Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2006

« Library ceremony honors staff & volunteer service | Main | Park district makes public its settlement response »

November 20, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


This has turned into a truly complicated mess. It appears that the objectors, going all the way back to 2008, have spared ARP and the Village of a development that would have come on line this year with 83% more retail and 21% more apartments than ARP believes will be viable in the market by, probably, 2011 - much less right now. How much money is coming into the tax coffers from the almost entirely empty La Grange Pointe, all of the empty retail spaces in town, the undeveloped former home of Hallowell and James and the unsold town homes adjacent to the Post Office?

Given the scope of changes ARP wants to make to their plans, and their stated desire to amend the list of amenities that was made a requisite to the approval of the Plan Commission for La Grange Place in the first place, it is hard too see how the Village can avoid sending this back to the Plan Commission for proper procedural handling- unless they want to face yet another set of lawsuits.

It seems foolish to argue about Shawmut Avenue, since the Village is likely not going to have the money to build the street unless ARP pays for it. And, ARP says they don't need Shawmut Ave.

Judge Gillis has signaled, I believe, that she can rule to allow the sale of parcel 3, even though there might not currently be a buyer, which makes it all the more important to go to trial to determine if the judge supports the sale of the park land as being in the best public interest.

And now ARP has made it clear that the Village and all taxing bodies involved can benefit from the tax revenues from La Grange Place without the use of the park land. That goes back to the original question of whether or not it was ever right to sell public land-open space - park land.

The comments to this entry are closed.