Clark Park Boathouse Discussion
Clark Park is a pristine river front park which contains acres of green space and a half mile river front trail, soccer fields, native gardens and a state-of-the-art BMX trail. Also, it has a public canoe/kayak launch and is a recognized butterfly sanctuary and bird watching habitat.
We oppose constructing a 2 acre sized boat warehouse/crewing facility which will negatively impact the park - it will be too large for Clark Park and introduce a 3 story building, surrounded by concrete, increased vehicle traffic, and will interrupt existing activities at the park. The public demands a period of public review to investigate moving the facility to a larger park or a different location.
A much smaller boathouse facility could be constructed at Clark Park, containing canoes/kayak, badly needed washrooms and a public water source, concessios and possible bike rental. Green Space is the most valuable resource in the parks, especially in this one-of-a-kind riverfront park - it must be protected for future generations.
http://www.change.org/petitions/chicago-park-district-and-the-city-...
Views: 11913
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie on
-
Maybe so, but in this particular initiative, the mayor himself said that the boat house "will be built with community input". From this thread I get the impression that the input process has not yet started.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room...
lorraine reder said:The Chicago Park District Board of Directors are political appointees, they are not elected officials and do not have to listen to what the taxpayers (i.e. the community) want.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on
-
Kevin, I'll keep my response as simple and clear as possible.
I don't live in the Clark Park neighborhood. I "care" in a general sense what goes on in this or any park, but I'm not a frequent user of Clark Park. I have paddled out of Clark Park half a dozen times or so, I've ridden in The Garden, and I skate in McFetridge a couple times per year.
I have been a somewhat active participant in the Chainlink since late '08 or early '09 (over 5000 members ago). As the number of chainlink members has grown (to almost 7000), increasingly the forum has become a target for some advocates and marketers to reach what they believe to be a monolithic demographic of 7000 people. I refer to this phenomenon as outsiders showing up and handing out pitchforks and flaming torches. I can only speak for my self on this, but this is a trend I don't like. I've met you before, briefly, at a Tweed ride in the fall of '09. While I can't say I know you, I know and like people who know and like you, and that matters to me.
I have been a professional advocate for over 20 years-an attorney with a solo practice handling a broad range of civil matters, including municipal matters. I am a practitioner and student of advocacy, and I take advocacy very seriously.
I have attempted to be constructive and civil in my comments regarding the proposed boathouse. My most recent comment, pointing out that you would be submitting a petition containing factual inaccuracies was an attempt to be constructive and civil as well. It's an error that can be fixed prior to submitting the signatures. Bill D.'s post from 5/3 at about 10pm seems to imply that the proposed solution will be to keep the signatures, and edit the letter to which the signatures will be attached. This is not the solution I would have suggested, and I consider it to be ethically dubious at best. I have also suggested that CPAC is making significant errors in its advocacy efforts and was accused of "slamming" CPAC. There are very few black and white issues in the world. When I prepare for trial, or some quasi-judicial presentation, I benefit most from peer discussions with people who are critical of the weaknesses in my case. I know what my winning arguments are. How am I going to handle the weaknesses?
CPAC is an advisory body, not an advocacy group, and not the decision-maker. The Chicago Park District is an advisory body/decision-maker hybrid. CPD has an annual budget over which they have pretty broad discretion, but extra-budgetary actions require City Council approval, and of course, they need to get their budget approved every year.
So if CPAC really wants to make the leap from its advisory function to that of an effective advocate, I would suggest the following:
If you present facts, they had better be accurate. Presenting inaccurate facts undermines your credibility. If you don't know what the facts are, omit them until you can get them. Along these lines, keep your statements accurate. Stop saying "noone wants this boathouse in Clark Park." That doesn't even appear to be an accurate statement with respect to the members of the Chainlink.
Justifying material omissions in your argument with the excuse that you're a volunteer organization is a lot like saying the dog ate your homework. Volunteer organizations are going to be held to the same standard as a professional advocate. If you are unable to meet this standard of professionalism and accuracy, you need to get different volunteers or hire someone.
CPAC should have a strategy session to decide what its argument is. "Save the Garden" has morphed into "Save the bike/pedestrian bridge," and there even seems to be some developing inertia for "Save the butterflies, other pollinators and native grasses."
The personal attacks have got to stop. Just because someone disagrees with CPAC, doesn't make them an asshole. There have been some very dismissive comments made about members of the chainlink who I know and like. You need to embrace the concept that this may very well be an issue upon which reasonable minds can differ.
If you want to turn the direction of this discussion, you need to lose the conspiracy theory bias. Posting here, or giving interviews to the Roscoe View Journal in which you assert that the process has been "hijacked by outside interests," that the members of the CPD Board of Directors are not fair and impartial, or that this decision is somehow a result of some entity "paying someone off" is not a good way to curry favor with the decision-makers.
There hasn't been much mention of Alderman Pawar anywhere in this discussion. You need to get the alderman onboard with your position if you want to have any hope of prevailing. Even then it's no guarantee, but without that support you're already sunk. Have you guys done any mailings or flyering to try to get more community involvement?
You need to accept that the Chicago Park District has a responsibility to the entire City and not just the people who live near a particular park.
Good Luck.
Kevin T. said:
Kevin, I would like to keep this plan as simple as possible. I really don't understand, and I don't expect a clear answer, why you really care what goes on in this park? Do you live in the neighborhood? Bill doesn't represent any "bad guy" group, he only wants what was originally proposed. This is an issue immediately affects many current users of Clark park mostly residents of the surrounding area. Everyone is treating this as though it were going to be on the next edition of 60 minutes.
I Kevin C said:You do understand that you are going to present the Chicago Park District and the City of Chicago with a petition bearing the signatures of 500 people that oppose the construction of:
1. "a 2 acre sized boat warehouse/crewing facility;" [it's not] and
2. "introduce a 3 story building (into Clark Park)." [it's not]
Don't you?
Kevin T. said:Petition is up to 486, go team!
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
Not taking any sides here, just offering my $0.02 to help, because I want to see CPAC succeed.
Kevin T - I think you're doing a good thing with this petition. I think that Kevin C has made some good tactical suggestions to strengthen CPAC's petition and position. I don't think that he's tearing CPAC down, but is offering constructive criticism to help, as he describes below.
When I prepare for trial, or some quasi-judicial presentation, I benefit most from peer discussions with people who are critical of the weaknesses in my case. I know what my winning arguments are. How am I going to handle the weaknesses?
As a member of another PAC, I've found that advocacy is often a very important component of what a park advisory council does. For that work to be effective, it needs to be accurate and factual, without name calling or insults. It needs to represent the community. To that end, a strategy session seems like a good idea. I'm suggesting this as an interested observer, an occasional user of Clark Park, and someone who can identify with the prospect of an unwanted behemoth in their back yard ('cuz we're looking at a different kind of unwelcome behemoth here in Beverly).
I want to see you succeed in negotiating with the Park District to get a plan that will meet the needs of the Clark Park community. It's obvious to me that Kevin C does too, otherwise he wouldn't have spent time offering detailed, helpful ideas.
If you haven't already contacted Alderman Pawar, I hope you do so SOON. He needs to hear from you and others on your team - in a rational, factual way. I wish you success in your efforts.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin T. on
-
Thanks Kevin, it has been awhile since I've been on a tweed ride but I do remember meeting you, great time it 'twas. A social event for me nowadays involves taking the bike to Toys 'R Us for a box of pampers. It is always difficult to gauge the tone of these postings, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are having fun. This blasted thread is a continuation of an argument started on yelp, involving the same participants with minor characters hopping in and out kinda like the Odyssey. While not a member of CPAC, I can sympathize with them, the original simple plans were disregarded with no consideration to the long term volunteers. This is something we can all agree upon (I hope) and as a volunteer organization they most likely have'nt the resources to obtain the services of a professional advocacy group unless on a pro bono (unlikely in this case). They used any outlet available. While I can appreciate how a boathouse would be great, I believe is would not be the most beneficial plan in serving the immediate community. I love the simplicity of this park, I always have, it is a shame that all this energy has been spent trying to mediate a contest the was initiated on another site. This appears to involve more ego than actual desire to do the "right" thing, yes, it bothers me too as I remember the beginning of this site (#66) and I have found myself saying WTF more often than "Wow, that is cool"
-
-
Anne Alt said:Not taking any sides here, just offering my $0.02 to help, because I want to see CPAC succeed.
Kevin T - I think you're doing a good thing with this petition. I think that Kevin C has made some good tactical suggestions to strengthen CPAC's petition and position. I don't think that he's tearing CPAC down, but is offering constructive criticism to help, as he describes below.
When I prepare for trial, or some quasi-judicial presentation, I benefit most from peer discussions with people who are critical of the weaknesses in my case. I know what my winning arguments are. How am I going to handle the weaknesses?
As a member of another PAC, I've found that advocacy is often a very important component of what a park advisory council does. For that work to be effective, it needs to be accurate and factual, without name calling or insults. It needs to represent the community. To that end, a strategy session seems like a good idea. I'm suggesting this as an interested observer, an occasional user of Clark Park, and someone who can identify with the prospect of an unwanted behemoth in their back yard ('cuz we're looking at a different kind of unwelcome behemoth here in Beverly).
I want to see you succeed in negotiating with the Park District to get a plan that will meet the needs of the Clark Park community. It's obvious to me that Kevin C does too, otherwise he wouldn't have spent time offering detailed, helpful ideas.
If you haven't already contacted Alderman Pawar, I hope you do so SOON. He needs to hear from you and others on your team - in a rational, factual way. I wish you success in your efforts.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on
-
Constructive criticism is always good, it will do no good to be defensive, when the goal is for our park to succeed and for the community to get what it needs from the current situation. Of course we are and have been in communication with all levels in the political spectrum, but assuming that we should know every detail of what the city and the park district intend to do and to build at Clark Park, when we had very limited information before it happened, it is kind of like asking the guy who is run over by the truck, why he cannot remember the make and model! Even the alderman of the 47th ward was surprised when he saw that what they intended to build was 40,000 SF on two floors! We immediately appeared in front of the Chicago Park District Board of Commissioners and stated our case for the smaller canoe/kayak boathouse, new concession stand, water source, bathrooms and bike rental. Yes, the height of the rowing building in the petition was incorrect, but our position is and was, that if a building is on fire ,you should intend to put it out as quickly as possible, then the the only real response is whether you are going to watch others do it or grab a bucket?? The facts of the case are undisputed regarding the intended construction of the rowing facility and boathouse. No, we are not going to gloss over the incorrectly stated number of floors, despite the fact that it really is not that important to our argument. Errors are made and we acknowledge this error now and will do so when the petition is presented. We are clearly not responsible for every misstatement and incorrect assertion on this forum, even if they say they support the park or the council. It would be like blaming the misdeeds of John Edwards or Herman Cain on all Democrats or all Republicans!!
As far as the ill tempered comments on the forum - these do not help anyone's case, those who have an opinion on any side of several issues which are being discussed. CPAC should not be chastised in particular for these comments, since they have clearly come from all angles, and do not reflect any strategy or particular intention of the group.
Hopefully, if some of our advisors on the forum would like to actually get involved in the issue, perhaps they will attend an advisory council meeting and see what we are up to. Next meeting is Tuesday May 15th at 7PM, Revere Park. Over the years, we have been a very effective advocate for the park - convincing the city to purchase ten litter strewn abandoned acres from United Parcel Service, conducting numerous cleanups and paintouts, installing gardens and fencing within the park, successfully lobbying for construction of the first public canoe launch on the north branch, sponsoring the presentation which led to official sanctioning of the BMX track known as the "garden". We have an annual fund raiser which is a "twilight canoe" , which has funded many improvements to the park. We know have a fund started to build a playground in the park. Also, we hatched an idea about ten years ago to build a ped/bike bridge across the river at Roscoe, which has received wide support. We would encourage any neighbors or forum participants interested in preserving green space, to come out and get involved. Thanks.
-
Permalink Reply by Tim S on
-
Wish I did not have our sailmaker coming to town for a practice scheduled on the 12th otherwise I would have been iin for the cleanup.
Carter please stop being so black&white with the anti bike statements. Most, if not all, of the folks on this site are quite pro bike.
-
-
I didn't want to bump the thread needlessly, but I think the new thread name is a significant step in the right direction.
-
-
Duppie said:Maybe so, but in this particular initiative, the mayor himself said that the boat house "will be built with community input". From this thread I get the impression that the input process has not yet started.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room...
lorraine reder said:The Chicago Park District Board of Directors are political appointees, they are not elected officials and do not have to listen to what the taxpayers (i.e. the community) want.
Groups
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
