The Chainlink

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

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on May 11, 2012 at 1:49pm

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 11, 2012 at 2:21pm

Alright, I heard Rejman say the building would have a 20,000 sq. ft. footprint AND that the building would be about 20,000 sq. ft. A two story building can't be both.

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on May 11, 2012 at 3:48pm

BBL=Bizarre Bureaucratic Logic?

Kevin C said:

Alright, I heard Rejman say the building would have a 20,000 sq. ft. footprint AND that the building would be about 20,000 sq. ft. A two story building can't be both.

Permalink Reply by Kevin T. on May 11, 2012 at 4:52pm
No, it's magic!

Thunder Snow said:

BBL=Bizarre Bureaucratic Logic?

Kevin C said:

Alright, I heard Rejman say the building would have a 20,000 sq. ft. footprint AND that the building would be about 20,000 sq. ft. A two story building can't be both.

Permalink Reply by Bill Barnes on May 11, 2012 at 11:51pm

Kevin -- Do you work for Rob Rejman?  PLEASE GIVE UP on the square footage argument.  Bill is looking at this like a commercial realtor which he is.  20,000 sf plus a second floor is 40,000sf of building, period.
Yes the footprint of the building is 20,000 + SF ( less than half an acre.  an acre is about 44,000 sf)  But do the math.  The boathouse will sit about 55 feet off the river bank do to ADA requirements.  It's about 220 feet wide.  that's 55 X 220 =  12100 (more than a quarter acre.)  Now take the foot print and march it east to Rockwell and you will notice that we could fit three boathouses in that space.  THAT SPACE will be eaten up by a huge concrete driveway to accommodate the 42-65 ft trailers bring in the rowing boats.  That's about another acre.  ADD IT UP.  1/2- plus 1/4 plus is 3/4 acres. plus the space rendered unusable by the driveway equal almost another acre.  So at a minimum this plans trashes about 1.75 acres of Clark Park's premium green space.  Please quit arguing over square footage and look at the real impact.

Watch the board meeting at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmjnFjROLpI&feature=bf_prev&...

In particular watch Rob Rejman, planning director and criminal liar at minute 139.  Notice his first argument is trying to discredit us by telling the board that the boathouse is less than 1/2 acre.  A mis-truth.  He also states he has support from Friends of the Parks.  A downright lie.  I talked with Erma Tranter the next day and was told that they sent a letter stating that the rowing venue was too large for Clark Park but they supported a smaller canoe and kayak venue.  Also representatives of Friends of the Chicago River where unaware of what was happening.  Doesn't sound like support to me.  And how about all the community involvement Rejman talks about.  Maybe you where there but the CPAC wasn't.  Nor were any of our neighbors.  Another Lie.

Now for the biggest whopper.  When asked about financing, Rejman was positive ( although turning away from the board a couple times).  The CPD has pledged 2M and the Alderman another 2M through TIFF.  Where is the other 5.450M coming from?  Erma says the CPD doesn't have that money.  Maybe you know Kevin.  I smell property tax increase.

So if you are done arguing minutia with us, I invite you to join us tomorrow at Clark Park from 8-12 to help pick up trash.  Put your efforts where your mouth is.


Kevin C said:

At least the Rowing Group understands that it's a 20,000 sq. ft. building and not a 40,000 sq. ft. building. Why you still have a blind spot about this Bill, is beyond me.

The CPD also understands it to be a 20,000 sq. ft. building.

Bill donahue said:

REPORT ON ALTERNATE SITES AND UNSUITABILITY OF CLARK PARK IS COMPLETED:

http://rowinggroup.com/north_branch_river_potential_location_review...

Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 12, 2012 at 4:20am

I am concluding that what they do intend to build is a 20,000 SF building, even though the original drawings depicted something else, and the building which is staked out at Clark Park is there for anyone to see -  is staked out at approximately 80' X 108', a number which I pointed out earlier in the thread does not make any sense, since it would be a building much smaller than advertised.   I have to take them at their word that the building will be approximately 20,000 SF since that is what is being paid for, according to the contract document. The numbers and drawings have been incorrect and inconsistent from the beginning, but I am sure they have it correct when payment is being discussed. The pad site will then go from Rockwell all the way to the river.  It is still  a huge project, too big for the park and does not include the amenities which we were asking for at the park. 

People can draw their own conclusions about any Park District representations and how this was handled from the beginning. I for one, may not agree with Mr. Rejman, but disassociate myself from vilifying him any further, since the facts will all come out and will not be kind to the Park District.  Also, this thread is designed to be, and should be a civil forum for discussion and debate, not personal attacks. 

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 12, 2012 at 10:23am

As I said weeks ago, you Bill D. are the most effective advocate for CPAC that I have heard in this thread, in the Roscoe Journal, or in the various CPD Board meeting videos, and that opinion hasn't changed. I agree with your assessment that the building is going to be an aggregate 20,000 sq. ft. because that is what the authorization specifies. As you no doubt understand, I do not work for Mr. Rejman or CPD, and my most recent comment regarding Mr. Rejman's statement to the Board was made after I watched the video of the May 9th Board meeting and before Bill B. suggested I watch it. As I have also suggested in the past, personal attacks are not an effective strategy for garnering community or decision makers' support. 

I think by the time this discussion was opened on the Chainlink, it was probably already too late to change the outcome. When the Mayor, Alderman, and the Friends of the Park are all behind (defined as an absence of opposition) a CPD project, there really is little the community can do to stop it.

Bill donahue said:

I am concluding that what they do intend to build is a 20,000 SF building, even though the original drawings depicted something else, and the building which is staked out at Clark Park is there for anyone to see -  is staked out at approximately 80' X 108', a number which I pointed out earlier in the thread does not make any sense, since it would be a building much smaller than advertised.   I have to take them at their word that the building will be approximately 20,000 SF since that is what is being paid for, according to the contract document. The numbers and drawings have been incorrect and inconsistent from the beginning, but I am sure they have it correct when payment is being discussed. The pad site will then go from Rockwell all the way to the river.  It is still  a huge project, too big for the park and does not include the amenities which we were asking for at the park. 

People can draw their own conclusions about any Park District representations and how this was handled from the beginning. I for one, may not agree with Mr. Rejman, but disassociate myself from vilifying him any further, since the facts will all come out and will not be kind to the Park District.  Also, this thread is designed to be, and should be a civil forum for discussion and debate, not personal attacks. 

Permalink Reply by Kevin T. on May 12, 2012 at 11:41am
Now that this boondoggle is a reality, I am curious to see how the city will handle the increased parking requirements, maybe a multi level garage? The situation will be a nightmare, the Row Chicago report is very accurate in it's portrayal of the space needed for trailers. This comes from my rowing experience at Trinity, our boathouse was quite isolated relative to the actual city congestion of Dublin. The boathouse was a large Victorian building across the Liffey from the Guarda (national police) boathouse the congestion on the river when both crew teams were practicing was enormous, not to mention the space involved with loading 4 eight man boats. Any other chainlinker with actual crew experience can attest to this (not yacht crew). Just telling it the way it is, please think about it before responding and read the report.
Permalink Reply by Bill Barnes on May 13, 2012 at 2:20am

Kevin-  Okay I admit I spoke from anger but this whole issue of square footage is a smoke screen when nobody from the community has been shown definitive plans.  I am not a diplomat like Bill Donohue.  I speak my mind, but I always thought that is what democracy is built on.  At 62 years old maybe I'm a political anachronism, but at least I can live with myself.

FYI we paced off the stakes today.  Bill Donohue and Howard Luecke where there.  From forty years in the Motion Picture business I've learned to measure distance with paces so I could estimate cable usage.  Now please understand the following figures are close estimates: 

an acre is 43,569 sf  1/2 acre is 21,780 sf

Actual boathouse dimension: 240ft X 83 FT = 19,920 sf less than 1/2 acre

Western edge of boathouse to riverbank: 90ft X 240 ft = 21,600 sf about a half an acre.

There's already just shy of an acre and we haven't gone to Rockwell.

From the Eastern edge of the boathouse to Rockwell: 180 ft

The drive to the boathouse would be 40-50 ft wide about the size of a city street.  But here is the problem.  There are also two concrete paths on each side of the boathouse that lead to the Riverwalk for emergency vehicles.  This effectively takes up most of the space between the boathouse and Rockwell.

So 180 X 240 = 43,200 sf just about an acre.  Thus the entire project will chew up about 2 acres of green space and this is what we've been saying all along.  Please don't insult us by questioning this again.

But what's really distressing is this is the prime part of the part.  The land East of Rockwell is a burnt out construction dust bowl.  The land West of Rockwell (N of the boathouse) is centered by a MWRD vent (stink hole that exhausts sewer gas).  This is what we are left to work with as a Park.  Feel the frustration.

So as Rob Rejman downplays the impact on the park take a walk around and tell us what you think.



Kevin C said:

As I said weeks ago, you Bill D. are the most effective advocate for CPAC that I have heard in this thread, in the Roscoe Journal, or in the various CPD Board meeting videos, and that opinion hasn't changed. I agree with your assessment that the building is going to be an aggregate 20,000 sq. ft. because that is what the authorization specifies. As you no doubt understand, I do not work for Mr. Rejman or CPD, and my most recent comment regarding Mr. Rejman's statement to the Board was made after I watched the video of the May 9th Board meeting and before Bill B. suggested I watch it. As I have also suggested in the past, personal attacks are not an effective strategy for garnering community or decision makers' support. 

I think by the time this discussion was opened on the Chainlink, it was probably already too late to change the outcome. When the Mayor, Alderman, and the Friends of the Park are all behind (defined as an absence of opposition) a CPD project, there really is little the community can do to stop it.

Bill donahue said:

I am concluding that what they do intend to build is a 20,000 SF building, even though the original drawings depicted something else, and the building which is staked out at Clark Park is there for anyone to see -  is staked out at approximately 80' X 108', a number which I pointed out earlier in the thread does not make any sense, since it would be a building much smaller than advertised.   I have to take them at their word that the building will be approximately 20,000 SF since that is what is being paid for, according to the contract document. The numbers and drawings have been incorrect and inconsistent from the beginning, but I am sure they have it correct when payment is being discussed. The pad site will then go from Rockwell all the way to the river.  It is still  a huge project, too big for the park and does not include the amenities which we were asking for at the park. 

People can draw their own conclusions about any Park District representations and how this was handled from the beginning. I for one, may not agree with Mr. Rejman, but disassociate myself from vilifying him any further, since the facts will all come out and will not be kind to the Park District.  Also, this thread is designed to be, and should be a civil forum for discussion and debate, not personal attacks. 

Permalink Reply by Bill Barnes on May 13, 2012 at 2:48am

Rob Rejman downplays the impact on the park, the canoe and kayak vendor will shut down in June.  The construction will preempt our annual fundraiser and soccer has been suspended for the season.  There's probably more and worse that we have yet to find out.  When Devry, the Cubs (ball Stadium), and the boathouse are all building at once, Rockwell will be a traffic nightmare.  Little or no impact.  The planning director needs to get a clue. 

Bill Barnes said:

Kevin-  Okay I admit I spoke from anger but this whole issue of square footage is a smoke screen when nobody from the community has been shown definitive plans.  I am not a diplomat like Bill Donohue.  I speak my mind, but I always thought that is what democracy is built on.  At 62 years old maybe I'm a political anachronism, but at least I can live with myself.

FYI we paced off the stakes today.  Bill Donohue and Howard Luecke where there.  From forty years in the Motion Picture business I've learned to measure distance with paces so I could estimate cable usage.  Now please understand the following figures are close estimates: 

an acre is 43,569 sf  1/2 acre is 21,780 sf

Actual boathouse dimension: 240ft X 83 FT = 19,920 sf less than 1/2 acre

Western edge of boathouse to riverbank: 90ft X 240 ft = 21,600 sf about a half an acre.

There's already just shy of an acre and we haven't gone to Rockwell.

From the Eastern edge of the boathouse to Rockwell: 180 ft

The drive to the boathouse would be 40-50 ft wide about the size of a city street.  But here is the problem.  There are also two concrete paths on each side of the boathouse that lead to the Riverwalk for emergency vehicles.  This effectively takes up most of the space between the boathouse and Rockwell.

So 180 X 240 = 43,200 sf just about an acre.  Thus the entire project will chew up about 2 acres of green space and this is what we've been saying all along.  Please don't insult us by questioning this again.

But what's really distressing is this is the prime part of the part.  The land East of Rockwell is a burnt out construction dust bowl.  The land West of Rockwell (N of the boathouse) is centered by a MWRD vent (stink hole that exhausts sewer gas).  This is what we are left to work with as a Park.  Feel the frustration.

So as Rob Rejman downplays the impact on the park take a walk around and tell us what you think.



Kevin C said:

As I said weeks ago, you Bill D. are the most effective advocate for CPAC that I have heard in this thread, in the Roscoe Journal, or in the various CPD Board meeting videos, and that opinion hasn't changed. I agree with your assessment that the building is going to be an aggregate 20,000 sq. ft. because that is what the authorization specifies. As you no doubt understand, I do not work for Mr. Rejman or CPD, and my most recent comment regarding Mr. Rejman's statement to the Board was made after I watched the video of the May 9th Board meeting and before Bill B. suggested I watch it. As I have also suggested in the past, personal attacks are not an effective strategy for garnering community or decision makers' support. 

I think by the time this discussion was opened on the Chainlink, it was probably already too late to change the outcome. When the Mayor, Alderman, and the Friends of the Park are all behind (defined as an absence of opposition) a CPD project, there really is little the community can do to stop it.

Bill donahue said:

I am concluding that what they do intend to build is a 20,000 SF building, even though the original drawings depicted something else, and the building which is staked out at Clark Park is there for anyone to see -  is staked out at approximately 80' X 108', a number which I pointed out earlier in the thread does not make any sense, since it would be a building much smaller than advertised.   I have to take them at their word that the building will be approximately 20,000 SF since that is what is being paid for, according to the contract document. The numbers and drawings have been incorrect and inconsistent from the beginning, but I am sure they have it correct when payment is being discussed. The pad site will then go from Rockwell all the way to the river.  It is still  a huge project, too big for the park and does not include the amenities which we were asking for at the park. 

People can draw their own conclusions about any Park District representations and how this was handled from the beginning. I for one, may not agree with Mr. Rejman, but disassociate myself from vilifying him any further, since the facts will all come out and will not be kind to the Park District.  Also, this thread is designed to be, and should be a civil forum for discussion and debate, not personal attacks. 

Permalink Reply by Bill Barnes on May 13, 2012 at 3:42am


I'm sorry.  If someone quacks like a liar and walks and talks like a liar, then that person is most likely a liar.  I will not for political correctness question myself saying "well maybe he didn't understand".  NEW RULE: if you don't understand, shut up until you do.

I called Rob Rejman a liar because he is.  I stand by that statement.  He lied to get permission for a big money contract for CPD.  If I were a juror watching his testimony I would say guilty.  This man deserves public ridicule whether politically correct or not.  He doesn't care about me or you or anyone else.  He has no conscience.

Oh and by the way this post is meant to add to the civil forum for debate, not personal attacks.  Only Republicans can do that.
Bill donahue said:

I am concluding that what they do intend to build is a 20,000 SF building, even though the original drawings depicted something else, and the building which is staked out at Clark Park is there for anyone to see -  is staked out at approximately 80' X 108', a number which I pointed out earlier in the thread does not make any sense, since it would be a building much smaller than advertised.   I have to take them at their word that the building will be approximately 20,000 SF since that is what is being paid for, according to the contract document. The numbers and drawings have been incorrect and inconsistent from the beginning, but I am sure they have it correct when payment is being discussed. The pad site will then go from Rockwell all the way to the river.  It is still  a huge project, too big for the park and does not include the amenities which we were asking for at the park. 

People can draw their own conclusions about any Park District representations and how this was handled from the beginning. I for one, may not agree with Mr. Rejman, but disassociate myself from vilifying him any further, since the facts will all come out and will not be kind to the Park District.  Also, this thread is designed to be, and should be a civil forum for discussion and debate, not personal attacks. 

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on May 13, 2012 at 10:02pm

Is there another chapter of this thread available for download somewhere?

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service