It is appropriate for governors to periodically review the state of the state and for presidents to review the state of the union. But for matters closer to home, citizens may find it more interesting and meaningful to hear about the state of their county.
That is especially so in counties like McHenry, which is struggling to maintain a balance between its simpler, more rural past that attracted people in the first place and the march of development with its promise of increased tax revenues and new jobs.
This tension was the central theme of the recent state of the county address by McHenry County Board Chairwoman Dianne Klemm, in which she offered an apt comparison and the correct challenge.
The county, she said, has just crossed the river to urbanization, but it still has an oar on either side. Thus it is more crucial than ever for the county to promote a philosophy of controlled growth, one that accommodates the inevitability of development without sacrificing the quality of life.
The numbers certainly underscore the urgency of her message. The 1995 mid-term census showed that McHenry continued as the fastest-growing county in Illinois, with a 23 percent population increase since 1990. And the county’s own figures showed that farmland in McHenry shrunk from 70 percent of all land in the 1980s to 56 percent last year.
At current rates, it will decrease to less than 50 percent within three years. There is no mystery as to where it is going: In the past six years, municipalities in the county annexed some 20,000 acres of agricultural land for new homes, shopping outlets, businesses and industry. And there is no sign of slackening, as attested by little Marengo’s proposed annexation last year of 6,000 acres–the biggest such proposal in the county’s history.
Growth in itself is not bad; a healthy economy depends on it. And no county like McHenry–hemmed in by development pressures–can or should hope to remain stagnant.
The imperative, as suggested by Klemm, is to avoid haphazard growth and to restrain the pace of growth to be certain that it follows a plan that, among other things, preserves adequate open space and clusters development in logical patterns. And it must never be permitted–as McHenry has learned from bitter experience–to outstrip the capacity of schools and roads.
The county, unfortunately, is limited in its power to enforce sensible growth. It can, as it has, establish agricultural districts to slow the conversion of farmland. And it clearly should continue to serve as a bully pulpit on the issue. But there is very little that the county can do to stop farmers from selling out, or to thwart communities from gobbling up land to get their pieces of the potential revenue.
Ultimately, it is, as it always has been, up to the communities–working with the county and each other–to preserve what is best about McHenry County and to avoid urban dissonance. To extend Klemm’s river analogy: They are all in the same boat.
