A little disappointed with the recent editorial this paper wrote (“Take the Deal,” The Landmark View, Sept. 28) suggesting that the Riverside-Brookfield High School board should take the village’s offer of 45 spaces as a good compromise from the village.

Let’s take a look at what really has happened and why we are where we are. RB developed an original plan to put in a 150-space parking lot. Hearing from the residents the objections, they compromised.

The residents didn’t want cars so close to the school, so RB compromised and made the lot smaller, 91 spaces. The 91-space compromise ended up being the plan presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which unanimously approved it.

So the school district had compromised down from 150 spaces to 91. The village board then voted down the compromise that their own planning commission achieved with no trustee commenting.

A lawsuit was filed to allow the district to put the 91 space lot on their own property. The judge then had the parties come in and see if a settlement could be reached at the school district’s request.

The village lost two motions to dismiss and was not willing to talk compromise. Now the district in an effort to move on met with them for another compromise, 63 spaces. The village manager suggested some changes, which the district gladly did.

The Landmark editor says the 45 spaces from the 63 sounds like a compromise from the village but does not acknowledge the districts compromise from 150 spaces to 63? Why? Could it be they are biased because the village does all their ads and newsletters with the Landmark?

 RB has negotiated in good faith but the village has not! Remember this, the lawsuit is not about the difference between 45 spaces and 63 spaces. It is about 91 spaces, so the village can take 63 spaces now, with the other compromises, or there could be many more spaces in the future.

Since the judge has already given the village two losses, doesn’t 63 spaces in hand sound like the real compromise here?

Michael Towner

Brookfield