Home | News Index | Southern Link | Northern Link | How to Oppose | Kane 2020 Plan | Kendall Plan
Daily Herald
February 7, 2002
The Jan. 28 headline "Will McCoy's opposition hurt county?" was noteworthy
for a few reasons. The story had very little to do with the merits of the beltway proposal, and instead focused
on the musings of various politicians. The angle of the story was about the politics of transportation. If the
county doesn't go along with the speculation about development, and thus the need for the beltway, current, real
transportation needs may not be funded due to the influence of House Speaker Dennis Hastert and the discretion
of IDOT.
At the same time, the article notes that the speaker has been an advocate of the beltway since 1987 or 15 years.
The rationale supplied by IDOT and the speaker remains that the proposed corridor is necessary for future development.
In the past 15 years, that has not happened in the Kane County portion, nor is it projected to occur in the proposed
corridor. When Chairman Mike McCoy has asked some logical questions, the speaker and IDOT seem offended.
But once the corridor is defined and recorded, property owners cannot rezone, improve or otherwise develop their
real estate without the permission of IDOT. Moreover, once a property owner within the corridor notifies IDOT of
any proposed change, IDOT has the ability to purchase that property using eminent domain. Notwithstanding the legality
of this law, once the corridor is recorded, a substantial number of Kane County residents will have their fundamental
property rights trampled. All this power is proposed to be held by IDOT and land that has been held for generations
is subject to state purchase for a road that may or may not be necessary.
Most disconcerting, however, is that local politicians are tentative to question the merits of the beltway proposal
for fear of losing future transportation funds. The idea behind this remains that if Kane County does not step
in line with the vision of Speaker Hastert, then it will be punished. Ironically, we have a situation in which
our local politicians are being coerced into accepting a huge road that may be unneeded to obtain funds for roads
that are necessary.
In the context of this debate, IDOT and the speaker do not like the fact that McCoy is unwilling to blindly follow
a plan without adequate justification. Apparently, the powerful are not accustomed to providing a rationale for
their huge pork projects. In fact, some have questioned whether McCoy should be an advocate and take a position.
I am glad McCoy has the backbone to ignore the pressure and insist on answers to legitimate public policy concerns.
The conventional wisdom remains that the proposed beltway is only the first phase, and IDOT's plan is to eventually
go north through the county to I-90. This may be a good idea, but as citizens, we are entitled to full disclosure
of the plan. There is also the issue of funding, and IDOT and the speaker appear, at best, to be withholding information.
The easiest route McCoy could take right now would be to go along with the wishes of the speaker. This is especially
true now that the stakes have increased and funding for Kane County transportation needs has been threatened. It
takes a good deal of political courage to ignore these pressures and insist on a rational basis for the beltway
proposal. Regardless of where we stand on the merits of the beltway project, we should recognize and be thankful
that the current Kane County chairman has the integrity and the fortitude to insist on accountability for the public
good instead of succumbing to the political extortion exercised by the speaker.
Timothy P. Dwyer
St. Charles