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: 12036

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 10, 2012 at 3:49am

Indeed.  I wonder if it has occurred to the CPAC detractors that this group has been the stewards of the park and will be moving forward.  Making a mockery out of their involvement is truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I just can't square this idea that we should all love and trust anonymous bureaucrats but that volunteers from the community are up to no good just because they weren't cynical enough to assume they were being misled. 

James BlackHeron said:

The character assassination against certain actors in this debate has been very interesting to observe, and to note.

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 10, 2012 at 3:52am

I'm not mocking CPAC, I respect what they're trying to do, they're facts are misguided, but I respect it none the less.  I am mocking you. 

Carter O'Brien said:

Indeed.  I wonder if it has occurred to the CPAC detractors that this group has been the stewards of the park and will be moving forward.  Making a mockery out of their involvement is truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I just can't square this idea that we should all love and trust anonymous bureaucrats but that volunteers from the community are up to no good just because they weren't cynical enough to assume they were being misled. 

James BlackHeron said:

The character assassination against certain actors in this debate has been very interesting to observe, and to note.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 10, 2012 at 4:00am

We all see that Liz

Liz said:

I'm not mocking CPAC, I respect what they're trying to do, they're facts are misguided, but I respect it none the less.  I am mocking you. 


Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 10, 2012 at 4:07am

Yep.  And I've been mocked by much better.  This is just pitiful. 

The central message from Liz and Co. is "Corruption and shady dealings in Chicago?  Why, that's nonsense!" 

Which is then also oxymoronically combined with "So if there WAS corruption and shady dealings, why didn't this group of private citizens uncover it earlier?!  How dare they not have a firmer hold on facts that weren't provided to them!"

Perhaps a few hundred posts detailing how many public officials/their cronies have gone to jail in the past 20 years would be appropriate here.  But I'll throw in here that my mom worked for the Board of Ethics for 25 years - she was a Washington Administration hire, Daley never had the cajones to flat out dissolve the BOE, but he did de-fang it as much as possible.  How well that was worked for us all.

So yeah, I am laughing in a sad, sad manner at the naivety of the people here who honestly think the City responds to FOIA requests with evidence of their own misdeeds.  I have a bridge to sell you all, it's this beautiful bridge designed for cyclists and pedestrians so that they can all better enjoy Clark Park.

James BlackHeron said:

We all see that Liz

Liz said:

I'm not mocking CPAC, I respect what they're trying to do, they're facts are misguided, but I respect it none the less.  I am mocking you. 


Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on May 10, 2012 at 4:15am

Isn't this going in a rather counterproductive direction?  I'd rather see a focus on what will help the effort, rather than sinking it in a mire of snarkiness.  Just my $0.02....

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 10, 2012 at 4:21am

Anne, it really isn't possible to do anything productive outside of protest, this is the exactly the problem - the public has been shut out of the process, even though this is our land and our tax dollars.

So sinking (or postponing, anyway) further action re: the current proposal is precisely the goal. 

Permalink Reply by Andrew on May 10, 2012 at 5:13am

Last week, I was a click away from inviting five of the more vocal participants in this thread, at least half of whom I've previously met offline, to Revolution Brewing for some shared drinks and conversation.  First round on me!

At that point, I really thought that the great majority of the poor behavior on display here was the result of some misunderstandings and perceived slights between a group of intelligent, actively engaged and civic-minded Chainlinkers who had far more in common than not, and likely shared many of the same aspirations and goals for our city and its neighborhoods.  I was hopeful that both some common ground and desire for civility could be found and this thread could be a source of useful conversation for everybody interested in what happens to Clark Park.

Today I find myself doubting some of my previous assumptions and am glad I chose not to click 'Add Reply' at that time.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on May 10, 2012 at 5:57am

I think you misunderstood my message.  Various forms of civilized protest are appropriate to get the attention of TPTB.

I second Andrew's wish for civility, since it seems like we have more common ground than differences on this issue.  The lack of civility that has come into this discussion undermines the potential for this thread to gain a much larger base of support for your effort. 


The last sentence of Andrew's comment underscores that point and begs the question: how many more people in Andrew's position have not stepped up for exactly this reason?

Carter O'Brien said:

Anne, it really isn't possible to do anything productive outside of protest, this is the exactly the problem - the public has been shut out of the process, even though this is our land and our tax dollars.

So sinking (or postponing, anyway) further action re: the current proposal is precisely the goal. 

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on May 10, 2012 at 6:03am

Let's all remember the Chainlink Community Discussion Rules, especially #1:

First and most important rule: IF you can’t be polite, don’t say it. We recognize that many topics will be controversial and the nature of a discussion or online posting is that people will bring to it their own opinions, ideas and background. The general idea is that you can disagree with someone without being disagreeable. The rules of debate help the site function better, and will help keep discussions from deteriorating into attacks. Focus your topics on cycling, and your comments on the topic and position, not on the people making them. This means no personal attacks, name calling, hate speech, aspersions about someone’s mother or background, comparisons to notorious dictators… you get the idea. Under no circumstance should a member post anything that might be considered threatening, harassing, bullying, obscene, pornographic, sexist or racist. 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 10, 2012 at 7:44am

I take your point & agree with the overall message, but I don't believe you are correct regarding the situation on the ground: there are two camps that don't actually have common ground here as the current proposal (large boat house) spikes the old one (which included the bridge). 

Sometimes things really are black and white.  Sure, maybe there's a proposal that could work for everyone - but that's not what is on the table right now.  A debate about the proposal is not on the table.  A community meeting to get everyone's feedback is not on the table - the Park District had their hearing on this yesterday!  Had we all twiddled our thumbs, not recruited people to sign an admittedly not-100% perfect petition over the past few weeks, how exactly would anything more positive have come about? 

I think I have done a pretty decent job of keeping a good debate going & spreading awareness, if taking some heat for not being an agreeable doormat while doing so is the price I pay, so be it.  It is crystal clear to me that just silencing stakeholders and stifling debate was the agenda of some, and while that isn't explicitly mentioned in the etiquette list you posted, I would say that absolutely qualifies as uncivil.

You can ask anyone who knows me, I am as cordial a guy as you are ever going to meet - but I'm not going to sit quietly and be called a liar, or manipulative, nor am I going to sit quietly and watch others be called the same when it simply isn't true. The fact is the CPD played dirty here, that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  I've gone to a lot of community meetings in my life.  And when people catch public servants pulling fast ones or with their hands in the cookie jar, you're going to see some fireworks.

The real question is why anyone here would continue to defend the Park District while vilifying taxpaying citizens who just want the process to start over and to include everybody in it.  Supporting anything less is what I call unethical and improper.


Anne Alt said:

I think you misunderstood my message.  Various forms of civilized protest are appropriate to get the attention of TPTB.

I second Andrew's wish for civility, since it seems like we have more common ground than differences on this issue.  The lack of civility that has come into this discussion undermines the potential for this thread to gain a much larger base of support for your effort. 


The last sentence of Andrew's comment underscores that point and begs the question: how many more people in Andrew's position have not stepped up for exactly this reason?

Carter O'Brien said:

Anne, it really isn't possible to do anything productive outside of protest, this is the exactly the problem - the public has been shut out of the process, even though this is our land and our tax dollars.

So sinking (or postponing, anyway) further action re: the current proposal is precisely the goal. 

Permalink Reply by Tim S on May 10, 2012 at 7:56am
Which old plan included the bridge? 1997 TIF 20 year plan but not the CPAC's boathouse proposal and not the noat as large as we were lead to believe CPD proposal.

So many voices and proposals in the conversation it is hard to know which proposal encompases what anymore as the waters have been muddied by so many guesses rather than facts.
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on May 10, 2012 at 9:35am

I'm a believer in fair and open discussion.  Keeping an open debate going and building awareness is a good thing.  I appreciate it.  I consider stifling open debate to be uncivil. However, there is a big difference between stifling debate and suggesting that people conduct their debate in a civil way.

I'm also a believer in transparency, and it certainly appears that the park district has done a disservice to the community.  That is indefensible.  They should be accountable to the community that uses the park and the taxpayers in general.


It seems that, among the cycling community on this forum, most of those who have voiced opinions have shown some degree of common ground in not supporting the 20,000sf boathouse proposal.  Also, I noted that the rowers' group findings that you cited did not support the construction of this boathouse at Clark Park.  I've attended plenty of public meetings, and seen my share of fireworks.  It doesn't mean that fireworks are required to express the degree of one's displeasure with the topic at hand or that they are appropriate on this forum.

I've said my piece and stand by my request for civility on this forum. 

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service