|
|
Denial, Or is It? Judge for Yourself
Hi Phil,
Friends of the Parks does not support the extension of Lake Shore Drive. We are opposed to of the Drive and have stated that publicly throughout the process We hope the planning for parks presents the community’s vision of a lakefront extension that is limited in width to preclude an extension of the Drive. Erma, (the red emphasis is ours, stopthelandfill.org)
The above is an e-mail received by us and authored by Erma Tranter, leader of Friends of the Parks. It is not altogether reassuring. We have long contended that lakefront expansion would most assuredly include extension of Lake Shore Drive. This extension has been proposed by the city and park district previously.
The extension of the drive also forms the focal point of a design by a member of the FOTP team of architects and planners. In fact it is proudly featured on the home page of this firm’s website, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the basic premise of the website and the general nature of the firm’s business lines. Further, three dimensional models of a Lake Shore Drive extension have been displayed at various FOTP sponsored design charrettes.
We have asserted that while FOTP may not have extension of the drive as its primary or even secondary project purpose, the group would not fight a project that had the extension as a project element. To them, additional landfill is the all encompassing objective, end of story.
Ms. Tranter’s response clearly supports our assertion. In fact, she virtually walks away from shouldering any responsibility for an extension of the drive by stating that if such an extension took place, it would really be the fault of the community, whose “vision” of the lakefront extension was too wide (ie: not limited in width), thereby physically being capable of supporting a road.
So, if a project would yield incalculable negative environmental, economic and social consequences, that’s perfectly ok with FOTP……just as long as they get their lakefront extension. After all, that’s what the community wanted according to Ms. Tranter! What gall!
One is left to wonder whether those who so zealously evidence support for FOTP’s flawed grand vision really understand how they are being played in this process, and what the consequences to their community will actually be.
Here's the email that Erma was responding to. From: Philip Bernstein [mailto:philip.bernstein@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:16 AM
To: Erma Tranter; thom@gpdchicago.com; fbatesitw@aol.com; john.buenz@scb.com; malnar@uiuc.edu; paulboyd@coldwellbanker.com; hermitageoffice@comcast.net; Peter.Kindel@som.com; philip.enquist@som.com
Cc: Mike Fisher
Subject: Re: RE: Proposed Lake shore Drive Extension/Landfill/Park Creation in Edgewater
Miss Tranter:
Mike Fisher, PE was kind enough to send me his excellent analysis of your lakefront expansion plan (included as an attachment just in case your colleagues haven't seen it), and your terse, dismissive response to it. I must say I was quite amused at your inability, after promoting this plan for years, to even broadly address the multitude of technical issues that he raised. It is patently obvious you can’t answer them.
Your comment about extension of Lake Shore Drive is 100% disingenuous. While you might not recommend it as your #1 project purpose, you are fully aware that a high probability exists for it to be realized if your plan ever moves forward.
First, excluding indebtedness, transportation funds are the only significant funding source for a project of this magnitude. Second, your own staff indicated that “while we don’t” promote extension of the drive, if it was a component of the landfill project, we would look at it. Third, your staff has, in 2005 public meetings, supported the idea of a marina in Edgewater. You know that the only practicable access to a marina would be via Lake Shore Drive, not through side streets or Sheridan Road. Fourth, your group has presided over meetings where renderings and models of Lake Shore Drive extension have been shown. And fifth, your drumbeat for landfill extension would never cease because extension of Lake Shore Drive were a component. Let us be honest: you and your group of followers want this project at all costs.
I am shocked that you can portray the Hollywood to Devon Avenue segment on your website as a discontinuous stretch of inaccessible lakeshore- what you term as private property. This is more than an intentional deception, it is a downright untruth: you know that in that 6 block stretch, 2 blocks from Hollywood to Thorndale are beach; Berger Park is almost 1 block long, and a new park is between Glenlake and Granville. So in reality, 3 blocks of accessible lakefront exist in the 6 block stretch. Is that level of access not enough for you and your zealots?
You and your cadre of “consultants” and associates continually promote this ill advised project in the most dishonest of ways. You have deliberately targeted your so called public forums to groups that would in high likelihood approve of your plan, given the extremely limited information you have promulgated. Yet, people in the Sheridan Road corridor are never informed of your meetings. I note that when approval of a near north soccer field was announced, you were quoted as complaining about not being informed of meetings on the issue in advance. Yet, you practice the same manipulative approach to “public meetings”.
Your plan is never presented in a professional manner. You and your consultants present a plan to the stacked audience that is a fait accompli; only the features of the plan are open to discussion. You are “kind” enough to allow input as to tree types, and cafes, but not expansion per se.
Your plans definitely do not represent the collective preferences of the community, and no doubt you are fully aware of that fact. The five Edgewater plans were put together with the input of less than 40 persons overall or 7 persons per plan. Some plans were derived with input from people not even living in Edgewater. Even a member of one of these groups felt embarrassed enough to reveal this fact to the attendees at the last Berger Park meeting. You are being disingenuous when you represent these plans as preferences of the community, but then again, you will do anything to foist your plans on the public.
You have now put these plans on your website without the requisite commentary about the extremely limited participation in their derivation, something that was promised at your last meeting in Berger Park. Quite honestly, this is completely expected, because deception plays a major role in your zealous promotion of this boondoggle. You should be aware that no one is under any illusions with regard to your motivations or methodology.
Your presentation never mentions costs, even grossed up costs; where the funding would come from; what the impact on taxes would be; what the construction period would be; what environmental impacts would ensue; what the scale of the landmass would be, given the need to design for high lake levels.
But most importantly, you never mention what the impact on other parks and programs would be, in the likely event that construction and maintenance funds would have to be reallocated to complete your proposed plan. You are never honest enough to state that this project would come at the expense of other projects throughout the city that most likely would have a much higher return on investment, and ones that could be justified on economic, engineering and environmental grounds, unlike your project.
But despite the foregoing intentional omissions of fact, you persist is characterizing your plans are expressing the preferences of the neighborhood, and indeed Chicagoans. Do you tell the person living in Austin (who you assert would be in favor of this project) that projects in his or her neighborhood could and probably would be negatively impacted if your pet project was implemented? I doubt it! This is not only dishonest, but totally unworthy of any advocacy group.
Your pro bono consultants and Joyce Molnar should be ashamed of themselves for participating in a program put forth by FOTP that is so rife with dishonesty and deliberate deception. The motivations of these consultants are clear: they are hoping that if such a project was approved, they would play a major role in the design and construction and make many, many thousands, if not millions of dollars for their work on plans and specifications and construction oversight. They are not nearly the altruistic entities they would like to convey.
Molnar has the audacity to assign her students to conceive of lakefront expansion designs, and make those design presentations to select unrepresentative groups in the neighborhood (none of whom live along Sheridan Road). She is unilaterally promoting plans that could have the result of impacting thousands of people because she likes the ideas, not because she has some mandate from the community. This is the height of arrogance.
Molnar never instills in her students the elemental economic, engineering and environmental considerations that should be a major part of any legitimate planning and design process. To her, zeal trumps good planning. Her arrogance and elitist stance is similar to yours: just one more person who specializes in telling other people what is good for them, while never having to suffer the impacts herself.
Your other consultants, if they were the least bit professional, should insist that they properly convey their designs in light of the costs, construction issues, impact on taxpayers and the like. Instead they treat them as mere submissions of harmless renderings to a design competition that might only find its way into an exhibit at the Art Institute decades from now. They are simply not telling the public the truth about their plans, thereby intentionally deceiving them. They are therefore accomplices to a major, cynical fraud that is being perpetrated on the public by FOTP. I wonder why these individuals actually think participation in your zealous quest would enhance their professional reputations or that of their firms.
Philip Bernstein
|
|