MidwestGal - A better Plainfield starts with parking lots? The current home is on 59 and far from a dump ($150K MLS listing price).

I agree. 30 is also pretty ratty leaving Plainfield.

For someone that claims to be pro-business, Garrett Peck is certainly getting in the way of letting businesses do what they need to do to expand.

Thankfully, he will be a 1-term board member.

Tim,
Where is your righteous indignation about Fay's abstaining? It's a huge issue for Peck, but no one else, huh? Sounds hypocritical.

Ernie,
Paul Fay does not run around proclaiming how he is pro-business.

He has his own problems, but this isn't one of them.

I know this is hard for you to understand, but each situation has to be taken on its own merits. I do not apply a blanket proclamation to every situation like you do.

Ah Tim, so you apply a completely different standard to Garrett Peck than anyone else on the Board. Criticising only him for taking certain stands and making certain votes. And this is somehow not HYPOCRITICAL?

Check your dictionary.

Yes Ernie, I apply each situation differently. It takes more thought, but it gives better results than blanket assessments.

Like I said, Paul Fay has his own problems, but voting opposite of his claims is not one of them. I don't agree with his claims, but he is consistent between what he claims and what he votes.

Perhaps you should look further into the situation Ernie. Perhaps Mr. Fay owns some nearby property that he felt would be improper for him to vote on something that would have an effect on his other assets.

No, Tim.
Being a hypocrit appears to be very easy.

Ernie, when you can make a single post without name-calling, I will respond to you. Until then, I am done playing into your games. You have no intention of talking about the serious issues at hand, and are trying to make this conversation into some strange game of oneupsmanship.

Good day sir.

Tim, I thought Faye abstained because he is a contractor for Overman. Not sure what kind of work he does and I will not speculate, but I was under the impression that was the reason for the abstainment, not property ownership.

PlainfieldRes, that sounds about right. I knew there were some connections but I wans't sure exactly what they were. That is why I mentioned that the other poster should look into the reasons why.

I much more respect(even though I disagree with) Fay for his abstaining due to a conflict of interest, than I could Peck for his abstaining to keep his record clean for his next election.

Midwest Girl. The property is listed with structure included at $150K. Will County Assessment valuates the land at $55,272 and the structure at $112,749.00 (2011).

Ed - Interesting idea on the parking lot to the south. Certainly beats a gas station and would really solve more than just this problem. However, I mention the residential parcels/houses pre-date Overmans footprint in Plainfield by well over 50 years. I have trouble supporting compensation for Overmans when they certainly have no concern about adjacent residents loss of property value as their backyards are turned into parking lots and noise abatement to 59 is lost due to lack of screening.

A good idea, Ed...one I sketched for village representatives months ago. I agree with PlainfieldRes that it is hard to feel sympathy for Overman-Jones since they were questioned whether the site could accomodate their business back in '96. Under oath, they stated that the site was large enough and no other properties would be needed for future parking. Now, 6 houses will have fallen for this business. I doubt this would be acceptable for any other business proposal in the village. JHP is absolutely correct that the dysfunctional village board's approach to "historic" Plainfield and expenditures on the study of BTD for the corridor are difficult to understand and confusing to residents and potential developers alike. Holding one property hostage to an in-progress study seems to reflect the pervasive partiality that runs rampant within the Village. "Justice for all" (which is spoken prior to every Village Board meeting) suggests that our local representatives would seek all of the facts of a case, and--once informed--discern and debate those facts to provide fair and equitable treatment in accordance with local standards and law. Quite sadly, this does not seem to be the case here where punitive and ill-conceived hasty decisions seem to be favored too often. What is that I have often heard spoken at village meetings: "Don't make a decision in haste that we will have to live with for a long time." Monday's decision was certainly made in haste and with few facts.

@Ed - Lets make some lemonade and campaign signs for your run at the Plainfield Township Highway Commissioners' Office this spring.