Last night wasn't exactly an Inquisition, but there were a few areas of questionable conduct directed against OFOT. Specifically, repeated objections by Dist. 87's Attorney, Commissioner Ford's 'clarifications' and the lady next to the Chairwoman who kept limiting Ozog.

Jim asked fair questions and it is disheartening how last night the PC frustrated things.

With all due respect to the Planning Commission and proponents of the lights, what's with the hostility towards Ozog? There was nothing out of line with his questions. Sustaining and overruling 'objections' from an ethical and pedigreed litigation attorney at an open hearing is ludicrous! How disrespectful. Don't you want facts?

I have not seen Jim Ozog treat anyone disrespectfully, yet some of the proponents for the lights were apoplectic at Jim's questioning, making noises and shooting him the nastiest of looks. As were some Commission members!

We are members of a community. Fact. We are neighbors. Fact. Some institution is proposing drastic changes within our community. Fact. Members of our community may be harmed by those changes. Fact. Those changes to our community are not some cure to some moral wrong. Fact. There is a legitimate question as to whether the lights are a want or a need. Fact. It's my opinion that we support each other in the community, especially those individuals that may suffer harm from any institution's actions.

That was the Village Attorney cutting off the questions on the Safety aspect. The Chairwoman has done a pretty good job overall, but last night was a huge exception. Like they were protecting McCain. The Village Attorney kept calling it parking but it was a safety report Jim was referring to. But McClain said he was the safety expert that signed off so he should have been asked questions, whether they were in a report submitted or not, especially when he said he read the report.

The safety aspects to lights on the field is being considered at all. How can anyone disagree that Crescent will be more dangerous with the added distraction of lights and kids in that area after dark It is ridiculous!!! Only an idiot could conclude there is not going to be a safety issue. Someone is going to get hurt because of these lights. It is a major atery to town. Other fields do not have that problem. Unfortunately Memorial does. Other fields have the space and parking lots! Memorial does not. It's not even glare from the lights blinding driver's. There are too many distractions on that stretch and it is tough to drive there. McClain said he was the safety guy and he signed off on it, but they refused to allow Jim to ask important questions. Really, really disappointed. I hate to say it, but the chances that someone will get hurt go up exponentially.

Who was it that prohibited the questioning and cross examination on public safety?
-Village attorney.

Who "frustrated the process" of the public hearing?
- Village attorney.

Who stands to gain when a lawsuit is filed against the Village on denial of due process rights?
- Village attorney.

Who pays legal fees for the Village attorney to be present and advise during a public hearing? Who pays the legal fees to defend the Village from a lawsuit filed when/if these variance for lights are approved by the Village Board?
-The Citizens & Taxpayers of Glen Ellyn.

How do you base your conclusion the application is sound? What's your basis for asserting that?

Thanks, Dean. : )
Honest question... do you have any special knowledge or experience about the requirements for the variance? I ask because I haven't even read the requirements. I am just trying to figure out - technically (not the emotional for or against lights) - how you reach your conclusion.

Ramona,
I have lived on Crescent Drive since 1976 and anyone who thinks that Crescent Blvd. is NOT a major artery in and out of town is a "very little minded person." Living East or West of the High School, this is the MAIN east/west street going into the Village for many of us and for those residents living West of the high school is it in fact the major artery to go East out of town. There is ALWAYS much traffic passing Glenbard West and always will be. You mention "fools friving around"..well my dear, the "fools" you speak of are in fact no fools but residents of Glen Ellyn who are shopping shopping in the village when stores are open; residents of Glen Ellyn who are eating at restaurants in the village. Those of us you call "fools" are wonderful, long term residents of this town who are trying desparately to do business in a village so we can continue to have shops and restaurants in Glen Ellyn to insure we continue to have a village! WE HAVE ONLY ONE WAY INTO THE VILLAGE AND THAT IS PASSING GLENBARD WEST HIGH SCHOOL. Perhaps you might consider who the fool really is..I believe it is you. Think before you submit your comments.

Rich (and other sensibly minded Readers) -

Unlike some weighing in, you seem fair and open-minded. I state that because 1.) you support referendum and 2.) your life expectancy comment below (indicates financial / long term view).

I respect your position on the lights (differs from mine) and comments on the boards.

Common sense to me is regardless of congestion (crowding) there is now and will always be traffic (vehicles) on Crescent passing Memorial Field at all hours of every day. The elements that don't exist are: 1.) kids after dark using Memorial on a REGULAR basis and 2.) lights.

The issue is not congestion. The issue is adding the above two elements (kids and lights) substantially increase risk of a terrible accident on a narrow (proven dangerous) stretch of street that IS a major artery in to town (from East-West).

The lights - in and of themselves - are a distraction. Kind of like walking by a mirror or a television set. I'm no scientist, but it's human nature to turn and look. When I walk past a mirror or tv I can't help myself from glancing. I'd bet nearly 100% of us do the same.

Put the lights in and drivers (from our town - or elsewhere) will be distracted. Guaranteed. Add a driver distracted by lights, horrible timing, and the most important element - a kid - into the same equation and the result will never be good.

Is that not common sense? How can anyone at D87 neglect that? How does Village Attorney stifle the safety issue?

Ramona,
My name is spelled Sheri. I don't drink in the car nor use a cell phone nor do I drive an SUV. And any person driving must pay attention! I am a senior citizen of this village my dear. I taught in many schools throughout this area for many years. Yes, ALL schools have many activities and that is why, young one, there is a decreased speed limit near every shool. Problem here is you missed the point...which is that Crescent Blvd is always and has always been a very busy street. There have been many accidents by Glenbard West over the years. One part of the "light" proposal is to "lease out" Memorial Field. That would tell many of us there will be more traffic and more parking will be added and thus..more conjestion. Where on earth did you go to high school? Do I dare ask where you went to college? This is NOT a study on which street is the busiest: Roosevelt or Crescent Blvd. This IS a study and concern by intelligent residents about the pros and cons of whether lighting, bigger loud speakers and added parking is necessary to GlenBard West students AND about the effect this proposal will have on many residents who are NOT students and about the effect this will have on a very quaint, charming, quiet village. I have signed a petition voting NO to the lights as have many others. May the democratic process work here better than in Congress. I will write no more to you Ramona....we are worlds apart and I wish to remain that way.

Jeff,

I agree. This should go to referendum. Let the residents vote on this issue. Thanks for your constructive comments.

An 8 year life expectancy was said, but with more use possibly less life span. Also, the district, while not being straight about initial funding, has no plan that I'm aware of for funding the refurbishing. And, the parents group, Gain Ground, whose promise of 1/3 of the initial cost never happened, well, they don't exist anymore. Paul Murphy, who signed the GG agreement with the district that wasn't kept, maybe he's got another trick up his sleeve for when the field is redone.

Hear, hear.

The troof? You need to show some respect to those older than you, which appears to be everyone above the age of 8. Those 'oldsters' help build this town, what have you done. Your homework assignment is to define fiscal responsibility and integrity. When you accomplish that, email Meissen and McClain your homework.

I agree with you to a point Troof, The people who fight so hard to keep it "old and quaint" will fight to the detrement of the town! They fought to keep Einsteins and Starbuck out of the quaint downtown, but downtown still remains vibrant and it is a lot better than empty store fronts!! The only ones who have been rude have been the old curmudeons and being old is no excuse for rudeness!!

I actually have kids that go to school here, and sit back and watch as the seniors in this town do all they can to inhibit progress and anything that positively impacts the town and children, especially now that they are empty nesters. They sat back and watched as the CBD became a dated ghost town, they did everything they could to stop the only viable business (non-restaurant) that has opened in the CBD in the past decade in the Montessori School and they've let the place get run down. Now, people want to actually make improvements to the town and they still dump on it. Please.... just go back to complaining about the price of burgers, reminiscing about when coffee didn't cost so much, and walking around downtown and not buying anything.

Hey Troof, what have YOU done exactly for Glen Ellyn? Except for denigrating its citizens, anything? And, what businesses in the CBD do you support? Or, are you just pointing a finger that should be bent right back at you?
And, what are you teaching your kids about respecting their elders? What goes around comes around. Don't forget that, troof.
Unless, as I suspect, that the troof has yet to reach an adult age.

The district will still bus students, they are hoping to bus less students with the lights. There are 27 ( I think, could be wrong) sports at the school, not to mention the club sports that will not be touching their fields. They need space, and this will provide a little more space.

So... there's no PLAN 'B'? How can the District say lights are necessary if they don't have alternate plans should this not get approved?

Plan B is to keep doing as they have been doing. The goal is to keep a few more kids around school and a few less buses on our streets!

Bean, look up some facts. It would be off at 9 pm. I am sure you have been around the school after 9 pm since you have a freshman. There would be rentals, but it would be limited because the high school will have primary use. That school has 7 football teams this fall, how much time do you think they have to rent that out? Sure, in the summer perhaps a group renting it out, but it does not have space to host large tournaments there, so perhaps a football or lacrosse camp? The school and park district already do that, and did before the field was even turfed. Why not earmark the rentals for other capital improvements? That could be done. And, I am an oldster too, living here over 20 years, and have a Senior at West and one at Hadley. So, the lights would never be up to benefit my Senior anyway. Having a great school system, good park district and such is what gives our houses value. When I moved here, I was shocked to find out they did not have lights, a tiny hamlet in the middle of nowhere has Friday Night lights, but we still won't have that.

At the meetings at Village Hall, the school district stated 9 pm cut off with lights out at 9:30.