Trial opens in airport demolition case
Trial opens in airport demolition case
BY MELISSA BATKA
Times Correspondent | Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Both Van Guilders were charged with two misdemeanors in March, accused of criminal damage to property and criminal trespass to property over an Illinois Department of Transportation project they were involved with in December 2006. Roc and son Lee are employed with Hanson Professional Services Inc., a subcontractor that demolished homes in the footprint of the proposed airport.
The Van Guilders waived their right to a trial by jury, and Judge Marilee Viola heard opening arguments Monday.
Prosecutor Nicole Moore said the Van Guilders had an agenda they refused to compromise when they allegedly allowed heavy equipment to cross a private property at 2865 W. Eagle Lake Road in Beecher. Moore said landowner Mark Baugh did not authorize entrance and his farm sustained damage in the process.
But Dave Carlson, the Van Guilders' lawyer, said no law was broken and prosecutors are acting with political motives.
"The state is calling 16 people and every single witness has intentions of bias," Carlson said. "Some are with (the anti-airport group Shut This Airport Nightmare Down) and others are state employees and contractors."
The prosecution called three witnesses to the stand, attempting to lay a foundation of proof that the Van Guilders intentionally and unlawfully entered Baugh's property.
Bruce Hamann, Will Township highway commissioner, said he denied employees from Catom Trucking Inc. the right to drive heavy equipment on Kedzie Avenue and Eagle Lake Road because of the excessive rains they'd had throughout November.
Wendell Smith, a neighbor of Baugh, testified he woke up early Dec. 1 and saw lights and crews on state-owned property near his home. He said he immediately called Hamann and asked him to check it out.
Hamann said he intercepted trucks on Indiana Avenue and reiterated they were not authorized to drive on the roads.
When Hamann arrived at the site, he said he told contractors there would be no way for them to access the demolition location without driving on private property.
Carlson called into question Hamann's connection with STAND and asked him about meetings they'd had in March, prior to Hamann submitting his written deposition to the state.
In a second round of questioning, Hamann told Moore his decision to deny access to the roads had nothing to do with his involvement with STAND.
Carlson frequently objected to Moore's line of questioning as witnesses recounted the events of Dec. 1, their involvement with the project and the relationships with Baugh and the Van Guilders. Nothing presented Monday afternoon provided proof of criminal intent, Carlson told Viola.
The case continues today.
Posted by ch at January 8, 2008 
Categories: Peotone airport, Hanson Professional Services, Farming, Will County, Roc Van Guilder, South Suburban Airport
Categories: Peotone airport, Hanson Professional Services, Farming, Will County, Roc Van Guilder, South Suburban Airport
looks like BIG politics in Chicago is AS-USUAL !
No wonder why the tax rates were raised in LAKE county, Indiana. "PARIITY"
Reply to this
Not true! If this were Chicago politics, there would have been no airport proposed at Peotone back in 1994 when former Gov. Jim Edgar decided to push a rural airport. This is all State of Illinois. Chicago disagrees with a new airport. City officials are much more interested in expanding O'Hare. The city was even willing to invest in the Gary/Chicago International Airport to kill Peotone.
Reply to this
YOU MUST BE A NEWBIE ....THE AIRPORT WAS A DONE DEAL - 20 YEARS AGO.....MANY POLITITCIANS HAVE MADE THEIR $$ ON LAND SALES WITHIN THE ZONE - CHECK THE SSA WEBSITE. IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK CLOSER, THE ORIGINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL WAS MADE BY CHALABI & ASSOC. ...EVER HEAR OF THEM?
MANY DONATIONS COME FROM THE CONTRACTORS ETC...CHECK THE F.E.C.WEBSITE.
Reply to this
I must be a newbie? You are joking, right? I have followed this project since 1987.
This airport has never been a done deal, though many of its supporters would like to have everyone think so.
If you have information on politicians making $$$ on land deals, I would be thrilled to see the proof. We have been looking for that for years.
By the way, the design was done by TAMS, which is now Earth-Tech. The projections of jobs, passenger usage, etc. was done by the al Chalabi Group. Not only have I heard of them, but I am very well aware of the work of Marjorie and Suhail al Chalabi. I'm not much of a fan of their work and have testified many times against it.
Reply to this
Well......U R an intelligent NEWBIE......I have been involved in this "project" since the 1970s....If we ever meet, I can give U the data U requrested. But until then..... PART A = 90% of of airport expansions are funded by the FAA. U Tell me who will be elected & I will tell U when the "final" will be....George W got his in Florida.. When Daley sells Micway.... the fees go up.... O'hare is "delay" city...; Gary takes an act of congress due to RR removals...so all U need is 1 anchor airline....Like (c) ....OH YEH...read todays' USA today..."Midsize airports see big growth" headline.....PART B later....
Reply to this
Sam, if you have been involved that long, we have probably already met... I'm sure if you are talking about politicians buying land, back when this was proposed in 1968, you are right. But that land has long been sold, several times over. The SSA website says nothing about politicians buying land... If I could tell you who was going to be elected, I'd be too busy making millions to write silly blog posts... I agree with USA Today -- midsize airports do see big growth -- midsize airports like RFD, not little puddle jumpers like Peotone would be. Don't forget they downsized the original project - one runway, a terminal, not to mention a functioning airport right in the middle of it... You have heard about Bult Field, haven't you? And, as you said yourself, all it needs is one anchor airline. Trouble is no airlines are interested, nor do they want to pay for it... O'Hare may have its delays, but its expansion will proceed. Gary may take an act of congress, but that is just what they got. O'Hare, Rockford, Gary -- they all have one thing in common -- they are airports. Peotone airport, on the other hand, is just smoke and mirrors.
Reply to this
Reply & Part B = if you checked transaction historys on individual parcels you would find most have NOT sold! and if it sold, may have been done so to conceal the offshore profits! Also when the IDOT sold off several parcels after revising the "Zone" ---well some one profited. And in the last 2 years, more contracting firms are buying parcels... AND PART B = not 1 anchor...but 2 - the Peotone runway to be anchored by the BIG B -- that's why they re-located their corp. offices to Chi-town.N'est Pas? Mr Built is maverick and thinks he is going to get back his $20 million...I doubt it because a runway only costs $2-9million -- Just look at L.A. new runway & PC Florida's new one. As to an anchor airline - PICK ONE ! but not American/United/ or ? Last year Continental just took 22 gates @ Houston - Express Air @ Ontario airport. There are several budget carriers seeking new, lower cost gates...especially if they are subsized like Skybus @ Gary ariport.(p.s. they did not get their act of congress, as the RR tracks need to be re-moved or relocated.) The smoke & mirrors were done by politician 30 years ago - for their benefit.
And maybe again?
Reply to this
Intriguing, but I'm not sure I agree with all you say. If you are referring to Heatherbrook properties as not being sold, I'm not sure that matters. That area is no longer part of the project. It is a residential neighborhood, wrongly taken in the first place through political shenanigans... Are you referring to Boeing?... Company fleet is at Gary, why would they want anything to do with Peotone?... New runway at Lambert Field, St. Louis cost $1.1 billion - $225 million est. at Detroit, etc... $20 million sounds cheap to me, but who says Bult wants to sell his airport. Not him. Stories about Bult are included in blog-just search Bult... Re: relocating RR tracks-I believe Gary/Chicago rec'd federal funds in 2006 for moving the RR tracks. I believe they have worked that out with the owner of the EJ&E... The smoke & mirrors done by the politicos 30 years ago has continued to this day. And, it is all for their benefit. I can guarantee it.
Reply to this
When I tried to bid on IDOT 3 other properties (quickly put for auction) I got no reply. As to the Gary fleet...it would be nice to have Mr. Bult's North runway #3 for private aircraft use. He can argue his Eminent Domain prices with the the Courts..(and Judges).and you what they are like. Better a South Runway #6 for a nice small assembly plant to meet their backlog orders to 2015-Something like the one @ Palmdale airport. Oh yes, & check their Board members. The EJE may have the funds blocked but the "rightofway" still needs removal. Last I heard they wanted to put the tracks below grade so the steel plant could still be served. Part C later-I need to catch an airplane.
Reply to this
Of course you got no reply. IDOT isn't good at response... Yes, Bult can argue eminent domain with the courts, but even if that happened, it seems a long way off. For now, the state has no approved project. I would think they would have to prove they have a need to use eminent domain. Since the FAA has never given that approval, and they told former transportation secretary Kirk Brown that if the state bought land, it did so at its own risk, I doubt IDOT would win such a case. Same is true for all the other landowners that refuse to sell... Besides, if IDOT could get the property through eminent domain, they would have already used it... I'm in the dark about the board members for which you refer... Can't wait for Part C... Hope you had a nice flight.
Reply to this
Just noticed your interesting discussion w/ SAM. When were you last called a Newbie concerning the 3d airport? Must have made you feel good!
Walt
Reply to this
Walter, I am too old to remember being an 3rd airport newbie.
Reply to this