Summary of Events
August 6, 2024
I want to make some observations and comments about rights-of-way trees and the railroad quiet zone idea that have unfolded before the Council since I was appointed Interim President of the Village over three (3) months ago. These are my thoughts which no one else on the Council is responsible for.
Human behavior hasn’t changed a lot over time so conflict is part of the experience. Assumed in the adage “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” is the idea that you have to make a ruckus to get what you want. But sometimes what we want is not good for others.
People don’t hear each other when they raise their voices. I want to go through some of what happened that made the issues more contentious than they needed to be hoping that it will not be repeated in the future.
The matter of rights-of-way trees and their maintenance started out with three property owners on N. Church St. demanding that the Village pay to cut down their old maple trees which are partially in the right of way. One said with great assurance that “They belong to the Village.” Another asserted that in years past the Village, through the DPW, had paid to have these same trees trimmed at taxpayer expense. It was argued that that set a precedent compelling the Village to now remove their trees.
During one meeting one of the N. Church St. property owners wished that one of the trees would fall down and drive a nearby fire hydrant into the ground. There were assertions that if the trees fell and caused property damage or hurt someone, that the property owners would escape liability because the trees were in the rights of way. I certainly hope the property owners called their insurance carriers for clarification.
One of the property owners went a step further and sought to be punitive toward the Village by restricting access of Village employees to read her water meter. When she was sent a letter by the Village attorney informing her of the lack of wisdom of that position, that property owner claimed that the attorney’s effort was a waste of money and that she would have changed her position if only someone had called her. Her behavior caused the letter from the attorney and that property owner gave no indication that she had any interest in being deterred with a phone call. Besides, I didn’t want to make such a phone call and wouldn’t have put anyone else in the position of having to do so given the behavior involved. Incidentally this was the same property owner that when I read an email from the Village attorney concerning the tree issue, she found that to be inadequate and asked if I didn’t have something in writing. Go figure.
When the Village attorney came to one of our meetings to explain the law applicable to the ownership and maintenance of trees in the rights-of-way, that same N. Church St. property owner walked out before the attorney could speak. If actions speak louder than words, that action spoke loud and clear. That N. Church Street property owner was interested in bringing attention to herself and perpetuating the preferential treatment she’d received in the past. Now she seeks a seat on the Village Council. And, it has not escaped the notice of Council members that one of our number has been in on this activity of creating strife which has been a pattern of behavior for that Council member. It would have gotten her fired in the private sector.
Another couple on N. Church St. came more than once during all this claiming that the Village’s building inspectors had frustrated their efforts to put a porch on the front of their house. But the inspectors had not. There was some missing information. After I helped the communication, the building inspectors did a sight visit and found that the couple’s house was too close to the road because of zoning passed seventeen (17) or so years ago by a former Council. But that Council screwed up because the homes were built decades or even a century before that Council adopted new zoning. The setbacks they passed made it impossible for these homeowners to even replace their front steps let alone add a porch. Brilliant!
At the same time as the tree question was bumping along, the proposed Quiet Zone presented another opportunity for spectacle. Jolene Chaney seemed to catch most of the flak from the assemblage of protesters. And I admit that I did not defend her. Shame on me. The disrepute to which she was subjected was unfair and wrong. She was doing her job as a Council member. She worked to gain information and understanding. And she did a great job.
The idea of a railroad quiet zone arose not from Jolene Chaney, but rather, when a resident approached the Council in May 2023 and asked the Village to look into creating a quiet zone to mitigate the disruptive train whistles. The then President assigned to Jolene the job of investigating it. It was discussed openly in several subsequent meetings. A representative of the company that had expertise in establishing quiet zones came in and made a presentation. This was months ago and reported in the minutes, the Climax Crescent, and on the Climax-Scotts Digital Network. The Council couldn’t know if it was feasible without a study and voted to proceed with the study. Listening to the same people who wanted their trees cut down by the Village, you’d think that something had been slipped by them. Their surprise, if in fact there was any, was not caused by any underhanded wheeling and dealing, but by them failing to pay attention to what was happening here. You can’t choose to be oblivious and then claim your ignorance to be someone else’s fault.
As residents of the Village, we govern ourselves through the Council. Claiming to be surprised by a public body in a very small community that meets in public, releases honest minutes, and has the personal phone numbers, emails, and home addresses of the Council members published for all to see, is a stretch. I have a standing invitation on our website to sit down with residents and talk about issues they’re concerned about. Neither the Council nor the Village Clerk leave things out of the minutes or outright falsify the minutes so that residents are uninformed or misinformed. It has happened closer than you think and it is a reason I’m running for President.
Touching on the trees again the “N. Church St. 3” were indignant that the quiet zone feasibility study cost $4,200 or so but had no such concern that cutting down their trees would have cost the taxpayers three times that. And it didn’t seem to bother them much to spend $12,000 or so on a siren when storm warnings are announced from our TV’s, radios, cell phones, and computers. There are even $10 radios that wake up to warn us in the event of dangerous weather. I’m okay with the siren because the majority on the Council supported it, but I’m not okay with the hypocrisy.
The Council is a deliberative body. The making of laws and managing the affairs of the Village are its main functions. If the loudest citizens can intimidate Council members and others in the community so that the Council cowers, that’s tyranny by tantrum. Rational ideas must be discussed and if meritorious, investigated. The quiet zone was a perfectly rational idea as witnessed by the many communities across the country that have created them since 2005. It may not have had broad local support, but as the issue progressed, I got no calls, no emails, no contacts through our website, and no visits indicating that to be the case. The petition was interesting but it seemed strange that the same people demanding taxpayers take care of their trees hopped on a golf cart and rode around the Village to enlist others in their opposition to a quiet zone that would have benefitted everyone.
The Council represents all of our citizens, those who have lived her for decades and those who have not, young and old alike, well-off and not so well-off, the connected as well as those who just want to be left alone. No one, no matter who they are, what they did for a living, or who they know, has a superior claim on public funds than anyone else. Putting onto the public the burden of personal financial responsibilities isn’t a good policy. Trees in the rights-of-way belong to the property owners – that’s the law as we’ve been instructed. It is their responsibility to maintain those trees. The Village may trim or remove the trees when they interfere with Village infrastructure but it has no obligation beyond that. It would bankrupt the Village to undertake that responsibility from individual property owners. And it would be grossly unfair to other property owners to have to pay for it. And no, new Council members cannot change this. The economics won’t permit it. If property owners want their trees in the rights-of-way trimmed or taken down at taxpayer expense, they should put a tax increase on a ballot.
I applied for a seat on the Council 5 years ago to get involved. These last few meetings have demonstrated that the Council needs people who are emotionally stable, mentally mature, even-handed, and forthright, particularly the President. It’s the only way that everyone gets the same treatment.
Comments