|
|
Post by JB on May 1, 2006 20:16:23 GMT -6
Despite rejection by the Plan Commission, Greenbrier Townhomes will be arguing to rezone commercial property to residential, adding students to Cowlishaw, Hill, and WV / New HS.
It is on the Agenda for tomorrow, May 2nd, 7pm at Naperville City Hall.
Please attend this meeting, and consider speaking out against this development. The more people we have, the more of a message we send to the City Council - we will not tolerate you rezoning commercial property! We will not accept you over crowding our schools.
The new high school has developers salivating - they believe they now have a green light to rezone anything. We need to change that light to red.
Aurora residents - please come as well. Naperville City Council is considering sending more kids to the schools you pay for. Are you going to tolerate this taxation without representation?
Please attend this meeting, and make your voices heard!
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on May 1, 2006 20:43:29 GMT -6
If you cannot attend the meeting, please send an email to the City Council Members....email contacts are on the Naperville City Website!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on May 1, 2006 20:48:12 GMT -6
If you cannot attend the meeting, please send an email to the City Council Members....email contacts are on the Naperville City Website!!! Thanks REW, good idea: Mayor George Pradel mayor@naperville.il.us (630) 420-6018 James E. Boyajian Boyajianj@naperville.il.us (630) 305-5336 Mary Ellingson ellingsonm@naperville.il.us (630) 305-5333 Richard R. Furstenau Furstenaur@naperville.il.us (630) 235-3377 Douglas Krause kraused@naperville.il.us (630) 961-2713 Kenn Miller millerk@naperville.il.us (630) 305-5318 (Office) (630) 544-1211 (Mobile) John Rosanova jrosanova@msn.com (630) 305-5335 Darlene Senger sengerd@naperville.il.us (630) 305-5362 Grant E. Wehrli wehrlig@naperville.il.us (630) 305-5331 |
|
|
|
Post by jenrik2714 on May 3, 2006 12:09:52 GMT -6
Would you guys be complaining if these were single family homes being constructed? Why are townhomes the problem? Is is because you think they attract the "wrong" kind of resident?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 3, 2006 12:13:59 GMT -6
No, I am just against builders trying to convert business zones to housing to make a buck with no regard on the impact of the SD or surounding area.
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on May 3, 2006 13:52:35 GMT -6
For me, it's the conversion of commercial zoned property to residential that's the main issue. It does a double whammy to the district by adding more students, and taking away tax revenue. The density of townhomes is a contributor on top of this.
You never see zoning going the other way (converting residential to commercial), seemingly.
The "wrong" kind of resident statement hypothesis seems a little like putting words in other people's mouths.
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on May 3, 2006 15:11:15 GMT -6
For me, it's the conversion of commercial zoned property to residential that's the main issue. It does a double whammy to the district by adding more students, and taking away tax revenue. The density of townhomes is a contributor on top of this. You never see zoning going the other way (converting residential to commercial), seemingly. The "wrong" kind of resident statement hypothesis seems a little like putting words in other people's mouths. Couldn't have put it better myself. If they want to build townhomes on their 17 acres of R-3, that's great. We planned for that in our enrollment projections. I've got nothing against townhomes or the people that live in them. If they would have proposed putting up $750,000 half acre single family, my arguement would not change a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on May 3, 2006 18:13:33 GMT -6
Would you guys be complaining if these were single family homes being constructed? Why are townhomes the problem? Is is because you think they attract the "wrong" kind of resident? Perhaps I'm missing something. There are 2 threads on this topic. Other than your post, I don't see anything that mentions the type of housing being constructed and everything mentioning the impact on the schools to people in both Naperville and Aurora. How do you come to the conclusion that the opposition is related to anything other than the impact on schools? |
|
|
|
Post by anteater on May 4, 2006 7:40:19 GMT -6
I think I was at the SB meeting when this was discussed - I think that Kevin Gallagher was there with a court reporter before some boundary discussions. Anwyay, if I remember correctly, another issue had to do with teh fact that some of hte townhomes had more bedrooms than the original plans showed. In many ways, it's the number of bedrooms, because that determines whether you attract couples with children, regardless of whether townhome or single family.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on May 4, 2006 8:21:01 GMT -6
Part of the problem is the developer doesn't want to specifiy number of two and three BR units, but rather, put in a clause that the size of the units will be "market driven"...a sort of blankcheck for the developer to build whatever sells.
|
|
|
|
Post by anteater on May 8, 2006 6:55:46 GMT -6
There was a story in the Sun over the weekend about some of the business owners in the Wheatland Industrial Park filing a suit for economic damages from the Carillon Club as it relates to closing 248th. It seems that not only do the residential developers not care about the impact on the schools - just as long as they are excellent! - but they (and the city council) also don't seem to care if they hurt existing businesses in the process. Certainly a slightly different twist on the rezoning addiction!
|
|
