Treatment of planner inexcusable
I am disgusted and saddened by the events leading to Meena Beyers’ departure as planner for the village of Brookfield. No staff person or official who chooses to serve our village should be treated in this manner.
Unfortunately the disrespect and personal attacks leveled against Ms. Beyers (see April 14 Landmark online) is representative of the longstanding tradition of dirty politics in Brookfield – anything goes.
I also take issue with this publication for its part in creating this faux controversy and inviting attacks against Ms. Beyers. If you’d like a list of real issues you might consider investigating, I’d be happy to oblige.
As a member of the Plan Commission, I feel Ms. Beyers brought a high level of professionalism and expertise to her position and deserved nothing short of support and defense from her supervisors and the village board against these attacks.
It is ironic that more than one of Ms. Beyers’ critics worked to create a successful Mainstreet program for the village several years ago. Oh, how politically convenient to become a hypocrite and betray the principles you once supported.
What seems to have gotten lost in all this is the reason Ms. Beyers came to work for Brookfield in the first place. The 2020 Master Plan for the village of Brookfield “sets forth long-range recommendations for future growth and development, as well as the maintenance and enhancement of the existing image and character of the community.”
Every project that comes before the village for approval should be seen through the lens of the 2020 Master Plan. The current administration saw fit to hire real professionals to run our village and implement the 2020 Master Plan.
Contrary to the false impression you were given, Ms. Beyers had been doing just that. She provided the research, analysis and on-site review of projects and issues needed for the Plan Commission to make recommendations to the village board.
Our latest project was to update parts of the zoning ordinance to coordinate with the 2020 Master Plan. The ordinance allows the village board to implement the 2020 Master Plan. Much of the ordinance was so antiquated that it prevented some desirable businesses from locating in Brookfield.
The update process involved painstaking, detailed research on the part of Ms. Beyers to bring the ordinance into the 21st century. The Plan Commission recognized the value of her efforts.
A community is an ever-evolving entity. A smart community strives to better itself to meet the challenges it faces in order to create the vision of its citizens. As we emerge from the current economic recession it is even more imperative that we plan for our future. We will not emerge exactly as we were before.
The changing demographics and economy of our country, our region, and yes, our village, tells us so. These changes are beginning to be seen in the areas of housing demand, jobs, and transportation. It is vital that communities face these challenges with good planning practices. A downturn in development is the perfect time to plan.
We lost a valuable asset when Ms. Beyers resigned and those who mistreated her have put a black mark on this village. The rest of us, who are in the majority, must not let this happen again.
Karen Ann Miller
Karen Ann Miller is a Brookfield Plan Commission member and executive planner for Kane County.
Replace health care law
As a citizen of the 3rd Congressional District, I would like to thank Dan Lipinski for voting against the health care bill. With his vote, Mr. Lipinski represented the vast majority of what the citizens of the district believe.
The published statement by Dale Glowacki (“Lipinski health vote ‘courageous’? Hardly,” Letters, April 14) that Mr. Lipinski’s vote “overrides what the majority of his constituents want” is a clear example of revisionist history.
Every poll, both local and national, indicated that the significant majority of voters did not believe that this bill would either improve health care or provide the required reforms necessary to allow progress toward protecting the uninsured or controlling increasing costs.
With reference to the editorial in The Landmark View from the same issue, the writer states that Mr. Lipinski’s vote represented “an abandonment of principle.”
What was this principle?
Was it that a small majority in Congress can disregard the wishes of the majority of the country?
Was it that this small majority can overtly disregard any semblance of compromise or concern for the views of their minority counterparts?
Was the principle of consensus abandoned? Although Social Security and Medicare divided Congress, both sweeping laws passed with significant bipartisan support. This huge new law seeks to control one-sixth of total GDP and fundamentally changes our personal and vital relationships with our doctors, nurses and hospitals.
The small majority did not believe that this massive change required consensus. Now that’s abandonment of principle. And it’s also not a very good way to be re-elected.
Perhaps the principle abandoned was that laws should not be passed by special deals, purchased votes or through outright coercion. Or maybe it was the principle of transparency promised by the president.
Together with the new representatives who will be elected in the fall, we will replace and reform this law, which is flawed beyond principle.
We will eliminate the barriers that limit premium-lowering competition between insurance companies. We will provide for citizens who can’t afford insurance and diminish costs through tort reform and reduce medical procedures which are purely lawsuit defensive.
Our new principles will protect citizens from the denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions or because of coverage limits.
And we can do this without levying the 12 new taxes that the new law mandates or by adding debt and debt service onto the tax bills of our children. Under the current bill even a medical device as rudimentary as a “cane” will be taxed; now that’s reducing health care costs.
Most importantly the new law, which will replace the current one, will not weaken the quality of the health care received by our citizens, now or in the future.
James J. Skvaril
Lipinski made the right call on vote
Regarding the April 14 Landmark View “Lipinski’s failed vote” I agree that abortion may be a sin depending on one’s beliefs. I personally believe in choice but do not feel abortion should be paid for with taxpayer money through a national health care program.
I read an expanded statement of Mr. Lipinski’s in which he also stated that the cost of the health care program was also a huge factor in his vote. It seems to me the cost of just about every government program has run amok.
I firmly believe health care needs reform, but I also believe shoving through the over 2,000-page package that Nancy Pelosi said needs to be passed “so we can find out what’s in it” is stupid, un-American and criminal. And where is tort reform in this much-needed package? Our president when he spoke at the AMA convention a few months ago stated it is not a necessary part of reform. What?
Regarding Bart Stupak’s vote, I wonder what back-door deal was made to buy his vote of conscience. It’s nice he has decided not to run again now that he has become a turncoat.
Lipinski nay vote and the nay votes of Democrats and Republicans regarding this bill, I maintain, were courageous when one imagines the possible consequences that may be conferred upon them considering the Chicago political mentality that has infiltrated Washington, D.C.