Aurora Beacon-News
January 17, 2002
Douglas E. Terry
Oswego
Byron Hyink
Yorkville
Shelly Cruz,
Batavia
Kay Catlin St.
Charles
Leon
Ardelean Kane County Board, District 3
In response to
Dave Parro's well-written article "Outer belt rerouting proposed" in
the Jan. 11 Beacon, I find the comments
of The Conservation Foundation's Brook McDonald a bit out of touch
with reality. I applaud Mr. McDonald's personal and
organizational efforts as a protector of open space, but I must
paraphrase a popular phrase for him ó sprawl happens. And
it
is happening in Kendall and Kane counties at an aggressive pace.
I'm a new resident of Oswego after spending the majority of my 45
years in DuPage County. Guess what? Sprawl happened
there, too. It's inevitable. Businesses continue to look for
campus-like settings along the expressways, developers continue
to
look for land to build homes for the employees, and still more
developers seek more land to build the essentials of life
ó
grocery stores, Target, Home Depot, and maybe a Portillo's to keep us
happy.
My point is, the sprawl is already here, and if the various political
factions can't reach a reasonable accord, the residents of
Kane and Kendall counties are going to be gridlocked into the next
century. To try and appease the "slow growth" or "no
growth" factions is a pipe dream. The barn door has long been open to
sprawl, and the horse is stuck at the light at Ogden and
Route 30.
Douglas E. Terry Oswego
I have heard of three corridor proposals. What
happened to the east corridor proposal? You already have Orchard Road
that
should please Aurora. We have the new Orchard Road bridge to connect
Route 34 to Route 71. Route 71 connects to Route
47, thereby bypassing the center of Yorkville at the Fox River,
saving traffic going south from passing through town.
From the junction of Route 71 and Orchard Road going south, Meeker
Road joins Route 126. Route 126 meets Grove Road
that goes south to Minooka and Route 80 and Route 6.
It would seem you could find a more direct route from Route 71 and
Orchard Road to Grove and Route 126 and on to Route
80, which is your goal.
Byron Hyink Yorkville
I am sure my one opinion doesn't count for much in
the big picture, but I can't help but be vocal about this.
I completely oppose any outer beltway to connect I-80 and I-90! The
beltway will only take away from the small rural
towns and communities that I have grown to know. I lived in Sugar
Grove most of my childhood years and attended Kaneland
schools. I have many friends who still live in Sugar Grove, Elburn
and Maple Park simply because there is no city hassle. So
what if you have to drive 20 miles to go to a shopping mall and can
only shop for groceries once a week. That's why we grow
fruits and vegetables ourselves!
I think we should keep the highway out and let the small country
roads (gravel, in fact) stay. If people want a city life, let
them move to Chicago. They don't need to ruin my small towns just to
race through in their Jaguars and Porsches while
throwing their litter and cigarette butts out the window. We don't
need that.
I don't want some superhighway with all of the gas stations and
mini-markets that will come. Then, the apartment
complexes and shopping malls will show up. NO, NO, NO! Sorry if it
seems harsh, but NO!
Shelly Cruz Batavia
Speaking of the need for more information about
the outer belt, here's a question I'd like the County Board to
answer: "If it's
not OK to route a bike path through someone's back yard, why is it OK
to drive a freeway through someone else's family
farm?" Especially when there hasn't even been a needs assessment or a
specific route established, or money to compensate the
displaced.
Is this yet another example of some citizens (aka board members)
being more equal than other citizens when it comes to
consideration? Or is this just a thinly veiled attempt to shift all
the risk of "maybe" needing a freeway "somewhere" "some
day" to citizen/landowners instead of the county/state/federal
government?
Honestly, where are those property rights people when you need
them?
Kay Catlin St. Charles
As to the
discussion on the outer-belt freeway, all we are being asked by the
state of Illinois is for our blessing, very much as
a suitor would ask the parents for permission to marry their
daughter. You know very well that it will happen, with or without
our blessing.
If the state is willing to build a north-south outer beltway in our
area to expedite traffic, they should be encouraged to do so. I
firmly believe, when and if the time comes, we will be allowed to
designate where this outer belt goes in. My personal choice
would be for a limited access freeway in western Kane County near or
at County Line Road. This would serve the needs of
Kane County, as well as the needs of DeKalb County. However, any
choice will be better than what we have now.
The hue and cry is that the Midwest doesn't get its fair share of tax
dollars that are being returned from Washington, D.C.
Here's the perfect opportunity to get a certain amount of money back
into our economy. Here you have the state of Illinois
admitting there is a need for an outer-belt road, the authority and
necessary assistance from Congress, by virtue of the speaker
of the House, Dennis Hastert, which would mean a great deal of
funding, and all that we have to do is to give them our
blessing.
I just can't understand why we would not accept this generous
offer.
Infrastructure is extremely expensive, especially if it needs to be
repaired. If the state is willing to create a new road and
bridges beforehand, it is the least expensive way of meeting our
needs. Let's all get together and allow the state to put in a
first-class road to meet our future needs. The days of the horse and
buggy are over, and we would be remiss in our duties to lose
sight of this opportunity. I will be voting for the outer-belt
freeway!
Leon Ardelean Kane County Board, District 3
01/17/02