Let's not revisit downtown plan, ever again
The Buffalo Grove "downtown" proposal - selling our golf course to a private developer - was a bad idea. Hopefully, it will not be revived. Why?
Quality of life: A golf course is a jewel. Park and recreation space should be preserved, not paved over.
Financial risk: The mammoth proposal was out of proportion to our small village - a $350 million development for a town with an annual budget of $60 million. Buffalo Grove has an excellent AAA bond rating which one massive project could drop to BBB. Why should Buffalo Grove put "all its eggs in one basket" - one enormous project, one developer.
Flood risk: The golf course is in a flood plain. Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to alter, bring in fill, and build in a flood plain?
No income guarantees: After two years' of hearings, we FINALLY learned financing will come not from private investors, but from us.
Village bonds: A TIF. Only the developer gets sales and property tax rebates. We finance streets, sidewalks, sewers, lighting, water pipes, etc. Worse, a new "downtown" may attract mostly customers from existing Buffalo Grove restaurants, shops, offices, condos, etc. - net benefit, zero.
Wrong land use: TIFs are not meant for golf courses. TIFs are for blighted areas - brownfields, old railroad yards, where developers would not normally invest.
Opposition: Homeowners opposed the high rise buildings, rental units, transients, large box stores, noise and traffic congestion. Neighboring St. Mary's also voiced opposition. Supporters were rare.
Municipal government: A chief function is providing "green space" and recreation. A golf course, like a park, should not be expected to make a profit. Fill the vacant storefronts before pouring money into a "downtown."
For village president, I heartily support Trustee Beverly Sussman, who seemed most open to residents' concerns throughout the debate.
Eleanor Hesse
Buffalo Grove