Process Matters: Quentin Road and Deer Grove

On December 7 the Cook County Highway Department held a public information session regarding their plans to widen Quentin Road between Dundee and Lake Cook through the Deer Grove Forest Preserve in Palatine.

Despite the first big snow of the year, the forum was very well attended, thanks especially to the promotional efforts of those area residents committed to finding the best solutions.

I remain grateful for the many wonderful conversations I was able to have that evening with my fellow residents of the 14th District. I especially commend the grassroots efforts of those who mobilized themselves (something I know a bit about) to take on the system and make their voices heard.

Most of all, I came away from the evening with a strongly reinforced conviction for a value I have always held and frequently taught my students when I was in the classroom:

Process MATTERS.

And this is most especially true in a democracy.

There are many complicated and legitimate issues informing this long discussion about what to do with Quentin Road: cost, safety, the environment, many precious trees and a wonderful wetlands conservation area, water runoff, bike paths, pedestrian crossings, horse trails, endangered turtles, crime in the Deer Grove Preserve grounds, traffic in and out of residential areas, and traffic at peak times on the narrower part of Quentin Road that runs through the forest preserve with wider roads on either end. Most serious is the appropriately inviolate nature of county standards regarding any expansion into the Forest Preserves.

All of those issues are important and need to be dealt with in a responsible manner, with ALL the information and stakeholders at the table. I won't use this blog to attempt to deal with any of those vital details. Anyone with suggestions or information for me, however, should contact me directly at Jennifer4CookCty@aol.com -- I am all ears.

What I do want to comment on here is the PROCESS by which this whole issue has been handled.

The varied comments and proposals made by residents can be found in the public record from this meeting. I especially commend the efforts of those who have been working so hard to come up with the best solutions who are NOT the professionals hired by the County, but just caring citizens. So much of what was submitted was so very professional, well studied, polled, quantified, and documented, including information from professional ecologists, engineers, conservationists, recreation users, and experts in traffic, water, etc. The residents in this area and those concerned advocates have worked very hard on this issue for a long time. What a well-informed and caring turnout of residents!

One group whose work I found particularly impressive has put up a website at http://www.buildquentinright.com/, where they make a powerful argument for a three-lane compromise.

Another important submission from residents was a well-written and fully documented "white paper" on the need for better bike paths on the east side of Quentin in whatever final model is adopted.

Others took their time with me to discuss their hopes for a four-lane solution, different from the five-lane virtual "superhighway" that was originally proposed by the Cook County Highway Department. They had been the first to put up a website at http://www.buildquentin.com/. My follow-up meetings with one homeowner devoted to ending the delays and actually working with all concerned to find solutions was most inspirational.

The version presented at this evening event by the county-hired consultants would carry about a $7 million dollar price tag.

Residents from all over the area that evening said many different things about their many ideas, but there was one common theme -- they have not felt heard on this issue of Quentin Road for a long time.

Process DOES matter.

One group told me that Commissioner Goslin, the incumbent in this district, did not return their calls for six months. Another resident explained to me in detail about the crime problem inside the Deer Grove Forest Preserve grounds that has gotten out of hand lately, including male prostitution for drug use. She owns some rental homes in the area, and the Deer Grove Forest Preserve used to be a "value-added" attraction for her homes. Now it has become almost a deterrent. Where has the enforcement been? Where has been the attention required for those public safety issues? As I have so often heard on the campaign trail, there was dissatisfaction with the delivery of services from their current Commissioner and from Cook County in general.

Still others from Lake County who care about this stretch of road talked with me about the ways all this could have been avoided if the regional transportation improvement process begun years ago to deal with Routes 22 and 68 had addressed it then, as many had requested. A regional thoroughfare around this area could have long since pre-empted the traffic concerns. But there was not the needed public leadership with foresight to push for that.

And several of us, myself included, saw some major problems with the professional proposal that was presented that night from the subcontractor hired by the Cook County Board. This is not the first time I have heard that the County Highway Department is less than responsive and transparent in its dealings with the residents of Cook County.

Part of their lane expansion and multi-million dollar proposal was to create a large underpass for bikes, pedestrians, and horses. But we who have some experience with these tunnels saw the obvious problems for an additional crime location that would be very hard to monitor and protect. Crime is already a significant issue in the Deer Grove Forest Preserve, and had the consultants talked to residents before drawing all this up at taxpayer expense, alternatives could have been presented, such as overpasses (such as the one over Lake Avenue in Wilmette) or protected crosswalks. Some of the drawings they presented made the tunnel look less wide and long than it would actually be, misrepresenting how much of a hidden place for crime this underpass would create. Residents told me that other visuals presented that evening also did not seem to be entirely accurate.

And I would refer readers to earlier blogs I have written to read more about the overarching and fundamental issue of the inviolate nature of Forest Preserves, and the County's obligation to not allow the constant pressure to further expand development and human encroachment that chips away at these conservation spaces which add so much to our lives.

There has clearly been a lack of foresight on this issue for years, allowing Quentin to be built up to four lanes on either side of the Forest Preserves, as if officials were assuming someday the land would just be handed over for more road. And housing developments on the east side were built right up to the edges of the two-lane section, instead of allowing for expansion on the east side and thus preserving the large forest across the street.

Perhaps the greatest frustration that I and others felt that evening was the "public hearing" itself. Clearly, Cook County taxpayers shelled out quite a bit for the subcontacted private firm to develop their proposal that was promoted that evening. I asked how much was spent on the country club they rented, the displays they put up, the multi-media presentation, etc. I am waiting to hear back what that amount was.

I asked how much was spent on the whole study. Particularly I want to know, as did other residents, why it was that taxpayer monies went to promote the plan being proposed by the private firm hired by the Cook County Highway Department with the approval of the Cook County Board, especially BEFORE seeking public input.

Several of us objected to the use of taxpayer money for road signs saying, "Tired of traffic?? " and then urging their support for this proposal. The signs could just as easily have said "Want to protect trees and habitat?" to take a different point of view at taxpayer expense. I was not the only person that evening who believed that this use of taxpayer dollars was unethical if used to advocate for the one most expensive and controversial road expansion, the one supported by the current Commissioner. He told area residents that he supported the plan, and one reason given was that the road took precedence because it had been there before the land was designated as a Forest Preserve.

Now most everyone there agreed that some changes to Quentin Road must be made. There was very little disagreement about that among those I talked to. But how much could taxpayers afford? How much damage to the Forest Preserves was really necessary? Could some improvements be made without damaging the Forest Preserves at all? How best should bike and pedestrian use, which is significant, be accomodated? There was no discussion of those issues in a way that informed all who attended. There were only one-on-one conversations as people looked at the very polished presentation put up at taxpayer expense, as well as written forms to turn in with private comments.

Instead, the process should have been to gather all information and all proposals and, in conjunction with full public input, to craft a plan most amenable to all. The "Build Quentin Right" folks actually did that, and had graphs and handouts there of their extensive research.

The process should balance environmental impact with public safety and comfort. The process should have gathered other points of view early on. The current Commissioner should have been meeting with all different groups early on and been putting together many forms of informed input into the process and proposals.

The worst part of the evening from my perspective was that, while this was billed as a public hearing, it was nothing of the sort. There wasn't a town hall where a presentation could be made and where all present could jointly listen to each other debate the various proposals and ask questions of those actually in decision-making roles. Clearly, in fact, the incumbent Commissioner did not want other residents to hear each other's points of view. There should have been a town hall format where residents could share their experiences and expert study work on this topic with each other in a way that all could hear. There was no opportunity for everyone there to hear all the different ideas being submitted by actual area residents who have to live and work there every day. There was no open discussion at all about what those closest to the issue thought.

Instead, people were just invited to watch a multi-media display and then to mill around and view the maps and charts. Then they could submit written comments or talk privately to a court reporter.

This meeting format was chosen clearly for one reason: to squelch dissent.

The evening was deliberately designed to make sure that the most well-informed residents with the most well-researched alternatives to the plan did not get a chance to publicly share their ideas with all who attended. And many complained that they should have been consulted long before this.

The sense that this was a "done deal" and that their input was not relevant, that they were detached entirely from a process that they cared a great deal about, pervaded the evening.

Process matters.