THE BRANDING OF SPRINGFIELD ILLINOIS

THE “BRANDING” OF SPRINGFIELD

ILLINOIS

That is what the opponents called my petition for more clearly marking the “donut hole” villages, from the city of Springfield.

I had started the petition drive after un-knowingly being moved OUT of Springfield, and into the Donut Hole of Grandview.

A change which resulted in my loss of access to both City Water Light and Power, and, to me, most importantly, loss of access to Lincoln Library, the public library, of Springfield.

You see, for anyone who does not live inside Springfield (proper), Lincoln Library charges about $100,00 per year, for access. This is an incredible strain on those of us living on FEDERAL benefits.

Now, while I had started a petition titled “Defining Donut Hole Communities”, yet I expected very little response, it would seem that the very village managers who had opposed bringing the donuts into the city, in the 1990’s, were the groups which were becoming most vocal, in demanding to remain independent.

It was, however, the PEOPLE, of the villages, who wanted the villages NOT demolished, but properly marked. People who had lost access to a wide variety of services, when they had no idea that they were moving out of they (PROPER).

These were the people most in favor of my plan. The people who wanted “donut holes” visibly identified.

MY petition called for no more than replacing dinner plate sized village markers, with the kind used in post World War Two Germany.

Large, visible, signs which stated “You are leaving the American sector, for the British sector.”

In the case of Springfield Illinois, the signs would, clearly, state “You are leaving Springfield Illinois, and entering Grandview/Laketown/Southtown, etc”

It seems that more than a few dozen renters signed the petition since most had moved into pretty neighborhoods, while having NO idea they were moving out of Springfield.

When village leadership made it clear that they did NOT want their villages becoming part of Springfield, I moved the plan from just “awareness” signs, and proposed marking pavement, showing where villages began.

This drew even MORE support, from those who felt that they had been “cheated” by not being informed of moving out of town.

I KNOW that my village made me a generous offer, for my silence. This once they realized how many people were signing the petition.

The main problem that I had was going to an increasing number of meetings. Meetings, where the hightlight discussion was about the fact that villages did NOT want to join the city.

I lost track of how many times I had to promise, even in writing, that my petition would NOT require the villages to move into town.

MY petitions were about informing people of where villages began, and the city ended.

While village leaders said that they wanted atleast 70% of village inhabitants to sign, in order to consider the petition, it was when 87% voted/signed in FAVOR of better marking, that the villages agreed to better, more visible, marking.

Result, not just larger, more easily seen signs would be posted, but colorful “belts”, of paint, would mark pavement, leading into villages.

Now, while this was NOT included, in the petition, the city of Springfield began printing up basic information such as which utilities served either the city, or the villages. The and the fact that, for those living in villages, the cost of library cards.

The sheets were made available at city hall.

Sadly, once the truth became known, including the fact that village “parks” were no bigger than a family home, more people began moving back INTO Springfield. Especially renters.

While home OWNERS continued to enjoy living in the villages, renters “fled”, and property managers were left with vacant property, which no one wanted to rent.

I many ways, the villages hailed this since, too often, land management moved people into properties who were “less than desirable”.

Basically, people with loud music, and who threw trash about. People who did not care, since they did not own the property.

This is why “split-up” property, which had been rented out, was put back together, and sold as single family units.

Just dont ask me how I got caught up in the question of where “un-desirables” should live. All I had done was suggest that a compound be set up, beyond city limits, where the people would live until they learned proper skills for community life.

All that I know is that my “handling” of the village “problem”, lead to my being offered housing, inside town. This, by a group which had trouble with former tenants, when the tenants found out that they were living in villages, rather than the city.

Properties which swapped hands, maybe five times, before being bought by people who WANTED to live inside the villages.

While I would NOT say that Springfield Illinois would be “sliced up”, as Germany had been, after World War Two, the fact was that my petition made sure that everyone knew, and was happy, with where they lived at.

The city was properly divided into well-recognized sectors, and everyone lived where they wanted to.

Also, beyond signs, and pavement marking, those who claimed that Sangamon Mass Transit District would change its routes, just to operate inside Springfield fell silent when S.M.T.D. announced that NO routes would change.

In some ways, Springfield Illinois would return to being the city which it had been in the 1950’s.

A place where people were happy with where they lived.