McHenry County Blog

First there was a four by four foot sign for 8th congressional candidate Joe Walsh on the small billboard skeleton in the field at the Northwest corner of Bull Valley Road and what Crystal Lakers call the McHenry Blacktop.

Then it disappeared.

Last week, when I took my son to swim practice at McHenry West High School, there was a sign for county board candidate Karen Tynis where the Walsh sign had been

I must admit to have not heard of Tynis prior to her filing for the McHenry County Board in the Republican primary in District 3.

I did pick up her campaign piece at the Republican precinct committeeman’s literature distribution last Friday night.

It shows a smiling family on the address side with the message:

HELP ME, TO HELP YOU!
Let’s Bring Business Back
to McHenry County!

Karen Tynis, is an experienced businesswoman, wife, mother, grandmother and community volunteer. Whe will work for what the residents of McHenry County need and want.

On the back side is a

Vote

Vote
Karen J.
Tynis
County Board

Personal Background:

• Married with 3 children
• Resident of County for 19 years
• BS Degree Eastern Illinois University

Business Experience:

• Manages the family business, Tynis Concrete, with an avg. of 20 employees, for the last 12 years.
• Owner of KT Leasing, Inc.
• 10 exp. with Real Estate Closings and New Construction
• Treasurer of 2 Property Owners Associations

Community Service:

• Prairie Ridge Volleyball Volunteered
• Club Fusion Volleyball Volunteer
• Salvation Army Volunteered
• Shepherd of the Hills Church Volunteered
• Prairie Grove Parks Dept. Volunteer

Objectives:

• Establish New Business Relationships for the County that encourages growth without hurting taxpayers
• Help Keep Existing Business in McHenry County
• Lowering Taxes
• Reduce Government Spending
• Establish Open Door Policy for Residents
• Community Safety

At the bottom is a notice that reminds people that early voting stats today.

Tynis answered the questionnaire for the Northwest Herald.

While not mention on the mailing, of possible interest is that she supports video poker and the two District 3 board members whose terms are up voted to ban it. One, Ed Dvorak, is retiring. The other, Barbara Wheeler was a leader in the fight to ban this gambling in the unincorporated areas of McHenry County.

The cop board vote on the ban was 13-10-1,  so the District 3 elections could tilt the balance in favor of video slot machines. If two pro-gambling members were elected—and no other changes occurred—the vote would be 12-11-1 in favor of video gambling.

One other observation:

I can’t remember the last time anyone campaigned in favor of growth. Past pro-growth candidates have usually said they were for “controlled growth.”

You read what the Woodstock Independent, the Northwest Herald and the Daily Herald want to know about and from candidates. Here’s what the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water are interested in learning about those running for the McHenry County Board:

ALAW County Board Candidates Survey: 2010 Primary Election

Please, indicate yes or no in the box to the right of the question.

A. Land Use

1. Have you personally attended any of the Regional Planning Commission meetings or subcommittee meetings on the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan?

2. Have you read the proposed 2030 Land Use Plan?

3. Do you think the makeup of the 2030 Regional Planning Commission was a balanced representation of the residents of the county?

4. Do you agree that new development should be located where infrastructure exists, to minimize the extension of new roads, utilities and services, and protect farmland and water recharge areas?

5. If elected, will you support funding permanent protection of agricultural land and the agricultural industry in the County?

6. Do you understand that new rural development costs more for the extension of infrastructure (roads, water, sewer and services) than it brings to the County in taxes and that those extra costs are passed on to the existing taxpayers?

7. Do you support creation of the Hac-Ma-Tac National Wildlife Refuge in the county?

B. Water Resources

1. Would you oppose any land use change that would exceed a locally recharged aquifer’s capacity?

2. If elected will you enforce use of the SARA – Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas map developed by the County Water Resources Department, as a determining factor in every land use change decision?

3. Do you support redistributing groundwater from water-rich areas to areas that have over drawn their groundwater?

4. Do you think that McHenry County will be able to get water from Lake Michigan?

C. Transparency in Government

1. Would you support a requirement that all elected or appointed county officials make up-front disclosures of any financial or other interest in any real property in the County?

2. Do you support a requirement that all elected or appointed county officials make up-front disclosures of their interest in any business entity doing business with the county?

3. Do you believe that public officials should disclose whether they provide professional services to any unit of government to which they are elected or appointed?

4. Do you agree that all scheduled meetings agendas and minutes, including committee and sub-committee, should be posted on the County web site?

5. Do you agree that all McHenry County Board meetings should be video recorded and posted on the County web site?

D. Short Answer. Only the number of words indicated will be published in the response report. (please add a page if you need more room, but remember that we can only print the number of words indicated. Thank you.)

1. What role do you think the County should play in planning for growth? (50 words)

2. By protecting agricultural lands and soil resources, groundwater and its natural recharge can also be protected. What will you do to provide that protection? (50 words)

3. What does the County get from its annual contract with the McHenry County Economic Development Corporation and is it a good investment of taxpayer money? (50 words)

4. Who do you consider to be your constituents and how do you intend to communicate with them to ensure your positions honestly represent them? (50 words)

5. Please provide a personal statement about what you intend to accomplish, if elected to the County Board, and/or provide additional information regarding any of the “ / no” yes answers given above. (100 words)

Answers are due January 11th.

There’s nothing wrong with Northwest Herald reporter Kevin Craver’s front page article about Metra’s board voting to purchase McHenry County Board Chairman’s property in Ridgefield.

It contains much of the same information in these McHenry County Blog articles (listed in reverse order of publication):

Friday, 8-14-9 Metra Votes to Purchase Ridgefield Station Site

Friday, 8-14-9 Craig Steagall Unleashes Broadside Against McHenry County Board Chairman Ken Koehler over Metra State Land Purchase

Friday, 8-14-9 Metra Scheduled to Approve Former Flowerwood Land for Station in Ridgefield This Morning

Thursday, 8-13-9 $1.5 Million Being Paid for Ridgefield Metra Site Half-Owned by McHenry County Board Chairman Ken Koehler

Thursday, 8-13-9 Metra Transparency Worse than McHenry County College’s

Wednesday, 8-12-9 Ridgefield Businessman Takes on McHenry County Board Chairman Ken Koehler over Proposed Metra Station

Friday, 8-7-9 Musings on the Proposed Ridgefield Metra Station

Wednesday, 8-5-9 Alexander Lumber’s Move to Ridgefield, Proposed Metra Station Implications

But the headline writer might make people think that Metra is “tentative” about the deal.

That appointed board is not.

If the City of Crystal Lake annexes the land and agrees to manage the parking lot, it’s a done deal.

There may be a real fight on the Crystal Lake Zoning and Planning Board and the Crystal Lake City Council, but that will probably be over whether the site makes sense from a regional planning perspective.

That is a very real question, in my opinion.

Is this the first step into turning Country Club Road north toward McConnell Road into a commercial and industrial strip?

Will Crystal Lake annex all of Downtown Ridgefield?

Will the city council decide that there is more sales tax revenue in a Walgreens or CVS than the antique shops on the triangular shaped land on the north side of the narrow part of Country Club Road that runs through Ridgefield?

Hey, the road has to be widened anyway,

That means the antique shops have to be demolished anyway, right?

Will the city use condemnation powers to take the land, as Cicero, Chicago and other cities have done in the name of economic development, or will a retail establishment agree to pay enough for the land that the present owners will willingly sell and, in return for appropriate zoning, “donate” sufficient right-of-way for a widened road?

Think massive development of that area isn’t being contemplated?

Then, consider this viewpoint, found in Marna Pyke’s Daily Herald article, by former Lake County Board Chairman, now a Metra board member, at Friday’s meeting:

“Metra Director Jim LaBelle, who represents Lake County, said he regretted there were no plans for housing next to the train station.

“‘It looks like a parking lot in the middle of the country,’ he said.”

As with the McHenry County College stadium fight, residents near the proposed Metra stop won’t carry much weight in City of Crystal Lake deliberations because they live outside the city limits. And considering the city’s unwillingness to annex the Crystal Lake Manor, which it complete surrounds, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for city officials to become interested in making current Ridgefield residents taxpaying citizens. (And, there wouldn’t be any advantage to the Ridgefield residents anyway, because there is no water and/or sewer required by the commuter parking lot.)

One argument those living outside of Crystal Lake might be able to develop is the same one used by stadium opponents–the covering of Crystal Lake’s watershed with a big asphalt parking lot.

757 parking spaces covered with an impermeable surface might move those interested in the health of the lake to action again.

And, since the biggest potential beneficiary is McHenry County College, a coalition might be built that contains both supporters and opponents of the college’s minor league baseball stadium.

Surely a station on the college’s (west) side of the railroad tracks would be more convenient and safer for students who might use the train to get to classes.

No one really knows how much use college students might make of such service. But planning for future growth at the college campus, which now is right across Ridgefield Road from the train tracks should receive serious consideration.

College officials I talked to knew of no contact about the suitability of the location from Metra since the parking lot site was selected January 5, 2009.

One told me she first learned of Metra’s selection “from reading the paper.”

The NW Herald article is posted as going up on its web site Tuesday, August 4th. I think it was printed on Wednesday, however.

So, a major question exists about why Metra kept it a secret from the public for seven months.

Why were there no public hearings on such a growth generator?

Why was this deal rushed through?

Why does the contract have a clause saying,

How complete absurd, unless there is more than meets the eye.

Why is Metra paying so much more than the $67,000 an acre McHenry County College paid just last year for 57 acres down the road?

MCC negotiated its contract on the Gilger property at the top of the real estate boom.

Now McHenry County is in the canyon of the market.

Metra will not win the transparency award for 2009.

The paperwork given Metra board members indicates that Crystal Lake officials were in the know earlier than the public.

No change of policy there.

Remember the college stadium time line?

No knowledge of it appeared in the NW Herald until the day after McHenry County Blog broke the story. Then, Mayor Aaron Shepley filled the paper’s front page with its praise.

There will also have to be vote of the McHenry County Board, but it’s about money spent for roads when 84 Lumber was built after approval by the county board.

Without a favorable vote, the deal, as approved by Metra’s board, will not go through.
= = = = =
You see Devil’s Mound above on the left.

The canyon is in Idaho near Balanced Rock.

At the bottom is Balanced Rock. You can see a boy who has climbed up to it. This story reminds me of the apprehension that some might have that the rock might fall on them…or on us taxpayers.

Have you notices that municipalities do so, so well when growth is rampant?

But when it slows down, taxes and fees get hiked.

If you need a recent example, think of Crystal Lake’s hiking water and sewer rates for the second time

IlliniPundit posted a story about developer impact fees. It certainly doesn’t say growth pays its own way.

The City of Champaign released their draft Cost of Land Uses Fiscal Impact Analysis, and held a public meeting on it…:

The study found that among six types of residential development, only high-priced single-family detached homes in the $400,000 to $600,000 range, such as Trails at Brittany and Chestnut Grove subdivisions, and downtown apartments, like at One Main, generated income surpluses for the city, primarily due to their higher taxable values.

High-priced single-family homes generated a surplus of $813 per house for the city and downtown apartments generated a surplus of $325 per unit.

Other types of housing were net money losers, including medium-priced single family homes, like in Sawgrass and Boulder Ridge subdivisions (a loss of $888 per unit); low-priced single family homes, like in Ashland Park (an average $641 per unit loss); apartments on the city fringe (an average loss of $764 per unit) and attached housing units, such as townhomes, duplexes and triplexes (an average loss of $334 per unit), the study said.

And this:

Among nonresidential developments, big box retail generates a $6,245 surplus for the city per 1,000 square feet of space, and neighborhood retail generates $4,639 per 1,000 square feet. Sales taxes generated by retail sales accounts for the surpluses.
But the city loses an average of $314 per 1,000 square feet of office space, loses $63 per 1,000 square feet of industrial use and loses $51 per 1,000 square feet for health care clinics.

So, growth in Barrington Hills, Lakewood and Bull Valley pays its own way, but affordable homes don’t.

The rest of us have to subsidize the developers, who “help” us subsidize them by contributing campaign cash to school tax hike committees.

It used to be that a village or a city couldn’t force you to annex unless it surrounded your property.

No more.

As I have learned working on the campaign to stop forcible annexation of two farms on Ridge Road, a village like Bull Valley can find six property owners abutting, but not close to surrounding much larger parcels of property and force them into a municipality.

Boy, that Illinois Municipal League is a power force in Springfield.

The only recourse the unwilling property owners have is to pass petitions to allow voters to make the final decision.

Last spring I was asked to pass such a petition.

Because of a Federal Appellate Court decision brought about by 1998 Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate Jim Tobin, even though I didn’t live in the village, the ruling allowed me to seek signatures of 10% of the people who voted in the last village election.

21 were needed; I got about 35. (To run for village board only 11 are needed, but, if you want to run, get 20 so you can withstand any election challenge. The ruling clique is litiginous.)

When attorney Bob Wagner, a former Crystal Lake mayor, tried to file the referendum petition, he found no one would accept the petition.

As he puts it,

“Bull Valley is no Mayberry.”

The police chief would not accept the petitions. The village office was closed. The scheduled village board meeting was canceled.

At Village Clerk Phyllis Keinz’ home, no one would answer the door multiple times, even though someone put out the garbage can and was on the phone, indications the home was not empty.

Wagner finally had to get a court order to force Bull Valley’s lawyers to accept the annexation referendum petitions.

Now, the campaign is in full swing, as anyone driving into or out of Bull Valley can see.

What residents of Bull Valley cannot see are the mailings that residents are receiving.

And the web site: www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers.com/.

They point out that, going back to 2001, Bull Valley has spent many, many times more money on paying lawyers than paving roads.

Over $500,000 for lawyers since 2001—not counting the $5,000 a month and more that the attorney who enforces the traffic tickets gets paid—and only $47,000 for road repaving.

The road program since then has consisted of patching potholes.

Above you see part of Bull Valley Road in the middle of the village. It is the worst road I have ever seen in McHenry County. Pothole patching on top of pothole patching.

How much has the village spent on road repaving since 2001?

As sworn under oath on February 9, 2007, the Licensed Professional Engineer says zilch. (Well, he didn’t exactly use that word.)

How much should be spent each year?

$367,300 in 2006 dollars is what his above memo of March 21, 2006 says. (Click to enlarge the print.)

You don’t need my master’s degree in public administration to figure out that this is a village with whacky priorities.

If you haven’t driven through Bull Valley recently, take a look at Shadow Lane in Shadowood, south of the west side of Wonder Lake.

Shadowood is a subdivision in which the village engineer says needed $231,000 for repaving in 2006—before oil prices zoomed.

This street is so bad that I could see tire marks in dust.

Rubble best describes large parts of this unmaintained street in Shadowood Subdivision. It is lined with bigger homes than are in my part of Lakewood. This is the subdivision’s entrance road.

Shadowood residents sought annexation to Bull Valley to prevent gravel trucks from using Thompson Road to get to Route 120.

Mission accomplished there, but membership has not only privileges, it has counterbalancing disadvantages. Had the subdivision remained unincorporated, the township would have probably repaved the road by now.

Take a look at this subdivision, which lies to the west of Shadowood and is being courted by Bull Valley residents to annex to the village. It’s called Thoroughbred Estates and it lies just west of Greenwood Road. Its roads have just been repaved by the Greenwood Township Road Commissioner.

“Never” comes close to predicting when the Village of Bull Valley will be able to afford to make Shadow Lane in Shadowood whole again.

Beyond the land of never, if legal fees continue to consume the 10 times the budget for repaving, as they have since 2001.

The Bull Valley board’s answer?

Let’s annex more roads.

On May 22, 2006, the village’s Licensed Professional Engineer recommended against annexation one of the 120-acre farms when the estate which owns it asked for 40 homes. (Click to enlarge this or any other image.) The homes would be clustered toward the center of the property with 80-acres of open space around the edges. Horse trails, which lifetime resident Ann Kaiser allowed people to use would be continued.

But that wasn’t good enough for Bull Valley officials, who refuse to talk to those seeking rezoning.

Of course, Bull Valley prides itself on its 5-acre zoning.

But people in Pine Ridge Estates, the subdivision to the west of the farms forcibly annexed, currently live on 3-acre lots Residents there comprise most of the six petitioners in the hostile takeover attempt of their neighbor’s property. Their neighborhood looks nice, but they certainly do not meet the 5-acre zoning that the village board wants to impose on the Ann Kaiser farm, now owned by the many beneficiaries of her estate.

And Bull Valley has just allowed giant Inland Real Estate similar 3-acre zoning at the intersection of Queen Ann and Bull Valley Roads.

That’s pretty much the Woodstock gateway to Bull Valley.

McAndrews Glen, on the eastern edge of Bull Valley near the corner of Bull Valley and Draper Roads started out as a 90-acre parcel upon which permission was sought and granted for 30 homes. You see the clustered subdivision part above.

They are on half-acre lots around vast closely cropped lawns.

So, 3-acre zoning to the farm’s west, at the Woodstock entrance to Bull Valley and at its eastern edge on Bull Valley Road is good enough for the village board, but clustered 3-acre zoning is not good enough for Ann Kaiser’s farm at far northeastern edge of the village at the corner of Ridge and Valley Hill Roads.

Across Ridge Road is 1-acre zoning in the City of McHenry. Since both McHenry and Bull Valley have agreed that Ridge Road will be their boundary, there is no chance that the farm could be annexed to the neighboring city.

Annexation to Bull Valley will mean that Ridge and Valley Hill Roads will shift from the responsibility of the township road commissioner, who had adequate money to repave them quite recently, to the Village of Bull Valley, which as a solid track record of allowing its roads to deteriorate.

You can see the difference between township maintenance and Bull Valley village maintenance on the photo of Ridge Road here. It’s just before Ridge runs into Bull Valley Road. In the foreground is the township road; down the hill is the Bull Valley-maintained road.

Then there is Crystal Springs Road.

Nunda Township Highway Commissioner Don Kopsell just repaved it for the second time in 11 years. (Remember the Bull Valley Professional Engineer recommended repaving Bull Valley’s roads every 15 years and nothing has been done for the last 8 years.)

Look at the road above.

It’s part of Crystal Springs Road maintained by the township.

Below is a part near Colonel Holcomb Estates, which is not in the village. This part of Crystal Springs Road is maintained by the village because the farm across the street was annexed.

It is going to pot, so to speak.

There many other examples.

It used to be that a village or a city couldn’t force you to annex unless it surrounded your property.

No more.

As I have learned working on the campaign to stop forcible annexation of two farms on Ridge Road, a village like Bull Valley can find six property owners abutting, but not close to surrounding much larger parcels of property and force them into a municipality.

Boy, that Illinois Municipal League is a power force in Springfield.

The only recourse the unwilling property owners have is to pass petitions to allow voters to make the final decision.

Last spring I was asked to pass such a petition.

Because of a Federal Appellate Court decision brought about by 1998 Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate Jim Tobin, even though I didn’t live in the village, the ruling allowed me to seek signatures of 10% of the people who voted in the last village election.

21 were needed; I got about 35. (To run for village board only 11 are needed, but, if you want to run, get 20 so you can withstand any election challenge. The ruling clique is litiginous.)

When attorney Bob Wagner, a former Crystal Lake mayor, tried to file the referendum petition, he found no one would accept the petition.

As he puts it,

“Bull Valley is no Mayberry.”

The police chief would not accept the petitions. The village office was closed. The scheduled village board meeting was canceled.

At Village Clerk Phyllis Keinz’ home, no one would answer the door multiple times, even though someone put out the garbage can and was on the phone, indications the home was not empty.

Wagner finally had to get a court order to force Bull Valley’s lawyers to accept the annexation referendum petitions.

Now, the campaign is in full swing, as anyone driving into or out of Bull Valley can see.

What residents of Bull Valley cannot see are the mailings that residents are receiving.

And the web site: www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers.com/.

They point out that, going back to 2001, Bull Valley has spent many, many times more money on paying lawyers than paving roads.

Over $500,000 for lawyers since 2001—not counting the $5,000 a month and more that the attorney who enforces the traffic tickets gets paid—and only $47,000 for road repaving.

The road program since then has consisted of patching potholes.

Above you see part of Bull Valley Road in the middle of the village. It is the worst road I have ever seen in McHenry County. Pothole patching on top of pothole patching.

How much has the village spent on road repaving since 2001?

As sworn under oath on February 9, 2007, the Licensed Professional Engineer says zilch. (Well, he didn’t exactly use that word.)

How much should be spent each year?

$367,300 in 2006 dollars is what his above memo of March 21, 2006 says. (Click to enlarge the print.)

You don’t need my master’s degree in public administration to figure out that this is a village with whacky priorities.

If you haven’t driven through Bull Valley recently, take a look at Shadow Lane in Shadowood, south of the west side of Wonder Lake.

Shadowood is a subdivision in which the village engineer says needed $231,000 for repaving in 2006—before oil prices zoomed.

This street is so bad that I could see tire marks in dust.

Rubble best describes large parts of this unmaintained street in Shadowood Subdivision. It is lined with bigger homes than are in my part of Lakewood. This is the subdivision’s entrance road.

Shadowood residents sought annexation to Bull Valley to prevent gravel trucks from using Thompson Road to get to Route 120.

Mission accomplished there, but membership has not only privileges, it has counterbalancing disadvantages. Had the subdivision remained unincorporated, the township would have probably repaved the road by now.

Take a look at this subdivision, which lies to the west of Shadowood and is being courted by Bull Valley residents to annex to the village. It’s called Thoroughbred Estates and it lies just west of Greenwood Road. Its roads have just been repaved by the Greenwood Township Road Commissioner.

“Never” comes close to predicting when the Village of Bull Valley will be able to afford to make Shadow Lane in Shadowood whole again.

Beyond the land of never, if legal fees continue to consume the 10 times the budget for repaving, as they have since 2001.

The Bull Valley board’s answer?

Let’s annex more roads.

On May 22, 2006, the village’s Licensed Professional Engineer recommended against annexation one of the 120-acre farms when the estate which owns it asked for 40 homes. (Click to enlarge this or any other image.) The homes would be clustered toward the center of the property with 80-acres of open space around the edges. Horse trails, which lifetime resident Ann Kaiser allowed people to use would be continued.

But that wasn’t good enough for Bull Valley officials, who refuse to talk to those seeking rezoning.

Of course, Bull Valley prides itself on its 5-acre zoning.

But people in Pine Ridge Estates, the subdivision to the west of the farms forcibly annexed, currently live on 3-acre lots Residents there comprise most of the six petitioners in the hostile takeover attempt of their neighbor’s property. Their neighborhood looks nice, but they certainly do not meet the 5-acre zoning that the village board wants to impose on the Ann Kaiser farm, now owned by the many beneficiaries of her estate.

And Bull Valley has just allowed giant Inland Real Estate similar 3-acre zoning at the intersection of Queen Ann and Bull Valley Roads.

That’s pretty much the Woodstock gateway to Bull Valley.

McAndrews Glen, on the eastern edge of Bull Valley near the corner of Bull Valley and Draper Roads started out as a 90-acre parcel upon which permission was sought and granted for 30 homes. You see the clustered subdivision part above.

They are on half-acre lots around vast closely cropped lawns.

So, 3-acre zoning to the farm’s west, at the Woodstock entrance to Bull Valley and at its eastern edge on Bull Valley Road is good enough for the village board, but clustered 3-acre zoning is not good enough for Ann Kaiser’s farm at far northeastern edge of the village at the corner of Ridge and Valley Hill Roads.

Across Ridge Road is 1-acre zoning in the City of McHenry. Since both McHenry and Bull Valley have agreed that Ridge Road will be their boundary, there is no chance that the farm could be annexed to the neighboring city.

Annexation to Bull Valley will mean that Ridge and Valley Hill Roads will shift from the responsibility of the township road commissioner, who had adequate money to repave them quite recently, to the Village of Bull Valley, which as a solid track record of allowing its roads to deteriorate.

You can see the difference between township maintenance and Bull Valley village maintenance on the photo of Ridge Road here. It’s just before Ridge runs into Bull Valley Road. In the foreground is the township road; down the hill is the Bull Valley-maintained road.

Then there is Crystal Springs Road.

Nunda Township Highway Commissioner Don Kopsell just repaved it for the second time in 11 years. (Remember the Bull Valley Professional Engineer recommended repaving Bull Valley’s roads every 15 years and nothing has been done for the last 8 years.)

Look at the road above.

It’s part of Crystal Springs Road maintained by the township.

Below is a part near Colonel Holcomb Estates, which is not in the village. This part of Crystal Springs Road is maintained by the village because the farm across the street was annexed.

It is going to pot, so to speak.

There many other examples.

Below are the answers to the A-LAW and McHenry County Defendeers’ McHenry County Board questionnaire. Although the questions of the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water and the Defenders are good ones, only six of the candidates took the time to answer them.

A-LAW, you may remember proposed and campaign unsuccessfully for a water authority for the more unpopulated part of the county. The proposal covered much of county board District 6, where a number of the candidates providing answers seek to serve.

The McHenry County Defenders organization needs no introduction.

That’s really a loss.

Perhaps this fall when it is Republicans versus Democrats more candidates will conclude that sharing their visions of McHenry County’s future is in their best interest, not to mention the best interest of allowing a better informed electorate.

Below is the first installment:

How would you characterize the growth of McHenry County over the last 25 years and what trends do you see for the future? What concerns do you have? What would you like to see?

Sue Draffkorn, D-4, Republican:
It appears that municipalities and the county were not pro-active in regards to the growth that has occurred over the past 25 years. We are now dealing with crowded roads, crowded schools and housing that is becoming unaffordable. The state of Illinois has failed to help McHenry County with transportation and education expenses. We are a donor county; we do not receive the same considerations from the state as other counties. Our citizens pay more in taxes and get little in return. I would like to see more environmentally friendly subdivision ordinances that take into account groundwater and natural resources in McHenry County.

Jeff Thirtyacre, D-4, Democrat:
Growth in McHenry County has been moderate at most due to the lack of Public Transportation. The Southern part of McHenry has had a boom in growth while the rest has little to none. My concerns are that because of the growth levels, we are going to see problems with jobs being lost. Water supply will decline because new water protection plans haven’t been developed. I would like to see development plans put into place. Including Business Promotions to get jobs to McHenry County.

Virginia Peschke, D-5, Republican:
Growth has been out-of-control for the last 20 years due to the lower purchase price of homes and lack of planning by County and municipalities. The County, even with limited power to control growth had neither the will, nor the expertise, to exercise leadership in promoting “smart growth” principles. It will take effort and public pressure to force elected officials to rein in growth and promote sensible, sustainable development. The growing shortage of water resources may be a wake-up call. I would like to see the public elect representatives who would protect the quality of life we enjoy in McHenry County.

Ersel Schuster, D-6, Republican:
For the most part, I see growth in McHenry County being openly encouraged by village and municipal governments. From all indications I believe that process will continue at break-neck-speed; far outstripping the necessary infrastructure and ability for residents to pay the costs associated with that development. Idealistically, I would like to see greater restraint on the part of county and municipal leaders in promoting growth and development. I would envision stricter zoning laws and adherence to those laws thus curbing out of control development the public can ill afford.

Harry Alten, Jr., D-6, Republican: Random. Sometimes leap frogging. Misuse of productive Ag land. I would like the purchase of development rights of Ag Land to sustain our Agricultural Industry in McHenry County.

Andrew “Drew” Georgi, Jr., D-6, Democrat:
Large growth of the population and expensive housing projects that our people can not afford with the jobs available inside our county causing them to work outside the county making our transportation system over burdened. We need to approve only housing projects that our people can afford, bring in more jobs to the county, improve both our roads by having bypasses around the congested areas and improve the public transportation system.

= = = = =
Unfortunately, I do not have a photo of Harry Alten. And there are two stories today where he is featured.

Below are the answers to the A-LAW and McHenry County Defendeers’ McHenry County Board questionnaire. Although the questions of the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water and the Defenders are good ones, only six of the candidates took the time to answer them.

A-LAW, you may remember proposed and campaign unsuccessfully for a water authority for the more unpopulated part of the county. The proposal covered much of county board District 6, where a number of the candidates providing answers seek to serve.

The McHenry County Defenders organization needs no introduction.

That’s really a loss.

Perhaps this fall when it is Republicans versus Democrats more candidates will conclude that sharing their visions of McHenry County’s future is in their best interest, not to mention the best interest of allowing a better informed electorate.

Below is the first installment:

How would you characterize the growth of McHenry County over the last 25 years and what trends do you see for the future? What concerns do you have? What would you like to see?

Sue Draffkorn, D-4, Republican:
It appears that municipalities and the county were not pro-active in regards to the growth that has occurred over the past 25 years. We are now dealing with crowded roads, crowded schools and housing that is becoming unaffordable. The state of Illinois has failed to help McHenry County with transportation and education expenses. We are a donor county; we do not receive the same considerations from the state as other counties. Our citizens pay more in taxes and get little in return. I would like to see more environmentally friendly subdivision ordinances that take into account groundwater and natural resources in McHenry County.

Jeff Thirtyacre, D-4, Democrat:
Growth in McHenry County has been moderate at most due to the lack of Public Transportation. The Southern part of McHenry has had a boom in growth while the rest has little to none. My concerns are that because of the growth levels, we are going to see problems with jobs being lost. Water supply will decline because new water protection plans haven’t been developed. I would like to see development plans put into place. Including Business Promotions to get jobs to McHenry County.

Virginia Peschke, D-5, Republican:
Growth has been out-of-control for the last 20 years due to the lower purchase price of homes and lack of planning by County and municipalities. The County, even with limited power to control growth had neither the will, nor the expertise, to exercise leadership in promoting “smart growth” principles. It will take effort and public pressure to force elected officials to rein in growth and promote sensible, sustainable development. The growing shortage of water resources may be a wake-up call. I would like to see the public elect representatives who would protect the quality of life we enjoy in McHenry County.

Ersel Schuster, D-6, Republican:
For the most part, I see growth in McHenry County being openly encouraged by village and municipal governments. From all indications I believe that process will continue at break-neck-speed; far outstripping the necessary infrastructure and ability for residents to pay the costs associated with that development. Idealistically, I would like to see greater restraint on the part of county and municipal leaders in promoting growth and development. I would envision stricter zoning laws and adherence to those laws thus curbing out of control development the public can ill afford.

Harry Alten, Jr., D-6, Republican: Random. Sometimes leap frogging. Misuse of productive Ag land. I would like the purchase of development rights of Ag Land to sustain our Agricultural Industry in McHenry County.

Andrew “Drew” Georgi, Jr., D-6, Democrat:
Large growth of the population and expensive housing projects that our people can not afford with the jobs available inside our county causing them to work outside the county making our transportation system over burdened. We need to approve only housing projects that our people can afford, bring in more jobs to the county, improve both our roads by having bypasses around the congested areas and improve the public transportation system.

= = = = =
Unfortunately, I do not have a photo of Harry Alten. And there are two stories today where he is featured.