Lockport Mulls Crude Oil Depot at Texaco Site

Did anyone expect anything different from "Chevron"..an oil company. Took these idiots years and millions to clean up the mess they made and now they want to start all over again. Better fire up those water filtration systems asap before we have to close more wells because of contaminated well water or we all start glowing in the dark. All this for a few measly underpaying jobs...gimme a break Trivedi !

This was carefully looked into by a qualified person, Kim Jones. If the UN qualified people like the enviornment GROUP OF FIVE WOULD SHUT UP AND THE PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL THAT KNOW NOTHING WE COULD HAVE SOME JOBS IN THIS TOWN. Texaco was there for years and the town prospered. Ask the many retired employees from there. It was a place where people earned their living. Chevron has spent alot of money cleaning it up. Does the Council have the money to reimburse them. No. I think they should have a real expert, Kim Jones, in deciding the fate of the property. These five people and the five on the council better get together and know a good thing when they see it. Or we could let it sit there forever as it has done. Jobs would be welcome. Of course we could all live off the backs of the taxpayers as SOME of the council is presently doing.

This is the City of Lockport, they do not care if it's wrong. As long as it is what they've always done it will continue to be done. They choose to ignore the truth and let themselves believe it right.

Article wrote:

If the project gets the OK, it would put the rail yard near a proposed Romeoville conservation area. The village is tentatively planning more than 400 acres of conservation land just south of the future Metra station at 135th Street and New Avenue. The land would extend all the way to the edge of the Texaco property.

I don't know what they mean "by the edge" of the Texaco property. By the looks of the map, the conservation area (a place were no one is even allowed to walk in so I guess they are conserving it for birds and rabbits) will be separated from the Texaco development by a couple of miles with an entire tank farm and 3 landfills in between.

Someone in Lockport wrote:

This is the City of Lockport, they do not care if it's wrong. As long as it is what they've always done it will continue to be done. They choose to ignore the truth and let themselves believe it right.

Let's get this straight, the opposition is a group of five people. Yes, that is right headed by fat Sandy and they would oppose anything that goes on that site. They are opposed to everything and let's face it, it is only appropriate for certain things. This is not a disneyland, a library site, or the like. Let's not let the workers that would get a job go down this drain too, and oppose it with this butterfly group. Come on, let's be sensible and put politics aside. I know that is asking alot from the politically motivated ones that want those five votes.

No More Turner wrote:

This was carefully looked into by a qualified person, Kim Jones. If the UN qualified people like the enviornment GROUP OF FIVE WOULD SHUT UP AND THE PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL THAT KNOW NOTHING WE COULD HAVE SOME JOBS IN THIS TOWN. Texaco was there for years and the town prospered. Ask the many retired employees from there. It was a place where people earned their living. Chevron has spent alot of money cleaning it up. Does the Council have the money to reimburse them. No. I think they should have a real expert, Kim Jones, in deciding the fate of the property. These five people and the five on the council better get together and know a good thing when they see it. Or we could let it sit there forever as it has done. Jobs would be welcome. Of course we could all live off the backs of the taxpayers as SOME of the council is presently doing.

I do not care about Kim Jones or all this BS about the majority and minority. Lockport does not owe ANYTHING to Texaco or Chevron. They polluted the site...they were TOLD to clean it up. The reason that location "sits there" is because no other business in it's right mind is willing to use it..except another polluter like an oil company. You think Macy's or Target...or Wal_mart would go in there ? Hey how about a huge water park that would draw thousands of "paying" customers. Talk about jobs....that's where the real jobs would come from not to mention sales tax dollars and thousands of visitors. If you want to put Lockport ON THE MAP..it won't come from truck docks and certainly not from Chevron. You sound like a PR guy for an oil company....wonder who that could be ?? Stop the "jobs" talk already. It's all political BS to get votes.

There's nothing this city can do about it come in, it's coming so get use to tne idea. Oil companies have more money and it is already zoned for such use.

You can't put a waterpark on the site - the land has not been remitted to a standard high enough for recreation. That is not because Chevron is "evil" it is simply the standard the City of Lockport and Chevron agreed to years ago before they turned over the first shovel of dirt to clean the site.

Besides, this development would be less about jobs and more about pumping money into the TIF.

Chumbalone wrote:

<quoted text> I do not care about Kim Jones or all this BS about the majority and minority. Lockport does not owe ANYTHING to Texaco or Chevron. They polluted the site...they were TOLD to clean it up. The reason that location "sits there" is because no other business in it's right mind is willing to use it..except another polluter like an oil company. You think Macy's or Target...or Wal_mart would go in there ? Hey how about a huge water park that would draw thousands of "paying" customers. Talk about jobs....that's where the real jobs would come from not to mention sales tax dollars and thousands of visitors. If you want to put Lockport ON THE MAP..it won't come from truck docks and certainly not from Chevron. You sound like a PR guy for an oil company....wonder who that could be ?? Stop the "jobs" talk already. It's all political BS to get votes.

Water parks and children, IT IS NOT THE USE, DUMBO. Again, someone that does not know the uses for the land. All they are concerned about, which is evident is Chevron (Pete again), is their preference. It has to go by the rules. Why don't you look them up before you babble on.

Chumbalone wrote:

<quoted text> I do not care about Kim Jones or all this BS about the majority and minority. Lockport does not owe ANYTHING to Texaco or Chevron. They polluted the site...they were TOLD to clean it up. The reason that location "sits there" is because no other business in it's right mind is willing to use it..except another polluter like an oil company. You think Macy's or Target...or Wal_mart would go in there ? Hey how about a huge water park that would draw thousands of "paying" customers. Talk about jobs....that's where the real jobs would come from not to mention sales tax dollars and thousands of visitors. If you want to put Lockport ON THE MAP..it won't come from truck docks and certainly not from Chevron. You sound like a PR guy for an oil company....wonder who that could be ?? Stop the "jobs" talk already. It's all political BS to get votes.

It's Turner again, babbling. He does not know what he is talking about.

What else can this land be used for?

William wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know what they mean "by the edge" of the Texaco property. By the looks of the map, the conservation area (a place were no one is even allowed to walk in so I guess they are conserving it for birds and rabbits) will be separated from the Texaco development by a couple of miles with an entire tank farm and 3 landfills in between.

They can call it a "conservation area" all they want, but everyone knows it is nothing more than a blow up "buffer zone" so the next time a couple of the tanks blow up, they won't kill too many people. Citigo has been buying land over there for years for this exact same purpose.

We attended the Planning Commission meeting earlier this evening, just to see how it would go.
First, we were genuinely impressed with the professionalism and proper decorum demonstrated by the commissioners, the city staff and the petitioners. Yes, the commissioners voted 7-0 to approve the concept plan that was presented to them, but only after taking input from the residents present and questioning the petitioners extensively regarding the project.
Second, the people from the CARE group were boisterous and highly disrespectful, hooting and hollering after their representative gave her five-minute rant about what she thought about the proposal. The chairman threatened to clear the room if they didn't knock off all their crap, and with good justification. It is obvious that these CARE people aren't really environmentalists, they are just obstructionists that will oppose any development on that property.

Duke wrote:

We attended the Planning Commission meeting earlier this evening, just to see how it would go.
First, we were genuinely impressed with the professionalism and proper decorum demonstrated by the commissioners, the city staff and the petitioners. Yes, the commissioners voted 7-0 to approve the concept plan that was presented to them, but only after taking input from the residents present and questioning the petitioners extensively regarding the project.
Second, the people from the CARE group were boisterous and highly disrespectful, hooting and hollering after their representative gave her five-minute rant about what she thought about the proposal. The chairman threatened to clear the room if they didn't knock off all their crap, and with good justification. It is obvious that these CARE people aren't really environmentalists, they are just obstructionists that will oppose any development on that property.

I have said this all along. Sandy and her four or five other followers have the title and that is all. They should not be recognized as anyone is their behavior is the same as the city council majority. If they did indeed become disrespectful, hooting and hollering than it is apparent they do not deserve respect either. I think this is a well thought out plan for the use of the land. It cannot be an area where residents or children come to play. That is a known fact. Of course with this council, facts do not count. They just talk to hear themselves talking. I guess CARE is the same. At least from your observation, it sounds like it. Watch what happens when it comes before the city. Due to the fact that Peter works there at Citgo, it will be a no go from the spinmeister. Watch if I am not right.

No More Turner wrote:

<quoted text> I have said this all along. Sandy and her four or five other followers have the title and that is all. They should not be recognized as anyone is their behavior is the same as the city council majority. If they did indeed become disrespectful, hooting and hollering than it is apparent they do not deserve respect either. I think this is a well thought out plan for the use of the land. It cannot be an area where residents or children come to play. That is a known fact. Of course with this council, facts do not count. They just talk to hear themselves talking. I guess CARE is the same. At least from your observation, it sounds like it. Watch what happens when it comes before the city. Due to the fact that Peter works there at Citgo, it will be a no go from the spinmeister. Watch if I am not right.

Can't have a single thread on here that Pete doesn't hijack to display his feelings for the majority and for himself. What a pathetic little boy you are Colarelli.

No More Turner wrote:

<quoted text> Water parks and children, IT IS NOT THE USE, DUMBO. Again, someone that does not know the uses for the land. All they are concerned about, which is evident is Chevron (Pete again), is their preference. It has to go by the rules. Why don't you look them up before you babble on.

Hey ...did I call anyone a name ?? Why don't you cool your jets and stop calling people names because they have an opinion on an issue. If you would try to see my point, which seems quite doubtful, you will notice that we are going BACK to do the same thing we did 30 YEARS AGO....land use or not...agreement or not. If that is what the land is for...GO AHEAD...but don't sit there and say Lockport will become a different town because of Cogent rolling in their tank cars and filling their storage tanks with crude oil and "creating 40 jobs". Lockport...the next Hinsdale...don't think so. It's Cogent's money...they can burn it any way they want to. I happen to think it does Lockport's future no good at all. What business want's to come and set up next to a crude oil field ?? The "plan", as you call it, is deemed a business park...not only an oil storage depot. By the way...name calling does'nt take a lot of brains...friend....and you are pretty good at name calling...so what does that make you ??

Duke wrote:

We attended the Planning Commission meeting earlier this evening, just to see how it would go.
First, we were genuinely impressed with the professionalism and proper decorum demonstrated by the commissioners, the city staff and the petitioners. Yes, the commissioners voted 7-0 to approve the concept plan that was presented to them, but only after taking input from the residents present and questioning the petitioners extensively regarding the project.
Second, the people from the CARE group were boisterous and highly disrespectful, hooting and hollering after their representative gave her five-minute rant about what she thought about the proposal. The chairman threatened to clear the room if they didn't knock off all their crap, and with good justification. It is obvious that these CARE people aren't really environmentalists, they are just obstructionists that will oppose any development on that property.

Wrote thoughts down and an immediate put down and more Pete in the trees talk. It is crazy that one can't give an opinion on here and immediately HE gets on here and tries his best to talk you down. I know people who worked in this town for years and years at Texaco. It was a great asset to the town. It provided really a background for the people who were raised and lived and worked here. It is a put down to them also. Many seniors are still living in this town and their parent worked there. They are acting like it was something that should not have happened. It is not Union Oil and the takeovers of it. It is Texaco. I do not agree with this CARE group, their save the dragonfly approach, and all that goes with it. Of course, Turner will put it down as his rival Pete works for Citgo. This is his mane reason for everything! This is sad. Kim Jones knows more in her little finger than HE knows in his whole body. His opinions do not count, only the community and JOBS. The planning commission approved it, now see if my words come true. I would bet you they do.

Ovcfgbn

Ovcfgb

turner will never support this so its going down when the city board votes on it. hes too stupid to see why we need this in town.