Neighborliness is next in lights dispute

How can the installation of 70-foot-tall lights, a couple hundred yards of fencing and a batting cage not affect the character of a neighborhood, even one that already surrounds a high school?

Of course it must. The question is can it be accomplished in such a way that it meets the legitimate needs of the community interests seeking it and the legitimate concerns of the neighbors who will have, literally, to live with it?

Glen Ellyn appears to be approaching the prospect of lights at a Glenbard West High School practice field with that delicate balance in mind. This week, the village board approved zoning variances to allow the lights. A private drive already is under way to collect the $300,000 to $325,000 needed for the project, and assuming it is successful, the lights will be installed by the end of the summer.

So now, the village and the school face the responsibility of policing the strict rules of operation established for the project and uphold their commitment to be good neighbors. That can be done, and evidence of the effort can be found in the resolution of a related issue that came before the board while it was still debating the lights issue. Three trustees feared that a 9 p.m. firm time for shutoff would be too early and moved to push the time back half an hour to 9:30. But, with the school district happy with the earlier time and concern for the neighbors who opposed the project, Village President Mark Pfefferman joined the other three board members in an unofficial vote affirming the original 9 p.m. shutoff.

As a practical matter, that half an hour may not be so much more to ask, but by affirming a commitment to the previously announced time, the school and the village demonstrated their consideration of the disturbance residents are being asked to accept. More important, they also demonstrated their commitment to ensuring that other effects of the additional activity the lights and batting cages will bring are controlled.

The issue remains the subject of an advisory referendum on the March 20 ballot in Glen Ellyn, but inasmuch as the decision is made, it will be hard to know what meaning to derive from almost any result of that referendum. Even so, it’s worth noting that the village’s action was no rush to judgment. The issue, which by law could never be determined by referendum, was the subject of no fewer than 11 public hearings and meetings.

So, everyone was listened to here. Concessions were made and assurances have been given. No doubt, many in the neighborhood around Glenbard West are not happy, but the school should be able to show them it can be a good neighbor.

In any controversy, it’s virtually impossible to satisfy all parties, but all parties ought to be assured of a fair hearing and of having their concerns respected in the final outcome. That appears to be the case so far in this dispute and, we trust, will continue to be long after the lights are turned on at Memorial Field.