McLEANSBORO, Ill.—”We’re not here to answer your questions. We’re just here to hear what you have to say.”
The zoning commission; mayor Dick Dietz in purple in the foreground; seated next to him is the man in charge, Fred Vallowe, and next to him, the one who ran the meeting (and was called “smug” by resident Kathy Little), city attorney Gary Smith
That was the opening volley issued by McLeansboro city attorney Gary Smith at 5 p.m. tonight when he addressed close to 200 people who showed up at a zoning commission hearing, not necessarily for the residents of the city of McLeansboro, but for those who live a mile and a half outside city limits….because their lives and livelihood are going to be adversely impacted by McLeansboro’s new (as of last November) zoning ordinance.
Apparently a new zoning ordinance was put into effect in an effort to clean up some decrepit properties within the city limits last fall….then, by all accounts at the last minute, language was added to the ordinance that extended the “zone” to a mile and a half outside city limits. A map of the impacted area appears as though someone took a protractor and compass, and drew concentric circles from various points within the city of McLeansboro….and thus brought those out in the county under a “new” set of city guidelines that now affects how those out in the county will go about their farming, ranching, and other businesses; this includes applying for—and paying for—permits to erect fences, additions, buildings, and other improvements to the property they duly own.
The map in question. Notice the somewhat floral motif. Also, it reaches into another township at the north (top): South Crouch.
The situation has been what was called tonight a “boilerplate” one. And one after another, residents of the impacted areas, along with residents of the city of McLeansboro who are disturbed because the city doesn’t appear to be enforcing the ordinance within its own jurisdiction, stepped up to the podium and voiced their concerns in opposition to the new ordinance.
Attorney C. Mart Watson (CORRECTED)
Ms. Connie
Leading the way was the attorney a group of outside-city-limits residents who are intent on fighting the ordinance in court if necessary. C. Mart Watson (CORRECTED), of Watson and Murphy Law Offices in Eldorado, took the microphone first, telling the relatively-new zoning board of commissioners (which, incidentally, has on it Connie Warner, the only realtor in town, according to locals), as well as the mayor of McLeansboro, Dick Dietz, that the ordinance is “very restrictive, and if the city residents want it, that’s fine. But my clients are adamantly opposed to it.” Watson noted that the ordinance, for whom the city employed a consultant, appeared to have come from a “template or form ordinance” from another city…but it wasn’t any of the cities around Hamilton County, as those didn’t have zoning ordinances reaching outside city limits. Apparently, the only cities with such a feature to their ordinance are major metropolitan areas (like Chicago, St. Louis, etc, where one city limit ends and another begins shortly after)….and “what’s right for Chicago may not be right for McLeansboro.” Watson pointed out that while state statute allows for zoning ordinances to extend 1.5 miles outside the city limits, “this should be exercised with discretion,” as it would directly impact where a farmer could park his tractor, place baled hay, erect a structure or fence, and where animals could graze.
Sarah Mead
Underscoring that sentiment was high school student Sarah Mead, who read an impassioned letter about her parents being first-generation cattle ranchers outside of town, but now, where the ordinance reaches. Sarah said that guidelines in the ordinance regarding hundreds of feet of “set back” (to “protect the public health, safety and welfare”) land would force her family to own a “200-foot strip of land that we can’t use.”
It also requires building permits for even erecting the fence that the cattle would be inside (set back, of course, the required 200 feet from any other building), Sarah noted.
“This ordinance requires us to pay a city council we didn’t vote for,” she said. “That’s taxation without representation. There’ll be rules in this code that will prevent us from growing our ranch,” she concluded, then asked the board to remove the language about the 1.5 miles from the ordinance.
Glen and Sharon York, who were well-prepared with maps and other displays to prove their point.
She was followed by a host of speakers, 27 in all, who provided maps (like the Yorks above), petitions, cited scripture, complained about the NON-enforcement of the ordinance in the very town it’s supposed to be enforced in (and this number included those residents IN McLeansboro), and generally were perplexed as to how the whole idea came about in the first place. To a person, the speakers expressed the same sentiment over and over: There was no need for this ordinance. It would harm the number 1 industry in the county: Agriculture. And it wasn’t being enforced within the city, as is evident by the below photos:
Which is “owned by a corporation,” according to the folks there at the public hearing, and they “don’t have enough money to tear it down.” Judging by the entire structure, a little 6.5M shaker would likely BRING it down, if not in the back alley, then forward…onto the square across from the courthouse:
Because corporate ventures keep their buildings so nice, you know. It’s a great building for the local strays.
The speakers, to a one, were greeted with applause and cheers, this despite what the attorney told them at the outset: that there would be no such thing going on, and this was underscored by the presence of two McLeansboro police officers. However, no one was escorted out (Kathy Little did storm out, but only after the board refused to answer even general questions about the ordinance.) Apparently, very few questions have been answered, despite the keen interest (on April 11, there was a rally held at the fairgrounds, which brought in 85 people who picked up signs and t-shirts made especially for the occasion). And that’s the public’s gripe with this. Disclosure was told repeatedly that inquiries made at city hall were deferred to Fred Vallowe, who deferred them to the mayor…who in turn deferred them back to either Vallowe or another member of the board.
As of right now, it appears that this is nothing but an attempt at raising more revenue for the city in the form of fees for permits. Those in the city haven’t been forced under ordinance to clean up properties, and likely wouldn’t apply for a permit even if they DID want to build a porch awning or put up a little fence enclosure; they’d just do it, then get fined, then not pay the fine, and the city ends up being in a bigger and bigger hole. In the meantime, out-of-limits residents, whose properties are for the most part better maintained than many within city limits, are now being preyed upon by someone’s idea of “expanding” city limits…without providing the benefit of city services (water, sewer, street maintenance, etc) and without any kind of annexation even mentioned.
A decision on the language of the ordinance is set to be made on May 13. We’ll be there. In the meantime, we’re digging into some other aspects of this ordinance that aren’t being addressed publicly, and will be featuring that in the next issue, on stands May 13-14…and right here on your computer Monday night, May 12. Be sure you get the current edition, be sure your subscription to either the print version or the e-Edition is up to date…and watch for updates, which may appear even sooner.