- How many times have you heard that a developer has never had any interest in Winfield for Roosevelt Rd?
- How many times have you heard WU candidates and financial supporters say they support commercialization of Roosevelt as long as it’s done correctly?
Raise your hands!! Lots.
It’s being splattered all over Facebook, and it is 100% a complete lie. They have never supported commercialization of Roosevelt Rd.
How many times have you heard that this 411 blog and its readers are the source of all the hate in this community? Raise those hands, again!
That’s not true either. What we are doing – all of you in the 411 community - we are standing up against a local political action committee’s manipulation and outright dishonesty. Standing up for yourself and speaking out against a smear campaign is NOT a bad thing, and I refuse to stay silent like they want.There are rumors of other squashed development efforts, but so far, these are the ones I can substantiate.
So I present to you:
A History of Blocked Developments
Near Winfield Rd & Roosevelt Rd
Example #1 – Year 1988
Back in 1988, Winfield rejected a proposal from Mobil Oil on the northwest corner, aka the Kucius property.(1) It was for a car wash, gas station and convenience store. The Marathon station (on the northeast corner) across the street was vacant at the time.
“Zoning Board members said they were concerned about increased traffic congestion at the intersection and about storm drainage problems on the largely wooded site. They also wereconcerned about setting a precedent by establishing a business district away from the town’s center.”(1)
“The officials also feared that allowing one business to open on Roosevelt would lead to many others. For the most part, Roosevelt Road in Winfield is lined by trees, homes and open space. … Village officials expressed hope that the property would be developed for residential use.”(2)
When the Kucius family sued the Village, it cost the Village $250,000. (4) The Kucius family lost their lawsuit.
The Dupage County Complex was already in preliminary construction in 1988, and opened in 1990.
Example #2 – Year 2000
In 2000, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the 18.23 acres on the north and south sides of Roosevelt be rezoned to make it more attractive to development. Future WU elected Trustee Joel Kunesh (who was on the plan commission at the time), who voted against the recommendation, said it “would invite more traffic problems and change the area’s “rustic” look.” He further says “I don’t see that much potential [tax revenue to the village] and if it’s not in Winfield’s interest, why do it? I know we don’t need any more traffic on Roosevelt than we have.” (3) Kunesh kept that refrain when he was elected Trustee five years later. Trustee Stan Zegel said “he supports the village’s long-standing policy to preserve the area for “estate residential use” and will vote against the zoning change. (3)
“That could impact our quiet and peaceful neighborhood, which is why we moved out here, [Mary] Cooper said. “
“[The village board] have assured residents that they would reject any plan that designated the property commercial. In a rare move, they also voted to send a directive to the [plan] commission to drop the issue from consideration. “(4)
“It’s been residential for the last 30 years, and how many houses do you see on it?” – Chris Mackowiak, who supported the rezoning.
“The Mobil case gave rise to a residents group called Wooded Winfield – and the land pretty muchhas remained sacrosanct ever since.”(4)
“The village’s planning board has approved the creation of two residential zoning districts that would increase the minimum lot size and effectively prevent subdivision in an area that is now considered the village’s slice of open, uncluttered country.” (6)
Lots in my neighborhood are approx. 15,000sq ft (about 1/3 acre). The change in the zoning area requires 40,000 sq ft (almost 1 acre) south of Roosevelt Rd, and 30,000 sq ft (almost ¾ acre) just north of Roosevelt Rd. Coincidentally that’s where MaryLou Crane lived, who was a Trustee at time. Trustee John Grothman “called the ordinance short-sighted and myopic.”(6)
This residential overlay ordinance was recently repealed by the Village Board, in an effort led by Tim Allen.
I almost didn’t include this one from 2004, since it’s about the Village trying to annex the Planter’s Palette land which never happened. But the last two sentences caught my eye.
“And in 1997, Zegel helped lead an effort to remove a software company from doing business in a residence along the road[Roosevelt]. “It’s an oasis that gets you away from the hubbub of Wheaton,” Zegel said.”(5)
Which sounds completely different from running a newspaper out of your residence, now doesn’t it?
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
WU candidate Phil Mustes has said that Costco “will be a scar on Winfield for the next 50 years.” Do you want commercial revenue funding coming into this Village or not? Vote Blackburn, Olson, Jacques and Hanlon for President. And that is MY ENDORSEMENT. I don’t contribute thousands of dollars; I contribute my TIME. I contribute my emotional energy getting hate mail from WU executives, candidates and supporters.
The next time you hear that Winfield has never had any development interested in Roosevelt Rd, why don’t YOU set them straight? The Village People of 411 have a louder voice than you think. Send them to www.Winfield411.com.
VOTE. and get your NEIGHBORS to VOTE. Otherwise, the Dark Side(a) wins.
(a) I called THEM the Dark Side first!
1) Board douses car wash plan in winfield. (1988, Jan 20) Chicago Tribune p 11-11.
2) Winfield denies zoning for gas station. (1988 Mar 16) Chicago Tribune p6-6.
3) Winfield panel eyes development sites (2000 Nov 15) Chicago Tribune p7-2D-7.
4) Winfield residents, board oppose commercial plan for land. (2000, Dec 10) Daily Herald p6-6
5) Winfield looking to broaden its borders. (2004, Mar 03) Daily Herald pp4-4
6) Winfield’s rural atmosphere at center of estate zoning battle. (1990, Nov 06) Chicago Tribune p 4-4.