FACT SHEET
LANDFILL EXPANSION PLANS as Advocated by Friends of the Parks
Is the Daniel Burnham plan represented accurately by Friends of the Parks (FOTP)?
No. His plan only called for ready access to the shoreline-which is the case today. Within the Rogers Park and Edgewater neighborhoods, there is literally beach and park access for everyone within one or two blocks. There are over 15 parks and beaches in the neighborhoods. In fact the Burnham plan objectives have already been attained. FOTP is mischaracterizing the plan to suit their own agenda. Their website states that the #2 “Planning Principle” they are operating under is “more beaches and parkland on the lake”, even when its not needed.
Did the neighborhoods propose these projects?
No. The proposal came from a few downtown elitists called Friends of the Parks. None of these people even live in the neighborhood. Other activists are a professor from the U of Illinois and 6 so called architects and design firms hoping to reap millions of $ in work if these projects go through.
Were the neighborhoods advocating for lakefront expansion?
No. In fact the neighborhoods have continually asked for improvements of existing parks, new infrastructure and safety in the parks. No one has advocated for new landfill.
Is the area in critical shortage of lakefront parks and beaches?
Absolutely not. There is no quantitative study even suggesting a shortage. The Chicago Park District doesn’t even make this claim: Only Friends of the Parks does, and they have nothing to back it up. In fact, the parks and beaches are operating at 1 -2 % capacity.
What have formal polls shown in terms of interest in lakefront expansion?
Several referenda were undertaken, and the results showed that an overwhelming percentage (75% and above) of residents were OPPOSED to any and all of the lakefront expansion plans.
Were the design charettes representative of the neighborhood residents?
Absolutely not. They were attended by a handful (60 people at most) who were carefully selected by FOTP. People in the near shore area were not even notified of the meetings. Many of the 60 people confessed they were not even from the area.
Were the design charettes following commonly accepted planning process?
No. The charettes started with the given that lakefront expansion was not debatable. Only the features on that expanded landmass were open for consideration. People attempting to discuss the state of the existing park needs were summarily dismissed.
Is the extension of Lake Shore Drive a plan component?
FOTP states that they are not for an extension. However they also say that if those precious few participants in the design plans make a mistake and advocate for a large land expansion, Lake Shore Drive would be a real possibility.
How much would expansion cost?
FOTP has never mentioned costs when they ask people for their preferences. In fact independent engineers have estimated the costs would run in to the $300 million range or more. Isn’t this information important when one engages in a so called planning project where FOTP asks people to select plan designs? But FOTP never mentions this during their meetings.
How would the project be paid for?
FOTP has never mentioned financing mechanisms. They never discuss this issue when asking people for their preferences. Isn’t this information important when one engages in a so called planning project and asks people to select plan designs? But FOTP never mentions this during their meetings.
Would existing projects be jeopardized by lakefront expansion?
Absolutely. There is only a finite amount of money available. Funds would necessarily have to be reallocated from existing projects. FOTP pretends the probability of this doesn’t exist. Isn’t this information important when one engages in a so called planning project asks people to select plan designs? But FOTP never mentions this during their meetings.
Could neighborhood parks suffer if lakefront expansion were implemented?
Absolutely. The Chicago Park District would likely reallocate funds from neighborhood parks to pay for the millions of dollars of capital construction costs at the lakefront. Isn’t this information important when one engages in a so called planning project and asks people to select plan designs? But FOTP never mentions this during their meetings.
Would taxes rise if lakefront expansion were implemented?
Absolutely. The massive funding requirements would most definitely require some increment to property taxes. Isn’t this information important when one engages in a so called planning project and asks people to select plan designs? But FOTP never mentions this during their meetings.
How many years of construction would this project take?
Engineers estimate that construction would span at least 25 years. During that time residents would be subjected to non-stop construction traffic; non-stop driving of steel sheet piling to contain landmass; increase congestion and increased pollution. Isn’t this information important when one engages in a so called planning project and asks people to select plan designs? But FOTP never mentions this during their meetings.
Would neighbors west of Sheridan Road be impacted by lakefront expansion?
Absolutely. There is simply not enough parking in the area for residential purposes. Introducing new activity would further preclude parking west of Sheridan. Isn’t this information important when one engages in a so called planning project and asks people to select plan designs? But FOTP never mentions this during their meetings.
Have people been deliberately mislead into support for lakefront expansion?
Emphatically, yes. There are really only a few people, out of the 100,000+ residents of this area that support the FOTP activists on this issue. But because they haven’t really been given the facts they need to make an intelligent choice, what they are in fact supporting is an artificial construct. If they knew the costs, the impact on taxes, the impact on existing proposed projects throughout the area, the length of construction and disruptions, would they still be for it? That’s what FOTP, in their shameless total deception, never wants to find out.
Why, in the face of so many issues facing the parks, does FOTP persist in this plan?
The track record of accomplishments of this organization over their 33 year existence is amazingly minimal, at best. Look at their website to see their “accomplishments” and judge for yourself. Simply put, they need something big and bold to justify the $120,000 per year salary of their boss, Erma Tranter.