We’ve reiterated over the years that NIMBYs provide a valuable service because they often point out problems that non-NIMBYs overlook. Unfortunately, they also tend to be so focused on their own back yards that they fail to see the forest for the trees – and in so doing, invite their own marginalization.
That appears to be what happened last Thursday night when the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District convened to once again sing the praises of its new Centennial Pools project, the one costing $7.1 million just for Phase I, of which $6.3 million will be financed with 15-year bonds – the non-referendum kind, because this Park Board doesn’t want to ask the taxpaying voters what they think of the idea by means of a binding referendum…or even a simple advisory one, which the Board would be free to disregard if it truly had the courage of its convictions.
About 25 NIMBYs sat together in solidarity during that meeting. When they had their chance to speak, they talked about looking out their windows at tall water slides, or worrying about water run-off into their yards, or warning of more severe parking problems. They sounded and acted as if they believed the Park Board and Staff really cared about their concerns.
But most of the Board members and Staff were just humoring the NIMBYs, because the decision to go ahead with the Centennial Pools project has already been made in their minds, if not officially for the record. And a few handfuls of NIMBYs aren’t going to matter when those tightly-closed Park District minds don’t care what even a majority of all the taxpayers in the community think about this latest boondoggle.
That’s because the current executive director and the current superintendent of recreation want something to brag about when they network (and look for their next jobs?) at those parks and recreation conferences and conventions. A big new multi-million dollar facility fits that bill to a “T.” Many of our Park Board members, on the other hand, just want to be liked (and/or re-elected) by the people who want a new pool complex but don’t care what it costs.
The Staff and most Board members are very mindful of the fact that the last four times the District went to referendum on multi-million dollar outdoor aquatic facilities it claimed were “needed” – in November 1995, April 2005, March 2006 and November 2006 – it was told “no” by the voting taxpayers in no uncertain terms. So this time the District is turning the tables and telling those voting taxpayers “no,” as in: “No, we’re not going to let you vote on this new Centennial pool project, because we know what you want better than you know what you want.” So why bother wasting the time to ask us, via a referendum in April?
That sounds like the kind of arrogance you find in Chicago’s City Hall from little men with giant egos, like Richie Daley and Rahm Emanuel; and from other little men with giant egos by the name of Madigan and Cullerton down in Springfield. That kind of arrogance from public officials is a dis-service to every Park Ridge resident.
At last Thursday night’s meeting you could hear that arrogance in the voices of these District officials who spoke of the “power” they had to do this kind of project without putting it to referendum, and the ones who unblinkingly proclaimed how “the residents of this town have asked for this” –apparently based on how a mere 682 of them answered 31 warm-and-fuzzy questions in a “Community-Wide Survey” sent to 3,500 residents.
Not surprisingly, that survey didn’t mention the cost of any of the things about which it inquired. That’s because the Park District honchos know that nothing’s more of a buzz-kill than mentioning the cost of all the things they’re trying to sell to a skeptical and already well-taxed public. That’s also why the Park District prefers 682 responses to 31 questions rather than several thousand votes cast on a single referendum question like: “Should the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District issue $6.3 million of bonds to build a new $7.1 million outdoor aquatic facility at Centennial Park?”
And oh, by the way – did we mention that the survey was prepared by…wait for it…the same company that is designing the new Centennial pool facility: Stantec Consulting of Minneapolis, MN? If you don’t believe us, check out the very first name under “Prepared by” on the survey report’s cover page.
How convenient!
The irony of this whole rigged kabuki, however, is that even the District’s cooked survey results don’t actually support the Park District’s Centennial plan. Both page 24 and page 32 of the report show that of those 682 survey respondents, a full 9% prefer restrooms in the parks instead of a new aquatic center (34% to 24.9%). And only a meager 0.6% prefer a new outdoor aquatic center to expanding the Community Center fitness area (24.9% to 24.3%). When you add in the 17.2% who want the Community Center’s indoor pool expanded, that’s a 41.5% to 24.9% margin for expanding/improving the Community Center over rebuilding Centennial Pool.
And the Community Center provides year-round usage, not the meager 3 month season that the new Centennial aquatic facility would provide.
But as we all know, to a hammer everything looks like a nail. And to an arrogant – or is it actually a cowardly – Park Board and Staff that claims it already knows what the rest of us want for our community, everything looks like their new $7.1 million Centennial outdoor aquatic project.
So who needs even an advisory referendum?
UPDATE (11.23.12): One of the things that the Park District Staff and Board stressed last Thursday night (11.15.12) was that the $6.3 million of non-referendum bonds for the proposed Centennial Pools wouldn’t cause an increase in the District’s share of our property taxes. Could that be because the Park District is already trying to jack up its taxes so as to build in a sufficient cushion?
After most of the NIMBYs and other persons interested in Centennial Pool left the meeting, the District approved a 5.97% increase in its property tax levy for 2012 – which increase amounts to approximately $350,000. Board president Rick Biagi, who seems to be the only fiscally responsible Park Board member, provided the only “no” vote against the levy increase, arguing that Staff had not provided adequate justification for the increase.
C’mon, Rick…you weren’t really expecting Staff to admit to padding the levy in anticipation of the Centennial Pool bonded debt increase, were you?
To read or post comments, click on title.
14 comments so far
What would happen if the NIMBYs, obviously more motivated about their view and street parking than others are about their expectations to swim in town, mounted a campaign that defeated your suggested referendum? Would you then suggest that the Park Board eliminate the pools at Centennial, or construct a design that woud allow for those who live on Seminary to neither hear nor see any new ammenities?
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Mounted a campaign that defeated your suggested referendum” seems to be a strained way of avoiding saying “mounted a campaign that inspired the voters to defeat the suggested referendum.” That result should send the Park Board and Staff back to the drawing board, which would most definitely not involve another bogus survey run by the folks who want to design and supervise construction of the new pool.
Here are the email addresses of the board members. If you have an opinion, write to them.
Rick Biagi [email protected] (Pres.)
Mary Wynn Ryan [email protected] (VP)
Steve Hunst [email protected] (Treas.)
Mel Thillens [email protected] (Sec.)
Richard Brandt [email protected]
Jim O’Brien [email protected]
Stephen Vile [email protected]
Re the comment at 3:11, “Would you then suggest that the Park Board eliminate the pools at Centennial…?”
Based on PWD’s comment on the previous post that it’s fine by him if residents swim in other communities because it takes the pressure off of maintaining/upgrading our own pools, I’d venture to guess that while he might not suggest it, he’d be happy with that.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society.” The fact is most people want the things that taxes enable us to have. Yet at the same time they don’t want to pay.
I guess then the question on this topic is do we think municipal swimming pools belong in civilized society? I happen to think that a vibrant park district does indeed belong. Letting its facilities decline into ruin and abandonment doesn’t seem to be the right answer.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Our beef with this Centennial Pool plan is (a) it’s a really short-sighted and stupid plan that makes no economic sense whatsoever; and (b) those arrogant Park Board and Staff members aren’t willing to let the taxpayers – who are expected to pay for this boondoggle – vote on it. If the voters approve it, we’ll still think it’s a bad plan but the people will have spoken.
Oliver Wendell Holmes also wrote that “Three generations of imbeciles is enough,” which folks who quote his “taxes” opinion tend to forget. But since we’re going all Supreme Court on this pool issue, remember that Justice John Marshall wrote “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
Your desire to see a larger indoor aquatic space and larger Community Center, instead of a replacement of the outdoor pools at Centennial regardless of the fact that the Park District can’t fit that in the budget, has led you to fudge some numbers above. Your “41.5% . . . for expanding the Community Center” combines numbers from two questions that didn’t require picking one over the other, and therefore likely includes an overlap of some of the same people who would like both an expanded Community Center and an expanded Community Center pool.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We believe the best value for the community would be an aquatic facility – perhaps tied to the Community Center – that would provide at least 6 months of usage. But our major concern is that whatever the design, the public gets to vote on such a substantial expense and such a substantial debt.
While we are reluctant to give any credence to such a half-baked survey (e.g., Question 24 asks about what the PRRPD should do “to improve OUTDOOR swimming facilities,” and answer No. 5 is “Make improvements to Community Center pool”), we see nothing in Figures 18 and 27 of the Report to support your contention.
The only one that’s “arrogant” here [EDITED] is you. To the members of the Park Board and Park District Staff: STAY THE COURSE!!! and don’t be distracted from the voice of a few NIMBYs.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Since when did it become “arrogant” to ask the Park Board to hold an advisory referendum on whether the taxpayers want to borrow $6.3 million over 15 years and spend $7.1 million on an outdoor aquatic facility usable only 3 months of the year?
And for future reference, no commentator gets to use “Zippy” – that’s this blog’s proprietary term of derision.
I’m not a NIMBY in this matter. Sure, it would be GREAT for me, who lives at least a mile from either the Youth Campus or the Centennial Pool, to have more park district land and amenities. But I’m a NOMPT — not on my property taxes. We just can’t afford this kind of public spending right now.
As for the NIMBYs, they are citizens of this town just like you and me, and they have a right to speak up and give their opinion. You can call it self-serving if you’d like, but to praise the park district board for not being distracted is the same thing as praising them for ignoring citizens’ wishes.
You “encourage them to stay on course”? Citizens set the course. Numbers this big should go to referendum.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly right, FWT.
NIMBYs can’t control the course of any referendum because there are too few of them, even if they all vote. Judging by the last mayoral election in 2009, there should be at least 8,500 voters going to the polls in April – compared to the 682 respondents to that half-baked survey run by the new pool designer.
I can’t think of any other city, park district or school district facility costing that kind of money that can only be used 3 months a year, so I ahve to agree with you that the voters should be allowed to weigh in on whether this project should get done or not. If I understand the legality of this, the results of an advisory referendum are not binding on the park board, so it would be free to honor or disregard them, right?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Good point re no other such facilities. And you are right about the advisory referendum – in addition to their arrogance, it increasingly looks like several of these Board and Staff members are also cowards who are afraid to let the voters have their say in a measurable way v. those 682 survey respondents and all the anecdotal garbage they are relying on.
With all of the various issues that the Commissioners have faced or will face (i.e. Youth Campus, upcoming union negotiations, Senior Center headache, and pool decision), you would hope that there will be a decent size number of candidates for the April elections.
I think people have until the middle of December to declare their candidacy.
EDITOR’S NOTE: For every seat in every public body – City, PRRPD, D-64 and D-207.
Yes, an outdoor pool can only be used a few months a year. Sounds like people here think we shouldn’t have in town at all them solely for that reason. I’d guess most residents would disagree.
We spend so many months holed up indoors, avoiding the cold. Shouldn’t we be able to make the most of the warm months with nice outdoor facilities? The challenge to the park board is to find other sources of revenue to offset the seasonal factor. Seems like charging higher fees for non-residents would be a good place to start.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, the first “challenge to the park board” is to let the taxpayers who will be footing the bill for this facility for the next 15 years vote on whether they think the proposed project is a good one. And then, if the voters say “no,” the next “challenge to the park board” is to either tell the voters to pound sand and do this questionable project anyway, or go back to the drawing board and come up with Plan B.
“Charging higher fees for non-residents” has never generated any significant revenue for any Park District facility or program; and this bland new Centennial Pool isn’t likely to be any bigger draw than the Community Center, Senior Center, ice rink, etc.
Thank you to 5th Ward Taxpayer for providing the e-mail addresses of the Park Board members. I just sent my e-mail to them.
8:34 am-again you tell the PRPD and staff to stay the course and spend over $7 million tax dollars on an outdoor waterpark that is inappropriate for the location. How irresponsible! The only outdoor pool that should be built in this location is the exact same facility that is there now and only if the current one is beyond repair. This will cost over $2 million dollars les than the proposed waterpark. But let the taxpayers have some say in the matter through referendum. We have already told the PRPD 4 times before “NO” to excessive spending on waterparks.
Though the three main taxing authorities in this town are separate they get most of their revenue from the PR taxpayers. We have to prioritize. There will be infrastructure needs from the city that we have to pay for. There will be fixed asset needs for the school districts we will have to pay for. The PRPD issues are not a priority. Building new facilities and acquiring new land should only be done if the PRPD has the means to pay for without taking out more debt and only after all the other facilities they currently manage are in tip top shape. Just check out the hot tub/spa at the CC. It has been broken for over 6 months and is still not fixed. The ice rink should be updated, there are 136 acres of park land to maintain and so on and so on.
A waterpark will not increase our property values but will increase our taxes. So once again the PR homeowner gets higher taxes and nothing much to show for it. And if you throw in the PRPD’s desire to acquire and have the taxpayer’s pay for a low use park for the neighbors of the Youth Campus-one has to wonder what planet the PRPD commissioners and staff are living on. Many homeowners in PR are still struggling to make their family budgets work. It is insulting the way the PRPD is attempting to spend taxpayer money in such a reckless manner.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Reckless” and arrogant are not a good combination, especially in people who have the power to tax, borrow and spend public funds.
You won’t mind if the following quote of yours is used to reassure the nimbys about the centennial pool replacement project, right?
“this bland new Centennial Pool isn’t likely to be any bigger draw than the Community Center, Senior Center, ice rink, etc.”
Thanks for your support, accidental or otherwise, for a facility most of the community enjoys and even more appreciate objectively as improving the mix of offerings for residents of all ages.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Glad to help. And if your really believe that “most of the community” supports the proposed new Centennial Pool project, we trust you will actively support an advisory referendum to prove it.
Deal?
I don’t know if it is arrogant, cowardly, or just plain stupid for the Park District to base this major multi-year decision on 682 responses to what really does seem like a “garbage” survey, but it is clearly wrong and insulting.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yep, add “wrong and insulting” to the list.
Mr. T., you are an educated man. Please don’t encourage the No-Nothings among your fans who never took basic statistics in high school and so don’t understand how a survey with 682 responses can have a statistically satisfactory probability of being accurate in reflecting the views of thousands of residents of all ages. The Board was elected to make certain important decisions on behalf of the electorate; this is one of them. You may want to spend your significant political capital discussing other issues that actually are or may be on referenda.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This isn’t a question of “statistics,” it’s a question of integrity – and of politically arrogant yet cowardly Park Board and Staff members attempting to bamboozle and end-run the will of the taxpayers with a flawed, if not fraudulent, charade of a survey.
Not one member of this Board ran for election or re-election on a platform of borrowing $6 million, and spending $7 million, to replace Centennial Pool. But if these Board members had any integrity – ANY INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER – they would hold the advisory referendum and then, if they didn’t like the results, they could still go ahead and make this decision they claim they were “elected to make” – and accept the political consequences from telling the taxpayers to pound sand. Instead they are both shameless and spineless, arrogant cowards whose instincts appear to run towards abusing the power entrusted to them.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>