I totally agree! We have all heard the dreams of a Trader Joes, etc., and supposedly some government official did say Trader Joes was interested but it all seems too vague. In the long run, as always, the tax payers in OL are gonna pay for it one way or the other... We need to focus on 95th Street as well, that is the center of town and we need to make that a focal point to lure potential businesses.

You would think that if they had any, especially with all the scrutiny on this project, they would have let slip by now...
I agree Robert...we cannot even keep 95th and Cicero filled, SW Hwy is a virtual ghost town, and there is no solid plan for 111th either...the area with a literal dead corner...
I want something that is of most service to the people of Oak Lawn and especially the residents in that area. There are already at least four major malls within fifteen-twenty minutes of that area (although, to be fair, Ford City is hardly an option for most and Evergreen is awaiting a supposed renewal that right now makes SW Hwy look like a happening strip...). This doesn't even include the major strip malls next to Chicago Ridge Mall, in Crestwood (including an OTB) or even Hodgkins/Countryside (same time it takes to go to Orland).
Until there are more middle class jobs to drive housing purchases, the demand for shopping/commercial will remain stagnant at best. People in the area, especially the seniors in the Cloisters' area, are barely making it on Aldi's prices, so maybe Aldi's sister store, Trader Joes's (brother store?) is indeed a dream.

Instead of another "dead shopping zone"; why not put in a park? Granted, I realize that the citizens of Oak Lawn could use the tax revenue but given the current status of Oak Lawn and the dead zones it currently has, a park could be a bold and innovative idea.

Dave W makes a very good point, the folks in the Cloisters are having a heck of a time with expenses, and if you look at Trader Joe's demographics, Oak Lawn hardly meets their requirements. I am happy to hear that Lou Malnatti's is coming to Oak Lawn, I thought they would never consider it, it will be an excellent addition to our busines district!

I read Madigan's hands are in it. The developer hired is connected to him

Pat F.
Where'd it come from? I'm sure there's no post mark. What dist. are you in?

The lies are in the letter, Pat, and the liars are the authors and senders. It's a propaganda piece put out by Sandy Bury, featuring some omissions, significant half truths and some out and out falsehoods. So much for Bury's cries for honesty, integrity and transparency in government. And it's only September. We're going to have to put up with this sh...tuff until April.

They were doing it today.

see ya tonight li'l andy!!

Essentially nothing in open meeting time...it was on the consent agenda, Trustee Phelan had it pulled off...asked some quick question, and it went away before anybody knew what happened.

metarzanyoujane,
Do you understand that the area around won't ALWAYS be funded by the hospital (nor should it, even)? That areas a bit away from the hospital, say, across 95th, still deal with traffic from there but are not directly involved in the (re)development? No, you didn't? Okay, we'll let you slide this time.
Still working to improve your horribly off base profile? Feel free to actually meet me for lunch one day, see how drastically wrong you have been...
Also, we know because three different trustees (from differing 'factions' no less) have SAID they have no anchor. So either they suddenly all have found 'unity' again, or they really do not have an anchor...everybody that lives in town should care what goes thefre...it matters what type of customers/clients/consumers are being attracted, what demographic PROFILE they fit (especially income to be spent-wise), will it help the most local of residents...how do you not 'get' this?
Worrying aboout the Bears is maybe what you do and why you don't understand why this importnat to others...that would explain a lot about you, actually...

D. 666, or, Stalker Number Two, as you can now be known as, I'm not sure how 'obsolete' a word is when it is in the first three dictionaries on Google...especially when it is the top defintion in one of them. (Though, in your defense, I'm just as surprised about that as you are...then again, in your non-defense, you thought the word was obsolete...) We are NOT in ancient Rome. Which is why you should probably use this whole interweb thingy to look up stuff before you try and flex your (lack of) knowledge. Still feel big and bad and tough? First you miss on logic, then you miss on easily attainable facts. Keep trying, since you two (I know "Grammar" is one of you two, duh...) are clearly now obsessed with me...which is weird, because I actually agree with you two when I, you know, have reason to agree. Huh...wonder what your buddy would 'profile' that as?
(Lastly, I'm WAY too old to be a freshman in any military academy, so yeah, you got that one right...attaboy! [Pat on back...])

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plebeian
ple·be·ian [pli-bee-uhn] adjective 1. belonging or pertaining to the common people.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plebeian
"2. Of, belonging to, or characteristic of commoners."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plebeian