From RPCAN: (I edited out most of the RPCAN advertsing)
A advisory referendum on the November 7th ballot in the 49th ward:
Should the City of Chicago, State of Illinois, and Federal Government prohibit any lakefront development from Hollywood Avenue to Evanston which includes extension of Lake Shore Drive or establishment of any other roadways, marinas or harbors, housing, major landfill, commercial development?”
The referendum is at the end of the ballot (49th ward only)
This referendum effort has been very controversial among lakefront protection advocates for a variety of reasons, but now that it is on the ballot, it is in the public domain. It WILL be voted on and the results WILL influence how politicians view the issue of development along our lakefront.
"Save Our Lakefront" is the service marked name for the non-partisan campaign initiated/hosted by RPCAN, with involvement from Chicago Greens and Loyola Campus Greens, which was endorsed by a wide range of groups and individuals. It is not affiliated with, and does not endorse, any candidate for any office.
Background
This referendum has been controversial among lakefront protection advocates for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to:
* Possible voter confusion: In the 2004 referendum and 2005 anti-harbor efforts, Save Our Lakefront (SM) campaign successfully publicized its call for "NO!" to damaging development along the lakefront. This referendum question reverses the question, in a phrasing that some find confusing, so we now are asking for a "YES" response. Ironically, some of the people circulating referendum petitions don't even agree on what the policy response should be, adding to potential confusion.
* Allocation of resources: During late 2005, it became clear that the likely center of political debate on this issue was moving south into Edgewater, and most of the campaign leaders thought that the scarce volunteer energy available should focus on building cross-community connections, and including folks in the 40th and 48th wards in future activities. Also, there was concern that the advocates had not done the groundwork to effectively follow-up on a ballot referendum (getting on the ballot is the easy part), which could actually put our previous success at risk, and obligate us all to devote time and energy to something we considered unwise.
* Principles vs. personalities: A few of the individuals involved in this initiative have deliberately tried to blur the lines between the issue, themselves and Don Gordon's campaign for Alderman. The issue crosses many political lines, and the Save Our Lakefront(SM) campaign's name and agenda should not be morphed into a partisan effort.
4 comments:
> I edited out most of the RPCAN advertsing
you missed some
the whole letter
the whole "we thought of it 1st, trademark" issue is advertizing
Craig, for whatever reason you like to bash Don Gordon. I wouldn't know about this issue if it wasn't for DoGo. The fact is, JoMo REFUSED to say no to extending LSD. The focus of our ire should be on JoMo for wasting taxpayer dollars. If he said NO originally, we wouldn't be messing with this issue yet AGAIN.
Don't hate on DoGo for bringing on issue to light. Hate on JoMo for not doing any damn thing as Alderman.
Please explain why this needed to be on the ballot again. If 88% of the voters last time stated that they were opposed to road and marina lakefront development, then why put it on there again? Doesn't this really open the possibility that less people will vote in opposition to development?
Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I belive this referendum hurts lakefront preservation. In addition, I am not putting to rest the idea that this referendum was added to the ballot as a political stunt.
We need to vote on this again because JoMo doesn't believe that everyone is against it. Thus, JoMo is wasting taxpayer dollars by having this put on the ballot AGAIN. If he believed the first vote that said the RP was overwhelmingly against the LSD extension, it wouldn't be an issue.
Let's get rid of JoMo in February!
Post a Comment