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....

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

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.

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