Here's the latest publicly available tax return for the FOTP
a commentary by Philip Bernstein and rebuttal to FOTP Chair Fred Bates
In his attempt to justify the ill conceived Friends of the Parks (FOTP) landfill expansion proposal, Fred Bates has produced a document (One View, August 14) that is rife with deception, misinformation and flawed logic.
Mr. Bates unequivocally states that FOTP “has not received any government grants for our work”, yet the latest tax return filed with the IRS states shows that this organization received $60,500 in government contributions, or what are commonly referred to as taxpayer monies. A copy of this return can be found on www.stopthelandfill.org
However they spin it, taxpayers funded a portion of the FOTP advocacy, which clearly does not represent the will of residents in South Shore, Rogers Park or Edgewater.
Mr. Bates again refers to the Burnham Plan as if it were an orthodox piece of scholarship, cast in stone, unchangeable to any degree. In fact, Burnham himself recognizes the changing dynamic that any prospective project might confront, and allows for adjustment as justified.
One has only to read page 3 of the plan to note that “It is quite possible that when particular portions of the plan shall be taken up for execution, wider knowledge, longer experience or a change in local conditions may suggest a better solution….such that a change is justified”.
Mr. Bates, don’t you think Burnham would agree that a city with over 91% of its shoreline in public ownership (far in excess of any other city on the Great Lakes); a community with public lake access every 500 feet or less; a community with a multitude of neighborhood and lakefront parks in need of enhancement and repair, ie: in need of scarce and dwindling public funds, just might signify a “change in local conditions” sufficient to justify a redirection of FOTP’s zealous efforts?
Bates flawed logic is evidenced in his assertion that more of Chicago’s lakeshore is becoming exposed as land (beach), as Lake Michigan water levels drop. If this is true, why advocate for landfill expansion? The beaches that Burnham advocated (page 50 of the plan, not bike paths as FOTP would have you believe) would be created naturally, at NO COST! But that wouldn’t be good for FOTP fundraising programs.
Bates, has one moment of inadvertent candor: he states that FOTP will release their study next year. This proves the contention that they had no interest in the views of the residents of the area, but only staged public meetings to generate the appearance of eliciting public input. Unfortunately, that input didn’t comport with FOTP views, so it was ignored.
Please read the Burnham Plan in its entirety to see how FOTP has manipulated it to serve their own elitist ends. Shame on them!