Your editorial of Aug. 16 in which you congratulated Lincolnshire for denying a project because of flooding concerns, calling it an ”unusual” and ”rare” decision, should have been thought through more carefully.
It is by no means the only community to do so for such reasons. In our village, we turned down a large office project and a commercial building, both proposed in 1987 near residential areas, in part because of flooding concerns for adjacent lowlands. And in 1989 we have given preliminary approval for a subdivision of homes that not only preserves, but also enhances, a large, excellent wetlands and retains over 50 percent permanent open space. We did this without threat of lawsuits and with citizen support, because it was the right thing to do. Those actions just weren`t as heralded as Lincolnshire`s.
I disagree with you that ”quality of life” or perceived threats to health and safety seldom carry as much weight as zoning, fees or technical issues in decisions about suburban projects. There are people who would say that your view is exactly what all too often unfortunately happens in the City of Chicago.
