Hi All,
With regards to the tragic incident on Pratt the other day, a desperate effort by neighbors was made at close quarters against a madman with a knife, combat that saved at least one life. The courage it took to stand over two bleeding victims in a confined gangway was incredible. Those people don’t want to be identified but they walk among us, and they were amazing that day. Thank You.
A different kind of victory was achieved at Loyola Park last Thursday. It happened for two reasons. We all stood together, and we got to them before they saw us coming. The importance of a unified statement was huge. The other reason, which I’ll call superior intelligence regarding their strategy, we were fortunate to receive.
The reason we had to fight again was simple. We invited them in by not having a strategy of our own. Though they were beaten last time, and I might add also when Loyola tried the same thing long ago they returned because no singular defeat will ever deter them. The chance for plunder of this magnitude is irresistible, and we must analyze this incident and learn from it.
After the last struggle, it was perhaps understandable that people thought there was time to rest. Like many people I assumed that referendum sent a clear message. But we were all wrong. I’m not criticizing anyone here. But I guarantee the next group that wants a piece of our lake or an LSD extension is watching us right now. We have to recognize that fact if we’re to guard against whatever new schemes might be in the works.
Our weakest point is that we have no committed plan for our lakefront. Sure, a study was done, and suggestions were noted, but that’s where it ended. It shouldn’t have. We were fortunate this time that we caught them and hit them unexpectedly (with this blog, no less) and that Don Gordon and others marshaled old contacts so adroitly. But make no mistake about it: I was in the right place at the right time, and the response of the community was flawless. But we can’t stay reactionary and expect to win every time.
The momentum exists now to make a real plan and secure our lake forever. I have a suggestion for this process. Make it apolitical. A Lakefront Commission should be appointed, and political personalities of any sort should step aside.
This issue is too contentious to be managed fairly by anyone beholden to the next election or development. Certainly their opinions are important but only as suggestions submitted to an independent board of citizens. Its time to place this where it belongs: in the hands of regular people who live here. Not in the hands of this or that civic leader who needs to keep his or her group relevant. Forget the elected officials and aspiring politicians, too. They will see the final plan and can decide if they like it or not then. After the other night they all know better than to come down on the wrong side of this issue.
All caring folks can and should submit ideas. For example, I cannot imagine undertaking a long-range park design without the assistance of Mr. Gordon’s Conservancy or groups like RPCAN. But everyone with a contribution should share it, and we should be as inclusive as possible.
The way to insulate the process from the inevitable conflicts of a neighborhood honeycombed with community organizations and political agendas is to enlist a group of honest brokers to sift through the competing visions and assemble something great, fair, and lasting.
And if no one can seize credit, we all share the success, and the only way we lose is if we fail to complete the work. We’ll all be watching to monitor the ethics of the process.
Please consider this suggestion. If it doesn’t work we will have lost nothing, but it is the surest way to permanently secure the lakefront we all want. If the Lakefront Commission comes up with bad ideas, their plans will be summarily rejected. However I believe in my neighbors and friends and I know the heart of the average Rogers Parker is too good to mess this up. Again, no offense to anyone, but we should rely on that to ensure better results this time.
In using a mechanism that is truly independent, we build an institution that would be almost impervious to corruption by those with other designs, yet we keep the ability to hold them accountable for their recommendations, which would be ratified through a referendum once their work is finished. After we have consensus, we can pressure our elected officials into enacting whatever legislation or funding is needed.
We might then at last be able to fall asleep on a warm day at the beach without worrying about it disappearing around us.
James Ginderske
7 comments:
"A Lakefront Commission should be appointed, and political personalities of any sort should step aside."
I see your point, but how do you want to organize this? Did you have a specific plan in mind on how to collect the opinions and ideas of the community at large? Who would collect the data?
Also, how do you get on the commission? How do you select the members?
I think it's a good idea though!
> The way to insulate the process from the inevitable conflicts of a neighborhood honeycombed with community organizations and political agendas is to enlist a group of honest brokers to sift through the competing visions and assemble something great, fair, and lasting.
I'm not sure how this could happen without creating another politically vested group...would these honest brokers come from outside RP, outside Chicago?
I am not asking this to be funny...I think that expertise without direct ties to the community could be useful, as counter intuitive as that may sound to some.
There are very smart people who spend their lives studying these issues - why not try to benefit from their knowledge and recommendations?
Just because I am not running for office doesn't mean I do not have an agenda. For instance, I am really for expanding the park system (not LSD)north beyond Edgewater beach to Loyola and perhaps to Evanston because I would love to ride my bike without having to ride on the street. However, if I were fortunate enough to live in one of the buildings with exclusive access to the lake, I might not want to trade my quiet private pier for lots of shouting kids in the park each morning and drunks, junkies and crazies at night. Or even if I liked the idea of the park, I may have the interest of my condo association or property value to consider.
I think what we really need is a way to get all of the insulary special interest groups to open their minds to rational debate and willingness to compromise while working toward a common vision of what we would like to see Rogers Park and the city itself become. We are far from that as we don't even currently agree on a vision. The way some people react to any development along the lake, I'm surprised that don't knock down kid's sand castles and break their shovels. I, on the other hand, think that responsible development of our lakefront, especially in reagrds to our park system is not only a good thing but a necessary thing.
Who's right? I generally like to think that those in the middle have the most practical ideas but the extremist factions have the loudest voices and are always speaking for the rest of us. How do we bring those folks into the fold and get the middle to speak up? Strong leadership? Galvanizing issues? Financial backing? I talk to my neighbors and they don't really have much confidence in the current leadership here but most don't think anyone could do much better. Most seem resigned to wait for what is happening elsewhere in the city (Edgewater, Andersonville, Lincoln Square, etc...)to simply keep working its way north. I am not so patient. I would like to start working our way south.
That's why I started my blog. Hopefully, it will become as well visited one day as this one and I can provide valuable feedback. In the meantime I try to make the ward office aware of things that I see or hear about in my neck of the woods. Thus far I have had a pretty good relationship with them. Maybe it's because the alderman lives a block away from me. In any case I am happy for it.
As far as "If not you, who?" I think everyone can do their part to try and filter what is good information and what is just belly-achin'. I like to think I am fair but then so does Fox news and we know where they stand. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I wish the outlandish ones weren't always given so much attention.
It always gets me when someone starts speaking at a community meeting and for the first few minutes you're right with them nodding your head in agreement. Then, all of a sudden, they go off the deep end and you start shaking your head because all of the things you agreed with are now going to be disregarded for the next year until everyone forgets the crazy speech and you can bring it up again without being heckled. Know what I mean?
Michael K:
I always take the alleyways to East Lake Terrace on my bike. Sheridan Road is too scary. I recommend the alley ;)
I am not sure what you mean about "crazy speeches." I know sometimes people say off things, but to me that doesn't discredit any cause if it's a just one. Just because someone (no one particular in mind) rants about something doesn't mean it isn't true. In fact, usually quite the opposite. I think the police, public officials, and others should rise above and not use people's limitations to dismiss whatever true issues they do in fact raise. But then, that's probably very idealistic of me to say.
and James: I would totally be up for working on your idea. What if we had a "wish list" campaign with suggestion boxes and people could put their ideas for the lakefront in there? Even kids could participate. just a thought.
First, Michael, I totally agree with you on the agenda issue (we live near the park and we'd LOVE a bikepath straight to the loop.) But I think that James' point, if I understand it correctly, is that many organizations have a vested interest in promoting an ideological agenda that is sometimes at odds with producing outcomes that most people actually want. This dynamic creates a disincentive to compromise on the part of organizations, and in the worst case, creates organizations whose sole real mission is to perpetuate as organizations, full stop. Right now there seems to be a stalemate because various organizations don't want to coorperate. Did I get it right?
I also agree with you about the meeting thing. The dynamic of many of the meetings is the reason I started writing on this blog in the first place. And here's an example of how things sometimes go off the deep end. I respect Don Gordon a lot, and I'm glad the Conservancy exists, but when I hear him go into the "wouldn't it be great if the Lakefront could be a birch forest again" speech, my eyes glaze over. It makes me not want to get involved in other of their initiatives that I might actually support.
I think there is already reams of data on what the community wants in the park. At this point I don't really think gathering more suggestions is the best use of time/money/energy. If the organizations who have already done this research would be willing to share their data, I would be very interested in contributing to another analysis of it and coming up with a plan based on it - which, as I've said above, I think could benefit from the review of independent experts from from outside Chicago. I would be happy to do that kind of outreach.
James, Michael, Jocelyn please give me a call/email if you want to discuss further.
One other thing I think was in James' proposal is the idea that trying to get these organizations to opend their minds and compromise might not be worth the enormous amount of effort that would require. Better to just step around them and create an alternative plan that could be brought directly to the community. That's one reason why I suggest an independent expert review - it adds credibility to the position that this plan wouldn't have an ideological/political axe to grind.
Post a Comment