Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘OP/Ed’ Category

JB Pritzker Blames Trump For Student Allegedly Murdered By Illegal Alien — But Suspect Released Under Biden

Posted in Chicago Tribune, Crime, Daily Caller, Deception, Ethics, OP/Ed, Politics, Pritzker’s Rules of Order, RealClear Politics, The Chicago Way on March 25, 2026| 1 Comment »

By Jason Cohen | Daily Caller

Democratic Illinois Governor JB Pritzker on Tuesday blamed President Donald Trump for the murder of female college freshman Sheridan Gorman, allegedly at the hands of a criminal illegal alien.

Jose Medina-Medina, a Venezuelan national released twice under former President Joe Biden in 2023, allegedly shot and killed Gorman on Thursday near the Loyola University campus as she tried to flee, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Despite the suspect’s history, Pritzker placed the blame on “national failures” and the Trump administration when speaking to reporters.

“This has been a terrible tragedy. And I know that the Gorman family has suffered mightily … there have been real failures. Those failures, of course, extend beyond the borders of Illinois,” Pritzker said. “They’re national failures, a failure to have comprehensive immigration reform, a failure of the president to follow his own edict to go after the worst of the worst.”

“And in my view, we have a lot of work that we need to continue to do,” Pritzker also said, according to the Chicago Tribune. “But it is the job of the federal government to go after immigration enforcement, and it is the job of our local and state law enforcement to prosecute or catch violent criminals and prosecute them, and we should continue to do that both on the state level and the national level.”

Pritzker attempted repeatedly to portray Chicago as safe just months before the killing, despite the city suffering from a lengthy violent crime crisis. The governor has in recent months feuded with Trump over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and backed a January lawsuit brought by his state against Trump’s DHS.

Article continues here.

Related: “Sheridan Gorman’s Murder—and Chicago’s Silence,” “Gov. JB Pritzker acknowledges ‘real failures’ in immigration system after Loyola student’s killing”

 

Read Full Post »

Restoring Integrity to the School Board ~ A Seat is a Trust, Not a Consolation Prize

Posted in 220, Barrington Education Association, Board of Education, Conflict of interest, Data Center, Deception, District 220 referendum, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Education, Elections, Ethics, Goat Rodeo, Illinois Federation of Teachers, League of Women Voters, Legal Expenses, OP/Ed, Politics, Property Taxes, School Districts, South Barrington, Springfield, Taxes, Unions, What the Ficke (Bradford)? on March 20, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Erin Chan Ding posted the following to her Facebook followers Tuesday:

While Chan Ding claims to be ‘honored’ to continue her service on the Barrington 220 Board of Education, her actions during her failed primary campaign suggest she has forgotten who she truly serves.

By using District resources to fuel a partisan run—earning her an official ethics sanction—and subsequently accepting campaign donations from the very union whose contracts she must impartially negotiate, she has created a profound conflict of interest.

Most disappointingly, she has let down the constituents who elected her on the fundamental promise of nonpartisan leadership. A school board seat is a sacred trust meant for the advocacy of students, not a political steppingstone.

To treat the Board as a ‘consolation prize’ after a partisan defeat, while carrying the weight of these ethical breaches, is a disservice to every voter who expected her to put our schools above her own political ambitions.

Related: “Chan Ding, Teachers Unions losers in IL 52nd District Primary Election,” “New Evidence of Chan Ding’s Policy Violations and Conflicts of Interest,” “Candidate Erin Chan Ding’s opinion on Data Centers,” “Barrington area Democrats condemn Chan Ding mailers,” “The D220 Board of Ed gets another ‘F’ in accountability & transparency,” “School district’s parking plan defies logic,” “Zoning change defies village policy,” “The Real Issue in Barrington 220 Isn’t Parking or Levies — It’s Leadership Culture,” “Change.org Petition: ‘For the Resignation of Erin Chan Ding ~ D220 Resources are Not for Political Campaigns’,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS – Part 2,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS,” “Erin Chan Ding: The violations just keep piling up…,” “Erin Chan Ding starring in another episode of, ‘Rules For Thee But NOT For Me…’,”  “District 220’s Lack of Transparency (Updated),” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency,” “Ding Politicking on School District Property,” “Dual School Board and State Rep Positions Legally Incompatible,” “D220 Abuses Taxpayer Funds in favor of Partisan Campaign,” “Ding In Her Own Words – CONFLICTED!,” “Ding Doubles Down,” “Ding’s D220 Deception,” “Chan Ding running in Democratic primary in 52nd,” “Three (3) Democratic candidates queued to run for the IL 52nd District House seat in 2026”

 

Read Full Post »

New Evidence of Chan Ding’s Policy Violations and Conflicts of Interest

Posted in 220, AI, Barrington Education Association, Board of Education, Data Center, Deception, District 220 referendum, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Elections, Ethics, Guest Essay, Illinois Federation of Teachers, OP/Ed, Politics, Property Taxes, School Districts, South Barrington, Springfield, Taxes, Unions, What the Ficke (Bradford)? on March 17, 2026| 3 Comments »

$20,000 in Special Interest Funding & Continued Violations of Public Trust

By Better Barrington | @Change.org

Thank you for standing with us as we hold our elected officials accountable. We have a critical update regarding the petition for the resignation of Erin Chan Ding from the Barrington 220 Board of Education.

Despite previous reprimands by the Board of Trustees for “flagrant violations” of school board policy, public records now reveal a deepening web of financial conflicts that directly undermine the neutrality of our district’s leadership.

The newest Schedule A-1 filings for Chan Ding’s political campaign reveal a massive influx of cash from organizations that represent the very interests she is tasked with negotiating against on behalf of taxpayers:

  • $10,000 from the IPACE (Illinois Professional Action Committee for Education). In Barrington D220, the Barrington Education Association (BEA) is the local teachers union. BEA is an affiliate of the Illinois Education Association which operates IPACE as its political arm.
  • $10,000 from the Lake County Federation of Teachers Local 504 COPE PAC.
  • Public Endorsements: Her campaign is now openly touting endorsements from the IEA and the Illinois Federation of Teachers—entities representing over 240,000 educators statewide.

Why This Matters: A Breach of Board Policy

District 220 policies are not suggestions; they are the ethical framework that protects our schools from partisan capture. Chan Ding is in direct conflict with:

  • Policy 2:105 (Ethics and Gift Ban): Sets strict standards to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure public trust.
  • Policy 2:80 (Board Member Oath & Conduct): Explicitly mandates that members avoid the appearance of impropriety and refuse to surrender responsibilities to “special interest or partisan political groups.”

In her first Board of Ed campaign, when called out for taking $750 in donations from IPACE, Chan Ding told the Chicago Tribune she would not approve contracts that raise taxes, yet her voting record tells a different story. She has consistently voted for the maximum tax levy every time it has reached the floor.

Accepting $20,000 from unions that negotiate directly with the Board of Ed is not just a “political choice”—it is a disqualifying conflict of interest. A Board Member cannot serve two masters. You cannot be a neutral steward of taxpayer funds while being funded by the organizations seeking those same funds.

We continue to call for the resignation of Erin Chan Ding to restore integrity to the D220 Board.

  1. Share this update: Post this on Facebook, X, and local community groups.
  2. Attend the next Board Meeting: Let your voice be heard during public comment.
  3. Email the Board: Remind them that Policy 2:80 must be enforced, not ignored.

Related: “Candidate Erin Chan Ding’s opinion on Data Centers,” “Barrington area Democrats condemn Chan Ding mailers,” “The D220 Board of Ed gets another ‘F’ in accountability & transparency,” “School district’s parking plan defies logic,” “Zoning change defies village policy,” “The Real Issue in Barrington 220 Isn’t Parking or Levies — It’s Leadership Culture,” “Change.org Petition: ‘For the Resignation of Erin Chan Ding ~ D220 Resources are Not for Political Campaigns’,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS – Part 2,” “BOARD OF ED VOTES, MEMBER CHAN DING MADE FLAGRANT POLICY VIOLATIONS,” “Erin Chan Ding: The violations just keep piling up…,” “Erin Chan Ding starring in another episode of, ‘Rules For Thee But NOT For Me…’,”  “District 220’s Lack of Transparency (Updated),” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency,” “Ding Politicking on School District Property,” “Dual School Board and State Rep Positions Legally Incompatible,” “D220 Abuses Taxpayer Funds in favor of Partisan Campaign,” “Ding In Her Own Words – CONFLICTED!,” “Ding Doubles Down,” “Ding’s D220 Deception,” “Chan Ding running in Democratic primary in 52nd,” “Three (3) Democratic candidates queued to run for the IL 52nd District House seat in 2026”

Read Full Post »

Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Follow-up)

Posted in Agendas, AI, Audio Recordings, Clown Car, Data Center, Deception, Dumb and Dumber, Ethics, FOIA, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Disconnection, Minutes, Newsletter, OMA, One Barrington Hills, OP/Ed, Open Meetings Act, Plan Commission, Politics, Privacy, Property Taxes, Public Safety, Real Estate, Simple Minds, Taxes, Topics Of Interest, Transcripts, Transparency, Village Attorney, Village Board, Village Code, Village Director of Administration, Village Government, Village President, Zoning Board on March 13, 2026| Leave a Comment »

There was no mention of the data center discussions which began in October in President Cecola’s quarterly Village Newsletter distributed last week. So much for transparency.

Last week we published a series of editorials to enlighten residents on the, “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board.” We referenced Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) records we obtained, and several people have asked if they might obtain a copy.

Those records we were provided, edited only to eliminate redundancy such as multiple copies of the “Data Center Overview,” can be found here.

Related: “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 3),” “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 2),” “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 1),” “7 things to know about Illinois data centers,” “Data Center group concerned over pause,” “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board”

 

Read Full Post »

Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 3)

Posted in AI, Audio Recordings, Data Center, Ethics, FOIA, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Disconnection, Land Use, Minutes, OMA, OP/Ed, Plan Commission, Politics, Privacy, Property Taxes, Public Safety, Real Estate, Simple Minds, Topics Of Interest, Transparency, Village Attorney, Village Board, Village Code, Village Director of Administration, Village Government, Village President, Zoning Board on March 6, 2026| 2 Comments »

Source: Brennan Investment Group December 15, 2025 presentation to the Barrington Hills Board of Trustees

Last month during the February 23rd Board of Trustees meeting, Trustees and attendees heard public comments from:

  • Carson Rice
  • Karen Trzaska
  • Julie Becker
  • Austin Becker, and
  • Aaron Becker

This marked the second Board meeting since the now infamous, “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board,” was made public and residents were afforded an opportunity to share their thoughts. To follow are the Public Comments of one resident who spoke after having benefit of the review of records received from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents related to the Data Center pitch:

“I’m Karen Traska… It’s kind of good that I’m following him because I might have a few of your answers.

You know, before I came here, I was pretty mad. And now I’m standing in front of you guys and I’m sad. Like, I’m really sad.

Last time I was standing up here, we were talking about this data center that came out of nowhere, right? It just sort of popped up. They just showed up like 5 minutes before the meeting. It wasn’t on the agenda because, you know, they just kind of showed up, and, the last time I was here, I was also waiting for my FOIA request, and I got my FOIA request.

So turns out, October 8th, our Village Administrator, Anna Paul, put a meeting in the calendar with the Brennan Investment Group and what seems to be their attorneys for the data center. October 21st, you guys had the meeting with Brennan.

…November 10th, Brennan followed up with Anna to see what the feedback was. A week later, November 17th, Board of Trustee meeting. It wasn’t on the agenda. It wasn’t brought up.

December 15th, 2 months after the meeting, Board of Trustee meeting again. It wasn’t on the agenda, but now, as we all know, a 25-minute presentation discussion, but apparently not even some of the trustees knew about it until that moment. Community didn’t know about it. We couldn’t show up to listen or engage. It wasn’t until mid-January that word really gets out to the community.

All hell breaks loose, right? We’re all here at the meeting, January 26th. And President Cecola, Brian, you sat here and repeatedly stated that no one, no one on this Board wanted a data center, right? No one wanted it. And nobody raised their hand, contradicted him. No one said, well, actually, no, I did.

Well, Tuesday, December 16th, the day after the presentation with Brennan, Trustee Strauss, who’s not here unfortunately, to Wes Levy, the Village Treasurer, and Anna Paul, the Village Administrator.

Wes, nicely done last night. Can you ask Anna to share the information we received last night from Brennan Investment Group about a possible data center development?

Levy responds, hi, Trustee Strauss. Anna brought this one to my attention a couple weeks ago. I am sure there will be concessions and property tax forgiveness as part of a deal to bring them in, but if they do come, it will be significant revenue.

Then Strauss emails Cecola,

Brian, my opinion is we need to take this very seriously. Opportunities like this do not surface often. We would need to make certain we can lock up the project and the necessary requirements short-term and long-term, but based on the location, I believe the developer is for sure going to be very open to making concessions.

Same time, Trustee Hoffman was sending an article citing energy usage concerns. Thank you.

And Strauss replied with an article of his own regarding some small town in Quincy, Washington, and how they love the data center. He shared,

I have done a lot of research the last 2 days, and these centers are legit. Below is a small community and the impact that I sent to Brian yesterday. And it was all these statistics. To which then Trustee Clarke responded, Thanks. I agree with Trustee Strauss.

That’s just what was sent to me. There were 2 emails with a staff member and the attorney not sent to me, apparently due to some attorney-client privilege, which I don’t understand because I thought the village was the client, like the residents were the client, but maybe not. I will be asking about that later.

Allegedly, other conversations were had off record with more than just Strauss and Clarke being in favor of the data center. Allegedly, allegedly, allegedly.

I do want to thank Trustees Ekstrom and Hoffman, whether in emails that I received or in public meetings in front of all of us, or both, for standing up for our Village and its unique character, as well as for calling for transparency, not just in the community but within your own Board. I hope in the future we can go back to the transparency that we had with our previous Village President.

Again, this whole thing makes me really sad. So that’s all I have to say. Thank you.”

A transcript of comments from the February 23rd Board meeting can be found here, and the audio recordings of the entire meeting can be found here.

The Village posted the following after the February 2nd Special Plan Commission meeting was cancelled:

“Based on initial feedback, the developer for a possible data center in the Village of Barrington Hills has decided not to go forward with a presentation at the informational Plan Commission meeting.

At this time, the Village considers this matter closed and does not anticipate any further discussion.”

Few if any believe the matter to be closed.

As an aside, the Plan Commission last met on October 2nd, 2025, just six (6) days prior to the Brennan meeting being scheduled by the Village Administrator, per FOIA documents obtained. See Draft Minutes of the October 2, 2025, Meeting.

We thought the timing to be interesting. We also find it interesting that the FOIA records show no evidence of contact between the Village and Brennan Investment Group in advance of October 8th, 2025, when the Village scheduled the October 21st, 2025, meeting. Nothing. No emails with introductory materials, no emails confirming the meeting.

Editorial note: In “Part 1” of our series we neglected to include the “Data Center Overview” posted by the Village on January 16th, 2026. This has since been corrected.

Related: “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 2),” “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 1),” “7 things to know about Illinois data centers,” “Data Center group concerned over pause,” “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board”

Read Full Post »

Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 2)

Posted in AI, Audio Recordings, Data Center, Ethics, FOIA, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Use, Minutes, OMA, OP/Ed, Open Meetings Act, Plan Commission, Politics, Privacy, Property Taxes, Public Safety, Real Estate, Simple Minds, Topics Of Interest, Transparency, Village Board, Village Code, Village Director of Administration, Village Government, Village President, Zoning Board on March 5, 2026| Leave a Comment »

On January 16th, 2026, more than a month after the surprise guest visitor appeared at the December Board Meeting, our Village announced a “Special” Plan Commission Meeting scheduled for February 2nd to, “Welcome Resident Input For the Consideration of a Possible Data Center Development.” That announcement was posted to both the Village Facebook Page and Website.

On January 26th the regular meeting of the Barrington Hills Board of Trustees took place. Minutes posted from that meeting include the following:

“Attorney Sean Conway thanked everyone for coming, and touched upon various points, including:

  • The Board originally scheduled the Plan Commission Special Meeting only as an informational meeting for the public.
  • The data center developer informed the Village that they are not interested in presenting or pursuing it at this time. Thus, the Plan Commission Special Meeting was cancelled.
  • No plans of any kind were submitted to the Village.

PUBLIC COMMENT

  • Mary Ellen Peterson regarding the data center
  • Aaron Becker regarding spot rezoning
  • Tony Bojiorno regarding the data center
  • Chris Yamamoto regarding land stewardship and the data center
  • Ron Barlow regarding data centers relative to horses
  • Karen Trzaska regarding the data center
  • Caitlyn Sieg regarding the data center
  • Representative Martin McLaughlin regarding the data center

President Cecola reiterated that to be transparent to the residents, the special meeting was scheduled (But NOT posted on his agenda) for informational purposes only. He shared there is a possibility this project might deannex from the Village. The Board has the Village’s best interests and continues to support residential 5-acre zoning, green space, and protecting its borders, providing the Penny Road Pub annexation as an example.

Trustee Hoffmann acknowledged Rep. Mclaughlin’s comment, highlighting the importance of the agenda are reflecting exactly what the Board will be discussing to ensure transparency and trust with the residents.

Trustee McClary agreed with Trustee Hoffmann’s comment, adding her concern if the data center does deannex, the Village may face negative impacts and not be in a position for mitigation.

Trustee Ekstrom concurred with Trustee Hoffmann’s comment and shared her concerns about the property disconnecting, touching upon noise mitigation, water recirculation, regulations and strategy to protect the land.”

We will share the transcript of all comments, but it is very important for people to read the comments made by the most experienced person in the room that evening regarding the, “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board”:

“Good evening everybody. Uh, Martin McLaughlin… former President of Barrington Hills, currently State Representative in the 52nd District, where I serve 12 villages, up from 4,000 people to about 120,000.

I was called by a ton of residents regarding this issue, and I want to thank all the trustees for volunteers. I know these are all highly paid positions… just for the audience, you don’t get any money working in these positions, but you get a lot of this, which is trying to look down the road and protect what’s best for the village.

I have worked with some of these people professionally, the attorney, the administrator, the clerk, and I often said that their job is to put a 5-rail fence up so that the trustees know what they can and cannot do. You cannot have a presentation from an outside group with questions and answers in advance of a planning and zone commission.

How do I know this? Because former Village Attorney Pat Bond stopped us from doing exactly the same thing when someone wanted to come and develop Penny Road Pub into a retail center. We had a developer come with presentations, and we stopped them based on the attorney’s recommendation, and the village administrator. I was actually shocked to find out that that occurred prior to a planned committee meeting.

What I want to say about it is this, the history of this Village is we are constantly under attack for our zoning laws. This is not the first time this has happened. It will not be the last. But you need to be aware of this: A year ago and 2 months, East Dundee changed their zoning for the adjacent property to M1, M2 manufacturing industrial, manufacturing industrial light. That means that somebody a year and 2 months ago in East Dundee was aware that they were hoping that they could grab the adjacent land in Barrington Hills.

Here’s how this works for everyone in the audience. The 2-mile or 1.5-mile doesn’t exist, unless you have an intergovernmental agreement with East Dundee. Barrington Hills does not have an intergovernmental agreement for development with East Dundee. The reason? Our former President, before I was here, sued them so often, and they were so angry that they would never enter into an agreement with us. I would recommend that the Board do that immediately. I will do everything I can in my power to sit down with East Dundee to get a development agreement.

Further, I want to give a little history of the Village. The Iatarola property at 59 and 72 was disconnected prior to my time as Village President, and someday it’ll be high rises and retail center. Kennedy, Bill Kennedy, a developer in Carpentersville, had 300 acres a number of years ago. The village said, we’re not interested in doing feathered development. I call it the F word of Barrington Hills. They disconnected, and instead they put quarter-acre and eighth-acre homes there. My point is, you guys have an opportunity to work with your neighbors.

You have an opportunity to get out ahead of this. And the administration, the administrator and the attorney have an obligation to make sure that they keep these trustees out of trouble and make sure they do the right thing. And if that includes being rude to a developer that shows up here to speak beyond 3 minutes at this podium, I strongly urge that the professionals in this room do that.

Because I’ve been in that seat and I’ve often said, I’m not a professional politician. I manage a pension fund for a reason. So those of you that are paid to keep these guys out of trouble, please do your job next time. Don’t allow that to ever happen again. And please, Village President, communicate with me because I need to know what’s happening when I reach out to you. He did, he gave me communication, but I need details so I don’t have to come here and find out.

I appreciate all the work that you guys do. Thank you.”

A transcript of the proceedings from the January 26th Board Meeting, including all public comments described in the January Board of Trustees Minutes, voted on and approved by the Board, can be found here. The audio recording from the meeting can be found here.

Editorial note: We found the comments of Trustees Hoffman and Ekstrom, who each stated that they were unaware that the Data Center pitch and guest speaker would be addressing the Board at the December 15th Board Meeting, particularly interesting. McClary, in her agreement with Hoffman, appears to had been similarly left in the dark.

Related: “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 1),” “7 things to know about Illinois data centers,” “Data Center group concerned over pause,” “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board”

Read Full Post »

Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 1)

Posted in AI, Audio Recordings, Data Center, Ethics, FOIA, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Disconnection, Land Use, Minutes, OMA, OP/Ed, Open Meetings Act, Plan Commission, Politics, Privacy, Property Taxes, Public Safety, Real Estate, Simple Minds, Topics Of Interest, Transparency, Village Board, Village Code, Village Director of Administration, Village Government, Village President, Zoning Board on March 4, 2026| 2 Comments »

Village of Barrington Hills board members (l-r) JC Clarke, Laura AB Ekstrom, Brian Cecola, Marsha McClary, David Riff and Jessica Hoffmann. Not pictured: Thomas Strauss.

On December 22, 2025, the Observer posted an article: “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board.” If you’ve not read the post, please do so before proceeding.

There are some points we should have included but didn’t because of our desire to post before the holiday. Those added points include:

  • Anyone, whether a Village resident or not, is allowed to make Public Comment at the beginning of Board meetings. The Board rules have limited these Public Comments to three (3) minutes (see December 15, 2025, Agenda & Notice of Meeting: “Be advised that public comment at the meeting is limited to three (3) minutes per person…”). There were no public comments that evening.
  • The twenty (20) minute “110 Acre AI data center” pitch was made following Agenda Item 6.1, Planning, 29 minutes into the meeting and well after Public Comment concluded. As such, no procedural rule limited the guest speaker’s time.
  • The “110 Acre AI data center” pitch was not identified anywhere on the December 15th In fact, just prior to the guest speaker’s introduction by President Cecola as a guest who “we invited to come speak,” the Planning Committee Chair reported that the Plan Commission had not met and she had nothing to report. (The Zoning Committee Chair similarly reported that the Zoning Board had not met and she had nothing to report.)

The Minutes from the December 15th meeting, which were approved and voted on unanimously by the Board at the January 26th meeting,  summarize the twenty (20) minute “110 Acre AI data center” pitch” as follows:

We have no doubt a significant amount of extra time, expense effort was devoted to this since the Observer provided residents a heads up in its article 110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board, and, before the December minutes were approved, the Village posted what follows on its Facebook Page and Website on January 16th:

“Special Plan Commission Meeting to Welcome Resident Input

For the Consideration of a Possible Data Center Development

A data center developer has approached the Village regarding a large property within the Village, at the edge of its southwest boundary (see figures A & B). As an informational step, the developer provided a brief overview presentation to the Board of Trustees at its December 15, 2025, meeting. The PDF of the presentation may be viewed by following this link: Data Center Overview

During the presentation, the developer stated that, if a data center were ultimately built, the Village would experience a significant financial impact, including increased annual utility tax revenue in the millions for the Village and a reduction in residents’ property tax contributions. The developer estimated that the site’s property tax could increase from approximately $3,000 annually to as much as $20 million annually after reaching full operation. These figures were presented by the developer and have not been independently reviewed or verified by the Village.

A data center is not a use contemplated in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Trustees believes that any consideration of such a proposal should begin with a public information session and meaningful input from its residents.

Importantly, no decisions have been made, and the Village is not endorsing or approving a data center development. At this time, the Village is seeking resident input. As a preliminary and exploratory step, the Board has asked the developer to make a public presentation at a Special Meeting of the Plan Commission.

Residents are encouraged to attend the presentation at a Special Meeting of the Plan Commission:

Monday, February 2, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.
Countryside Elementary School
205 W. County Line Road
Barrington Hills, IL 60010

Questions or comments before or after the meeting may be submitted to datacenter@vbhil.gov.

The primary purpose of this meeting is to allow the developer to present its concept and potential benefits, and to give residents and the Plan Commission an opportunity to share their initial thoughts, questions, and concerns regarding whether the Village should consider this type of development.

Following the presentation, the Commission and members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments and ask questions. It is expected that many questions will require additional review and follow-up. Any responses would be provided at a future meeting or through other forms of communication.

If, after the presentation and public input, it is determined that the Village is willing to consider the proposal, the Village would then work to define a transparent process that will include additional opportunities for public engagement. The structure and scope of any such process have not yet been determined. The developer has committed to covering the costs associated with the review process, including the Village’s use of outside consultants, facilities, or experts, as such reviews may occur.”

The Village Website doesn’t allow for comments, but their Facebook post was commented on 56 times and shared 44 times.

With all of this unexpectedly hitting the fan for the most part in less than a month, one might assume many residents would appear at the January 26, 2026, Board of Trustees meeting. Well, they did.

In our next post we’ll share what those residents had to say.

Related: “7 things to know about Illinois data centers,” “Data Center group concerned over pause,” “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board”

Read Full Post »

Editorial: When 20% of Illinois voters decide primary elections, democracy cowers

Posted in Chicago Tribune, Elections, OP/Ed, Politics on March 2, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Antinisha Sturgeon, right, helps her grandfather, Ben Walker, vote during the Illinois primary election on March 19, 2024, at Marshall High School in Chicago. (Vincent Alban/Chicago Tribune)

By The Editorial Board | Chicago Tribune

In many Illinois districts, the primary effectively decides the general election. So what’s likely to happen at the ballot box, knowing that more people show up to vote for president than governor in Illinois, and fewer people vote in primaries than general elections?

As we pored over the numbers for previous off-cycle primaries, we were alarmed to see that over the past four gubernatorial cycles (2010, 2014, 2018 and 2022), roughly 1 in 5 registered voters here decided the outcome.

In raw numbers, here’s how it looks: Illinois had 8,107,797 registered voters in 2022, and only 1,757,872 — less than 22% — of them voted in the primary.

The stump speech that voters — or would-be voters — get about this time of year entails platitudes about exercising rights, not sitting on the sidelines, using your voice and so on. These are fine sentiments, and we have no wish to undermine them. One of the things that makes America, America, is free and fair elections and the protections to back them up. We can vote without fear of intimidation or suppression, and if that’s ever not the case, there are many institutions, including the Tribune, that would demand justice.

So stipulated. But we’d also like to acknowledge other problems keeping folks on the sidelines.

Low turnout reflects badly upon the electorate, yes, but it also reflects poorly on the system itself. In our view, Illinois primaries are effectively decided by a small minority because too many districts are engineered to be safe, too many races go uncontested and too few voters feel their vote matters. When a district is drawn to heavily favor one party, the general election becomes a formality, and the real contest shifts to a low-turnout primary.

Too often, many voters are deprived of meaningful choice at the ballot.

Editorial continues here.

Read Full Post »

Editorial: Conservatives aren’t the only ones saying Democrats have a public-sector union problem

Posted in Chicago Tribune, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Look For The Union Label, OP/Ed, Overhead, Pension Funding, Politics, Pritzker’s Rules of Order, Property Taxes, Springfield, Taxes, Unions on February 25, 2026| 1 Comment »

Mayor Brandon Johnson answers questions during a press conference on the fifth floor of City Hall on Feb. 3, 2026. (Eileen T. Meslar/Chicago Tribune)

By The Editorial Board | Chicago Tribune

For years now, conservative voices have railed against the outsize influence of public-sector unions on the running of American cities, with Chicago serving as one of the leading examples. Now, more left-of-center voices are sounding the alarm and saying the stakes for Democrats in charge of America’s largest cities couldn’t be higher.

The highest-profile recent example came Sunday when CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, who hosts a thoughtful Sunday show on issues of the day, aired a segment on blue cities. Pegged off New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s recent $126 billion budget, Zakaria made a stark pronouncement: “Blue cities are out of control. Promising more, spending more, delivering less and pushing off the fiscal problems to some future date.”

Sound like any city you know?

Zakaria isn’t a journalist who routinely trots out Heritage Foundation talking points. He’s a frequent and effective critic of Donald Trump.

He’s not alone. The New York Times on Monday published an op-ed by Nicholas Bagley, law professor at the University of Michigan, and Harvard visiting fellow Robert Gordon headlined, “Mamdani Will Need to Change How He Governs.” The two identify the generous pension benefits city workers receive as a key reason city taxpayers can’t afford their own municipal governments. “The question is whether one segment of workers should retire with greater security than others, at the expense of services the public depends on,” they wrote.

A rhetorical question. No reasonable person (other than maybe the members of these unions) could be in favor of that.

In other words, Democrats, the call now is coming from inside the house.

This page has been making these same arguments for years, so we quote from these sources (and there are others in the center-left lane we could cite) merely to say the alarm bells are ringing ever more shrilly for Democratic politicians like Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and, yes, Gov. JB Pritzker. Both continue to saddle taxpayers of the future with paying for the exorbitant promises of today.

Editorial continues here.

Read Full Post »

‘So Proud to Be American’: Jack Hughes and the New Miracle on Ice

Posted in OP/Ed, Politics, Press Release, The Washington Free Beacon on February 23, 2026| 1 Comment »

MILAN, ITALY: Jack Hughes of Team USA celebrates after winning the Gold Medal hockey match between Canada and the United States on day 16 of the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic games. (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images)

By Washington Free Beacon Editors

What an end to the 2026 Olympic Games for Team USA. On the final day of competition in Milan, Italy, the Americans defeated the Canadians in an overtime, sudden-death, gold-medal game. Twenty-four-year-old Jack Hughes scored the winning goal. It was particularly sweet, and amazing, because in the third period he had his face bashed in so brutally that the Canadian thug who did it was assessed a double penalty.

“I looked on the ice and saw my teeth,” Hughes said after the game. The picture of Hughes celebrating with an American flag and a smile with a dark, bloody gap where his central incisors used to be belongs on the cover of Sports Illustrated, Time magazine, a Wheaties box—whatever. It’s a new miracle on ice.

The phrase is, of course, reminiscent of 1980, when an American team of ragtag amateurs defeated the four-time consecutive gold medalist Soviet Union, a team composed of professional players, and went on to defeat Finland to take the gold. Canada isn’t as evil as the Soviet Union was, though there have been moments recently, such as the January 16, 2026, Canadian government press release from Beijing headlined, “Prime Minister Carney forges new strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China,” when it has seemed ominously hostile. (For the record, the final medal count in the Winter Olympics had the United States with 33 medals total and China with 15.)

The hockey boys’ Milan medal is particularly resonant for America’s Jewish community. Jack Hughes and brother Quinn, also a member of Team USA, are Jewish. They were Bar Mitzvahed. Their mother, Ellen Weinberg-Hughes, was a member of the U.S. Women’s National Team and served as player development coach for the U.S. Women’s Team that also won gold in Milan. As Sequoia Capital partner Shaun Maguire put it in a post on X, “For the last year there has been a whole lot of ‘just asking questions’ about Jewish Americans loyalty … Jack Hughes (Jewish) is the perfect metaphor. Taking a stick to the face to win Team USA gold against Canada. Then spouting pure patriotism.”

The reference was to Jack Hughes’s immediate postgame interview:

“This is all about our country right now. I love the USA. … I’m so proud to be American today. … Just a ballsy, gutsy win. That’s American hockey right there. … We’re USA. We’re so proud to be Americans. This night was all for our country. … We’re so proud to win for our country.”

Article continues here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »