David Stieper, Republican primary candidate for McHenry County Board District 1 in the March primary elections, has recently gained endorsements from both the Daily Herald and the Northwest Herald. David is one of three Republican candidates vying for two seats on the board representing District 1 which includes the entire McHenry County portion of Barrington Hills.
Last week, the Daily Herald noted “Stieper has a background in law and business with stints on Barrington Hills’ plan commission and zoning board” in their endorsement which can be viewed here.
The Northwest Herald cited Stieper’s targeting of McHenry County government size and associated spending in their endorsement last Tuesday which can be read here.
In addition to his local government experience, the Observer feels that David’s business and legal knowledge in the area of real estate will be an asset on the board considering that large parcels of property, collectively known as the “Duda property,” are currently for sale in unincorporated McHenry County bordering Barrington Hills.
– The Observer
A perfect choice for these troubled times.
David was on the wrong side of the lighting issue. He does not deserve my vote.
Then don’t vote for him!
We’re lucky to have people like David Stieper running for County Board; he’ll be an exceptional addition. As to the Lighting Ordiance, perhaps, you forgot that the Village Pres and some of the seated members, directed the Plan Commission to develop a “recommendation”.. One should not misconstrue a “recommendation” as “siding” with the outcome. The lighting ordinance was just one issue; there are many issues that will come before the County Board. To “opponent” – have you taken the time to attend a County Board meeting to personally observe the performance of the incumbent County Board candidate? If you had, you’d be convinced that David Stieper is a far better choice to represent you..
“One should not misconstrue a “recommendation” as “siding” with the outcome. ”
What???
I support the Observer’s endorsement of David. He is passionate. A fighter. Someone who, without bias or self interest, will push for fiscal responsibility and transparency in government. I have known David for a number of years, since we ran against each other in an election for village trustee positions. His views then were responsible and have been consistent over the years. David’s central message and objective, then and now, is fiscal discipline–something we should all embrace. There is a shortage of intelligent, hard working, and honest candidates for local office. I’m happy to see someone like David, who possesses these traits, put his hat in the ring.
David has had two failed attempts in recent BH elections, now he is running for McHenry County Board, maybe he has a chance. As with most candidates their campaign promises disappear when elected into office and their own agenda takes over.
Who Is The Loser?
David Stieper ran as the non-slated Independent in the last Village Election. I recall he was outspent by his opponents more than 10 to 1. Current President McLaughlin was the top vote getter at 647 votes. His slate-mate, Trustee Colleen Hannigan, garnered 609 Votes. 21 votes separated 4 candidates for the remaining 2 Trustee slots (578 to 557), with Trustees Harrington and Gohl prevailing. Candidate Abboud, running for reelection as Village President, brought up the rear with 504 votes, which was 53 less than “losing” Candidate Stieper for Trustee.
Consider that Jim Oberweis lost 5 election bids before winning his current seat in the Illinois State Senate. He is running in the current Republican Primary against Doug Truax for U. S. Senate, the winner to face Senator Dick Durbin in the November Election.
David has what many who choose to run for office lack, and that is honesty and integrity. Additionally, he will bring Independence, Experience and Expertise to the McHenry County Board.
Thank you John……no truer words have ever been spoken.
David has done more for our village in his time living here than most of the “legacy” trustees remaining on our own village board, so I sincerely wish him success in the upcoming election. He deserves our full support and to win.
To Rick: my comments very well may have been confusing. The Plan Commission was asked to come up with an ordinance for public hearing, and ultimately, to be voted up or down by the Boart of Trustees. The commission, including Mr,.Stieper, merely recommended an ordinance for presentation,, neither for or against passage. that’s up to the Village Board, isn’t it?
Are you suggesting he recommended something he did not support?
I suggest all who question any proceeding before the Zoning Board of Appeals read, in its entirety, the section under the Village Code entitled “Title 5 ZONING REGULATIONS.” I have, and followed the regulations enumerated therein while serving as Chairman of The ZBA for six years. Under that section, regarding the ZBA:
2-4-2: JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY:
(C) To hear all applications for special uses and amendments to the zoning regulations of this code in the manner prescribed by, and subject to, the standards established therein, and report said findings and recommendations to the board of trustees.
5-10-6: AMENDMENTS:
(B) Initiation of Amendment: Amendments may be proposed by a Trustee, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Enforcing Officer or by any person owning or having an interest in the subject property. (Ord. 77-1 7, 9-26-77)
I purposefully do not mention the names of any individuals in this review, as any individual sworn to an oath of office must follow the prescribed legal process. No one has the authority to veer from their legal duty, lest the entire Legal Zoning process of the Village become invalidated.
The Petitioner of a proposed Amendment to the Code is entitled to a public hearing on their proposal. In the case of the Proposed Lighting Ordinance, the Board of Trustees was the Petitioner, and by majority vote placed it before the Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration. The Plan Commission prepared the Petition as directed by the Board of Trustees, and presented the Petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Various Members of the Plan Commission testified before the ZBA. The ZBA, not the Plan Commission, then by majority vote reported its findings and recommendations to the Board of Trustees for action. The ZBA is not allowed the right of advocacy, and must consider only findings of fact to support any recommendation made to the Board.
To criticize any individual for following their legal obligations in this legal process, be they a Member or Chairman of a Plan Commission or a Member or Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, is inappropriate.
Jon,
I simply want to know if he was for or against the plan. A simple question deserving a straightforward answer. If he was not for the proposed lighting ordinance, why didn’t he show the independence and courage to stand up to Abboud?
Rick:
I suggest you place a call to David, identify yourself, and ask him the question. I am sure he would be happy to speak with you on the matter.
Agree Rick – more double talk. If you disagree with an proposal why do it? Not like he was getting paid. By the way – isn’t the Observer a little late in publishing the audio of the February Board of Trustee Meeting? MMMMMMMmmmmmmm.