of economic interests that could result in a conflict.

This ordinance is not intended to replace the current filing requirements under state law
(5 ILCS 4/A), but to enact financial disclosure requirements that require more information than currently required, as permitted by state law (5 ILCS 4/A-101). Nor is this ordinance intended to replace the provisions of McHenry County Board Rules Section 5, Ethics and Conduct, but to enhance and complement that section.

We urge you to consider this ordinance as a preemptive strike against accusations of self-dealing, to view this as an opportunity for McHenry County to lead by example, and to send this ordinance through the proper procedures to expedite its adoption before the February 2nd 2010 primaries.

We understand from talking to a few of you that the proper committee for this ordinance is Management Services. We therefore respectfully request that Management Services place this ordinance on their next agenda.

Thank you for your consideration,
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Berendt,
Alliance for Land Agriculture and Water (ALAW)
PO Box 1021, Woodstock. IL

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

2030 Plan Progress Update/J. Daleiden incites Koehler response

The County Board's Planning and Development Committee has completed one pass at the 2030 draft plan and will be starting to discuss actual changes at their next meeting on December 3rd at 8:30 am.
Committee member Munaretto has identified several paragraphs and policies for reconsideration.
So far we have held on to the population reduction of 45,000 people. We expect that may be raised again in future meetings.
On another note, if you missed J. Daleiden's letter in the Herald you can still find it with a search on the Herald site for "Biased 2030 Plan". AND you can find Mr. Koehler's response in the Herald today under opinions. The comments that follow each letter are important parts of the whole picture. When you are limited to 200 words its tough to tell a story. Unless you are Mr. Koehler and then you get 270 words. It's good to be king....

Friday, November 13, 2009

POPULATION PROJECTION REDUCED

The Planning and Development Committee of the county Board this morning, in response to amendments submitted by the Green Alliance, reduced the population projections that drive the plan by 45,000 people, about half of what we requested. The map will be revised at a later date to reflect the reduction in population as it translates into acres returned to agriculture protection.

We will have to work hard to hang on to this lower number, as pressure from the Realtor's Board has already been brought to bear on Chair, Tina Hill. So, keep your calls and letters coming. County Board emails are at the end of this post. Thanks to Tina for reconsidering, respecting the wishes of the vast majority of county residents, and raising the issue, and to Sue Draffkorn for the motion to reconsider. The only vote against the reduction was Marc Munaretto.

The Amendments are now posted. You can access them in the link at the right. Feel free to download, share with friends, and forward to your other blogs, social sites and club lists as you wish.

List of ALL county board emails. Planning and Development Committee members are in bold.
AMMiller@co.mchenry.il.us, mmarco@aol.com, RXBless@co.mchenry.il.us, YMBarnes@co.mchenry.il.us, JLHeisler@co.mchenry.il.us, JSBreeden@co.mchenry.il.us, kdkoehler@co.mchenry.il.us, BMWheeler@co.mchenry.il.us, EJDvorak@co.mchenry.il.us, KBSchmidt@co.mchenry.il.us, MLDonner@co.mchenry.il.us, JDHammerand@co.mchenry.il.us, PJMerkel@co.mchenry.il.us, SFSalgado@co.mchenry.il.us, SXDraffkorn@co.mchenry.il.us, JPKennedy@co.mchenry.il.us, PEYensen@co.mchenry.il.us, TRHill@co.mchenry.il.us, countyboard@co.mchenry.il.us, DPRyan@co.mchenry.il.us, ecschuster@co.mchenry.il.us, MTMcCann@co.mchenry.il.us, RXDonley@co.mchenry.il.us

Thursday, November 12, 2009

28,000 acres of lost farmland = 43.75 square miles = Woodstock, McHenry and Crystal Lake combined.

To: Planning and Development Department
From: Emily Berendt, Resident, voter and taxpayer, and member of ALAW and the McHenry County Green Alliance

I have attended almost all of the 2030 plan commission meetings starting way back with some of the sub-committee meetings. I have observed first hand the struggle that started day one, with an unbalanced commission heavy on development interests that only became more unbalanced when two departed members were replaced by only one.

I was at the meetings when this voting bloc of development interests disbanded subcommittees, but kept on meeting as such; refused to disclose sources; refused to write their chapters; and manipulated process to their advantage, resulting in a plan that appears environmentally sensitive at first glance - appears to be intent on preserving resources, when in actuality one look at the map will show that it is the same failed development model from the 60’s and 70’s of automobile-dependent spot-zoning and sprawl.

I hope that each of you has or will take the time to carefully read the public comments submitted at the public sessions, both in July and recently in October. The public is telling you there are some basic problems with this plan. Concerns range from, “I don’t want this in my back yard” to “Who says we have to make room for that many people at the cost of sacrificing our rural lifestyle and our water.”

I understand that you have the unenviable task of reviewing in a few short weeks, a document that has taken the RPC three years to construct and making it representative of the wishes of the majority, including the people most affected by it, the residents of District 6.

With that in mind, I would like to present you with two proposed amendments to the plan that if adopted, would remedy two major issues that have been raised. I urge you to consider these amendments first, because adoption of them would resolve many of the issues that will come up in a page-by-page or policy-by-policy review.

The first issue is the questionable population projection that is 82,406 higher than the CMAP projection and 96,602 higher than the US Census projection for 2030.

The second issue is a result of the first; the enormous amount of farmland (and water recharge) consumed by other designated uses - 28,000 acres of lost farmland – 43.75 square miles - almost the equivalent of the landmass of Woodstock, McHenry and Crystal Lake combined.

Each amendment has a discussion and some supporting materials with it, so as not to take up your valuable time today. I ask that you read it carefully and make your decision accordingly. The residents of this county have had very little respect for their comments from the RPC and now turn to you, with the hope you will listen.


For copies of the two amendments click on the link to the right labeled Plan Amendments.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Where is the 2030 Plan Now?


Click on this poster to enlarge and read
Click on the link to the right to view our other posters

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Pat Kennedy: Strong Words to the 2030 Plan Commission!

Good Evening,

I’m Patricia Kennedy, 20712 Streit Road, rural Harvard. I am speaking as a resident, a tax payer, a voter and as someone who cares deeply for this county and people who live here. I must speak to you this evening directly and openly.

First off, Chairman Eldridge, I want to thank you for your consideration of the public when you gave the public an opportunity to speak to all of you at both the beginning and the ending of each meeting. I think that was thoughtful and wise. Thank you.

Next, I want to speak of a P&D committee meeting that I was at a few years ago. The Imagine McHenry County group had just made a presentation and the Chair of the Committee spoke in strong support of the concept and the survey that was about to be initiated. She said with great conviction and pleasure that the results of that survey would be the corner stone, the bedrock, that the 2030 Plan would be built on. This was later supported at a County Board meeting.

However, most of this commission has ignored that survey. You have also almost completely ignored the many comments made to you when the text of the Plan draft was presented to the public a short time ago. And as of your last meeting you have almost completely ignored what the people ask of you on their review of the presentation of the Land Use Plan Map and the Land Use Plan Map chapter. In fact, some of you have ridiculed people who made comments and used the wrong words simply because they are unfamiliar with the terms. You understood what they were saying, but chose to mock them instead. How Dare You.

The public has spoken to you time after time, and time after time the majority of you have refused to listen to them. A few of you have listened and have upheld your duty to represent the huge majority of the people and of good planning precepts. To those few, I am Very grateful.

A few of you put together thoughtful, well reasoned, and reflective chapters, followed good planning practices and were also guided by what the people of this County requested. The rest of you seemed to be listening to - Well, how can I say, I probably shouldn’t say. You certainly WERE NOT following good planning practices or the huge majority of the public or the municipalities. The majority of you chose to use population projections as the basis of this Plan - And you chose to bring together your Own numbers. Although neighboring counties have been and are using NIPC (now CMAP) population projections and our own Department of Transportation largely uses those same projections YOU chose to make up your own. You also chose to project a continuation of the recent few years, ignore national trends created by the current deep recession and experts’ opinions that the economy will not rebound into the same type and scope of development it left behind. The years that you used had unprecedentedly rapid car-culture growth that sprawled into the countryside. How short sighted.

Some of you have helped to put together excellent work and then apparently did not have the courage to stand behind that work. In some cases you have argued for what “your clients would accept”. That is shocking, disappointing and something that I hope you will correct in the future.

Speaking to the majority of you, you have betrayed the trust of the people, ignored what they have ask of you time after time and appear to be serving a tiny minority rather the huge majority. That is despicable and unforgivable. It is my desire that your positions and actions on this plan be made known to as many people as possible and as quickly as possible. May your children and grandchildren forgive you for they will certainly have to pay for the bad decisions you are making here tonight.

Thank you, Chairman Eldridge.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Evert Evertsen, Hartland Township Supervisor: Remarks to the 2030 Plan Commission

Why you should vote down the 2030 Plan you worked so hard at.

The 2030 Plan Commission lost its credibility when it permitted the open use of a Plat book in the planning discussion process. Who owns land should not influence how any government plans Land use but it clearly did time after time.

The 2030 Plan Commission lost its credibility when comments by commission members indicated they worked for clients in the county through the use of the term “my clients” during discussion.

The 2030 Plan Commission lost its credibility when the citizens adamantly requested the protection of our agriculture and our water supply but the commission like a locomotive without an engineer continued down the track of: --WE MUST ACCOMMODATE ANOTHER 222,000 PEOPLE -- WE MUST PLAN WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY FOR INDUSTRY! Commission members stated they had no choice but to ignore constraints of water and or agriculture because they had to meet development requirements for 222,000 more people.

The 2030 Plan Commission lost its credibility when time after time the submitted plans of municipalities and townships were ignored if it did not meet the requirements of the previously described locomotive.

To resolve this I request you vote no on this plan.

Commission Sends Plan on to Planning and Development Committee

The 2030 Plan Commission last evening voted 11 to 1 to approve and send the plan on to the next stage, the Planning and Development Committee of the County Board. The single NO vote was Ron Bauman, the only farmer on the commission, who said the plan did not do enough to protect farmland. We thank Ron for standing up for his convictions. The plan will be presented to the County Board at their meeting next Tuesday morning, and Planning and Development will hold a series of meetings to discuss it. Schedule will be posted here as soon as it's confirmed. They still can make changes, as can the county board with amendments from the floor on voting day. So stay tuned and keep you comments coming. County Board email addresses:
County Board 2009
AMMiller@co.mchenry.il.us, mmarco@aol.com, RXBless@co.mchenry.il.us, YMBarnes@co.mchenry.il.us, JLHeisler@co.mchenry.il.us, JSBreeden@co.mchenry.il.us, kdkoehler@co.mchenry.il.us, BMWheeler@co.mchenry.il.us, EJDvorak@co.mchenry.il.us, KBSchmidt@co.mchenry.il.us, MLDonner@co.mchenry.il.us, JDHammerand@co.mchenry.il.us, PJMerkel@co.mchenry.il.us, SFSalgado@co.mchenry.il.us, SXDraffkorn@co.mchenry.il.us, JPKennedy@co.mchenry.il.us, PEYensen@co.mchenry.il.us, TRHill@co.mchenry.il.us, countyboard@co.mchenry.il.us, DPRyan@co.mchenry.il.us, ecschuster@co.mchenry.il.us, MTMcCann@co.mchenry.il.us, RXDonley@co.mchenry.il.us

Sunday, October 25, 2009

“… anybody who said 'Don’t rezone this property,’ I eliminated from consideration."

Did you think your 2030 plan commission was listening to you?

Your 2030 Planning Commission has held the first of three meetings to review the comments you submitted on the Land Use Chapter and Map. Some minor changes (that are probably big changes to those individual requesting them) were made, but the major issues addressed in your comments - population projections and resource protection - were not addressed. They moved some things around on the map, but did not eliminate any of the sprawl. One notable change is the removal of the large industrial area northwest of Woodstock and its replacement south of Marengo. The large amounts of estate (1-5 acre) designation remain intact to encourage development in the middle of farmland where the lack of roads, utilities and services will increase taxes for all of us.

Among the many quotable quotes from the RPC over the past two years is the new one in the title of this post. The statement was in response to some of your comments where you used the word "zone" instead of the word "plan". The complete quote is:

"Many, many of the comments that I read and heard that related to these (areas under discussion) dealt with zoning and anybody who said 'Don't rezone this property,’ I eliminated from consideration."

The next meeting of the Plan Commission is Tuesday, Oct. 27 at 6 pm, but please verify the time if you go. They will review comments that pertain to the text of the 2030 Land Use Chapter. There may be one more meeting and then the plan goes to the Planning and Development Committee of the County Board before it goes to the full board.

Planning and Development can make changes. Maybe they will be better listeners. The following County Board members are on the P&D Committee: Lynn Orphal, (815) 455-0303; Mary Donner,(815) 459-5954; Tina Hill (Chair),(815) 347-4222; Marc Munaretto, (815) 385-5590; Sue Draffkorn (815)653-6057; Randy Donley, (815) 790-9435; Ersel Schuster, (815) 338-2207. Hill and Orphal are up for reelection in 2010. They will be discussing the plan at 9 am on November 11, at the County Building on Ware Rd. Please attend and tell them what you want in YOUR County Plan.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Hartland Township and Bull Valley: Respect Our Plans!

Hartland Township Supervisor Evert Evertsen has graciously consented to allow the Alliance to publish Hartland's Motion and Resolution to the 2030 Planning Commission. Complete with detailed references, Hartland makes a clear and concise argument for better protection of water and farmland in their township.

Follow the link at the bottom to read the actual documents.


SUMMARY OF HARTLAND TOWNSHIP RESPONSE TO DRAFT 2030 LAND USE

Ø Hartland Township requested that their 2010 Land Use PLAN, updated in 2005, be used for their input to the 2030 McHenry County Land Use Plan.
Ø Any increase in McHenry County population will negatively impact the availability of potable water in the over-developed eastern portion of the county.
Ø Increased population will elevate the demand for “black roads” which will require the increased use of ice melting materials.
Ø Current areas Zoned as Agricultural, currently shown in yellow and orange, should be colored as Agricultural on the map – not with other colors.
Ø Areas zoned as Estate should be colored as Estate.
Ø Golf Courses should all be colored the same.
Ø Water is mentioned in the PLAN 80 times yet Industrial areas are being planned for areas which are prone to flooding and are placed in areas susceptible to aquifer contamination.
Ø The proposed Plan Draft contains the word Land 412 times and the word farm 161 times but Agricultural land is planned to be reduced by 33.54 to 35.45 percent.
Ø The proposed Plan contains the word “people” only 17 times but the premise that there will be a population increase of 70 percent is consistent throughout the Plan.
Ø We cannot stress enough the need to fill current empty Office and factory space:
Ø No new development should be planned for outside the 1.5 mile zone encompassing current incorporated municipal boundaries.
Ø Open question: What caused the reduction in the acres of Government/Institutions/Utilities and Open Space? (Article H)

THE VILLAGE OF BULL VALLEY has submitted a Resolution requesting the 2030 Plan Commission to remove the "Estate" designation they have surrounded the Village with and return it to and "Agriculture" designation.
The areas in question currently are in a sensitive aquifer recharge area. The Village wants it to remain Agriculture for as long as possible, but it is designated in the Village plan to eventually be estate development of no less than five acres.
The county defines "Estate" as one to five acres, setting up an inherent conflict where a developer can leverage county against Village to defeat the Village's right to self-determination in planning.

TO READ THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ON BOTH RESOLUTIONS CLICK HERE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

IMPORTANT READING: 2030 Land Use Map and Land Use Plan are now available for public review!

Here is the information from the 2030 Plan web site:
“A draft of the Land Use section of the 2030 Plan was reviewed by the RPC at its September 24 meeting. As a result of that review, a final draft version has been produced. This version, along with the Future Land Use map, will be the subject of the public Open House meetings Friday, October 9 from 1 pm - 5 pm and Saturday, October 10 from 9 am - 2 pm at the McHenry County Adminstration Building, 667 Ware Rd, Woodstock. The meetings will have an open-house format. Participants may arrive at any time and should anticipate spending one to one-and-a-half hours at the meeting.
The Land Use section and two maps are available for download here:
(Ed. note: I don't have the links here. Go to: www.mchenrycounty2030plan.com, click in the middle of the opening page, and you will find links to the documents. Paper copies may be available by calling the Planning and Zoning Department at the County, 815-334-4560.)

Comments on the Land Use section and map drafts will be accepted at the Open House. They can also be submitted via email to 2030plan@co.mchenry.il.us or in writing to McHenry County 2030 Plan, Department of Planning and Development, McHenry County Government Center, 2200 North Seminary Avenue, Woodstock, IL 60098. All comments must be received by 4:30 PM, Friday, October 16, 2009".

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PLAN?

MCHENRY COUNTY 2030 LAND USE PLAN:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT?

The McHenry County 2030 Land Use Plan process is nearing completion. The plan and the plan map are both posted at www.mchenrycounty2030plan.com. The chapter on Land Use that explains the map will also be available on line by the time you read this.
Someone asked me, “What’s wrong with the plan?”

It starts out based on a wrong premise – an influx of 220,000 more people in the next 20 years. The Plan Commission statement is that “These people are coming, we have to make room”. That is faulty logic. Population growth should be a function of the plan not the reverse. Population growth only occurs if the infrastructure and zoning permit it. The plan commissioners should determine the optimum population based on the necessary farmland and water preservation necessary for the residents already here. Countries with fastest growing populations all have lower standards of living than countries with slow or no growth in population. Population growth is incompatible with environmental preservation. A too-high projection will result in setting aside more farmland than necessary for development, encourage sprawl and compromise our standard of living.

The plan is based on an outdated development model that encourages new growth to keep extending outward into open land and farmland. With a world-wide food shortage looming in the next twenty years and people in third world countries already dying from lack of clean drinking water, we must stop wasting our life-giving resources. Although the planners give lip service to the term “compact, contiguous development”, “in and around municipalities” a quick look at the map will show large blocks set aside for Office/Industrial, Estate, and Residential Development in unincorporated areas not adjacent to municipalities.

The dreaded map in the Economic Development chapter earlier draft, that showed half the land west of 47 set aside for gravel, retail and industrial has been removed. But it leaves behind the text that encourages those massive areas.

The plan promotes Conservation Design Development (CDD). The strength of CDD is that it operates to preserve sensitive lands that would otherwise be lost to pavement, short-grass lawns and rooftops, but it still puts development in the middle of the farmland. Somehow the County is under the misconception that CDD makes it all right to spot zone. It isn’t. In spite of all the good things it accomplishes, CDD is another form of dense development that belongs in municipalities.

No Land Use Plan should require existing residents to subsidize future residents, which is exactly what happens because spot zoning increases the need to expand infrastructure and services, increases taxes for existing residents.

The plan conflicts internally with itself. Chapters on Water Resources, Open Space and Agriculture are in conflict with Chapters on County Character (Housing Densities). Economic Development, and Infrastructure. One plan member made it clear, “.We are only preserving farmland until it is needed for something else”.

Preserving farmland does double duty as preserving water recharge. A 2006 report commissioned by the county predicted water shortages in several townships by 2030 and acknowledged that water shortages already exist in Algonquin Township. The use of the Sensitive Area Recharge Areas (SARA) study must be integral to land use planning. Although the Water Resources Chapter of the plan supports this idea, acceptance by county and municipal developers alike is lagging far behind. In one Plan Commission meeting a municipal official discussing future plans for a Civic Center development, noted that they were going ahead with plans in spite of a sensitive recharge area on the property.

And finally, the plan process is being driven by a controlling members’ voting bloc on the commission that has hijacked the process, developed this vision behind the scenes and manipulated the voting in many cases to push through their agenda. Each member on the bloc earns his living from development in some way. The plan does not represent the wishes of the county residents generally, much less the residents of District 6, the only District really affected by this plan.

The county cannot plan for land that is already in municipalities, it can only plan for unincorporated land, which is primarily in District 6. Of the 24 County Board members who will vote on this plan, only 4 represent unincorporated county residents in District 6. The other 20 represent municipalities primarily on the east side of the county that are rapidly outgrowing their resources due to poor planning.

Public viewing of the Land Use Map for this 2030 Plan is on Friday, October 9, from 1-6 pm and Saturday, October 10, from 9am -12 pm. Not a lot of time and it’s a holiday weekend. Written public comment can be tendered by Oct. 16, to the Planning and Development office of the County, on Ware Rd. There will be one or two more meetings of the Plan Commission to review the comments and make “appropriate” changes, and then the Plan goes to the P&D Committee for a final review before approval by the County Board.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Patricia Kennedy, Green Team Member and President of ALAW, speaks to the McHenry County Planning Commission

My concern this evening arises from what we all saw and heard at your meeting last week. We have observed this before, but it was particularly obvious last week.

Especially considering the document that you are creating, as a tax paying and voting citizen, I request that each of you be Very up front in disclosing any and all connections, holdings or property interests which you may represent. And if you have any doubt in regard to those issues, that you err on the side of recusing yourself.

If you talk in specifics about one property owner's opinions and desires you would, of course, need to do that for every property owner and that certainly is not appropriate.

We have been sitting here watching you do a parcel by parcel Land Use Plan Map. That is Totally incorrect planning procedure. You have been told by staff on several occasions that you are using an incorrect procedure and still you persist. If you continue in this manner you have certainly found a unique way to destroy the credibility of this Plan and its Map.

It will be interesting to see which direction you decide to take.


Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Full Disclosure!

Green Alliance hereby calls for the full disclosure from all Plan Commission members of any monetary, property or personal interest in any land being impacted by the plan, or in the alternative, recusal from Plan Commission discussion of the property that is subject of the interest. In addition the member must refrain from private discussion of personal views for the property with other plan commission members who could then represent the recused member's views at the public discussion.

Plan Map Progress

The Planning commission is going full steam creating the Land Use map that will be a part of the 2030 plan. They are going township by township and parcel by parcel, micromanaging and creating unsupportable plan designations. Tonight was "industrial uses" night.

Text amendments being drafted as a result of the pubic comments in the public review sessions should be available soon. We are waiting.

Context Sensitive Solutions: What is that?

On the County Board agenda (maybe the consent agenda) for Tuesday morning is a resolution supporting Context Sensitive Solutions as a best practice in development of local road projects. Supposedly CSS principles include the employment of early, continuous and meaningful involvement of the public and all stakeholders throughout the project development process.
What would this mean to the Alden Road project? To all road projects in the county?

Sunday, August 16, 2009

The Posters Are Coming!

Four posters in the Green Alliance Education Series will be available for download and reproduction on this site very soon. Print, post and share with your friends and neighbors.

2030 Conversation meeting

Sorry you missed it. We had a small but very concerned and interactive group, with many good questions and ideas. We debuted our new information series posters. The most impressive one is the one showing the amount of impermeable coverage in Algonquin Township versus the amount in Alden Township, where "road improvements" threaten to open up Alden to the same destructive forces. Go to www.aldenroadalliance.com for details. We should all be helping Alden defeat this, but especially those of you on Kishwaukee Valley Rd. as you are next.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

YOU ARE INVITED!

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS PLANNING FOR YOUR FUTURE?
You are invited to the next Green Alliance meeting. We will discuss the draft 2030 plan progress, recent developments and how the plan will impact us as county residents. Green Alliance Members who have been following the process from the beginning will be sharing their observations and insights. Please join us on Thursday, August 13, 2009, at the McHenry County Farm Bureau, 1102 McConnell Rd., Woodstock at 7:00 p.m.

Friday, July 31, 2009

We are now the McHenry County Green Alliance!

Sunday, July 26, 2009

OUR NEW NAME WILL BE IN THIS SPOT SOON
We have discovered that the name McHenry County Green Team is already being used.
Our new name and contact information will be posted here in the next few days. Please check back with us.

Friday, July 24, 2009

First Review of Publiic Comments

We are cautiously pleased with the results of the first Regional Planning Commision review of public comments on the 2030 plan. The map in the Economic Development section is essentially removed from the plan, and will only be used as a resource in the areas of industrial and aggregate development when they work on the land use map. The demise of the ED map was engineered primarily by one of the staunch proponents of the map. That's why I said we were cautious. It seems like much too good to be true. What's up their sleeves? Stay tuned.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Don't Miss This !

The Land Conservancy of McHenry County"Preserving Land Forever"
You are invited to attend this free viewing of:

THE UNFORESEEN


"Plainspoken yet urgent, it makes the wrist-slashingly depressing topic of real-estate development somehow transcendent. The Unforeseen is a rare gift."

July 27thMcHenry County College Auditorium7:00 p.m.
Featuring interviews with Robert Redford, Willie Nelson, the iconic Texas Governor Ann Richards, environmentalist Wendell Berry and many others, THE UNFORESEEN is a powerful meditation on the American dream - on the destruction of the natural world as it falls victim to the cannibalizing forces of unchecked development. It is an intricate tale of personal hopes, victories and failures; and of debates over land, water and the public good.

Along with this land use documentary will be an introduction toMcHenry County's 2030 Planand follow up questions about the plan and how it relates to the documentary.

Co-sponsored by The Environmental Defenders of McHenry County,The Land Conservancy of McHenry County and Lou Marchi Recycling Institute

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Whose Plan Is This?

McHenry County Green Team Comments to 2030 Land Use Plan, July 10, 2009

Whose Plan Is This?
The new Planning Commission, appointed after the failure of both 2020 plans, was a fresh start and the promise of a plan that would fairly represent all interests in the county. We were wrong. A shift in themembership of the commission resulted in a loss of the initial balance in favor of a “pro-development” majority on the commission. This majority changed the previously agreed upon procedure and began pushing it’s own agenda through, working privately in the background with sources they refused to name. As a result, the product is flawed, and not truly representative of all county residents.

The county cannot plan for land that is already in municipalities, it can only plan for unincorporated land, which is primarily in District 6. Of the 24 County Board members who will vote on this plan, only 4 represent unincorporated county residents in District 6. The other 20 represent municipalities primarily on the east side of the county that are rapidly outgrowing their resources due to poor planning. Residents of these municipalities should be (and many are) as concerned about preserving resources in what’s left of rural McHenry County as residents of unincorporated areas. We are in this together. Many residents indicated these priorities in the Imagine McHenry County survey that was promoted as a cornerstone building block for this plan. Respect for the plain outcome of that survey by all the plan commission members,
would have eliminated the inherent conflicts we see in this plan.

Remove the Industrial, Commercial and Mineral Resources MAP.
The centerpiece of the Economic Development chapter, the composite map showing nearly half the land west of Rt. 47 as set aside for industry, retail centers and gravel pits, and all related text, MUST be removed from the plan. Areas set aside on the map include prime farmland in direct conflict with the protection goals of the Agriculture chapter. The areas set aside ncompass prime farmland, sensitive ecosystems, and in several cases, existing MCCD and/or private properties, in direct opposition to the chapters on Water Resources and Open Space. When members of the public asked members of the disbanded ED Subcommittee, whether the Illinois
Natural Area Inventory maps, aquifer recharge maps and local soil maps were considered in developing the ED chapter maps, one member dismissively stated that ‘no, we didn’t consider those at all”. It is a clear invitation to spot zoning and destruction of large tracts of farmland. The map and all related text MUST be removed from the plan.

We have been told that it is just an “exhibit”, a suggestion, and that those lands are merely being
reserved so that homes are not built there which would then prevent development as gravel pits. But we all know, once it is on a map, it is a plan. It is a done deal. You cannot deny rezoning to that use if it is on the map as such. If the commission wants to preserve farmland as they say they do, then this map MUST be removed from the plan.

Preserve Our Farmland
The Agriculture chapter encourages the county to set aside prime farmland for future generations and to keep it in farming as much as possible. However the attitude of the majority bloc on the commission is that they are only reserving it for a time, “until it is needed for something else”. How shortsighted!

Agriculture is the dominant land use in the western area of the county. Indeed the 2009-2010 County Yearbook, “Facts to Remember” indicates that there are 1035 farms in the county comprising 55% of the county land mass. Agriculture is a primary economic engine in the County. Agriculture contributes nearly 15% of the County’s non-residential tax base.
The June 2009 National Geographic has an article on the global food crisis. In the near future, our rich McHenry County soil going to be much more valuable as farmland than it will be with pavement on it. Preserving our farmland should be a concern to all county residents, not just the farmers and unincorporated residents.

High Density Development
The Community Character draft chapter strongly encourages higher density housing in the county. This is poor planning. Higher density development has its place in rapidly urbanizing municipalities. All development, residential included, must be in or near municipalities so that the basic infrastructure is already there. Roads, water and sewer, fire protection, schools, waste removal, etc can be immediately available without unnecessary wasteful spending of our tax dollars. Residential development increases traffic wherever it is placed, but is worse on rural roads that were not meant to accommodate the increase.

Population Increases
We have heard Commission Members say, “people are coming, we have to make room for them.” This is utter nonsense. People will not move to McHenry County if new residential housing is not available. In discussions about the projected population increase to our county, one of the commission members ventured the opinion that “we should first determine how many people we can accommodate and then plan”(paraphrased) rather than accepting the projections as inevitable. Although this should be the primary objective of any Land
Use Plan, he was dismissively ignored.

Water Resources
Perhaps most important factor of all is the availability of water. McHenry County gets all of its
drinking water from the ground. If you cover up the ground, no rain gets in and refills the supply below. If you withdraw more than is getting in, you run out. County water studies show that several of the eastern townships are already overdrawing and exhausting their share of the local supply of water due to poor planning. Why should we repeat those same mistakes in the western townships?

The Water Resources chapter of the plan was the first one completed. Although this chapter has been “homogenized” by the planning firm hired to rewrite it, it still provides valuable guidance in policies that can protect our water supply for generations to come. Those policies should become mandates. Fresh water is finite. We must protect it.

Taxes
For years residents of McHenry County have been duped by the erroneous promise that development lowers taxes. With the extraordinary development of the last 10 years, have we seen a reduction in our tax bills? Of course not. Quite to the contrary, development is subsidized by existing taxpayers who must pay for the new schools, widened highways, additional water and sewer, police and fire, and other urban infrastructure. The 2030 Plan admits, “it will require up front public investments that will take decades to deliver measurable benefits.” Redevelopment within municipalities where the infrastructure is already in place can pay large
benefits. But urban sprawl is a net loss to the communities and, especially with rising transportation costs, makes no economic sense.

Communication/Public Input
The Plan Commission’s communication with the public has been minimal and ineffective - a web site that the general public does not know about and an email list that is gleaned from the meetings sign-in sheets and is never used. In an undertaking of this importance, there is an obligation to reach out and inform the public through any measures available. Offered solutions, from brochures, blogs, flyers and paid ads in the local newspaper, have been ignored. One of the most critical parts of planning is involving the affected public in the process. The average resident does not even know a plan is being developed, much less have any grasp of the
content or understanding of it’s potential impact on their future.

Thank you for permitting us to comment on the 2030 Land Use Plan that will determine our future as residents of McHenry County.

Sincerely,
The McHenry County Green Team
Joe Daleiden, Rich Brook, Kim Willis, Joyce Kunath, Michelle Kuhlman, Gina LeFevre, John Kunzie, Jane Collins. Patricia Kennedy, Emily Berendt
mchenrycountygreenteam@yahoo.com

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Public Comments on the 2030 Land Use Plan

Public Comments on the 2030 Plan are nowposted on the McHenry County 2030 Plan website. It's easy to find if you do a search for McHenry County 2030 Plan. Also see the Northwest Herald site for a great Letter to the Editor from Linda Fierla.

Sorry about the blurry, off-color photos (literally)! Working on correcting that.
Anyon with blog knowledge who can offer suggestions on, please comment.

Where Does Your Water Come From?

Tuesday, July 14, 2009


Click on the poster to see it enlarged.
Response to the four public meetings and public comments was overwhelmingly in favor of removing the map in the Economic Development Section, preserving farmland and water, and keeping development in the municipalities.
Suddenly there is a meeting of the Planning Commission this Thursday that was not originally scheduled. Is that a sign that the controlling bloc on the commission is organizing to fight instead of acknowledging that they are out of sync with public opinion?

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Welcome to the McHenry County Green Team

We are residents of McHenry County Illinois, who are concerned about the direction our County Planning Commission is taking us in the 2030 Land Use Plan. We will share our concerns here and are very interested in your opinions.

We believe that our farmland must be preserved and will be more valuable as farmland in the near future than it will be as developed land. We believe that our water supply must be respected and no development should compromise our watesheds and our aquifers. The plan as written, compromises both farmland and water supplies.

The 2030 Draft plan was reviewed in public sessions June 26 through 30. Public opinion appeard overwhelmingly to agree with our position. Comments from the sessions and the open comments period will be reviewed at a joint meeting of the Plan Commission and the County Board Plan Committee on July 23, 2009 at 6 pm.