Comments

Please share your thoughts:

In an April 27th article published in The Lake Forester entitled “Lake Forest Caucus elects new officers amid criticisms of the process” out-going President David Hunt offered his defense of the Spring Meeting ballot. Mr. Hunt stated: “The ballot was completely consistent with the bylaws…. Per the bylaws, the current executive committee recommends the new slate of executive committee members, and that is exactly what the community voted on.” I first will say that a legitimate election requires actual choice, which the Spring Meeting ballot visibly lacked. But my bigger issue is this: Do the Caucus bylaws actually forbid the Caucus from honoring residents’ votes or giving them clear voting options? Is the Caucus operating under circumstances where it ¨can’t” respect the choices of Lake Foresters or it simply won’t respect them? If the Caucus “can’t” do anything other than what it has been doing, then we (the membership) are entitled to see the legal opinion advising that result. Alternatively, if the Caucus “won’t” respect residents’ votes, then we deserve a valid, honest and detailed explanation as to why. Simply alleging we’re ”consistent with the bylaws” is a poor and unacceptable excuse, when the outcome ignores basic democratic principles. So, is the Caucus’ answer to my question “we can’t” or “we won’t”? In either case, Lake Foresters deserve to know why.

Please share your thoughts:

Sally,

As a member of the CBD Working Group, I agree with many of the concerns and issues you raised.  Many of us in the Group tried to proceed in the direction you questioned but were prevented because it was "not part of the mission of the Working Group."  After we, the Group, took exception to the first summary by Teska of our suggestions and perspective, they became supportive of enhancing the visual heritage and continuity of the CBD.

There were nine members in the Group plus Randy Tack as Chairman.  Members included an architect, a developer with historic perspective, a planning commission member, a banker, a real estate rep, and a restoration specialist (me).  I'm not sure of the other three.  Your point about building #3 was raised by me several times.  It was not answered to anyone's satisfaction with stoned silence.  

The Lake Forest Preservation Foundation has submitted a six page detailed review and proposed direction for the future development of the CBD.  I hope this information helps answer some of your questions.

Jim Opsitnik

Past President of LFPF

Project Manager for the interior restoration of the LF train station
Forty year LF resident (living in Stanley Anderson's home) 

Please share your thoughts:

"In support of Downey’s “Lake Forest’s Future” Letter I would like to comment on Sally Downey’s thoughtful letter titled “Lake Forest’s Future.” The approximately 263 Lake Forest residents that provided feedback to the CBD plan represent only 1.4% of our 19,000 residents. How could the city proceed to make such monumental decisions about the future of our most historically significant and unique architectural central business district without hearing from many more residents? Community buy in is essential and that involves considerable public engagement over time and bringing expertise in historic preservation to the table. What are the assurances that the details in this CBD plan would preserve our community character and no variances or exceptions to our nationally recognized standards and ordinances would be extended to favored developers? I would like to echo Wendy’s proclamation in its 1984 slogan, “Where’s the beef?” This CDB plan is too important an issue to push through with so many unanswered questions and no guarantee about how it will accomplish its aspirational verbiage to “preserve the CBDs character and themes.” Let's take this slowly and do it right so we can all be invested and proud of the outcome."

Please share your thoughts:

I greatly appreciate Sally Bartholomay Downey's thoughtful analysis and questioning of the Central Business District Plan. While I recognize it still is in draft form, it strikes me as quite short on detail and yet potentially immense in scope, with far-reaching consequences. For example, has serious consideration been given to something as "mundane" as increased traffic congestion on Deerpath, Western Ave. and the various proposed side streets, from the addition of numerous multi-family homes and new businesses? (We already anticipate increased traffic on Deerpath, simply from the addition of plastic turf fields.) Many issues remain unanswered. I hope Lake Forest residents will attend the April 20th Plan Commission meeting and as Sally said, speak out!