To:
Senate President John Cullerton
cc:
Senator Heather Steans
State Representative Marlow Colvin
State Representative Harry J. Osterman
Alderman Joe Moore
Alderman Mary Ann Smith
Jennifer Clark, Loyola University
Eleanor Roemer, Friends of the Park
RE: TRANSFER OF ILLINOIS INT'L PORT AUTHORITY LAND FOR PARKS
Dear President Cullerton:
I am concerned by the announcement of cooperation among state and local authorities to assist Friends of the Parks (FOTP) in transferring lakefront property for conversion into parkland. I am concerned because FOTP has been engaged in the sleaziest possible tactics to deceive public policy makers and obscure strong opposition among voters in the neighborhoods of Rogers Park and Edgewater against destruction of our lakefront, the city's most attractive and useful parks.
Three recent referenda in Rogers Park (2) and Edgewater (1) showed strong opposition to lakefill. One of FOTP's lies has been that this is only lakefront precincts, when in fact well over 90% of precincts in both the 48th and 49th wards rejected landfill or major construction. FOTP, often working with Loyola University, has concocted bogus public meetings which invited only pro-landfill speakers, and planted pro-landfill "questioners" from outside the neighborhood while ignoring legitimate community members. Fortunately, the networks that organized these referenda are still in place and have been able to advise the community of FOTP's manipulations.
I request that you restrict this bill to matters that concern the area surrounding the Illinois Int'l Port Authority, unless and until an appropriate set of public meetings has been held in the Rogers Park / Edgewater areas of Chicago. Any assurance you may get from FOTP that they have consulted with our community is a lie - FOTP is known here for their ongoing campaign of lies and is vehemently despised for their deception against our voice in managing our local parks. Please hear from our neighborhood before making these decisions about our parks.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours,
--
Thomas J. Westgard
Friday, November 06, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
ok, but just sayin' that you should be embarrassed to refer to the alleged referendum in rogers park. it was the single most stupidly worded thing i have even seen on the ballot. if it had referred to the actual plan, and not thrown in everything but the kitchen sink, it might be worth mentioning. had it been a binding measure, it would certainly been thrown out for vagueness. the whole issue of commercial development was thrown in because otherwise it would have passed overwhelmingly.
you are a little ott with regard to fotp, also.
It isn't just the referenda, while poorly worded, the residents on the lake and west of Sheridan voted firmly against development. FOTP said that ONLY people on the lake voted against it--they are twisting the truth. FOTP has chosen to use scare tactics and lies insisting that Rogers Park and the South Shore are park poor. The truth is that we have the most accessible and public friendly areas of Chicago that do not merit addtional development at this time. I would prefer to see the west side endowed with new parks and recreational areas. The residents in the poorer districts are too oft forgotten. Most of the FOTP board live on the North Shore where the highest concentration of privately owned lakefront property blocks everyday citizens from walking on the beach. This organization is out of touch with reality.
The fundamental point is that we have street-end beaches, lots of wonderful, accessible street-end beaches, and they don't match FOTP's purity plan for a bike path that extends the entire length of the lakefront. For whatever reason, FOTP has decided to sell a false idea of a "closed off" lakefront that just isn't true in Rogers Park. I guess they know they'll lose if they present it more accurately as two different images of a good park - continuous versus street-end. We like our parks up here just the way they are.
i think you underestimate the number of people who want that bike path. this is more than a park issue. that is a sustainable future issue, which has a lot, lot, lot of support here. i, for one, would like to see a CLEARLY WORDED referendum- do you support a public beach with a bike path for the last 4 miles of the lakefront?
not some half baked candidates attempt at a smear job. a simple question.
your point about parks in other neighborhoods, however, is taken. eeking out parks at this point in the life of a city is hard, tho. i was pretty upset with pam zeckman for making a issue out of ald. munoz's effort to do so in his ward. a worst case scenario of the squeaky wheel grinding the machine to a halt.
You're right, Been There, the bike path is urgently needed and lots of people want it. The rhetorical trick is assuming that landfill is the only way, or the best way, or even a good way to do it. The supplemental trick is that we need downtown planners to run roughshod over us, because we're too stupid to come up with solutions that work well.
The foolishness here is assuming that there is a need to put these two good thing at odds with each other. FOTP thinks we either must destroy or should destroy our system of street-end beaches to create the bike path. Certainly that's one possible plan, but it's not the only plan.
The assumption underlying the false choice of street-end beach or bike path is that these decisions should be made downtown without consulting local residents. Thus FOTP's ongoing effort to create a false impression that we have been consulted and that we agree with the plan, which we clearly don't.
The third option is to create a functional bike path that goes slightly inland. Aside from preserving street-end beaches, even a gold-plated bike path along streets would be cheaper than landfill, leaving more money for other priorities without skimping on a bike path. It also has a superior safety profile by separating bike traffic from pedestrians.
But above all, the plan should be designed and chosen in an ethical process of consultation that takes the legitimate concerns and contributions of all those concerned into account. If a majority of people in Rogers Park are given a legitimate chance to be heard, and choose to eliminate our street-end beach system, then I have no further objection. It's FOTP's use of deception to steamroll local opinion that I find deeply offensive.
you know, the problem i have here is that some people only know how to say NO!
that is the majority of what i hear from the louder voices in rp. that leads nowhere. nowhere.
a street based path trades mixing bikes and pedestrians with mixing bikes and cars. that choice ought to be easy. it sure is for most people who bike a lot.
the other problem i have is that "downtown" has done such a great job with the parks. they are charged with looking at a bigger picture than the touhy beach. it has been a major focus, and something that has been done the straight up way or the back alley way, whatever way it took. to some people that is offensive and to some, like me, that is leadership. focus. and yes, stewardship.
this city is full of people who say one thing besides no, and that is, as soon as i get mine. daley gets things done anyway. he has built a legacy that will live for a long time after he has gone. the parks, the schools, the libraries, the police stations, the fire houses. the water mains and sewers that no one notices.
perfect, no. but does he love this city, and want only the best? i have no doubt.
the only way to move forward is to take the input of those who can only say no, consider the source, have a little pity, and move on. great cities are not built by whiners or cowards. daley can remodel and enlarge my beaches any time. our little pocket beaches are cute and all. but our unlimited public lakefront is a resource that few places can match. for it to run from end to end of the city would be a natural wonder. bring it on.
That would all be true - if in fact anyone were simply saying "no." It's so much easier to set up a straw man and charge at it. Let me try it.
Here we are in Rogers Park, actively supporting our beautiful street-end beaches and promoting participatory democracy, and all those people downtown know how to say is "No, we hate participatory democracy! Death to America!" Boy, that's fun. I like making up silly arguments for the other side.
We in Rogers Park have legitimate points to make, starting with the fact that we are entitled - Constitutionally - to petition our government for a redress of grievances. That's what Daley and FOTP are violating when they ram plans down our throats on a program of lies and intimidation. It's offensive. The other major point is that there are better ways to provide useful parks and a bike path. I could go into details of how to make a bike path safer, but I'll leave that for another time.
So, you're right, people who only know how to say "No" are annoying and obstructionist. So far, I haven't found any in Rogers Park on this issue. If you listen, what people are saying is complex and constructive, and the answer they are getting from downtown is a lot more like "no" than the RP plans being offered.
"Been there"....
Take note of this quote from 2008 FOTP summer newsletter, "The lakefront communities most affected by the lack of lakefront parks are Edgewater from Hollywood to Devon, and Rogers Park, from Devon to Juneway Terrace."
I could list HUNDREDS of quotes like this, both from print and video.
It isn't that the RP just says "NO".
They have been saying "NO MORE LYING TO US FOTP".
FACT, in the 6 blocks of Edgewater from Hollywood to Devon, about 4 of those blocks are public beach front parks.
FACT, Roger's Park has one of the largest beaches in the city, about one mile long extending from Hartigan Beach past Touhy Ave. Beyond that, RP has multiple "street end" beaches.
In the "visioning" sessions the people responded to questions that the FOTP (Roemer & Tranter) asked. like "what would you like to see done with YOUR parks". How would you like to see your parks improved, etc....
The answers didn't FIT their alterior motives.
The "designers" said.. no, no, no..... you don't need that stuff, you need to fill up Lake Michigan.
So, those sessions became more of a failed SALES pitch to us. BUT, the FOTP goes out and suggests that it was some sort of big success on their parts. THEY ARE FRAUDS.
Many people that attended the "VISIONING" sessions, like Sun Times columnmist Sue Onteveros and Chicago writer Penelope Rosemont.
Both of these ladies wrote scathing articles about the FOTP's dishonest process.
Many others have said the same thing.
The ladies of the FOTP should be ashamed of themselves.
Post a Comment
COMMENT POLICY: To post comments that I feel add to the discussion in some way, whether or not they agree with my thinking, with benefit of the doubt to people who post under a recognizable name or pseudonym.