Home | News Index | Southern Link | Northern Link | How to Oppose | Kane 2020 Plan | Kendall Plan
Daily Herald
August 1, 2002
By David R. Kazak
Daily Herald Staff Writer
The only land the state needs to protect from development for the eventual construction of an outerbelt expressway
is the controversial corridor through Kane and Kendall counties that state leaders first presented in December.
With that declaration at a contentious news conference Wednesday, Illinois Transportation Secretary Kirk Brown
flatly rejected Kane County's bid to re-route the so-called Prairie Parkway farther east and away from the county's
western agriculture belt.
Unexpected? Not really, some of Kane's top leaders said.
"They never had any intention of addressing our proposal," Kane County Board Chairman Mike McCoy said
when he learned IDOT now has marked the proposed expressway's path onto the deeds of landowners in its way.
Brown made his announcement as he squared off with reporters and a room full of angry landowners -- most wearing
"No Outerbelt" buttons -- in Yorkville, not far from where the expressway might one day be built.
In December, the state proposed designating a strip of land 33 miles long and 400 feet wide that would stretch
from I-88 in Kane County, south through Kendall County, and connect with I-80 near Minooka in Grundy County.
The proposal to ban major development other than a roadway in that corridor has raised a furor among some farmers,
politicians and open-space proponents who say talk and planning of an expressway where there is now mostly farmland
eventually will lead to sprawl.
State officials countered that sprawl was bound to occur anyway in that area during the next 10 to 20 years, and
the land needs to be protected so it's clear if and when an expressway ever is needed.
Since then, public hearings have been held, speeches made and letters of protest sent. U.S. House Speaker Dennis
Hastert -- a Yorkville Republican and longtime expressway proponent -- has gotten involved, securing $15 million
for an environmental study.
McCoy sided with opponents, creating what some described as a political feud between him and Hastert, a description
both now downplay.
McCoy and the Kane County Board even sent IDOT officials an idea for alternate route that veered the expressway
east toward Aurora. McCoy said the alternative would best alleviate traffic congestion in the region.
For months, opponents have been waiting to see if all the comments and controversy would have any effect on where
Brown would choose to place the corridor. But with the exception of a few tweaks here and there, the final route
essentially is the same as the original.
As for Kane's alternate proposal?
"It's just not good planning to pick that kind of a line," Brown said, noting that Kane's idea would
send the highway through areas primed for heavy housing development in the next few years.
It also would cost the taxpayers more to build because it's a longer, less direct route, he said.
Brown emphasized at the news conference that corridor protection puts no restrictions on landowners, except that
they must inform the state whenever they plan to build anything inside the corridor's boundaries.
If the state objects to the planned use, it could buy the land outright.
What kind of development would the state feel is unwanted? Large-scale projects, Brown said.
"We're concerned about subdivisions, factories," Brown said. "Not swimming pools or sheds."
The crowd in the room at the Beecher Community Center in Yorkville appeared less than convinced by Brown's claim
that the state's decision would have "no impact whatsoever" on landowners, especially when he briefly
hesitated when asked whether he personally would buy land with an expressway corridor on the deed.
Brown didn't hesitate long, though, before bluntly responding: "It wouldn't bother me a bit to buy it, because
I know it's not affected me."
He said that should someone run into a problem selling land, they could force the state to buy the land because
of the hardship created by the corridor. Brown acknowledged, however, that as of Wednesday, the state doesn't have
any money budgeted to buy land for the outerbelt expressway project.
Expressway opponents, represented mainly by the group Citizens Against the Sprawlway, said Wednesday that they
will file a lawsuit seeking the courts to declare the corridor protection program unconstitutional.
"That's just a skirmish," Sprawlway spokesman Jan Strasma said of IDOT's decision Wednesday. "The
battle is stopping this highway."
Strasma said the lawsuit will be filed as soon as possible.
But the state is moving quickly, too. The corridor was recorded Wednesday on the deeds of landowners in all three
counties the outerbelt would affect. Brown said the state immediately will apply for the federal money Hastert
secured.
He anticipated that environmental studies for the Prairie Parkway would begin as soon as this fall.
Other efforts to stop or hinder the state's momentum on the project mostly have fallen by the wayside.
In tiny Kaneville, which is west of Batavia and adjacent to the expressway corridor, residents once spoke of creating
a historic district around their town, a move they hoped would force the state to move its corridor.
That effort quietly deflated in April when most of the town's residents decided the restrictions that would be
placed on homeowners inside the district were too onerous -- especially given the fact they discovered a historic
designation would have had little impact on the state's plans.
Elburn resident Jan Carlson, a Republican county board member whose district includes Big Rock and Kaneville townships
where the corridor has been placed, lamented Wednesday about how it appears nothing can be done to stop the state's
plans.
"I think our job now, at least this is how I see it, is to do what we can to promote the farmland preservation
program," Carlson said.
That program, created in 2001, allows farmers to sell development rights to the county, meaning their land never
can be used for anything other than farming.
Kane County has so far spent millions on obtaining development rights in Big Rock and Kaneville townships. Carlson
said those efforts should continue.
"It will help us control the zoning and any potential development around that corridor," Carlson said.
The county also could join in the opposition group's lawsuit against the state, McCoy said.
"It would help out the opposition to have the resources of the state's attorney behind them," he said.
But Carlson and some other county board members weren't so sure that idea would fly with the whole county board,
which would have to approve such a move.
"Since I represent these folks, I'd very much like to test that (corridor protection) law on their behalf,"
Carlson said. "I'm not sure if all the board members agree with that."
One who doesn't agree is St. Charles Republican Karen Steve-McConnaughay, chairwoman of the county board's transportation
committee. In that role, Steve-McConnaughay relies on IDOT to supply the county with millions in road construction
money.
"I think the county's focus now should be how we can work with IDOT on this project," she said, bristling
at the idea of joining a lawsuit that she said only would hinder that focus.
McCoy, who called the corridor protection program "one last hurrah from the most corrupt administration in
Illinois history," isn't one to give in easily. He said Kane County could be a stumbling block for the state
when it comes to the environmental studies IDOT must perform before development. He declined to be specific but
hinted that county opposition could be fierce when it comes to how the roadway affects creeks and wetlands in the
area.
Carlson said that even though the state's corridor designation went through, a little perspective on the project
wouldn't hurt.
"It's going to be many, many years before the state builds this expressway," he said. "Many seem
to think the bulldozers are coming tomorrow.
"That's simply not true," he said. "I'm 66. In my lifetime, I will never drive on this road."