Naperville Sun readers have plenty of opinions when it comes to the news of the day. Here are some of the comments left on stories posted on our website — www.napersun.com — and on our Facebook page.
In response to the announcement that Edward-Elmhurst Health plans to make $50 million in budget cuts:
*good timing, or insider info? Pam Davis announces retirement effective June 30, 2017
*So the hospital doesn’t have the money it used to? I work for a big company (#178 on the Fortune 500 list) and they don’t either. So who has all the money? Why do we reduce services? Why don’t we EVER address the root of the real problem?
*That explains why they billed us almost $1000 for strep throat at the urgent care place on Naper.
*Once upon a time health insurance used to be a not for profit industry.
*And needs to go back to that model.
*My daughter-in-law was charged $4,000.00 for a saline IV when she went there dehydrated. Screw em.
*I feel for all of their employees. I have been through that hospital layoff thing a couple times while practicing in WI. Those are not fun times.
*Why don’t they stop expanding and opening offices and clinics all over town?
*Also that 4,000 bill I received for my sons visit to the urgent care on Weber in Bolingbrook when he was hit in the face w a baseball
*That’s not cool
*Yes 680.00 at urgent care to say yes you have A UTI …crazy they spent about 5 mins with me
*I knew when they merged with Elmhurst they would go downhill. Such a shame.
*50 mil. is only 4% of revenue.
*bunch of ghouls
*Drop in the bucket for their budget
*They were just average at best. Won’t go back. Didn’t like the care. They also need to stop the practice for out of network physician assistants.
In response to old Nichols Library owner/developer Dwight Avram’s charge that designating the building a city landmark is a violation of his property rights:
*As much as I love the old Nichols library and other old buildings, I agree with the owner. Landmark status should have been made long before it was sold. The building would make a lovely visitor’s center, meeting room, etc. as suggested, but who will pay for its repairs and maintenance? At this point, I think we need to focus on the developer and his design.
*I agree with the owner 100%. The city had their chance years ago.
*He should be required to comply with the covenant included as part of the purchase but anything beyond is depriving him of fair use of his property.
*If Charlie Wilkins and Barb Hower feel that strongly about it then they should have bought the building when it was available.
*One major problem with Democratic Socialism is that your neighbors start using the government as a means to tell you what you can and cannot do with your property–except they aren’t responsible for the costs of, say, upkeep and repairs. Those are still your problem. Here’s a thought: If you want to preserve the building, rather than stick taxpayers with the bill, at some point, start a GoFundMe account, raise money from voluntary participants, and offer to buy the building. I, for one, love the old library. I think it’s a beautiful building. I have a lot of fond memories from childhood there. And I’d be happy to help chip in with lots of other voluntary participants. But what Charlie and Barb are doing is tyrannical.
*It seems obvious that if the building wasn’t viable twenty one years ago to be updated in order to serve a new purpose as a visitors center, meeting place, museum, etc…we’re certainly not any closer to that being a realistic solution today. It’s a great building, it served the community well. But, we humans failed to maintain and improve it along the way in hopes of a longer life. Now we’re stuck with the consequences and should look to the next best (reasonable) plan.
*I’ve seen other discussions about the developer’s offer to preserve key elements of the building (i.e. repairing and reusing the original brick front, among other suggestions) as a nod to the site’s history. Sounds like there are some compromises out there despite the disappointment that we let it get to this point.
*Interesting article about the historic value of the building.
*However the owner does not have rights to multiple zoning variances. What can he do beyond a Frankenstein like structure that insults the covenants that are part of the legal deed?
*what’s next: close down centennial beach and build mega mansions around it for the elite………………
*Sentimentally, I would LOVE to see it preserved, but I have yet to hear how it would be paid for (other than taxpayer dollars).
*Get rid of the carillon, and use the money to buy back Nichols. More people care about this building than the bell tower.
*I agree with the owner!
*Owner is correct.
*The City can simply not approve his variances. Problem solved. No landmark status and no new building.
*Then what, wait for it to fall down? I drive by this “relic” every day. It’s time to rebuild and move on.
*The owner is completely within his rights, and in many places the right balls to keep in the air were dropped. That being said, it is sad that the owner doesn’t care about the community he wants to make money off of and instead pursue his own interests. Again, totally within his rights to do that. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. But then I feel that way about a vast majority of the tear-downs in this town as well. A lot of homes that could have used clever rehabbing instead of being torn down and started over. I guess I’m just a sentimentalist and not with the current vibe of this town.
*Do-gooders and busy-bodies sure seem to have fun spending other peoples money. The developer has made a reasonable accommodation by including the facade in the new design. Efforts to prevent progress are misguided. I’m part of “the public” and I think Wilkins is WRONG.
