We have been critical of both the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District and a small group of greedy and petty senior citizens regarding a dispute over a $330,000 bequest to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” by former Senior Center member Betty Kemnitz.

Frankly, the way that situation has been mishandled raises concerns about the District’s overall stewardship ability, on a number of levels.  And the District’s continued bungling of the situation and the related litigation in the Circuit Court of Cook County is troubling and discouraging.

That’s why we are cautious in reacting to the Park District’s recently-announced intention to acquire a portion of the Park Ridge Youth Campus, which has shut down its operations and is deciding whether or not to sell its approximately 11 acres of prime “country club” real estate between Prospect and Washington, just south of Oakton.

We’re not saying the District’s acquisition of around 60% of the Youth Campus’ acreage, or partnering with developer Marc Elliott, is a bad idea.  It’s just that there are far too many unanswered questions for us to sign onto, or oppose, the project at this early stage.  

But we like the idea of this kind of public/private venture – where neither the Park District nor Elliott seem to have the financial wherewithal to take on the whole project all alone – especially if such a venture is done with the hard-eyed analysis and hard-nosed bargaining that was so sorely lacking in the City’s public/private Uptown Redevelopment boondoggle, which allowed private developer PRC Partners to walk off with a reportedly tidy profit while the City is approximately $6 million in the hole and still digging.

As the Youth Campus plan is presently being described, the District will go to referendum to authorize the issuance of bonds for the multi-millions of dollars the acquisition and re-purposing of the land for District purposes is expected to cost.  Elliott, who already owns 3 lots at the northeast end of the Youth Campus that created quite a stir when he tried to turn them into group homes, plans to take the remaining 40% at the southernmost half of the property for the construction of single family homes.

Clearly, the price of the land will be a big issue for the District, as it will affect how much in bonds the District will have to issue, and the amount of the corresponding annual debt service that will siphon already scarce funds away from the District’s established facilities and programs. 

Another big issue will be the viability of the District’s plan, which currently includes using some of the existing buildings for the District’s central offices and various programming.  Until the District produces a sound and detailed business plan, every taxpayer should have a serious concern for whether this is an economically realistic and sustainable venture, or just an opportunistic scheme emerging solely because this land has suddenly become available.

For the District to have even a snowball’s chance of passing this kind of referendum, it will need to make a convincing case not only for the bonded debt but also for keeping the Park District’s 60% of that property off the property tax rolls in perpetuity. 

We also question the wisdom of the District’s “jumping into bed” with one specific developer – Elliott – rather than inviting offers from the entire development community, especially given that the District is in the catbird seat due to its eminent domain power: i.e., its legal right to take the property for a legitimate public purpose – in this case, a public park and recreational facility – at its fair market value. 

To our knowledge, the Park District has done nothing since 1994 to acquire any significant acreage for park and recreation purposes, so clearly it doesn’t need that Youth Campus property. 

The real question will be whether the Park District can convince the voters that their want of that property is reason enough to pass the referendum.

To read or post comments, click on title.