Like the Dukes who tried to corner the market in frozen concentrated orange juice in the film Trading Places, Winfield United is getting its comeuppance now.
Today, as Winfield is in disarray and continues to slide, the directors of Winfield United have taken over from their board members. And those directors are running from the realities of their agenda all the while trying to minimize the damage their organization has done — just as the movie’s orange traders did 27 years ago.
We have long known Winfield United would put our community at great risk with their anti-growth, self-serving agenda and Winfield would face the difficult times we are now experiencing. And we remain of the view that a renewed level of instability is upon us because Winfield United’s control is exacerbating our current situation.
All the way back in 2004, we were cautioned that Winfield United’s dirty little secret was absolutely no-growth, no progress, and no new ideas, which displaced old-fashioned tried and true methods of building a viable, successful and happy community. Further adding to Winfield’s woes was Winfield United’s Deborah Birutis’ stated position that development would sow the seeds of our own destruction. Read Deborah Birutis’ flawed “White Paper Report” True Cost of Development.
Since the beginning of Winfield United in 2004, we have witnessed the morphing of the town into a shell of itself. As Randolph Duke reminded us in Trading Places, they took a “perfectly useless psychopath like Valentine, and turned him into a successful executive. And during the same time, we turned an honest, hard-working man (Winthorpe) into a violently, deranged, would-be killer!”
In 2004, we were warned about the consequences of allowing the special interest group Winfield United to control and unwind our town and the volatility that would follow.
The Dukes traded in orange juice; Winfield United has an overzealous love affair for power and their own agenda. Winfield United convinced as many people who would listen their agenda was the right one and they, Winfield United would take Winfield to the big dance….that is until the music stopped.
Over the last few years, the pain in Winfield has become as thick as the fog rising from Shinneock Bay in the Hamptons this morning. Fear of rising losses, higher taxes, a depletion of essential services, the lack of new ideas and a loss of community has many residents nervously biting their finger nails hoping and praying for change.
1. Take 5 says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:01 am (Edit)
After reading Birutis’ True Cost of Development I am more convinced than ever she does not have even the smallest understanding about development and is completely CLUELESS!!!!
2. thelongwayaround says:
August 30, 2010 at 11:59 am (Edit)
The real outrage about WU is that they are not being investigated for their influence over the village board. There’s no room between these two! Think about how much control WU has over the village board. The town’s people who are calling out WU aren’t dissembling — despite what the WU apologists say, that they put the town’s interest first — well that’s sure not what we have seen.
3. reach4it says:
August 30, 2010 at 1:01 pm (Edit)
The report is a complete contradiction to every statement she made during the election. What we have witnessed the last 6 years is the Deb Birutis and WU’s NO CHANGE PLAN. Now the town is in a financial hole — Birutis and WU are trying to push the financial burden onto to us, the residents. I have never read such a bigger piece of propaganda in my life. The residents better start waking up to the Winfield United’s agenda and vote these self-serving do nothing people like Birutis out of office or get ready to pay and pay handsomely for WU’s wants.
4. devaluation says:
August 30, 2010 at 3:49 pm (Edit)
Fortunately not everyone in Winfield remains paralyzed in an irreversible state of Winfield United inebriation.
5. Hypothermia says:
August 30, 2010 at 6:01 pm (Edit)
Check out this quote from Village President Birutis: “I have a vision for a thriving town center, I want to create a bustling downtown with retail, residential and recreational opportunities………….
Now read Village President Birutis’ True Cost of Development and ask yourself does she really favor new development or was she just saying she favored development to get elected?
True Cost of Development
By Deborah Birutis
There are a lot of people who would like you to believe that high density residential and commercial development will automatically lower your taxes. True or False? False. Communities pay a high price for poorly planned growth. Scattered development causes traffic congestion, loss of open space and increased demand for costly public services.
No!! Ms. Birutis urban sprawl is what you are promoting in your above statement. Urban sprawl is more detrimental to people’s health and the environment because of the issues that sprawl creates. Residents of sprawling neighborhoods tend to emit more pollution per person and add to traffic congestion. Sprawl negatively impacts land and water quantity and quality and should be limited, not encouraged. Also please point out where this poorly planned growth in Winfield is that you referenced. According to numerous governmental studies, the cost of public services such as schools, fire and police protection and road maintenance actually exceeds the revenue that a high-density development produces.
According to numerous governmental studies, the cost of public services such as schools, fire and police protection and road maintenance actually exceeds the revenue that a high-density development produces
Please identify the ‘governmental studies” you site. Also our current fire and police protection has dropped considerably over the last four years coincidentally there hasn’t been any new development (this has all taken place since you have been elected) and we are now many many years behind on road maintenance – please explain why this happened given your theory that development would be the cause of these failures and yet there hasn’t been any development in Winfield over the last 6 years and we face significant shortfalls and failures in our police department.
In contrast, another study shows that the protection of open space results in an increase in value of residential properties in close proximity, thus paying more in taxes to the village. Also, homes in neighborhoods that protect mature trees sell for 10-15% more than homes built in subdivisions where trees were cut down and replaced with smaller landscape trees.
I would agree this is true however, the purchase of these properties usually carry a 15 to 20% price increase over subdivisions lots thus negating any of the benefit you tried to perceive.
Commercial development does not dramatically lower taxes either.
Please explain this to all of us. Your statement here shows your total lack of financial understanding. But then I guess that’s why you resigned as Finance Chair.
The town of Wheaton had sales tax revenues that were 29 times greater than Winfield in 2003. In comparison of total tax rates, a Wheaton resident paid $5,725 on the same house value of $247,500. So, if we increase commercial development by almost 30 times the present level (can you picture it?) the average person might save $479.
Simply not true and once again you highlight your lack of any financial understanding. Winfield doesn’t need to grow its’ sales tax base by 30 times. Just 2 or 3 times would increase our annual budget by $300 to $600 thousand dollars. Your ignorance is astounding or are you just trying to deceive the residents? Winfield’s operating budget is nowhere near the size of Wheaton’s consequently, as I have proved in the above equation 2 or 3 times our current sale tax revenue would really make Winfield healthy. Then maybe we could hire the needed police officers, staff and fix the road and flooding problems that have plagued our village during your tenure.
How about the impact of commercial development on the value of your home? The median home value in Winfield was $247,500 in 2003, higher than Wheaton’s median value of $238,000.
Commercial development will not have any adverse effect on the majority of homes in Winfield. Unless of course you live off Roosevelt Road, where you currently live. But it’s not the resident’s fault you bought on a commercial thoroughfare The rest of us should not be punished for your poor decisions. Furthermore to underscore just how wrong you are: the average sale price in Wheaton through August 2008 was $315,000 compared to $306,000 in Winfield. How do you account for Wheaton’s median home value surpassing Winfield’s……… with all that commercial you spoke about.
In a recent letter to a local paper, a Wheaton resident said, “I can not begin to understand why Winfield would allow developers to control local government and encourage dense (and commercial) constriction. The quality of life, and waste management are certainly not given proper consideration by those in office if they are only concerned about maximum profit for developers. You have a beautiful community with charm. Why do you want to look like every other subdivision built out of cornfields?
An obvious Winfield United shill. Why would someone from Wheaton care about what is happening in Winfield? If they love Winfield so much — Why do they live in Wheaton?
Looking at the facts, I don’t understand why anyone else would either.
You don’t understand the facts so your response is typical.
It has been proven that open space and low-density land use is fiscally beneficial for three reasons. First, because these lands are privately owned, they are still paying taxes. Second, by increasing neighborhood property values, these land uses improve the community’s tax base and increase tax revenue. Thirdly, these land uses do not require the level of publicly provided services that high density residential or commercial land requires. Thus these land uses do not exert the same financial drain on the village. From a revenue and expenditure perspective, open land and low density residential is a win-win situation for any community.
We have found out over the last 6 years that low-density land use doesn’t pay the bills. In fact because of the lack of new growth, tax increases will be the only way to correct the many problems and issues Winfield now faces.
Lands whether they are privately or publicly owned pay taxes, you didn’t know that? Explain to all of us how you increase neighborhood property values when you haven’t done a single thing to improve the town. If you are counting on increases in property values to sustain the levels of service we need – we have all found out how very wrong you are. And your final statement from a revenue and expenditure perspective that open land and low density residential is win-win for any community is completely and utterly wrong. In fact it is just the opposite and we are witnessing the adverse effects of that thinking here in 2010. We have a budget in crisis, police protection at its’ lowest levels in the history of the town, roads through out town falling apart, no monies to fix the flooding problems in town, $250,000 budget shortfall, all thanks to you and your “True Cost of Development.”
We should write the True Cost of Birutis and Winfield United – but we lived through it now and there really is no need to add insult to injury.
We still can and should have a beautiful town center. What we don’t need is five-story buildings going up everywhere, ill-planned strip malls and a town that has had its beauty stripped away by developers.
It’s been 6 years since you have been in office where is this beautiful town center you speak about? For that matter where is there even one new building in town center outside of CDH? You voted down the one only new project for town center, Park Place.
How do you justify CDH’s 5 story building going up on the corner of Winfield Road and Highlake? Furthermore why haven’t you spoke out against CDH’s 5 story building since you are so adamantly opposed?
The fact is you made make some very bad decisions for our town and you offer yourself as an expert on development and finance which shows even worse judgment. It proves you are not only incapable but lack the qualifications to lead the community and manage our future.
6. Beyond says:
August 30, 2010 at 8:15 pm (Edit)
Well it’s easy to see how Birutis and WU ran Winfield into ground, given that philosophy. How can anyone be so lost? It’s a real shame what they did to this town.
7. JP Kelly says:
August 31, 2010 at 2:02 am (Edit)
Winfield thanks to Winfield United is mired in a 6 year downtrend that will take new leadership overcome. Even with a strong new vision a longer-term turnaround will take years to shake the stigma of Winfield United’s agenda. Considering Winfield’s horrific results since WU’s control, the sooner we rid ourselves of Winfield United, THE BETTER.