Dear Neighbor,
Here is the message I delivered at this evening’s meeting called by Friends of the Parks to discuss their “concepts” about what to do with the Rogers Park beaches and lakefront.
Many good neighbors shared similar thoughts at the meeting. The consensus was clear. We need Friends of the Parks to work with us for improvements in our existing parks, and we oppose any major developments to change our lakefront.
Please share this message with your neighbors – all of us are needed to create the community resolve and political will necessary to improve our parks, and to preserve and protect the lakefront for generations to come.
Peace, Michael Harrington
Good evening. My name is Michael Harrington. I live here in Rogers Park. My family lives a block from Touhy Park and two blocks from Jarvis Beach.
Today I looked at the Friends of the Parks' Mission statement on your web site. It says:
Our mission is to preserve, protect, improve, and promote the use of Chicago parks, forest preserves, and recreational areas for the benefit of all neighborhoods and citizens.
Also, quoting from your web site: FOTP Public Trust Research and Policy Program is established to protect Chicago's scarce public park lands and lakefront from public or private encroachments.
Consider your mission when I tell you that your LAST FOUR MILES venture has not been asked for … neither by Rogers Park residents nor by any residents citywide. If the Friends of the Parks board of directors can consider that it has gone astray from its founding mission, goals, and objectives . . . then you’d refocus your efforts on tackling the vital improvement needs that already exist in our parks. These needs are absolutely consistent with your mission.
Instead of major lakefront development, we’d appreciate your advocacy for better landscaping and maintenance in our parks OR for repairs and replacement of broken equipment, benches, picnic tables, and walkways.
We want your advocacy for capital spending to upgrade field houses and new toilet facilities.
We want your advocacy for enrichment programs to serve youth, families, and senior citizens.
We want your advocacy for changes in park hours of operation so that they can provide staffed and volunteer programs on weeknights and weekends.
Finally, we want you to be clear about this. Our comments this evening come not from people who think they have exclusive ownership of the Rogers Park lakefront. I take my family to the Jarvis Beach . . . whenever the water is not too polluted to swim in. Many times we’ve met families who also enjoy our beaches from Jefferson Park, Logan Square, Humboldt Park, and from nearby suburbs. These beaches are enjoyed – JUST AS THEY ARE – by people from around the Chicago area. As the people living closest to the lake, we fully embrace our RESPONSIBILITY for STEWARDSHIP.
RESPONSIBILITY for STEWARDSHIP of the land.
RESPONSIBILITY for STEWARDSHIP of the parks.
RESPONSIBILITY for STEWARDSHIP of the beaches and lakefront.
Do not leave this room tonight without understanding that we will fulfill our RESPONSIBILITY for STEWARDSHIP by fighting to protect the lakefront and all these natural resources for the enjoyment of everyone. We’ve done it for decades. We’re doing it now. We’ll do it tomorrow and whenever necessary. Thank you.
34 comments:
Video of meeting by Bill Morton.
I'm genuinely baffled by the opposition to a Last 4 Miles project.
I can somewhat understand how those in the highrises would want to protect their private and semi-private beaches, but that's simple self interest. What truly astounds me is anyone else opposed to it.
What could possibly be wrong with creating more parkland and more beaches? Those are undoubtedly good things and benefit the entire community.
What could possibly be wrong with extending Lake Shore Drive? We already have a really lousy extension of it that dangerously cuts through our densely populated neighborhood - it's called Hollywood and Ridge. All we get for our troubles is a ton of traffic, additional pollution, and drivers racing down a side road at 60 MPH where children regularly walk and cross.
What's the issue here? This seems like a slam dunk issue.
And how exactly is the City, county, and State going to pay for such a project?
They're not. Not anytime soon, anyway.
Focus on improving existing parks.
I am so with you funcon6.
Maybe it's because people actually feel they have a voice in these matters and can't control the drug dealing, slumlord, crappy housing issues that matter a heck of alot more than this.
Funcon6
I am with you all the way on this.
Bring it on.
I am genuinely baffled by Friend's of the Park's continued insistence on this project. It was made VERY clear that the community does not want this by a referendum four years ago where over 80% of the vote said NO to a lake shore drive extension, marinas, etc. Yet it seems that it again fell on deaf ears.
Is it really hard to improve existing parks in Rogers park instead of wasting time and money in "blue sky" expansion projects that people do not want? And I say "blue sky" because someone asked yesterday at the meeting "how much is this going to cost", to which FOTP said "we don't know". Great.
And who exactly is going to pay for this? Do you have any idea how long this is going to take? How about the impact on the environment? Are they going to maintain it in the same way they lousily maintain our current parks?
I can see these and many other reasons as to why Rogers Park does not want or need FOTP to come and spoon feed us their park expansion plan.
The issue of cost is a very real and reasonable issue. Especially in regards to how current parkland is being maintained and the costs associated with that. But that can't be the only issue.
I've seen where numerous prior referendums have been voted down, but I'm curious as to the exact reasons for those. A few come to mind:
- Self-interest due to some voters living in the high rises that would be directly impacted by such a move.
- Desire to maintain the status quo.
- Concerns about cost.
- Concerns about parking/traffic issues if marinas are included.
I can't say I'm a big fan of marinas being included in such a project, but if that's the price to pay to alleviate the very real Hollywood and Ridge (and Sheridan and Broadway) problem, it's a concession I'm willing to make.
How anyone can think it's desirable, or even acceptable, that our community's local streets serve as a massive thoroughfare to the suburbs is beyond my ability to comprehend.
As for the 80% opposed number, I'm not surprised by that. First, most of the folks motivated to vote in such a referendum are those who perceive themselves to be negatively impacted by such a development. Second, why should a project be voted on by a slice of Rogers Parks when the benefits effect a much larger area and group of people? A much larger group should have a say in the matter.
I'd be curious as to what the raw number of votes makes up that 80% as compared to the total population actually impacted by such a development.
Funcon6-- You're not alone, I've been baffled by the opposition as well. I would love to see the drive extended to Evanston--I don't agree with those that oppose such plans, but I guess I can respect opposing opinions.
However, I can't see why anyone, aside from lakefront property owners, would oppose the beach/park improvements that have been proposed. One of Chicago's treasures is the beautiful continuous lakeshore park and bike path that extends almost the entire length of the city--we should be welcoming this with open arms.
All we hear in this ward are complaints about the lack of services and improvement. Now we have the opportunity to receive a tremendous gift that would drastically improve the lakefront and people complain about that. Sheridan Road is hell for everyone, whether you ride the bus, walk, jog, or drive along the road. It's part of the reason Morse Avenue is in the hellhole state that it is in--it's a real bitch to get to our little hood from elsewhere in the city.
Cost concerns? The city/county/state wastes money everywhere. Yeah, there are bigger priorities that should be addressed, but if they want to throw some cash our way--why should we turn it down? Would you rather see the money go straight to the Stroger friends & family fund? I don't see how an extension and park improvements wouldn't improve both property values and business in Rogers Park.
We need to take a stand and start making more noise to show that the self-loathing bloggers and hippies that have all the time in the world to complain about everything don't represent the opinions of the entire neighborhood.
craig--despite my "self-loathing bloggers" stab, I do enjoy reading your blog.
Hey, funcon6, you asked, “…why should a project be voted on by a slice of Rogers Parks when the benefits effect a much larger area and group of people? A much larger group should have a say in the matter.”
Here’s the answer to your question. There was a community-wide discussion and vote on this in the 49th Ward, which is the lion’s share of Rogers Park. It involved much more than people living in lakefront high-rises or in the potential Lake Shore Drive affected area.
The Lakefront Protection Referendum was on the ballot on Nov. 7, 2006 in all 42 precincts of our 49th Ward. It won with 6471 votes or 74.17%. There were 2254 votes or 25.83% against it. All voters had a chance to have their say on this, not just a small slice.
M.H. Thou doest protest too much!!
Have any of you noticed since you "self proclaimed victory" over the last issues over a year ago, that plans are still being developed, and even more lavish than before??
God, check out the new Eco Bridge project in the Trib. Talk about a boon doggle, now THERE is REALLY something to protest about, but who cares, it's not in my hood!!!
I love the plan laid out as it is and can hardly wait. If you don't like it, don't use it!!
Michael, thanks for your thoughtful response.
Here's the issue: why was the 49th ward the only ward to vote on this? Why was the 48th ward (where I reside) not included in the vote? In fact, I would argue that, in terms of the city, in addition to the 49th and 48th wards, the 40th, 50th, and 46th wards are all relatively large stakeholders in this decision.
Further, the vote totals you refer to total to roughly 8700 votes, with 6500 against an expansion. Yet this is out of a total Rogers Park population of over 60,000. Granted, that entire 60,000 is not the total number of eligible voters, but we're talking about 10% of the one community that was allowed to vote. Why should 6500 have the sole say in a decision that effects hundreds of thousands of people? (At minimum 120,000+ if we just count the populations of the Edgwater and Rogers Park.)
Can anyone enlighten me regarding the path of an extended LSD to Evanston?
Would it be along the lakefront in front of the Edgewater highrises, Loyola U, and Rogers Park beaches, then making a left turn north of Calgary cemetery? Im also guessing that east of this suspected pathway would be new landfill for parks, paths et cetera.
I can't answer for all opposition, but, at the moment, where I live, I can almost throw a stone into the lake. I can walk my dog every morning along the lake, and it only takes my a minute to get to the water. At the moment, there is also an unobstructed view for me as I stand on the bike path, across the beach and over the lake. With the plan shown here I would get to look at a marina (most of teh boats that would owned by non-city residents), with all the gas and oil spills, along with the smells of diesel oil and fumes and probable sewage spills from the septic tanks on board those boats, etc.
In addition, in order to get to the lake, I would need to walk all the way around the marina and over or under LSD.
One of the few refuges from the daily grind of the city is the ability to go to the lake and be virtually FREE of the noises of the city (with the building around, they block most of the traffic noise from Sheridan). With this proposal you will be able to lie on the beach to the steady hum of LSD traffic, along with the wonderous smells of exhaust, instead of the significantly fresher smell of the lake.
Let's LEAVE this nice bit of nature alone for once, instead of encouraging MORE traffic. If people want to get downtown quickly, let's improve the mass transit...take the express Purple line from Evanston or Howard!
All I know is that the peaceful quiet parks and beaches that we all love would cease to exist (think North Avenue/Fullerton beaches)if this went though AND we would pretty much be without them for oh... a decade or so(think Diversey Harbour area-when will they ever finish??).
Those who don't appreciate that are truly missing a BIG part of the picture. They obviously don't realize how truly SPECIAL what we have here is. Peaca and quiet anywhere in the city is an oddity.
Full disclosure: I live 2 blocks from the lake myself.
Dr. O:
With all due respect, you probably don't own a boat or know how restictive they are on oil spills, sewage spills, etc.
Get your research done and then complain. Also, the majority of the boaters are residents and those that are not pay a hefty premium to use the harbors.
Our macerators must be disconnected otherwise we pay hefty fines and we are inspected by the harobrs and the coast guard.
There is probably more "sewage' put in the lake by the city and Milwaukee, but then again, you have no control over that, but then again that's ok.
Get a grip and do your research.
I am not trying to provoke anyone here but isn't there a distinct possibility after the children's museum vote that FOTP and Daley will just do it anyway no matter what people in Roger's Park or anywhere else think? Funcon6 says "why should a project be voted on by a slice of Rogers Parks when the benefits effect a much larger area and group of people? A much larger group should have a say in the matter." That is exactly the argument that people will make.
When I look at those marinas I think...Chicago Spire. People who have multimillion dollar apartments in Chicago will want to have a lakefront living lifestyle. Likewise, the ritzy northshore has probably had it being stuck in traffic on Sheridan Road all times of day and would much rather have a commute in which their view was...shall we say...more "picturesque." (Again, I am not trying to offend anyone. I live in Uptown but I do have friends who live on the northshore so I know what they talk like at their little cocktail parties up there.)
I say, Roger's Parkers should fight like the devil to keep this from happening and push for better rail service and perhaps a modified version of this grand plan. And, if you can't get that, still hold your ground until they give you better parks and services in your community. If it is true that Daley's city ends at Irving Park this will just be another way for people to circumvent and ignore a part of town where folks try to sweep things under the carpet and hope noone notices.
Uptown, Edgewater, Roger's Park...we need to stick together and remind the Daleys that north of Irving Park is, in fact, a very important part of Chicago. Its major fault in my mind is that people are just too nice and reasonable and, if they are not corrupt, willing to admit their own faults so that someone has an opportunity to back them into a corner in order to get what they want. Ever heard of Earlham College's hustlin' quakers? How about the fightin' peaceniks???
I have to agree with Dr. O. the peace and quite is so nice. I wouldn't want to hear traffic noise let alone the smell of exhaust all the time. Being able to lie on the beach and hear nothing but birds and the waves is really nice and very precious to us. This is the only area of Chicago that I know that has this luxury. If they decide to change this, all this will be gone forever.
I too never got to vote on anything.
I'm sick & tired of a few privileged jerks living within a few hundred feet of the lake telling the rest of us we have no say in the future of the lakefront.
You don't own it, we all do & we all get a say.
I'll bet they also support the museum in Grant Park, contrary to their ideas for Rogers Park.
I want the extension & I don't even have a car!
Extending LSD to South Blvd. in Evanston will calm the hell out of Sheridan Rd. It will take a huge traffic load off of Ridge. My only restriction would be to make it only 2 or 3 lanes in each direction, not 4.
The referendum was a process that was open to any resident with voting rights in Rogers Park. If only 10% of the estimated Rogers Park population showed up, that means 10% is the population that cares about the issue. Say 20%-30% couldn't vote, where did the other 60%-70% go? The only thing you can assume is that the issue is not important to them. You can't count them on your side as neither can we. If it was true that more people in Rogers Park felt strongly about having LSD extended, they would have showed up, voted, and the results would have reflected that.
Dismissing the referendum as just "a few people" is not fair. Other wards have as much right to have a referendum as we did. Start one and get your voice heard. Also, no community was excluded from a decision because it is not a decision. It is just a way of letting local and state government know that the Rogers Park residents (or at least the people that care) oppose an extension.
One of the main purposes of the referendum (because it OPEN to all residents) was specifically to dispel the MYTH some people keep stating like a mantra "It's just a few priviledged jerks living by the lakefront that don't want it". Why do you keep saying that? I for one live in Rogers Park, I don't live in a high rise and I definitely do not have a view of the lake. Still I like to walk to the beaches and enjoy myself, as a lot of people that don't live close to the lake front do. I have friends who live in Edgewater, at least 1 mile away from the lake, and still go to both the beaches in Edgewater AND Rogers Park.
Please don't pound your chests and start stating baseless things like "I bet they support the children's museum in Grant Park too". I don't. Let's keep the discussion intelligent, which for the most part people like funcon6 and others have.
As for the cost issue please trust me when I tell you that they are not throwing some cash our way. You and I are going to pay for it via taxes. The only people that get cash thrown their way on this situations are politicians and the developers that get the contracts.
Plus there's the non-tangible cost of environmental impact, and noise/debris/street closings as they work on it.
What's with all the peace and quiet lovers? I live a half block west of Sheridan near Loyola Park. I hear sirens right now. Car alarms every morning. People yelling at all hours of the day across the street. I'm not complaining, I just don't notice the quiet. Peaceful? Come-on! Gangs, hobos and drug deals don't paint the picture of peace for me.
The existing parks and beaches--aside from Loyola park, which is ok but could use a facelift--are far from beautiful and welcoming. For all those who support the free and clear lakefront, this is your chance to give the public the enjoyment of the entire shore rather than have it split up among all the apartment buildings.
As for the argument against the pollution, take a jog down Sheridan, you'll get a nice face full of exhaust from the cars idling on jam-packed sheridan road. And if its not jam packed, it's a weaving race track/obstacle course where cars dodge buses &, standing vehicles on the right, as well as others turning left--speeding through intersections after the light turns red so they can stop 300 feet further down the road at the next red light.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm a jogger and wish for a more pedestrian friendly lakeshore that every other neighborhood along the lake enjoys. The first time I saw the proposed park extension I was actually excited about living in this neighborhood for the years to come. It's a thing of beauty. easier access to downtown (via car, bike, or bus), unclogged streets, beautiful expanded parks--throw in a parking garage and I love it!
But, as Saskia mentions, Daley will push this through regardless of your protests, petitions, and potential lawsuits. Joe Moore won't stop it either (regardless of your view on JoMo's political practices, we can all agree that he's not going to win any favors from Da Mayor). Instead of wasting all the energy trying to prevent it, might as well focus on making sure we get top-notched facilities with it.
Larry,
Just because you say "with all due respect" doesn't mean that you can then dis someone as you please.
I need to do no research other than to go to the various harbors in the Chicago area to see the effects. BTW I've also lived in Buffalo on Lake Erie, in Grand Haven on the other side of Lake Michigan and in Burlington on Lake Champlain, all with harbors nearby. So, I've seen the effects of a harbor. Research COMPLETED!!
@estacionlunar0:
The referendum was not open to anyone in Rogers Park, where do you get such weird beliefs?
It was only in the 49th Ward, I live in the 40th Ward, just a few blocks from the lake.
You are obviously a Joe Moore stooge & troll!
Don't separate us from our beaches by putting in a roadway. Get out of your car and take the train.
I live near the lake, but don't have access to it. I have to go down to Loyola Park to walk along it. While I would love to have an extended bike and pedestrian path to Evanston, an extended LSD is not something I can support. By the time that white elephant is completed we'll be seeing gas prices easily at $6-7/gallon, perhaps higher. Who is going to be toodling down the extension?
Any capital improvements need to focus on fixing the existing environment, not creating new parks that are left to decay or are otherwise not fully maintained.
As for the marina -- who owns all these boats that are angling for a space? Are you sure it is city dwellers and not suburbanites looking for a launch ramp?
The drawing attached to this post is from 2003, when an LSD extension was on the table. I am not sure, but I do not believe the FOTP design discussed this past week includes an LSD extension or marina.
I believe both referendums on the issue (if there were two) included language regarding an extension of LSD and/or construction of a marina.
I do not believe that anyone here can say with any certainty that we would see the same numbers in opposition of a project limited to connecting the beaches and including some bike/running paths .
regarding the referenda-
i am looking around for other vote totals from that election. i have not found any that break down to ward, if i do i will post. however, that referenda was one of the most poorly worked i have ever seen. i suspect that if i can find the total number of votes cast in 49 in that election, there will be a significant drop off. there always is, people don't know the candidates for lesser office, but i have since talked to many voters who could not make heads nor tails out of that item.
and re this plan, for those wondering about lsd extension, the last plan i was was to put it underground. not to say that is the best idea, just that that is a solution to the noise and traffic.
Its not a real project, it ain't on anyones agenda, its fantasy. Stop talking about it. money is going to the olympics all the money daley can grab.
"What could possibly be wrong with extending Lake Shore Drive? We already have a really lousy extension of it that dangerously cuts through our densely populated neighborhood - it's called Hollywood and Ridge."
all extending LSD would do is move the problem north - and that is NOT going to happen
"Can anyone enlighten me regarding the path of an extended LSD to Evanston? Would it be along the lakefront in front of the Edgewater highrises, Loyola U, and Rogers Park beaches, then making a left turn north of Calgary cemetery?"
ah, there's the rub - where to dump all that traffic
sure, the current Hollywood-Ridge pattern sux, but there is no good solution to this question except public transportation, that's why an LSD extension will never happen
if you think RP is capable of getting an anti-development bee up their butt, watch & learn what Evanston can do when their back is up against it
"the last plan i was was to put it underground"
not gonna happen
below ground this close to the lake, the engineering challenges of keeping it dry would be enormous
underground would make a billion dollar project a many tens of billions project
hugh, no doubt it would be quite a project, but this is the town of "make no little plans". far more complicated projects have been successfully completed. boston's big dig was $14.6 billion for 3.5 miles. (yes, i know there was some bad work done. valuable lessons.) so, tens of billions, close, but not quite. and it would be a lot cheaper here, as it would not be going under existing structures.
and then there is the chunnel.
the "engineering challenges" are well known, and have been repeatedly concurred.
LSD ends where it does because it has to end somewhere and our sad sack neighborhood is most acceptable to everyone else
a turnpike is a terrible land use for a lakefront, even a turnpike under a lakefront
if we as a community for some reason decided it was a priority to move automobiles back & forth from downtown to the north shore more efficiently, we will add lanes to the Edens like we did on the Dan Ryan long before we tunnel under the lakeshore.
"a turnpike is a terrible land use for a lakefront, even a turnpike under a lakefront"
Are you suggesting LSD, in its entirety, is terrible land use?
That's laughable. LSD is largely considered a jewel of the city and the the envy of most visitors.
What's a complete waste of lakefront are the largely private and extremely restricted access "beaches" north of Hollywood.
Let's open up and fully utilize this resource, not bottle it up for the personal use of a tiny minority.
Or should we continue to put the large number of pedestrians on Hollywood, Ridge, and Broadway in danger?
Craig- where did you get this image? It's not on the FOTP website? Thanks
Post a Comment