Chris Lauzen State Senator

Comments

Comments: Senator Chris Lauzen's Live Blog Monday at 5pm!

Monday's Subject for Discussion:

Campton Hills Question

Under the category of "a day in a life of...", here is a real life experience of an issue that matters to many of my constituents. (To read the entire message, click here.)

If you'd like to participate in a "live blog" with me on this subject, join us here on Monday, February 20th at 5pm.

Senator: When could we expect our Representatives and Senators to prohibit all gifts, including free meals? You told me once such a bill would never get out of committee...is that still the case?

Posted by: Arnie Schrank on Mar 6, 2006 at 17:38 PM

Mayor Willey, it seems like your a very compassionate mayor and would have listened to a group of concerned residents, even tho they were not part of your village. Im sure you probably would have turned down a proposed annexation that just wasnt right for local residents or your village. However as you realize there are other people that dont feel the way you do. Probabaly the majority. With all the unincorporated and undeveloped land in this area surely you think that this can and probably will happen again. Understanding this maybe you can better understand why residents that live in this large unincorporated area want to have a voice in how their area will be developed without money and greed being the determining factor.

Posted by: Don on Feb 21, 2006 at 5:48 AM

In response to Mayor Willey, Campton Hills is not promoting anti-growth, just responsible growth. Also, as I understand it Campton Hills was considering contracting certain services from the County--which means the County would have had to agree upon what was presented as the contract. The services would have been paid for by the Village. This has been accomplished between the Village of Homer Glen and Will County. Unfortunately, it seems as thought Kane County is not as receptive.

Posted by: Vanessa on Feb 20, 2006 at 17:20 PM

However, isn't it ironic that a group of motivated residents acting in their own self interest to protect themselves from one community go way out of their way to intrude upon five other communities in the process? Clearly, they were as insensitive to our vision as Elgin was to theirs.

Posted by: Jim Willey on Feb 20, 2006 at 17:15 PM

Everyone, thank you for participating on this Presidents' Day. I know that many people are away with family and friends. If anyone would like to get involved in any of my political activity in Kane, Kendall and LaSalle Counties, such as putting up a yard sign, please click on "Volunteer" on the right side of this page and fill in the information. Best wishes for a good week. Chris

Posted by: Senator Chris Lauzen on Feb 20, 2006 at 17:10 PM

Mayor Jim of Elburn, Thank you for joining us. There are many people who would agree with you that the initial Campton Hills incorporation area was overly aggressive and did not fully consider all neighbors' interests and concerns. This is what I was gently referring to when I wrote, "Just as you and I are imperfect, so are our fellow citizens who are merely trying to protect themselves. Mistakes are going to be made in the democratic process, but the fundamental ideal in this country is that each of us deserves at least a voice and a vote in our own futures." So, I assume that they will now go back to the drawing board.

Posted by: Senator Chris Lauzen on Feb 20, 2006 at 17:07 PM

In regards to Mayor Willey's comment, Campton Hills is unable to work with their neighbors until after they become a village. Only then will they have the right to negotiate with their neighbors. Plus, Campton Hills has no intention of being a "virtual" village and will be able to provide municapal services. Campton Hills has never said they were anti growth or pro growth. They say they are for reasonable, responsible growth.

Posted by: Mary on Feb 20, 2006 at 17:04 PM

Jill, As I mentioned in the Voice from the Senate Floor, for now SB2933 and its amendment are dead, in large part due to the County withdrawing its commitment to the language it drafted.

Posted by: Senator Chris Lauzen on Feb 20, 2006 at 17:02 PM

And imagine the irony when they ask for sewer and water service from Elgin

Posted by: Mike on Feb 20, 2006 at 17:02 PM

Wendy, Yes. Campton Hills leadership will need to draft and present their new village budget. The value of this last week's experience is that at least they now have the serious consideration of the County Board out in the open, which they did not feel they had previously. However, the shortcoming for the county is that they have an imperfect statute that does not give a precedent for allowing residents to opt out and the rules still have not been clarified. Some folks suggest that C.H. leaders should amend and refile their incorporation petition. However, the concern is that other incorporation petitions could then preempt their petition. If the incorporation leaders get right to work and the county is responsive, I would think that the referendum could still make the November election. However, this assumes that Campton Hills leaders. who have never done this before, can figure out how to put together a potentially complex budget and that the county really wants to cooperate in serving their needs when there are powerful other interests tugging at them.

Posted by: Senator Chris Lauzen on Feb 20, 2006 at 17:01 PM

What hasn't been mentioned here as yet is that at "32 square miles" the Campton Hills incorporation proposal is a most severe remedy. Their proposal, as it currently stands, almost completely surrounds the Village of Lily Lake and totally blocks the Village of Elburn to the north. One of the reasons this issue has come to the forefront is Campton Hills unwillingness to work with their neighbors to craft a reasonable compromise. The Village of Elburn has been in existence since 1881, and our entire incorporated boundaries are just 2.5 square miles. To be completely cut off to the north by the proposed "virtual village" of Campton Hills is impossible to support. And, who's to say Campton Hills will remain anti-growth forever. A change in a future administration could really set this area up for rapid growth.

Posted by: Jim Willey on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:57 PM

Senator, what are your plans for your bill and how would it affect the neighborhood's referendum? Thanks for the information.

Posted by: jill on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:56 PM

So at this point - reps for Campton Hills will have to go back to detailing out budget for the new village and present to the county at a later date? What is the feeling it will ever pass. Can the ref Q. still make it on a Nov. ticket?

Posted by: Wendy on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:53 PM

Mike, You're right that Campton plans should not be a burden to their surrounding neighbors, which is certainly not their intention. With $400,000,000 of equalized assessed value (which translates to $1.2 billion in market value), this amount of property taxing "capacity," it seems like they have more than enough to take care of themselves without assistance from the County.

Posted by: Senator Chris Lauzen on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:48 PM

Wendy, You're right that the bill clarified the procedure for being included in the territory to incorporate. It also relieved the County of responsibility for providing services if petitioners met the $400M standard for 10,000 people. Both of these provisions were requested by the Board Chairman and written by the Board's attorney and agreed to by the Campton Hills attorney. Looking at who fought this bill in Springfield behind the scenes, lobbyists for the powerful land developers in the area, organized labor which was strongly in favor of the Elgin super annexation, and then local leaders who were offended that anyone might interfere with their total and complete authority to decide this question with no clarification . . . tends to begin to address your question. Actually, there are some people who say that the land developers in Kane County are extremely politically powerful and have the financial resources to prove it.

Posted by: Senator Chris Lauzen on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:46 PM

Thank you for your straight answers as always. And you are right the Campton residents should be able to incorporate and get a clarificatin on what the rules are for them to do it. I just hope they don't expect the rest of the counties residents to pick up the bill

Posted by: Mike on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:39 PM

Don, I know that you are certainly right that there are some, and maybe many, St. Charles Township residents who want to give serious consideration to being included in the new village. The appropriate information to make a well-reasoned decision has not been provided. Because no one really knows who wants in or out, Senate Bill 2933 included a procedure where, after people received the information that they needed, individual property owners on the perimeter could opt out and residents in subdivisions could opt out by the simple majority of their neighbors signing a petition to opt out. My objective is not to foster or frustrate incorporation, but rather to ensure that all of my constituents are treated fairly and they get a voice in the future of their community and a vote.

Posted by: Senator Chris Lauzen on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:39 PM

I thought the bill would only clarify the procedure of the incorporation and it would still have to placed on a ballot for a vote in Nov. So, why was the county board so against making a process easier? What does the county have to gain or lose with the incorporation of the Village of Campton Hills?

Posted by: Wendy on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:38 PM

Mike, I certainly represent Elgin also. They and the County Board in their previous approval of the future planning area took care of themselves. When hundreds of Campton people objected to their huge over-reach in territory that gobbled up many smaller communities, Campton felt that they had to try to protect themselves so that Campton didn't have to go all the way to the Elgin City Council to get approval on important matters. In turn, when Campton Hills went to the County Board, they received little help in clarifying what the standards would be for qualifying for incorporation. Therefore, they came to me to try to get someone to help.

Posted by: Senator Chris Lauzen on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:32 PM

Senator, thank you for your time and concern with the incorporation issues. There seems to be a big misconception that all residents of St Charles Township want out of being a part of the new village, when in reality its not even the majority of the population of the township. Many residents simply do not know what the incorporation is even about and what is being proposed with the new village. They are being pressured and told their taxes are going to be raised so sign this petition. There seems to be a great deal of bad information out there from a few strong sources that needs to be addressed to those residents before a decision could be made. Not just take it that all of the township wants out because of a few voices.I would appreciate your thoughts on that.

Posted by: Don on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:29 PM

Senator I don't understand the reason for the special bill for Campton. Don't you also represent the people of Elgin?

Posted by: Mike on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:28 PM

Jill, Campton Hills is a community of approximately 10,000 people, about 5 - 10 miles west of St. Charles. In order to not be run over with uncontrolled growth, they decided to pursue a village incorporation petition. The rest of the story is available by going to this link under the Campton Hills Question Blog announcement: http://www.lauzen.com/mediacenter/view_voice.cfm?id=132

Posted by: Senator Chris Lauzen on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:24 PM

I'm not familiar with the Campton area. What did they want to do?

Posted by: Jill on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:20 PM

Welcome to this week's live blog on the Campton Hills question.

Posted by: Senator Chris Lauzen on Feb 20, 2006 at 16:03 PM