Rockefeller parking plan unfair to residents
The Brookfield village trustees have decided to move ahead with their latest plan to create additional parking on Rockefeller Avenue for Riverside-Brookfield High School, between Golf Road and Hollywood Avenue, from roughly 20 parking spaces to 108 parking spaces, while allowing westbound traffic from this parking lot on Rockefeller Avenue, through a very residential area.
What is in it for the residents in the north Hollywood area? There is nothing beneficial for these residents. There will be an increase in traffic, a great concern for the safety of the many young children and the elderly residents in the area, a reduction in property values, and an increase in trash in the area. There is nothing positive coming from this.
I had an opportunity to discuss the most recent proposal, the one with westbound traffic down Rockefeller Avenue for these 108 parking spaces, with Village Manager Riccardo Ginex via phone. He indicated there would not be a great increase in overall parking when the plan is completed. I told him the parking on Rockefeller alone would increase fivefold. He said the parking that will be lost by the school addition would offset it.
I informed Mr. Ginex that those individuals that currently park in the lot behind the school, off of Golf Road, are not permitted to make a right turn, preventing access to westbound Rockefeller. Mr. Ginex was unaware of that. Therefore, the village’s decision to move ahead with their plan relies on faulty data.
In addition, I asked Mr. Ginex why wasn’t Hollywood School contacted or involved in this discussion with the village and he stated, “Because you can’t make a left hand turn on Hollywood.”
I asked him what about the kids that walk down the street on Rockefeller and the adjacent streets, not only before and after school, but also with after-school programs? There was dead silence. There was silence, because they never considered it. They never asked the common-sense questions that would arise if they listened to those that reside in the area.
If there wouldn’t be a great increase in the overall number of parking spaces, why not make better use of Golf Road? Golf Road is non-residential, roughly 43.5 feet wide, without parking on either side of the street from Rockefeller Avenue to Washington Avenue.
Compare that to the residential Rockefeller Avenue, which is roughly 26.5, feet fide, and which has parking on both sides of the street. There is not enough room for two cars to pass on Rockefeller Avenue when cars are parked on both sides of the street. That holds true for the perpendicular streets too, McCormick Avenue and Arden Avenue. They have similar street dimensions, parking on both sides of the street, as well as having a number of kids and senior citizens that reside there. What sense does that make, to have some of the most inexperienced drivers in these types of conditions? This is a recipe for disaster.
Since there are currently 20 spaces on Rockefeller Avenue that are being used today, why not redesign the intersection at Golf and Washington? At the present time, there are two very large lanes, one going northbound and the other southbound on Golf. At 43.5 feet wide, why not have this split up into three lanes going southbound as you approach Washington, with a right turn lane, a left turn lane, and a lane to go straight.
The northbound lane could be limited to one lane there and expand out to two as you go northbound on Golf Road. That should enable the traffic to flow better. I realize that this street doesn’t occupy any houses on the block, just as I realize that part of this street is Riverside. If Ms. Stevanovich could suggest surveying the residents of Riverside, North Riverside, and who knows where, why not make a call to the local officials in Riverside and make this happen?
Enforce building ordinances in Brookfield
There are times when I think that the village officials are testing our savvy and we just had a pop quiz. What did the zoning board of Brookfield vote on recently regarding 30-foot lots? All commissioners voted a big “no” to exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage.
What do you need for a major structural alteration? You need a permit issued by the village manager and the code department.
I was going to the grocery store and saw on the way a complete renovation of a bungalow at 3318 Elm Ave. There were no visible permits. …As bold as could be, there was lumber in the street, three walls left standing, no roof, a port-a-potty in the front yard and no protective fencing. People working and standing around as if to say, “No problem.” …
There are probably quantifiable reasons why this is happening, but this really is against village ordinances. Village President Michael Garvey hires the manager, Ginex, and he in turn hires an assistant manager, all for big bucks, while the village ordinances are running amok. These ordinances were established to protect the public, but I don’t thin we are getting our fair share. How sad.
ComEd didn’t respond to call on downed wire
With regard to the June 7 Landmark article about the fire caused by a downed power line in our backyard (“Downed power line ignites Riverside blaze,” News, June 7), I’d like to clarify that when we saw the line down at 7:30 a.m., we phoned ComEd and reported it.
A few minutes later, on his way to work, my husband personally spoke to a ComEd worker on our street. And then, as your article states, I motioned to workers as well. We did not expect them to “notice” it, but we did expect them to respond to our call and repair the wire before turning on the electricity that ignited the fire.
It is scary to know that wires can fall without warning at any time. And, it’s even scarier to know that ComEd may not respond and prevent fires like mine, or worse.
Traffic issue at RBHS bigger than cul-de-sac
I strongly urge Brookfield to reconsider its position on eliminating a cul-de-sac at Rockefeller Avenue. This is a dangerous plan, considering our young, distractable grammar school kids would be put in harm’s way by inexperienced young drivers. One injury or perhaps fatality would not be worth anyone’s convenience.
If it’s important to access the high school or zoo through this route, then perhaps a gate could be installed being unlocked when necessary by school, zoo or village personnel.
I think there are other solutions to the congestion that already exists around the high school. It’s almost impossible to head northbound on First Avenue during peak drop-off and pick-up hours. How about extending the light at Ridgewood Road and add a left hand turn green arrow? I would also suggest that the crossing guard could not cross kids during that left hand green, or start to cross kids on the yellow light.
The crossing guard is responsible for some of the congestion exiting presently at the high school. I have witnessed him routinely start to unsafely cross our children on the yellow light, which leaves northbound motorists from Ridgewood stranded in the middle of the intersection. This causes near accidents on First Avenue by impatient commuters.
I have actually been verbally reprimanded by this crossing guard because I was stuck on the crosswalk due to him initiating a crossing on the yellow light. What’s wrong with him waiting for the next green to safely cross our children?
By adding an additional hundred and some parking spaces, it is imperative that the light be adjusted at Ridgewood Road and First Avenue during peak school traffic hours. Even a cul-de-sac won’t solve this traffic congestion problem.
Thanks to Riverside’s finest for their service
Last month, I had the unfortunate occasion to have to be transported to MacNeal Hospital in Berwyn on multiple occasions due to complications from a pre-existing illness. I want to take this time, as I recover, to thank the Riverside Fire Department as well as the Riverside Police Department for their assistance during my illness.
These fine public service officers are essential to my care, and my family is so grateful to have such exceptional men and women keeping our community safe and in good health.
These past few years have been a nightmare, but knowing that I am looked after by the Riverside Police and Fire Department puts my mind at ease.
Take a bow!
What if homeowners billed village for parkway upkeep?
In regard to Riverside’s flap over what they call illegal planting in the village’s parkways (“Riverside to homeowners: We want our parkways back,” News, May 17), what if all of those people that have hostas and such … tell the village, “OK, if you want control of the parkways, let the village come and cut the grass every week?”
What if the people sent Riverside a bill for cutting and maintaining the grass on the parkways? After all, the village wants to have control of the parkways. Shouldn’t they be responsible for the upkeep?