Suburbanites may participate at low rates in local elections but they certainly can be energized by controversial local zoning proposals. More on the ongoing Haymarket case in Itasca, Illinois:
Itasca plan commissioners admitted they underestimated public interest in a proposed addiction treatment center when a crowd representing 16% of the town’s population packed their meeting Wednesday night…
Demonstrators marched earlier Wednesday evening through downtown Itasca to pressure a Chicago nonprofit group to abandon plans to convert a hotel into a 200-bed drug and alcohol treatment center…
Prominent politicians, advocates and other nonprofit groups have thrown their support behind Haymarket, maintaining that the center would address a shortage of easily accessible residential programs for recovering addicts in DuPage County. Proponents also say much of the outcry stems from the stigma around opioid addiction…
Opponents have focused their main objections on the size and location of a facility they say would put too much of a burden on the village’s police and ambulance services.
Quite the excitement for a suburb with less than 10,000 people. Several parts of this latest news report stood out to me:
1. A public march through the community from those opposed to the center.
2. Public demonstrations of support from those in favor of the facility. While there may be a good amount of NIMBY activity, there are also people willing to stand up for the facility.
3. That this all is based on a medical center. This is not a landfill or huge condominium building in a town of single-family homes. Of course, it is not just any medical center: it is one involving drug treatment. (And many suburbs do not like getting involved with anything to do with drugs.)
4. This is not how such local political activity works but it would be interesting to hear where Itasca residents think the facility should be located or whether they could help broker a deal for another community rather than just reject the local proposal. More broadly, how might communities and residents work together to locate facilities that may be undesirable but are needed?
Do more research! Get the facts, why did Wheaton rejected a 16 bed location and win! They are larger and a higher tax base; then Look at the size of this small community, the tax base and the burden it will put on its 8,000 citizens. If the government did what they need to do there is plenty of open space in Du Page county, with larger communities that can support this or Illinois government instead of their pork belly projects to pay for it not on the backs of a small town middle class community and wherever a site be build, the community be given tax credits to offset it’s lost revenue source. It is time and a good sign that the American People start standing up and telling their elected officials that they work for the people who pay their tax dollars to run their community and NOT outside politicians!
LikeLike
I followed what happened in Wheaton. If both Wheaton and Itasca reject this and propose such a facility be located in some other suburb, will any suburb approve such a zoning request?
LikeLike
And to your claim that “It is time and a good sign that the American People start standing up and telling their elected officials that they work for the people who pay their tax dollars to run their community and NOT outside politicians!” Arguably, this has been behind the suburbs from the beginning. See: https://legallysociable.com/2018/07/29/why-americans-love-suburbs-6-local-government-local-control/.
LikeLike
Pingback: When local government meetings go past midnight | Legally Sociable
Pingback: “98 opioid-related deaths last year in DuPage” and local decisions | Legally Sociable
Pingback: When communities resist and protest COVID-19 testing and treatment sites | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Chicago suburb feared COVID-19 facility in empty hotel | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Publication in Soc of Religion: “Religious Freedom and Local Conflict: Religious Buildings and Zoning Issues in the New York City Region,1992-2017” | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Patterns in suburban Chicago rallies for in-person schooling, sports | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The difficulty of keeping up with all the choices in local elections | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Taking extra time to make a decision in Itasca on controversial proposal | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Itasca the second suburb to reject an addiction treatment facility – where might it end up? | Legally Sociable