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: 12065

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bill Barnes on May 10, 2012 at 4:36pm

Carter- Thank you.  The CPAC has done it's best to be as fair to as many as possible.  As a member I was at the CPD Board of Commissioners meeting yesterday and was given my two minutes to speak.    They are acting like this is a done deal with no community input.  I mentioned this to the board. One of the major points I wanted to raise was why the hurry to start the project at the beginning of a park season.  Why couldn't it wait till October or November?

While I was given two minutes, Rob Rejman director of planning for CPD was allowed to talk for fifteen plus answering questions from the board.  His first topic was that 20,000 SF was a half an acre.  DUH? Yes but here we are arguing land usage just like Tim S.  Go look at the orange stakes in the park.  The western edge of the "Boathouse" is about fifty feet from the riverbank because of ADA rules.  That space will be filled in with concrete and floating launch. There is a huge concrete drive from the center out to Rockwell.  This will preclude usage of about 2 acres, period.  Measure it.  Rejman lied.

One of many.  He said he had gone to the community.  The only people he contacted was private rowing clubs.  He didn't contact CPAC or the soccer players or Cambr or even the canoe and kayak concession.  He stated that Friends of the parks endorsed this plan.  I personally talked to Erma Tranter this morning.  She said " Bill, while we never officially opposed the plan, we did write a letter stating that the 20,000sf rowing house was too big for Clark Park and we were in favor of the smaller canoe and kayak venue".  Thank you Rejman, another lie!. He asked for a 9 Million dollar budget approval and oh yes the money is there.  Well not quite.  The CPD pledged 2 million and the Alderman is giving another 2 million in TIFF.  Where is the other 5 M coming from?  Private sources we are told but nobody will disclose who they are.  That's probably because the private sources are private citizens and this money will come from their tax bill.  The matter was rubber stamped.  Done Deal.

Oh and Rejman told the board that the construction wouldn't interfere with people using the park except for a few fishermen.

But don't believe me.  I spread misinformed half truths, because I have been working as a volunteer for Clark Park since 1994.  I have watched them come and go and believe me Rahm Emmual and this bunch of scoundrels will make Daley look like a charitable organization.

Carter O'Brien said:

Why would a citizen group actively engaged in a conversation with the Park District think they were being misled?  Do you realize how absurd this sounds? 



Kevin C said:

Very shrewd. The justification for not doing something that could have/should have been done is that it might not have or probably wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Well played.

Carter O'Brien said:

[snip]

I filed a FOIA request on my own house many years ago (it is actually suggested in some literature the architectural/historical societies produce) in the hopes of acquiring old building permits, blueprints, etc.  When I went to the office to pick up my bounty of info, they gave me a single document - a copy of the permit I had gotten a few months earlier to build a deck.  That was it.  For a 100 year old house!  The guy looked at me like I was crazy when I told him I wanted all the plans, but what he was basically saying was he couldn't be bothered to find them.

And then there's this:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2012/05/07/rahm-on-fo...

So what I'm saying is that sounds nice in theory, but in actuality rarely works as expected.


Duppie said:

[snip]

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on May 10, 2012 at 4:40pm

I know Erma and know that she likes to do her homework about what the community wants and needs.

Bill Barnes said:

[snip]  He said he had gone to the community.  The only people he contacted was private rowing clubs.  He didn't contact CPAC or the soccer players or Cambr or even the canoe and kayak concession.  He stated that Friends of the parks endorsed this plan.  I personally talked to Erma Tranter this morning.  She said " Bill, while we never officially opposed the plan, we did write a letter stating that the 20,000sf rowing house was too big for Clark Park and we were in favor of the smaller canoe and kayak venue".  Thank you Rejman, another lie!. 

Permalink Reply by Bill Barnes on May 10, 2012 at 5:00pm

Thank you Anne!

Anne Alt said:

I know Erma and know that she likes to do her homework about what the community wants and needs.

Bill Barnes said:

[snip]  He said he had gone to the community.  The only people he contacted was private rowing clubs.  He didn't contact CPAC or the soccer players or Cambr or even the canoe and kayak concession.  He stated that Friends of the parks endorsed this plan.  I personally talked to Erma Tranter this morning.  She said " Bill, while we never officially opposed the plan, we did write a letter stating that the 20,000sf rowing house was too big for Clark Park and we were in favor of the smaller canoe and kayak venue".  Thank you Rejman, another lie!. 

Permalink Reply by Bill Barnes on May 10, 2012 at 5:15pm

Liz-  Our next CPAC meeting is Tuesday May 15 at Revere Park at 7PM.  I invite you to come and voice your opinions.

Bill Barnes

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. 

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 Carter O'Brien on May 11, 2012 at 3:11am

I'm 100% on board with everything you're saying, Anne.  At this point I think the conversation is actually quite civil, I am committed to keeping it that way.  If Liz/anyone comes out to the clean up on Saturday I'd love to meet them in person, that always helps.  Wife may be out of town Tuesday in which case I'm on Mr. Mom duty, but if not I'll be there Tuesday as well.

No time now, but I'll dig up (I know I saw them somewhere...) the Park District contacts to voice opinions/concerns to.  I am totally for everyone having their voice heard, so I'd suggest that anyone and everyone speak now while there still may be a window in which public opinion still counts.

Anne Alt said:

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. 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 11, 2012 at 3:12am

Thank YOU, Bill.  18 years of volunteer service means something in my book.  Hope to meet you Saturday and/or next Tuesday.

Bill Barnes said:

Carter- Thank you.  The CPAC has done it's best to be as fair to as many as possible.  As a member I was at the CPD Board of Commissioners meeting yesterday and was given my two minutes to speak.    They are acting like this is a done deal with no community input.  I mentioned this to the board. One of the major points I wanted to raise was why the hurry to start the project at the beginning of a park season.  Why couldn't it wait till October or November?

While I was given two minutes, Rob Rejman director of planning for CPD was allowed to talk for fifteen plus answering questions from the board.  His first topic was that 20,000 SF was a half an acre.  DUH? Yes but here we are arguing land usage just like Tim S.  Go look at the orange stakes in the park.  The western edge of the "Boathouse" is about fifty feet from the riverbank because of ADA rules.  That space will be filled in with concrete and floating launch. There is a huge concrete drive from the center out to Rockwell.  This will preclude usage of about 2 acres, period.  Measure it.  Rejman lied.

One of many.  He said he had gone to the community.  The only people he contacted was private rowing clubs.  He didn't contact CPAC or the soccer players or Cambr or even the canoe and kayak concession.  He stated that Friends of the parks endorsed this plan.  I personally talked to Erma Tranter this morning.  She said " Bill, while we never officially opposed the plan, we did write a letter stating that the 20,000sf rowing house was too big for Clark Park and we were in favor of the smaller canoe and kayak venue".  Thank you Rejman, another lie!. He asked for a 9 Million dollar budget approval and oh yes the money is there.  Well not quite.  The CPD pledged 2 million and the Alderman is giving another 2 million in TIFF.  Where is the other 5 M coming from?  Private sources we are told but nobody will disclose who they are.  That's probably because the private sources are private citizens and this money will come from their tax bill.  The matter was rubber stamped.  Done Deal.

Oh and Rejman told the board that the construction wouldn't interfere with people using the park except for a few fishermen.

But don't believe me.  I spread misinformed half truths, because I have been working as a volunteer for Clark Park since 1994.  I have watched them come and go and believe me Rahm Emmual and this bunch of scoundrels will make Daley look like a charitable organization.

Carter O'Brien said:

Why would a citizen group actively engaged in a conversation with the Park District think they were being misled?  Do you realize how absurd this sounds? 



Kevin C said:

Very shrewd. The justification for not doing something that could have/should have been done is that it might not have or probably wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Well played.

Carter O'Brien said:

[snip]

I filed a FOIA request on my own house many years ago (it is actually suggested in some literature the architectural/historical societies produce) in the hopes of acquiring old building permits, blueprints, etc.  When I went to the office to pick up my bounty of info, they gave me a single document - a copy of the permit I had gotten a few months earlier to build a deck.  That was it.  For a 100 year old house!  The guy looked at me like I was crazy when I told him I wanted all the plans, but what he was basically saying was he couldn't be bothered to find them.

And then there's this:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2012/05/07/rahm-on-fo...

So what I'm saying is that sounds nice in theory, but in actuality rarely works as expected.


Duppie said:

[snip]

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 11, 2012 at 3:18am

Tim, I sure wish I could answer that.  As I've noted, the 47th ward alderman's office agreed that there was a plan including the Roscoe bridge (which I take as de facto proof it existed) but that those plans were later revised.

The real question here is WHEN were the plans revised - was this between when I posted those TIF links last July and now?  Was it prior to last July and they had outdated documents on the City's website?

All I know is the bridge was in a plan Bill Donahue posted earlier in the week that he said (and I have no reason not to believe in) was part of the TIF. 

The answers you seek are totally legitimate, but the only people that can answer them are City employees.  Perhaps if you can get one on the record they would also explain why they didn't choose to share with the community that they were revising plans without any public input.

Tim S said:

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 lorraine reder on May 11, 2012 at 4:51am

I did write letters to the following individuals stating CPAC's strong opposition to building the boat warehouse/crewing facility in Clark Park.

 

Alderman Ameya Pawar, Office:  4243 N. Lincoln Avenue, Chicago, IL 60613.  Phone:  733.868.4747.  Fax:  773.549.4757

Congressman Quigley, District Office:  3742 W. Irving Park Road, Chicago, IL 60618.  Phone:  773-267.5926.  Fax:  773.267.6583.

Mayor Emmanuel, Office:  121 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago City Hall 4th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602.  Phone:  call 311.

The commissioners, superintendent and president of the board of Chicago Park District:  Office:  541 N. Fairbanks Court, Suite 4, Chicago, IL 60611.  Phone:  312.472/7529

  • President:  Bryan Taubert
  • Vice President:  Benjamin R. Armstrong
  • Commissioner Dr. Scott Hanlon, D.O.
  • Commissioner Martin Laird Koldyke
  • Commissioner Avis LaVelle
  • Commissioner Juan Salgado
  • Commissioner Rouhy J. Shalabi

 

I received only one response, from Rob Rejman, Director of Planning, Construction and Facilities Management for the Chicago Park District. 

 

According to Rejman, only 2% of Clark Park will be impacted by the boat warehouse/crewing facility.  Per the Rowing Group's report, 20% of the greenspace would be removed! 

 

Rejman also states that when the boathouse is complete there will continue to be public access to the river for launching boats.  Per the Rowing Group's report, "the curve of the Chicago River on the eastern shore at the proposed dock location could prove to be problematic with the flow of traffic on the river. The dock is shown to be extended into the "traffic" area of the river which, in the opinion of the Rowing Group, frequently could generate conditions where collisions would be likely".     

 

Rejman's letter was so disingenuous that I wrote a rebuttal letter slamming him for misrepresenting the percentage of the park that would be impacted AND the Park District's dereliction of responsibility to  protect a designated bird/butterfly sanctuary and green space, which experts say attracts wildlife, clears pollution and has a positive effect on children's wellbeing (Chicago Tribune, April 22, in honor of Earth Day). 

 

I have not received a response from Rejman to my rebuttal letter. 

Permalink Reply by Night Owl on May 11, 2012 at 5:30am

Three things:  

Firstly, looking at the video of the presentation, it is clear that the boathouse is at Roscoe and not School.  The IDNR reports were clearly wrong.

Second, the numbers being thrown around area fuzzy, for sure.  I think that there is a problem with definitions of the park boundaries.  Clark Park is about 19+ acres if you include the wooded area that houses the dirt jumps - those are the official CPD boundaries, so that is why the CPD figure states that it'll only impact 2 percent of the park.  The rowing report and the CPAC seem to only be concerned with the more open northern half which I will assume is 7 acres since that is the figure being thrown around.  Two acres, however, is a massive area of around 80,000 ft2 so I'm skeptical that the area's footprint will be quadruple the amount of space being planned.  Finally, just to throw a bit of controversy in this after looking closely at the CPD figures:  0.45 acres of a building pad/19.26 acres = 2.3 percent of the total area.  This, however, could mean that the total square acreage of the building is much larger because I doubt they would say that a second floor square footage of a building would "impact a park."  It could be possible that the 20,000 square feet could refer to the building's footprint.  

Finally, we'll all know about this sooner than later.  Rejman stated in the video that he expects construction to start sometime the week after next if not next week.  This clearly is on the fast track.

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on May 11, 2012 at 7:14am

Thanks for posting the meeting video, Night Owl.  I just finished scanning it and came away with these observations: the newest rendering of two wood & glass buildings is substantially different from the big boxy rectangle we've seen before in other renderings, so obviously the project has been refined (though with no public overview, unfortunately).  The project manager, Mr. Rejman, asserts that Alderman Pawar is firmly behind the project and is seeking TIF funds for it, while the mayor has put this on a very fast track for construction.  Clout-wise, if the alderman & mayor are behind a project, I think there's little chance of derailing it.  If CPAC (and Chainlinkers) haven't yet reached out to Jeanne Gang, now would be the time to do so, as I think the boathouse will happen, but the exact shape and design may still be malleable (though I don't know the legal ramifications of changing architecture after a bid has been accepted from a contractor).  Two separate buildings, the storage 1-storey and the heated 2-storey, could allow a bike/ped bridge be built between them, for instance.

I've logged the points of interest in the very long video of the Park District meeting, so you don't have to watch the whole thing like I did:

17:12  Boathouse supporters (teenage scholarship seeker, mother of autistic boy)

25:44  More support from Recovery on Water (R.O.W.)--cancer survivors who row

31:48  Howard Luecke (CPAC)

42:49  Bill Barnes (CPAC)

1:39:28  Clark Park presentation from Parks development Mr. Rejman, followed by vote to accept contractor's bid

1:51:00  Ping Tom presentation from Rejman with additional discussion of how all 4 new boathouses will function as a system, followed by vote to accept contractor's bid

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on May 11, 2012 at 7:49am

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 11, 2012 at 8:21am

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.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service