This is an unexpected turn that shows a staff willing to bring bad news to the public light. It would be nice if it’s always good news, but good news or bad news; what matters is that it’s accurate news so informed decisions can be made based on that accurate information.

Two items of note regarding budgeting and spending coming up for discussion at this week’s council workshop that reflect that mindset:

Active a FY08 Budget Update and Discussion outlines where expenses have escalated past projections, and where revenues may not keep up with expectations, and makes some modest suggestions to implement now at the front edge of the problem, rather than later when it might become a full-blown crisis.

Active b Integrated Branding and Marketing Initiative asks for council to hold off on spending $95,400 on North Start Destination Strategies so DG can have a brand, and all the goodness that the branding will bring. Maybe someone read somewhere that you need a place to start from before you decide on what journey to take. That starting point would be the TCD3 now pushed back to late this year early/next year.

Figuring out where we are and what our concerns are, rolling that into a Comprehensive Plan to replace the 40+ year old Plan still in effect, has been a goal of Martin Tully that he has championed and pushed into sharper focus this year as developers, and the future, push hard at the lines drawn by the aged CP. A current, clear, concise CP will help guide DG for years to come.

We don’t have a critical need to hire NSDS. Holding off on spending $100,000 that we may need elsewhere seems prudent.

This is a google aerial view of 63rd and Leonard. On the south side is a Woodridge shopping center; a Target Greatland on the east, fronted by a small “mini strip”; with Dominick’s in the middle, fronted by a recently leveled and empty lot and a restaurant, and capped on the west end next to I-355 by a popular Thornton’s/McDonald’s. On the north side a quiet tree filled neighborhood that has existed unchanged for 40+ years.

There’s a light at Leonard so cars can get in and out of the shopping center, and in and out of the neighborhood. Bradford Realty LLC sees that traffic light as a green light to move businesses north into the residential neighbrhood.

I was at the September 10, 2007 meeting of the Plan Commission, still engaged in trying to steer our government hired help back onto a sane path of not trashing resident’s state-given rights. At that specific point, despite support from effected residents and unexpected support from former council commissioner Tom Sisul, we were getting our collective residents butts kicked by Ms. Beth Clark of the Village Attorney’s Office. She breezed into that meeting and quickly convinced the PC that a horribly disastrous definition for Recycling Centers was what DG really needed, mainly by ignoring everything said against and everything wrong with the definition-which was, well, everything.

This came first on the agenda:

FILE NO. PC-26-07 A petition seeking: 1) Rezoning from R-1, Single Family Residential to B-2, General Retail Business; 2) Special Use Drive-Through Uses; 3) Special Use Outdoor Café; 4) Variations; 5) Final Planned Development Approval; 6) Final Plat of Subdivision Approval; 7) Text amendment of Section 28.405 Minimum Areas for Zoning Districts for properties located at the Northeast Corner of 63rd Street & Janes Avenue, commonly known as 2440 63rd Street and 6295 Janes Avenue, Downers Grove, IL

Here’s a much larger aerial view based on the village aerial mapping. Note there are two homes that front 63rd Street between Leonard and Janes, and they have an unused alley behind them.

It was a petition request of staggering multiplicity that would have taken the two homes on 63rd, and transformed them into a drive-through Starbucks, and a drive-through Chase Bank. It even included changing the Muni Code so they wouldn’t be so far out of conformance with accepted and currently applied requirements. And it would have taken the alley at no charge from the village to boot, something council has repeatedly not allowed residents to get, even when the unused undeveloped alley has been mowed and maintained by them for decades, just like here.

Here’s the asked for laundry list:

The proposal calls for widening Leonard Avenue at its intersection with 63rd Street. Additionally, stormwater detention would be constructed under the parking areas. The petitioner is requesting the following actions:
1. A rezoning of subject properties from R-1 Single Family Residential to B-2 General Retail Business;
2. A Planned Development with variations from the following requirements:
a. Front yard setback to reduce the parking setback from twenty-five (25) feet to two (2) feet, six (6) inches along 63rd Street;
b. Front yard setback to reduce the parking setback from twenty-five (25) feet to two (2) feet along Leonard Avenue;
c. Front yard setback to reduce the building setback from twenty-five (25) feet to fifteen (15) feet along Janes Avenue;
d. Transition yard to reduce the building setback from twenty (20) feet to 5.4 feet for Lot 1 and 9.5 feet for Lot 2 along the north property line.
e. Sign setback to place a sign closer than ten (10) feet from a front property line on Lot 2;
f. Permit a shared parking agreement between Lots 1 and 2;
3. A Special Use to allow drive-through uses on Lots 1 and 2 for a new bank and coffee shop;
4. A Special Use to allow an outdoor café on Lot 1;
5. A Plat of Subdivision to create two (2) new lots with an exceptions from the following requirement:
a. Reduce the lot depth on Lot 1 from 140 feet to 133.5 feet;
b. Reduce the lot depth on Lot 2 from 140 feet to 133.8 feet; and
6. A Text Amendment to Section 28.405(a) of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify a neighboring jurisdiction’s zoning classification may be utilized when calculating a zoning district’s size.

That’s about 12 things they can’t seem to follow existing written rules on. In short, it isn’t big enough, but they want the village to let them build it there anyway by giving them all these variances and exceptions. Additionally, they don’t want to build a sidewalk on the west side of Leonard. The blocks on either side already have them, but Bradford would get a pass, and taxpayers would pick up the future tab for that.

The applicant is Bradford 63rd LLC, c/o Nathan Bryant, 10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2935 Chicago, IL 60606, and the land owners are State Bank of Countrywide Trust #02-2469, c/o Tom Morrison & Mark T. Newey 7667 W. 95th Street, Suite 211, Hickory Hills, IL 60457. They were a ton of people there in support of this project:

• Nathan Bryant, Petitioner, Bradford Real Estate;
• John Schoditsch, Petitioner, Bradford Real Estate,
• Mike Ford, Petitioner, Mill Creek Development, 8104 W. 119th St., Palos Park;
• Laura Shafer, Petitioner, V3 Companies Ltd., 7325 Janes, Woodridge;
• Matthew Champine, Petitioner, V3 Companies Ltd, 7325 Janes, Woodridge;
• Matt Wisz, Petitioner, Interplan Midwest, 1S280 Summit Ave., Oak Brook Terrace;
• Katrina McGuire, Petitioner, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron, 222 N. LaSalle St., #1910, Chicago;
• Mtlope Witfield, Petitioner, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron, 222 N. LaSalle St., #1910, Chicago;
• Eric Styer, Soos & Associates, Inc. 105 Schelter Rd., Lincolnshire;
• Michael Achim, Petitioner, Starbucks Coffee Co., 550 W. Washington St., Chicago;
• Scott L. Sanders, Sanders Design Group, 333 E. State St., Rockford;
• Lua Abodna, KLOA, Inc., 9575 W. Higgins Rd., Rosemont;

Like I said, a stacked deck ready to deal. On the other side, every resident who lived in the effected area: I counted 32 but I may be off.

Here’s what they want to put in. Double click on image for a larger view.

I have to hand it to them, there’s so much just flat out wrong with this project I hardly know where to begin, so let’s take it by the numbers. Let’s start with 28.1702

Section 28.1702 Standards for Approval of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
Village Council and Plan Commission consideration and approval of any amendment, whether text or
map, is a matter of legislative discretion that is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making
its decisions and recommendations regarding map amendments, the Village Council and Plan
Commission shall consider the following factors:
(1) The existing uses and zoning of nearby property;

All of the existing surrounding property in DG is zoned residential. It always has been, and it has always had a future use as residential. It was identified in the 1960’s Comprehensive Use Plan, in the 2008 Future Use Map, and in the 2008 Zoning Map as residential. B-2 is spot zoning plain and simple. What Woodridge chooses to do across 63rd Street has no bearing or influence on Downers Grove. Indeed, 63rd Street itself is a buffer between the commercial areas of Woodridge and the DG residential areas.

(2) The extent to which the particular zoning restrictions affect property values;

Ask any Realtor that won’t make money on this: houses next to nuisance strip malls lose value.

(3) The extent to which any determination in property value is offset by an increase in the public health, safety and welfare;

There is no benefit to the public health safety and welfare, instead a detrimental addition to stormwater run-off by being 1) completely paved and impervious and 2) fobbing off the obsolete engineering idea of underground pipes storing the run off. This project effectively builds new stormwater problem areas not just for itself, but also for the surrounding neighborhood.

(4) The suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes;

It’s completely unsuitable, not in the least evidenced by all of the above and by the request for a change in the Muni Code specifically to lower several minimum requirements in their favor.

(5) The length of time that the subject property has been vacant as zoned, considering the context of land development in the vicinity;

It has never been vacant, it has always been residential, there have always been homes in the area, and there always will be.

(6) The value to the community of the proposed use, and;

As every resident that already lives there has said, there is no value to them, and they live right there. Chase Bank has at least two offices within two miles, at 75th and Main, and across the street at 2363 E. 63rd St, Woodridge.

(7) The standard of care with which the community has undertaken to plan its land use development.

The Comprehensive Plan voted and approved in the 60’s and still valid today, the Future Use and Zoning Maps all agree; this is a residential neighborhood and should remain one. Everybody got that for the last 40 years, and the only thing that’s changes is some out of towners want to put a couple drive thru’s into the neighborhood, and want some free and from the village, and don’t want to follow any rules, regulations, or ordinances in the process.

Harold Washington said it best: “That’s hubris; that’s arrogance gone wild.”

From here forward there’s a bit of “see above” that should be obvious-at least to people who live here.

28.1607 Standards for Approval of Planned Developments
The Plan Commission may recommend a planned development designation, plan or amendment based upon the following findings:

(1) The extent to which the planned development meets the standards of this Article.

It doesn’t. Not at all. Not in any single or combined circumstance does this development meet the standards of 28.1607.

(2) The extent to which the planned development departs from the zoning and subdivision regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property, including but not limited to, the density, dimension, area, bulk, and use, and the reasons why such departures are deemed to be in the public interest.

It radically departs from all of the above, and has no rationale for why it could be in the public interest. Again, every member of the public that lives around it is against it.

(3) The method by which the proposed plan makes adequate provision for public services provides adequate control over vehicular traffic, provides for and protects designated common open space, and furthers the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment.

Light and air? What about water run-off and car exhaust? And bank tellers on intercoms talking to drive ups, and scratchy blaring confirmation of double shot decaf soy latte orders. No visual enjoyment for anyone living around there, that’s a certainty.

(4) Conformity with the planning objectives of the Village. The Village Council may authorize a planned development designation, plan or amendment with findings such as, but not limited to, the following:

(1) That the planned development at the particular location requested is necessary or desirable to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or community. FAIL.

(2) That the planned development will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property values or improvements in the vicinity. FAIL.

(3) That the planned development is specifically listed as a special use in the district in which it is to be located. FAIL.

(4) That the location and size of the planned development, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with said planned development, the size of the subject property in relation to the intensity of uses proposed, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it, shall be such that it will be in harmony with the appropriate, orderly development of the district in which it is located. FAIL.

(5) That the planned development will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for the purposes already permitted in such zoning district, nor substantially diminish and impair other property valuations within the neighborhood. FAIL.

(6) That the nature, location, and size of the structures involved with the establishment of the planned development will not impede, substantially hinder, or discourage the development and use of adjacent land and structures in accord with the zoning district in which it is located. FAIL.

(7) That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided for the planned development. INCOMPLETE.

(8 ) That parking areas shall be of adequate size for that particular planned development, which areas shall be properly located and suitably screened from adjoining residential uses. FAIL.

(9) That the planned development shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. ALL FAIL.

Section 28.1902 Standards for Approval of Special Uses
The Village Council may authorize a special use by ordinance provided that the proposed Special Use is consistent and in substantial compliance with all Village Council policies and land use plans, including but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Plan and Master Plans and the evidence presented is such as to establish the following:
(a) That the proposed use at that particular location requested is necessary or desirable to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or community. FAIL.
(b) That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property values or improvements in the vicinity. FAIL.
(c) That the proposed use will comply with the regulations specified in this Zoning Ordinance for the district in which the proposed use is to be located or will comply with any variation(s) authorized pursuant to Section 28-1802. DOUBLE FAIL.
(d) That it is one of the special uses specifically listed for the district in which it is to be located. FAIL.

28.405. Minimum areas for zoning districts.

B-2 General Retail Business District - 4 acres. FAIL.

Did the petitioner even read our rules and regulations? What the heck is going on here? This doesn’t meet anything for anything, an almost perfect convergence of nothing acceptable for any reason. FAIL.

One thing this will do is set precedents. If the variances are granted, it will be cited by any and every future petitioner for their developments. It also reinforces a previous precedent of letting petitioners write Muni Code. Don’t like or can’t live with the rules? If you have the cash, time, and effort, you can simply write your own and petition that to be made law. If you have a good enough lawyer, you’ll probably get what you want.

The Plan Commission gave this a unanimous negative recommendation. They smelled stink strong and steady off this pile of offal: FAIL.

Staff offered up this gem for why they recommended approval:

Due to the commercial uses to the south and east, staff recommended approval.

That’s it? To the south, because Woodridge built a shopping center on their side of 63rd Street, a man made boundary between us and them, we should abandon our residents who live in a reasonably quiet neighborhood, and who have done so, many for decades? Woodridge decides for us what our zoning uses are? Watch out DG residents who live across the street from the Home Depot on Woodward, DG is sending a message loud and clear: you may be next due to precedent being granted by your government.

Uses to the east? Because there is a Walgreen’s that was crow-barred onto R-1 residential property at Belmont and 63rd? Belmont traffic zig zags over to Woodward there; there’s even two left turn lanes to facilitate it. In essence, Belmont/63rd and 63rd/Woodward are one long screwed up single intersection. Residents fought the Belmont/Woodward Walgreens back in the day and lost. That’s at a naturally existing very busy corner, not in the middle of a residential neighborhood where an entrance to Target was granted a traffic light from the county for Woodridge.

If this property is zoned for business, the village has a multi-year record of having no further say over what can go in there as long as it meets the requirements of the zoning. Although I can’t imagine worse than two noisy drive throughs, I suppose maybe some of the spank parlors on Ogden might be looking to expand their services to the south siders? How about a used car lot? An off track betting parlor? Currency exchange? Cell phone Tower? All specifically allowed, some as special uses, somewhere in B-2 zoned areas elsewhere in our village. Check 28.605 amd 28.606 of our Muni Code if you doubt it.

Once it gets zoned up, it will never get zoned back down, it will just attract more developers that want more B-2 so they too can get in on the action. Who does the long term zoning planning around here? The village did back in the 60’s, and it is still valid and in effect today.

Do DG residents and taxpayers really want our government to open that door? Where did the common sense patrol go?

So almost nine months later, on June 24, 2009, it comes up before the village council. These things are supposed to be done within 90 days, but staff granted an extension. A public meeting on why may have been in order, so effected residents could have their say, and not have this dragged out forever. Anyway, those same residents whose nightmare began over a year ago all came to this council meeting on and expressed their feelings. concerns, and made their requests, their pleas to council to help them, to save their neighborhood. The Plan Commission had unanimously sent a negative recommendation to council: vote it down they said. Staff put their positive recommendation in the green sheets: approve it they said.

But the Motion itself was something totally different. Not about the petitioner and the project, this motion was a request to remand back to the Plan Commission for reconsideration. Bradford didn;t even ask for or show up for a meeting, they actually phoned it in (see page 4 of the green sheets).

They have new information, the developer claimed. The new information will change how everyone feels about the project. Although the phone call came in April, at the end of June no residents had been made privy to actions that would effect them. The language of the follow up memo shows a bit more hubris: the attorney notes that the Plan Commission “failed to recommend approval of the Project”. They didn’t fail anything; they voted unanimously to approve forwarding a negative recommendation to council.

Despite the non-disclosure for over two months, they said residents and the Plan Commision, everyone, will want the project once they reveal the new changes:

The petitioner has requested the Village Council remand the petition to the Plan Commission to consider new information about the following issues:

• Land Use – The petitioner would like to provide an analysis of the Future Land Use Map and its relation to the surrounding area.
• Property Values – The petitioner is proposing to complete an analysis of surrounding property values before and after the proposed development.
• Traffic – The petitioner would like to present additional information about the traffic and accidents at the intersections of Leonard Avenue and 63rd Street and Janes Avenue and 63rd Street.
• Tenants – The petitioner has indicated that one of the original tenants, Starbucks, has decided not to move forward with the site. They are in preliminary discussions with another similar use for the site.

What analysis could they provide based the existing land use map, zoning map, and Comprehensive Use Plan? That they are wrong? They should be changed so Bradford can build there? I bet they can find someone somewhere that will tell us the residents will benefit from the up-zoning of the property. Any takers?

Me: “The surrounding residential property after the up-zoning and development will have higher value for further business use along 63rd.” Who do I send the bill to? Oh yeah, the property behind the business developments will be worth less if you ever try and sell, but your taxes won’t go down, and no petitioner will ever cop to it happening that way because it’s not in their best interests. They don’t give a hoot about your property values, they care about their development. Never forget that because they won’t.

There are accidents at the intersections because 63rd is a busy road. Leonard is an entrance to the Target shopping center, and both Leonard and Janes are neighborhood residential streets. Getting a mercenary engineer to say yeah that development that’s not gonna make things worse, it’ll be fine; seen it before, will see it again. When does our hired and elected government realize it always plays out that way and we need our own studies, not the developers?

Starbuck’s already moved on, acting as a pertinent example of what I talked about earlier. you never know what will go there once the zoning is approved. Even the petitioner doesn’t know at this point, just approve the project!! I hear King’s Spa is looking to expand.

They did not present any information to council to prove it, or to let council decide whether it was sufficient to warrant remanding, they simply said they had it and they wanted to go back to the Plan Commission to show it there first.

Resident John Schofield, speaking as a resident (and who is also a member of the Downers Grove Coalition for Managed Redevelopment-full disclosure: me too) asked that the project be sent back to the PC specifically “without prejudice”, so the PC would not take the impression that they would have to deal with this until they approve it, no matter what. But prejudice has been attached to this by staff, even as council denied it, and claimed there was no need to make such a distinction for “without prejudice”: staff said they favor the project as they asked for it to go back to the Plan Commission; that clearly establishes a favorable prejudice coming from our hired government employees. That council refused to attach any language making specific this was being remanded “without prejudice” shows council unwilling to contradict staff on this matter, at leats for now.

Except for Commissioner Schnell. She was the only one who stepped up and called BS on the whole process. She wanted it brought to a vote, and voted down, and was fed up with the maneuvering; but as presented, council said they could not vote on the proposal, so back it goes. Council agreed, and voted to send it back because the developer made a phone call, 6-1, Schnell voting Nay.

Residents of the area are still in limbo. They don’t know what will happen at the planned August 5, 2008 Plan Commission meeting, they will have no advance ability to prepare and defend themselves against the next set of petitioner claims, and they will still be at the mercy of events not fully played out in public. This is another group of concerned wary, frustrated residents who have been denied protections for themselves and for their neighborhood; a neighborhood that has existed for over 40 years, with many of the same people living there.

This bears watching.

And smelling…

This is the brochure created by the village for the search for a new Village Manager. It’s very nicely done, and appears to be prepared in advance of a nationwide search. Will we hire an outside agency to do the search? Can we just kick Acting Village Manager Dave Fieldman’s “Acting” off his title and get on with it? Anyone else hired has a steep learning curve.

He knows the current public agenda, staff knows him, etc.

P.S.- Note the zooty swooshy branding curves on the brochure.  Who needs consultants!?

Compiled from the village budgets, and required standardized annual reports filed with the State Comptroller. These graphs represent select information, not everything. Trying to find “tells” of expenses for specific future purposes by going through the budget is all but impossible. Our budget reporting is not unique in being dense and difficult to understand; in fact DG does better than most communities. Someday it will be searchable, but that day is not now.

Double click on graph for a larger image.

This first graph shows the total principal and interest payments made each year. There are two years where DG either payed a big chunk down on our debt, or rolled existing debt to take advantage of lower interest rates. There is no explanation given in the budget introductions or summaries for either year on these $4+ million dollar debt principal paydowns. For the 2006A eight month budget, the 2005 G.O. (General Obligation) bond that was issued for the Downtown TIF District appear to account for every penny of the paid Principal for the entire budget. That may be an anomaly of it not being a full year.

Double click on graph for a larger image.

On this graph, the purple columns in the back show the total budget appropriation. 2007 was the first year DG had a total appropriation in excess of $100 million. That’s $2,000 for eeach man woman and child living in DG. The blue columns represent total employee salaries, but do not necessarily reflect total employee costs, which also include insurance and pension contributions that typically are budgeted separately. Employee costs are the single largest expense. This is true for most private companies also.

I have not been able to parse the 2006A numbers via the budget; this type of summary information comes from the reports DG makes to the Illinois Comptroller, but should be included in the materials available from the village.

Double click on graph for a larger image.

This graph shows the full and part time positions in our local government. Police, Fire, and Public Works are where most of our village employees work. Village Hall staff is a distant fourth. Given that payroll expenses have risen steadily over the last eight years, and numbers have held steady, it appears DG has kept up with the Joneses on payscale.

Double click on graph for a larger image.

Our Equalized Assessed Value has risen steadily. EAV is what real estate taxes are based on, but doesn’t necessarily reflect what the market price really is for real estate (especially right now). Although it usually is pretty close, the Township Assessor has the authority to set assessments, and you have to challenge if you disagree. The higher the EAV, the higher the tax bill, the more revenue for government units. There are many other factors that play into this, but in general, it shows good health in our village.

I remember a sign from back when in the Naperville Assessors Office: “Breathes there a man with soul so tough, who thinks his taxes not high enough?” Not me, my taxes are plenty high. I get nervous every time there’s talk about how reasonable our tax rates and levy are; a sure sign taxes are going up again.

Speaking of EAV, here’s the Top Ten in DG:

In parts 1 and 2 you should have gotten a crystal clear understanding that safety and red light cameras, RLC, are not connected. Communities are removing them as others are putting them in. The ones that are pulling them out are doing so because the facts and evidence don’t support the claim that RLC make people safer.

It’s always about the money

Insurance industry lobbyists spend big bucks and lobby hard to get RLC legislation passed. The insurance industry contributes in some way to the election campaigns of almost every county, state, and federal elected official.

Illinois legislators that allowed this to begin here did so cautioning that the ticket is a civil penalty and does not go on your driving record, and does not lead to your insurance going up (yet). We’re just doing this one little thing, don’t get all upset, we’re just taking one small measured step to see if we can improve intersection safety and save a couple lives for gosh sakes. Sound familiar?

When the IL Senate denied expanding their use this year, Dan Cronin voted against allowing more counties to use RLC. Kirk Dillard did not bother to vote. So one of our local elected senate officials understands what the real deal is.

What RLC do, in the right intersections, is raise revenues for the government agencies that install them at intersections. When revenues start falling, typically the yellow light time is reduced to “enhance driver safety” and allow more tickets to be issued, and also creating more rear end collisions. Three seconds is a very short yellow light, and trafic study after study has shown re-timing lights with longer yellows and “all stop” red intervals significantly reduce violations.

The other unspoken fact is where RLC revenues come from. In all places with RLC, noise is made that officers or technicians review every ticket to eliminate any questionable tickets. That said and that done, 80% of all RLC revenue comes from “right on red” legal turners that do not stop behind the white line, or do not come to a complete stop, rolling very slowly until they proceed. The turn is legal; how the driver actually does often it is not. This is one of two main drivers behind Bolingbrook’s decision to pull cameras; safe driving behavior that technically broke the law (plenty of front edges of bumpers over the white line, in Bolingbrook’s case) caused Mayor Claar so much grief he pulled them.

Sometimes it works, especially at heavily traveled intersections. Culver City, CA rakes it in: 12 intersection raised over $1.9 million last year. Seattle WA’s six cameras issued 16,359 tickets and generated over $1.1 million in fines. NYC nabs $14 million a year wit RLC, and has the short yellow’s to keep revenues up.

Sometimes it doesn’t pay off at all. Drivers pay attention to cameras at intersections, resulting in fewer ticketable violations and ever-shrinking revenue from fines. That shrinking revenue usually comes after the over anticpated revenues are spent in the budget.

To help balance the Columbus, OH budget, city council included $1 million in anticipated fines for 2006. they took in a bit over $160,000 that year, issuing 6,000 citations. L.A. is losing money each year they keep the program running. The other main reason Bolingbrook ended their red light camera program was that statistics showed a 40 percent drop in ticketable offenses.

So in the end, safety is not what RLC are about. RLC are about revenue. In other parts of the US, RLC benefits revenues of some government units, and all insurance companies. Here, they don’t yet enhance insurance company revenues directly for red light runners, although the increased rear end collisions that take place will raise your insurance rates. In some communities they make money, in some they don’t.

But what about here?

The Downers Grove Police Red Light Camera System Report

On April 8, 2008, over five weeks before council began musing about red light cameras and asking for information on intersection safety the following report was written. Which came first, the report or the request, is obviously not in question here.

I asked for a copy of the report. As usual, the village staff was polite and prompt and sent me this, the report that council has been given.

Read the report here.

If you can’t or won’t, here’s the summary:

- The only sources cited to support RLC safety is the IIHS reports, already shown to be misinformation with a hidden agenda.

- RedSpeed Illinois, a RLC supplier based in Lombard IL, provided all of the non fiscal and fiscal benefits to DG and the DGPD cited in the study.

- RedSpeed Illinois is the company the Police Department would lease equipment from, and we would get part of each ticket processed.

- DGPD would have an officer review each and every ticket.

- It is not a revenue sharing agreement where the RLC camera company and the PD split the ticket money according to some agreed formula. That’s illegal in Illinois. Instead, there is a transaction fee for each ticket that RedSpeed will get, and DG would get what is left over. If you think that this arrangement effectively shares revenue according to an agreed formula, as is illegal in Illinois, you’d be wrong. I’d be hard pressed to tell you why, other than to note the old saying “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…” rarely applies in Illinois politics.

- Oh, and RedSpeed Illinois? A proud member of the Illinois Association of Police Chiefs.

Note to our government hired and elected officials

Please do not insult our intelligence by maintaining the indefensible position that RLC in DG are for our safety. They are not. You cannot even quote a study of accident numbers for the intersections you propose RLC for in the study of RLC itself. To be blunt, the study itself is a marketing brochure for RedSpeed Illinois.

Should you choose to be open, transparent, and honest with taxpayers and voters, and discuss this as strictly a revenue enhancing opportunity (which is all RLC have ever been), there is a much higher chance RLC will be implemented correctly in DG. Every tax and fee that could be raised was raised last year, and that is not enough for the spending needs of our local government. To cover every revenue need, DG either needs to spend less or take in more money, and RLC may provide a temporary income to help satisfy that hunger for money.

If you are looking for a definitive conclusion here, I don’t have one. I look at goofy drivers at the following intersections:

• Finley and Butterfield
• Highland and Butterfield
• 75th and Main
• Belmont and Ogden

DG could work on light patterns, try ‘left after red’ instead of ‘left before green’ left turns, or all red timing pauses to let traffic clear the intersection, or longer yellow, or several other proven engineering ideas that would make intersections safer.

But to be blunt; there’s money to be made there, especially at those intersections. Each current light cycle generates at least one or two red light runners, especially on left turns. Most right on red turners do not stop where they need to, or come to a complete stop at all. At some of those intersections the white stop lines aren’t even visible anymore. These are also intersections at the corners of DG. We could snag some income from out of towners by using RLC at these intersections instead of pounding just resident taxpayers who have already seen all of their taxes go up dramatically.

All I ask of council, is one small step, one minor thing. Not a sea change or massive new direction for gosh sake, just a little tiny measured step:

Be honest, discuss the issue honestly, drop the pretense of safety, and get on with it.

I use the phrase “brutal honesty rather than artful deceit” in my business. It means I give you a straight answer. My accounts appreciate that.

Good or bad, honesty and accuracy are deserved. Residnets/taxpayers/voters/drivers have earned it.

Talk the BS safety talk, or walk the honest revenue walk. The choice is waiting.

I was up in Madison WI this week on business. I think the City Motto is “The USSR may have fallen but Madison marches on”. They’ve been on the west edge of where WI has been getting hammered by stormwater this spring, and the lakes are just about over their banks.

Being the state capital may help, but they seem to be a leg up on stormwater solutions too, and it has definitely helped.

I stopped and snapped these pics with my trusty phone cam of a parking lot, built to keep water on site and infiltrating back into the ground rather than running off into a storm sewer system. Even though the ground was flat, they shaped runoff to sewer gratings with underground cistern storage, and made the two parking spaces in front of the grating permeable by using open blocks set into sand and crushed rock, and filled with pea stone. This type of construction eliminates the first 1/2 to 1″ of rainfall from ever entering the system, instead of immediately funneling run off into the storm sewers.

The parking lot itself was broken up by medians instead of a flat featureless asphalt plain like we have here.

Again, thousands of dollars extra for the developer to minimize up front, millions of dollars for the taxpayers to correct later.

Pick one.

The insurance industry, and the Red Light Camera (RLC) suppliers them selves lobby hard and long to get RLC put up wherever they can. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a front 100% funded by insurance companies, puts out reports that purport to show how RLC increase safety at intersections.

It ain’t about safety. RLC actually contribute to more accidents and more injuries.

The IIHS is the only organization to make such safety claims, and they vigorously attack reports that say otherwise, as well as personally attack the people who head up the research team, whether that be doctors compiling raw injury data, or PHD’s at the federally finded and staffed Transportation Research Board. Every time Richard Retting, head shill of the IIHS calls foul, he has been responded to, making public his lies and misinformations.

The IIHS has conned well over 100 communities into using RLC based on the misconception they increase safety. In most states, an automated traffic citation is a moving violation, a criminal offense. It goes on your record and raises your insurance rates. Currently, Illinois classes automated traffic violations a civil offense. A simple fine, no real court procedure, but no record that would raise your insurance. Would it surprise you to know the insurance industry is also fighting hard for your right to your day in court? Just make those tickets criminal moving offenses, and residents will have the protections of due process-and the resulting increase in your insurance rates. If we’re stupid enough to buy in to the safety con, why not the due process con I guess.

The Studies Concerning Red Light Cameras

Just to recap again to make this crystal clear:

On one side the red light camera companies have a website touting RLC make intersections safer, almost exclusively relying on

- IIHS and all their reports. Tailored to weave a false support of increased safety due to RLC.

On the other side are government agencies, government funded research boards and organizations, federal and state DOT data collection, and international studies that all say RLC do not make intersections safer.

- The Transportation Research Board, is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council (jointly administered by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine) and is funded by the state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. They found what is found in many previous studies—a decrease in right-angle crashes and an increase in rear-end crashes—although both effects are somewhat lower than those reported in many sources.

- The Australian Road Research Board, ARRB Group, is a public company whose members are federal, state and local government authorities in Australia, Australian Local Government Association and the national authorities of New Zealand. Thier ten year study of RLC intersection analysing data from the five years before and the five years after installation, shows RLC causes increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.

- The WaPo study of DC’s RLC showed conclusively that, despite initial claims made by the Police Department (who relied on the IIHS) the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices. Worse than doing nothing!

- The Virginia Department of Transportation study conducted by the Virginia Transportation Reasearch Council found analysis indicated that the cameras were contributing to a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes.

- The USDOT Federal Highway System study found a significant decrease in right-angle crashes was found, but there is also a significant increase in rear end crashes.

- The Florida Public Health Review did a multi-jurisdictional study that shows not only do RLC cause an increase in accidents and injuries, they went so far as to analyze and dissect the Oxnard Study, IIHS’ main “proof” that RLC help, and to put into a public publication the connection that while insurers may not set out to increase crashes and injuries, increases in crashes and injuries indirectly contribute to automobile insurance’s performance as a growth industry. Increases in crashes can raise the risk rating of drivers in a community, which can lead to disproportionately higher automobile insurance premiums, and, subsequently, rising profits for insurers.

The Transportation Institute North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University USDOT funded long term study concluded that the evidence points toward the installation of RLC as a detriment to safety.

thenewspaper.com, the self professed “A Journal of the politics of driving.”, has 38 pages of stories, many of them about the false statistics, data mis interpretation, and near universal expert and analytical conclusions that RLC do not make intersections safer.

Insurance Companies Say YES! Everyone else says, NO!!

Because the rigorous and robust studies conclude cameras are associated with increased crashes and costs, any economic analysis of cameras should include these newly generated costs to the public. Indirect costs to the public are usually not considered in the calculation of total revenues and profits generated from red light cameras.

The Infamous and Discredited Oxnard Study

The Oxnard California study that Retting and Kyrychenk did for the IIHS is the bedrock study for claims that RLC reduce accidents and injuries. The problem with the 1999 and 2001publications (essentially the same study written twice, and since called “multiple studies”) is that the study actually compared differences in crash and injury growth rates between intersections with and without traffic signals, and not between signalized intersections with and without cameras. A further criticism of this study is that the conclusions drawn from the statistical analysis were incorrectly reported. When the results were correctly analyzed for statistical significance, no change in total crashes could be substantiated (Burkey & Obeng, 2004; Kyrychenko & Retting, 2004).

Purpose of camera enforcement

Opponents of camera enforcement have made the claim that the purpose of camera enforcement is to make money, not to advance safety.

If ten Police Chiefs read the IIHS reports and accept that as gospel, it’s kind of like preaching to the choir: they want to beleive they can improve safety. “To Protect and Serve” or something like that, right? And the RLC companies are right there agreeing, yeah, safety. But it should be apparent by now that is just a smoke screen of deliberate misinformation that many smart people buy into. So if not safety, what IS it about?

One word: REVENUE.

In Part 3, some revenue reports RLC generate-or fail to generate-for theose who us ethem, and where that revenue actually comes from. Also in Part 3, the informational report staff is providing to council will get a once over, and you can see what’s what.

Later…

This is a spy red light camera. It takes pictures of cars that run red lights. Take a good look, and start taking a look around.

Illinois’ state lawmakers voted in 2006 to allow the devices, and the move toward red-light cameras has been gaining momentum ever since.

At the June 17th council meeting, commissioners asked for preliminary information from staff about red light cameras. Commissioners cautioned that this was just a first look, just asking for information from staff, as if anticipating resident backlash.

Indeed.

Before red light cameras there are usually red light camera studies, to see if the red light cameras are needed. Would it surprise you that the results are usually yes, they are needed.

But by whom, and why?

What defines that need, safety or revenue, is a key to red light cameras. Government entities support red light cameras (RLC) since they were first deployed in California New York City in 1993. Four years later, in 1997 Oxnard, California installed automated enforcement technology, creating the automatic ticket and fine for the owner of the registered vehicle.

Many pro RLC supporters will refer to the U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, or the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration for information supporting the use of cameras Most of that research into red light cameras invariably leads back to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Richard Retting. As author of many IIHS reports and studies, Retting is a senior transportation engineer for IIHS. He has even been called the “father of the red-light camera movement” in the United States. Most federal reports and information usually comes from this group, or from studies or reports funded by this group under other names. They testify at any and every hearing into RLCs that they are an imperative safety improvement. They maintain a large clearinghouse of reports and information touting the benefits of red light cameras, including the California Oxnard studies cited by Commissioner Schnell (although I don’t think she knew she was citing them).

Noble cause to save lives? The IIHS is an organization financed and supported exclusively by the insurance industry. Thier data collection is subjective, and selective, exemplified by many things: collision data only between the crosswalks, and ignoring rear end collisions just in front of the intersection, where most occur is just one example. Their “facts” show red light cameras reduce the likelihood of side impact collisions from someone running a red light, but minimizes that they cause a rise in rear end collisionst that actually increases the number of accidents.

The FHWA’s own study not only uses IIHS’s Retting as a main sourcefor statistics, but intentionally narrowed the field down to data that supported their claim that spy cameras reduced collisions and injuries:

“It was vital to ensure that enough data were included to detect that the expected change in safety has appropriate statistical significance. To this end, extensive interviews were conducted for several potential jurisdictions known to have significant RLC programs and a sample size analysis was done. The final selection of seven jurisdictions was made after an assessment of each jurisdiction’s ability to provide the required data.”

Besides the IIHS’s Retting, the study also cites two Transportation Research Board papers. One, Multijurisdictional Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras concludes the increase in documented in-intersection (but not outside, before the intersection) rear collisions offsetting the right angle collisions makes the conclusions uncertain. The other, Implementing Red Light Camera Programs: Guidance from Economic Analysis of Safety Benefits, concludes that the most economic benefit is had when there are high traffic levels and a lot of right angle collisions (vs rear enders) already occurring at the intersection.

While I am at it, The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running is an advocacy group sponsored by three red-light camera vendors; ACS, Redflex and Gatso USA, so you can safely assume everything they will find favors the product they sell.

While most of the underlying research supporting the use of RLC is from groups that would financially benefit from their use, most independent studies are finding the opposite: red light cameras cause more accidents.

All the way back in 1995, Melbourne Australia (along with Europe and especially the nanny state UK) was using RLC. The Australian Research Board did A long-term study of Red Light Cameras and Accidents, covering the five years before RLC and the five years after they were deployed, and found:

The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.

The Washington Post did their own analytical study of Washington DC raw data in 2005 and found RLC increased collisions, which in turn raised insurance rates. From 1998 to 2004, the newspaper reported twice as many collisions at RLC equipped intersections. Injuries and fatalities from collisions went up 81%, and right angle collisions went up 30% at the intersections with RLC.

Two years later in 2007 the DC Metropolitan Police Department agreed that DC cameras don’t work right.

A comprehensive study conducted by the Virginia Department of Transportation, in it’s executive summary, concluded:

Further analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes.

To boot, the study showed that the main benefit was increased revenues via tickets, at the expense of higher collision rates and insurance premiums for drivers (aka taxpayers or residents).

In March of this year, the Florida Public Health Review published a multi-discipline review of RLC by the University of South Florida College of Public Health that concluded RLC increase accidents and injuries, and went so far as to state unequivically:

Finally, cities, counties, and the state should be very cautious in using traffic safety information from the automobile insurance industry. Insurance financial goals are to increase their revenues and profits, which do not necessarily include reducing traffic crashes, injuries or fatalities. Also, public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety.

The report and the authors were attacked for several reasons, and those attacks were conclusively responded to.

Even Winnepeg Canada says RLC not only cause more accidents, they don’t raise the revenue promised.

Many North Carolina cities including Charlotte, Greensboro, High Point, and Greenville have also shut down their red-light camera system (even though most are still abandoned in place).

Seattle, touted as a place where RLC work, nabs $1.1 million in fines.

Most objections are summarized by the National Motorists Association. They point out most municipalities use registered owner model violations; they do not care who is driving, just that the car’s registered owner gets the ticket. So it becomes a matter of revenue first, not corrective enforcement. They also point out RLC is a bad solution used by sloppy, lazy, or money grubbing municipalities eager to make revenue sharing deals with equipment suppliers to get RLC up and running in the village or city. The insurance industry writes them off as a bunch of fast driving nut cases, but never has factually refuted any of their claims.

The Weekly Standard, a conservative Republican leaning web site, published a five part report on RLC in 2002 that foreshadowed most of what has since come to pass:

• Part 1: Inside the District’s Red Lights
• Part 2: The Yellow Menace
• Part 3: The Safety Myth
• Part 4: Getting Rear-Ended by the Law
• Part 5: Fighting the Good Fight

You know he’d tell you if he was here.

Martin Tully Says:
June 20, 2008 at 12:28 am e

Yes I would and yes I am. And don’t forget about the benefit concert for the Blodgett House on the evening June 26th. “Let’s put the heritage back into Heritage Festival.”

Gee, would you ever guess that I am also the Chair of the Community Events Commission?

Another piece to the stormwater puzzle.

Read the comprehensive cold weather report on Portland Cement Pervious Concrete Performance. If you don’t want to wade through 70+ pages, short form: works great. Around here, it doesn’t eliminate the need for detention/retention, but it would significantly reduce runoff we continue building into our village now-despite knowing how much fixing the problem costs us later.

Thousands now; millions later. Pick one.