By MARY KAYE DAVIS

mary.kaye@register-news.com

MT. VERNON — After months of trying to keep the proposed Doe Valley senior residential complex out of their neighborhood, 40-some residents left Monday night’s city council meeting disappointed.

Many said council members were not looking out for their welfare.

After about three hours of debate Monday night, the council approved three ordinances which neighbors had vehemently tried to stop.

“I am very disappointed,” said Pat Rettig, who had spoken out against the project with her husband, Jean. “I’m very disappointed they did not consider our feelings about this.”

Randy Winn said he felt “utterly betrayed.”

Neighborhood residents had two opportunities to voice concerns Monday night about the Doe Valley project, first during a public hearing about the general plan for the Homestead (area) tax increment financing district redevelopment plan, redevelopment project and redevelopment area, and then again during the city council meeting during discussion about ordinances specific to the project: the rezoning from flood plain to high-density residential, annexation of the property and the tax increment redevelopment agreement.

During the public hearing, Dan Lucas of 16 Homestead Drive questioned why the targeted area was termed “blighted,” which helped it qualify as a TIF district; he added he was offended by the characterization.

City Manager Ron Neibert explained the word blight in TIF language did not mean the area was an eyesore overall, but there were certain blighted conditions in the total area of the proposed project, including lack of maintenance on the existing club house, adjacent property, and some property on 17th Street which met TIF standards for blight.

Much of the neighbors’ resistance to the project was due to their concerns that streets would be damaged by construction equipment during the building phase — which has been estimated could take up to five years — as well as safety concerns and concerns that the streets could not handle the extra traffic.

Marvin Oglesby, 23 Edgewood Road, said he was concerned that damage to the streets because of construction would not be corrected until the project was totally completed.

Neibert said that while new sidewalks and new street overlays would not be added until TIF proceeds started to come in, general maintenance — including fixing potholes and crumbling shoulders — would be done. Once construction began on the homes, tax proceeds would begin coming in the next year which could be used by the city to make major improvements, he said.

“I just don’t see the worth of this project at all,” Oglesby said.

Comments against the project continued to flow during the regular city council meeting.

Resident Erma Schalter said the project would make a “mess out of roads” and it is based on the viewpoint the homes could all be sold. She added it’s unfair to “tear up” their neighborhood to increase the value of another.

Several residents questioned why access to the project couldn’t be added off Illinois 37 North or other entry points such as 17th Street.

Neibert and Mark Miller, vice president of Doe Valley, said other options were investigated but were too costly.

Jim Anderson, a resident of 17th Street, said he agreed with the residents that streets would be damaged during the building process.

“It’s not following a ‘flight plan,’” Anderson said. “This is crazy to hurt some people to benefit others. These are good people and they are going to be hurt.”



Progress at what price?

Pat Rettig said her main concern was the safety of residents.

She told council members that, according to 2001 traffic figures, 450 cars passed daily through the area, but by figuring in the proposed number of occupants who would live in the complex, that number would increase to 2,250 vehicles per day.

City Engineer John Porter said he believed a closer estimate would be about 1,800 vehicles per day.

“I think you are all here to represent us,” Rettig said. “We are counting on you to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Don’t grow Mt. Vernon and sacrifice our neighborhood. Please respect (our wishes). I beg you to vote against this proposal.”

Angela Fitzpatrick, the mother of 8- and 4-year-old children, said while it’s estimated that “only” one car would pass on Homestead every 30 seconds, during that 30 seconds a child could be struck by a vehicle.

She said the reason that she and her family moved to the neighborhood seven years ago was because it was quiet. Now her children have a safe area to play, walk and ride bikes, but if the complex moves in, the neighborhood would no longer be that way.

Winn agreed, stating that his parents bought their home in 1971 because it had “peaceful and tranquil characteristics.”

He said the fact that 110 neighborhood residents signed a petition against the project should weigh heavily on council members’ minds.

“That many people not wanting the project gives us standing,” Winn said.

He added that although the city contends it would improve the tax base in the city, the neighborhood would pay the price.

“We feel the destruction of a neighborhood is too high of a price,” Winn said.

Oglesby added that in a perfect world, if the completed project “dropped down from the sky,” it would be a different story.

“That’s just not how projects are done,” Councilman David Wood said. “They don’t just drop down from the sky. Mt. Vernon has been negative, at best neutral, to developers.

“I realize some of you are not in favor of this project, but I believe it will increase the value of properties.”

The councilman added that the neighbors were asking the city to say “no” to a project which would bring thousands of tax dollars to schools and help bolster population and sales tax receipts.

“We have to look out for the entire city’s welfare,” Wood said.

After the meeting, resident Jim Augustine said the city’s passage of the ordinances makes him question their motives.

“The city council is supposed to represent its constituents. The city voted in favor of this for the money, because they believe (the city) will make money off this scheme,” Augustine said. “We wanted to keep our neighborhoods safe. Over 90 percent of the residents (of the neighborhood) said they did not want this project.

“The next time, they get up and say the Pledge of Allegiance before a meeting, and they say ‘and to the republic for which it stands,’ they should be asked what a republic is.”