To weigh in on this matter of the ordinance prohibiting vehicles in excess of 8,000lbs from being owned and parked at residences in the Village (which have been debated in the comments of the “Ritter/challenge” entry), I have to say that I find that there are matters that the existing ordinance addresses that are important to the maintenance and safety of the community and its residents. That said, I also find that there are cases where the existing ordinance unknowingly, unintentionally or unwittingly prohibits passenger vehicles from being owned and stored at residences in the Village. Additionally, ordinances should take into account the sizable population of working class citizens who are residents of the Village.
I think it is good that the Board has asked for a revised ordinance to address these matters, and also provide exclusions that would allow certain buses to be parked at residences, which also are of benefit to the community.
So, those two things are good.
What I find disheartening, however, is that some members of the Board — Trustee Sigwalt, in particular — are using this ordinance in a discriminatory manner; specifically to harass a business owner in the Village, and perhaps others, as a matter of politics. I believe that it establishes a dangerous precedent — with evidence that it was long established, and is now commonplace — that damages the image and credibility of the Board, the Community Development Division (specifically code enforcement officers), and also the reputation of the Village itself.
Steps may be taken by those involved to ensure that such commentary and prejudices do not “leak” to the public in the future, however, that is no assurance of protection against such.
Again, this is another case where there must be a show of good faith on the part of the government, that it will listen to the people when they bring objections; and that they will be properly addressed. The passage of exceptions granted for non-commercial vehicles, and certain school buses is a start to demonstration of that commitment.
20 comments
May 1, 2009 at 10:46 am
carpentersville2
You can’t honestly believe that this is the right forum in which to discuss this topic. Why don’t you e-mail the Board since you don’t do anything in person. I know you don’t want anybody finding out your true Identity.
This Ordinance like others in other Communities are to keep commercial vehicles were they need to be, In a Commercial Zoning area, unless providing services in a residential Zoned area.
” What I find disheartening, however, is that some members of the Board — Trustee Sigwalt, in particular — are using this ordinance in a discriminatory manner; specifically to harass a business owner in the Village”
Now if that isn’t an immature statement, you think this is Happening just to get one Business owner? How Narrow minded, just so more of your Sigwalt obsession.
We do not need Commercial Vehicles parked in our Neighborhoods “Period”
May 1, 2009 at 10:55 am
Chrysippus
If you don’t believe this is a “forum in which to discuss this topic”, then you are free to not participate. However, based on the fact that you go on to state your opinions on it leads me to believe that you don’t even believe what you have said.
Now, to answer your question: “…you think this is Happening just to get one Business owner?”
My answer is “No”, as should have been able to be drawn from the part of sentence that seems to have omitted/overlooked in your copy-paste.
Call it what you will, but my opinion is based on the fact that Trustee Sigwalt, in her email, is supportive of a position that essentially targets business owners, specifically mentioning Jim Krenz of Amy’s Plumbing.
May 1, 2009 at 1:45 pm
At a Glance
Since it seems fairly difficult to get a response to any inquiries from the Trustees, I would think that this site offers at least the opportunity to have the public get involved in discussions that can better raise awarness of the complexities of issues.
I think more disturbing is the use of communications outside the Board Meetings, between Trustees, to form decisions on issues to come before the Board. I really think this is illegal – a violation of the Open Meetings Act and shows reason for concern from the residents of the community. Trustee Sigwalt has been on the Board for more than 10 years and should know better. The discussion in her email to several of the other Trustees about Jim Krenz, in particular, is very disturbing.
Mr. Ritter, you have a brewing mess on your hands and I hope you start by taking Mrs. Sigwalt to task for this type of behavior!!! It is highly inappropriate and prejudicial to the outcome of the Board Meetings.
May 5, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Elizabeth Blaszik
Gentlemen,
Hello. Just got back from the board meeting. Many believed the bus drivers would get their exemption. After this board meeting, I have serious doubts.
There are new procedures at the board meetings now. Ritter will only vote to break a tie and there will be no more comments taken from the residents outside of the comment section at each board meeting. Interesting.
Trustee Sigwalt made a comment about the residents bring forth false information specifically with regards to a comment I made about Carpentersville being the only town in the USA not to allow small buses to park in private driveways. A reporter asked me how I like being called a liar. I simply explained that I was quoting a comment made to me by an IL School Board official that I took at face value. What can I say? Judy Sigwalt is just as entitled to her opinion as I am to mine. I am not getting personal and I would hope that she is not either. If she is, what relevance does that have to the topic at hand?
Tonight I brought up, to the board, the question of why is this ordinance listed under Building and Construction when the ordinances sited by the attorney were all listed under motor vehicles and traffic? Why doesn’t our ordinance state commercial vehicles when those sited by the attorney did? Why does our ordinance use the words “on private properly” when the ordinances listed by the attorney did not use those words? The community development director already stated at the last board meeting that the vehicles being sited were not scrappers. So if the boards’ objective is to get rid of the scrappers this ordinance is not meeting that objective. What is the real reasoning behind this ordinance? There are too many significant differences for there not to be a specific objective and that specific objective is still unknown.
Village Manager Mr. Anderson stated that it did not matter where the ordinance was listed. If that is true, than why have different categories (titles) in the village code? Why does each category (title) have a General Provisions section that lists the definitions, scope and intent of that category (title)? This does not make any sense to me.
I asked the board what vehicles were issued violation notices? President Ritter suggested that I fill out a FOIA form and Village Manager Anderson would get me that information. That sounds like a good idea to me.
Anyway, congradulations to the new board members. I look forward seeing how they will implement the changes they promised during the election.
Oh, I met a gentleman outside of the hall. He reads this blog. His advice to me was that I should never have used my real name and that I have said bad things about the code enforcement officers. I not really sure how to take that. I don’t believe I have said anything bad about the enforcement officers. According to this gentleman, the code enforcement officers are mad at me over my comments on this blog. My code enforcement officer does not seem mad at me. I will have to ask him the next time I see him.
May 6, 2009 at 9:26 am
At a Glance
Elizabeth, Many people have criticized some of us that use aliases when making comments but it is for just the reasons that you pointed out that we do so. This Village has several fringe idiots that attack those that don’t agree with them. It’s too bad because the points we try to make are meant constructively, as yours certainly seem to be. Let’s hope the messages are taken as they are intended and something positive will come out of this interaction.
May 6, 2009 at 9:30 am
Chrysippus
Liz, this is quite disheartening to hear. I’m surprised that the Board went the direction to remove the option to hear comments from the public and experts directly related to agenda items — and yet retained the completely open public comment period.
Of course, when it provided a platform from which to launch a personal campaign against opponents, there’s no way they’d remove the public comments period or significantly amend it.
Trustee Sigwalt is one to talk about “bringing forth false information”. That’s like reporting that the pot called the kettle black or the sun rose and set.
I have to tell you that I applaud your courage in taking on this issue, and the attention that you’ve given it. It is sad to see the new Board deciding to continue on in the same direction as they have in the past. Unfortunately now, the citizens lack a true advocate on the Board, and we can see the results already beginning to take shape.
It is unfortunate that you can’t discuss things using your real name in this town without fear of some government retribution. It is the reason that so many have gone to such lengths to try to determine my real name. I hope, though, that by being so public about your actions, that you will get support and shed light on the serious abuses that are happening in this town.
May 6, 2009 at 9:41 am
Tom
Elizabeth – in most village governments the village president does not vote unless it is a tie. Regarding the comment from the gentleman outside the board room – I learned a long time ago not to accept second or third person comments as gospel. It is something that has served me well in life, because generally, when someone passes on something they “heard”, the truth changes drastically each time the comment is passed on.
May 6, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Elizabeth Blaszik
Tom,
You make a very good point. Thank you
Liz Blaszik
May 7, 2009 at 6:12 am
carpentersville2
Elizabeth Blaszik says;
“Tonight I brought up, to the board, the question of why is this ordinance listed under Building and Construction ”
Probably because it has to do with Property Maintenance.
“Oh, I met a gentleman outside of the hall. He reads this blog. His advice to me was that I should never have used my real name and that I have said bad things about the code enforcement officers.”
Now the Problem with using Alias’s is we really don’t know if we are being duped by one person with one alias or, Is it one person with multiple alias’s? That’s Problematic.
I have confronted Code Enforcement directly using my real name and I have had no problems. Some people respect openness and transparency even if you might have different views. Using your real name Liz is an Honorable thing to do.
Richard Grass
50 Year resident
May 7, 2009 at 10:45 am
Elizabeth Blaszik
Richard,
Thank you. I appreciate you using your name also.
All,
Regarding my question about the ordinance being under Buildings and Construction (Title 15). The ordinances that Attorney Rhodes listed as supportive of our ordinance are all listed under Motor Vehicles and Traffic.
What is Carpentersville’s reason for this unusual change?
Our Ordinance does not fit the scope or intent listed in the general provisions section of title 15.
The ordinance stating that you cann’t put your camper in your driverway, I believe, is under Motor Vehicle and Traffic. Why isn’t this one?
How does parking a working vehicle in your own driveway affect your properties maintenance?
I am sorry, but the pieces are not fitting together. I am searching for that missing piece of information that is the link.
Liz Blaszik
May 7, 2009 at 10:49 am
Bill Sarto
Tom-
You may be right about how many Village President’s do not cast a vote on certain type of issues that come before the board. For a Village President NOT to cast a vote, I believe is a mistake. Since a Village President does not have the authority to make or even second a motion, voting does show his/her support or opposition to important issues. To try to duck that transparency by not voting does not show real leadership. If the Trustees are required to vote and go on the record as elected officials, I would hope that the Village President, (Also An Elected Official) would show the same candor and respect for the residents by allowing them to know his/her position on important matters. Most items do require a super-majority to be passed, therefore the Village President MUST vote on them. Most, if not all, ordinances, require a super-majority vote.
It really makes NO sense for a Village President NOT to vote.
May 7, 2009 at 11:07 am
Bill Sarto
Liz-
Those people who stand outside before, during and after the meetings are a big reason that Carpentersville is in the condition it is in. They do all they can to intimidate good people from attending the Village board meetings.
Richard Grass, on occassion has been one of those that stand outside Village Hall and harass and harangue good people, who they may not agree with, or who are not part of their group.
It has been the same small minded group for years. This is the core support group for all of the Village board members today. They continue to hold this Village hostage. They are a large part of why only 14% of the voter’s came out to vote. The average person does not want to get involved in this government, while these type of people control it.
May 8, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Elizabeth Blaszik
Hello all,
I hope everyone is doing well. I was watching the board meeting from election night (I believe) on comcast cable with a friend from out of town. My friend made an interesting observation.
Trustee Paul H. made a comment that his association does not allow trucks over 8000 Lbs. If the Village increases the vehicle weight limit, who is going to enforce the rules of the association. Without the village, the association would have extreme difficulties in collecting the fines from their association rule. Personally I totally missed meaning of the statement. However, my friend called it out directly.
Are the ordinances that the village is passing created to allow the village to use government funds to enforce private community fines which increase the profits of those privately owned communities?
Does anyone know how I can get a complete video copy of this meeting? I so hope we are wrong about this.
Liz Blaszik
May 9, 2009 at 8:25 am
Chrysippus
Liz, as I understand it, HOA’s have the power to collect fines and penalties from residents who violate rules and standards of the private community. They have recourse through the courts via civil actions to handle nonpayment of those fines.
You question about the ordinances being passed for the purpose of enforcing private community rules and standards is a good one, I think. When ordinances are brought forth, there often seems little discussion, little evidence presented, and little public involvement in the process.
I feel that Ed Ritter’s plan to create an ordinance committee (and his elimination of public comments during the time the issue is actually being discussed) will have the effect of only clouding this process further, by pushing this out of the view of the Board meeting cameras, with less community input.
As for a complete copy of the meeting, you can check out the single copy that is (or will eventually be available) at the Dundee Township Public Library; or I believe you can contact the Village for information on purchasing a copy.
May 9, 2009 at 10:57 am
Bill Sarto
Liz-
Unfortunately, I believe your friend hit the nail on the head.
Don Rage, of Rage Management, is the property manager for many of the HOA’s in Carpentersville. He is also a close political associate of many on the current board, including Paul Humpfer, Judy Sigwalt and others like Ed Ritter and Kay Teeter. Humpfer is the hand picked “president” of one of these HOA’s managed by Rage.
Don Rage is ONLY motivated by money. He charges out”rage”ous fees to the homeowners that he “represents”. If you go to his website you will find nothing but complaints from those who have had the misfortune to have to deal with him.
May 9, 2009 at 10:58 am
Bill Sarto
Liz-
A copy of any of the meetings can be purchased at Village Hall. I believe the fee is $10.00 per copy.
May 9, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Myra
Hi – I am really new to this. I am one of the Barrington Transportation bus drivers. I am really writing this because at the last meeting we were told by Judy who has only been at 2 of the Board Meetings that we were dishonest and not to be trusted. We never said anything about not being able to park at the BTC parking lot in Barrington. What we said was we could not park at the schools due to liability issues which we supported by docdumentation by both District 220 and District 300 Administration. I have lived here for almost 10 years on the east side. I’ve been working as a bus driver for approximatley 8 years. In that time I have always brought my bus home. All my routes begin here and end here in Carpentersville. We are serving this community. Some of us will not be able to work due to not having another vehicle available to go back and forth to work. I am the only wage earner in my family right now. It’s hard enough just trying to pay the bills, but the mortgage and property taxes do get paid. Fellow drivers that live in Algonquin, Elgin, Crystal Lake and Lake in the Hills have been taking their vehicles home like we do. Some have been doing it for twently something years. As the CFO from District 220 stated in his letter to the Board on January 29, 2009 “In the interest of protecting jobs, saving costs that would be passed on to the school district and its taxpayers, and reducing energy consumption for our area” he had appealed to the Board to make an exemption to this ordinance. I use my vehicle to get to and from my work – that of which begins approximately 3 blocks from my home. Needed to vent.
May 9, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Chrysippus
Liz, I was thinking about some of the reaction you had after last Tuesday’s Board meeting, as I was re-reading an article in the Daily Herald about the ordinance being stalled. Of particular interest were Judy’s comments. While we already know that she was perhaps unfriendly to the thought of granting exceptions in the existing ordinance, I have a feeling that she is also playing the same old games with it that she always has … you made a comment that was negative towards her, and now she seems to be intent on making you (and others whom you may be working with) pay for that.
This is how she gets what she wants done in this Village. And, she’ll work to rally enough others so that “her will be done”. And, its unfortunate that she now has a group on the Board that will basically do what she wants (expects?) …
We’ll see what happens with this ordinance in about a month, I guess … but even if they do pass this exception, I encourage everyone to pay attention and you’ll likely see the evidence of some very interesting things.
May 9, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Myra
How could a governmental body get away with this unprofessionalism and immaturity?
May 11, 2009 at 10:11 am
At a Glance
Myra, That is an excellent question and should be directed at Mr. Ritter. He expressed his concern for the style of Sarto but the way that some on the Board act, needs to be addressed. How will he handle the problems of illegal, immoral, unethical, unprofessional and immature behavior demonstrated by the majority of the Trustees? That is what his real job is about. Will he be just one of the group, or show leadership and serve the people he was elected to represent?