Greetings, all!

Last week saw two more important events in the on-going OPC saga:

·         the oral arguments on the Protect Our Parks lawsuit, and

·         the second consulting parties’ webinar as the FHWA rushes the Section 106 process to a seemingly preordained conclusion.

The Protect Our Parks lawsuit

Since the Protect Our Parks lawsuit was filed two years ago, JPW has continued to point to the significance of the public trust issue that is key to the lawsuit, along with the tightly related issues of fiduciary responsibility and responsible public stewardship.  POP appealed the initial dismissal of its case to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals last July, and oral arguments on the case were heard by a three-judge panel on Thursday, May 21.

A good (albeit somewhat lengthy) summary of the argument presented by Richard Epstein, the lead POP attorney in the appeal, can be found in Epstein’s own recounting of the issues in the suit and also in the related federal regulatory reviews now underway. Courthouse News Service also provided general coverage of the hearing.

Interestingly, the members of the appellate panel repeatedly returned to the question of jurisdiction, that is, why this case is in federal court.  Both POP and the City argued that the case is properly in federal court, something the City had never challenged. After the oral argument had adjourned, the panel asked both sides to submit additional briefs addressing the question of jurisdiction within two weeks.

FHWA steamroller advances

In the meantime, the FHWA’s rush to a judgement that seems destined to approve the OPC and related road changes with only token mitigation efforts continued with the second consulting parties’ webinar on Wednesday, May 20.  The webinar presented what were described as the results of the on-line “Mitigation Survey” that the City conducted over 5 days following the first webinar on May 6.  However, as JPW anticipated, significant portions of the survey results were simply suppressed.  Only those results deemed acceptable by the FHWA and City were presented for discussion on May 20; all others were dismissed, without any information whatsoever being provided about the total number of responses submitted or the full scope and details of the suggestions made. JPW sent a follow-up letter to FHWA decrying this suppression of public information (see attachment below, at end of Update) and demanding that there be full disclosure of all comments and suggestions for resolving the adverse effects on Jackson Park for the third and final webinar meeting on June 17.

The Cultural Landscape Foundation offered another review of the May 20 webinar and of the overall situation.

Where things stand: While the conduct of the Section 106 review remains troublesome to say the least and while there are disturbing signals about other federal reviews to come (see below), Jackson Park is still untouched and there are many steps still to be taken.  No construction can begin until all of the federal reviews are completed, and failure to conduct those reviews properly could result in further legal challenges.  The POP lawsuit continues, with the real prospect of further appeal. Meanwhile, the context in which the current OPC plan was developed has changed drastically.  Most immediately, there are uncertainties at every level about the impact of the pandemic on public and private finances alike; at the same time there are regular reminders that the effects of climate change, such as rising lake levels, cannot be ignored when it comes to lakefront development.   JPW will continue to track developments, make salient comments, and invite interested others to join in also. 

On other fronts

What is the “baseline”?  While most attention is on the Section 106 review, the FHWA steamroller is also moving forward on another front.  As Richard Epstein notes in his commentary linked above, the FHWA plans to circumvent what should be another key element of the federal review process, a required  4(f) review of  the impact of the proposed road changes on Jackson Park. It justifies this by making the absurd argument that the proper “baseline” for the review is the configuration of the Park AFTER the OPC is in place and all of the road changes have occurred, not the configuration of the Park today. For more information on the 4(f) requirement, see “What is a ‘4(f)’ review?” on the JPW website

What is a “legacy” park?    The Chicago Tribune has recently focused attention on the issue of public access to parks and open spaces during the pandemic. On its May 23 editorial page, it featured an op-ed by Ron Henderson, director of the Landscape Architecture and Urbanism Program at IIT.  Professor Henderson distinguished between the city’s legacy parks and the newer parks built in the 21^st century, noting their differing values in an era of social distancing. 

 “The legacy parks were designed as places of healthy respite and for personal encounters with trees and water and birds. The new parks were built for other purposes: spectacles of art, social density, crowds and active recreation. These new parks are also about commerce and capitalism — parks that, especially under former Mayor Rahm Emanuel, were expected to be profit centers leveraged by concessions and tourism.”

JPW submitted a follow-up letter to the Tribune, so far unpublished, so we quote it here:

 “Jackson Park is one of Chicago’s foremost legacy parks, designed by Frederick Law Olmsted in the late 19th century to make spacious fields, tree-covered paths, local wildlife, and vistas of the lake available to all residents of the booming city.  It is ironic then that Jackson Park’s legacy status is today under threat by the proposal to build the Obama Presidential Center on 20 acres at its center.   When President Obama unveiled the plan for the OPC in May 2017, he said his aim was to create a Millennium Park-like experience on the South Side.  The current proposal for the OPC will indeed transform Jackson Park, ending the quietude and spaciousness that have long been treasured, just as those characteristics are proving their civic importance and value.   Such a loss is not necessary as the OPC could be reconfigured to have a less adverse effect on Jackson Park or could be constructed elsewhere on the South Side, with equal prominence and an equally positive impact on the surrounding communities.  We urge the City and the Obama Foundation to reconsider their plan.”

 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DONATIONS!

Thanks to all who have supported us financially.  As always, we will welcome your contributions.  If you have any questions about contributing, please contact us at jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com and we will get back to you.

You can contribute in three ways:

·         You can contribute via checks made out to Jackson Park Watch sent to directly to Jackson Park Watch, P.O. Box 15302, Chicago 60615. 

·         You can contribute via PayPal here.

·         You can contribute via checks from donor-directed funds sent to our fiscal sponsor Friends of the Parks at FOTP, 17 N. State St., Suite 1450, Chicago 60602, ATTN Kevin Winters.  Such checks should be made out to FOTP with a note stating they are intended for Jackson Park Watch. 

As always, we thank you.

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid

Jackson Park Watch

www.jacksonparkwatch.org

jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

Attachment:  2020-05-25 JPW to FHWA

 (If you cannot open this document, contact us at jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com and we will send it to you directly.)

Greetings, all!

Jackson Park as a Public Trust

As previously announced, the appeal by Protect Our Parks of its suit against the City is scheduled for a hearing on Thursday, May 21, at 9:30 am.   Due to the pandemic, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will not hold in-person argument, but instead is conducting the argument via Zoom.   You can listen to a live audio stream of the hearing.

It is notable that the Chicago Tribune affirmed the special status and role of lakefront parks such as Jackson Park in its May 19 editorial that addressed Mayor Lightfoot’s restrictions on access to the lakefront during the pandemic.

The lakefront. It’s unique not only because it is one of the world’s great waterfront expanses curled alongside one of the world’s great cities. What also sets apart that expanse is that, because it is protected by what is legally known as the public trust doctrine, it belongs to the people, specifically the citizens of Illinois. It is everyone’s open space, backyard and front porch.

Letting the trees talk

A new spotlight is shining on the trees of the Jackson Park, some 800 of which are threatened by the plans for the Obama Presidential Center and its related road changes.  Meet the Trees  has launched an informational website about major species in the park and has begun featuring selected species in ads on bus-stop benches.  You can now meet the Silver Maple on the bench on 55^th Street just west of University Avenue.

---

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DONATIONS!

Thanks to all who have supported us financially.  As always, we welcome your contributions.  If you have any questions about contributing, please contact us at jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com and we will get back to you. You can contribute in three ways:

• You can contribute via checks made out to Jackson Park Watch sent to directly to Jackson Park Watch, P.O. Box 15302, Chicago 60615. 
• You can contribute via PayPal here.
• You can contribute via checks from donor-directed funds sent to our fiscal sponsor Friends of the Parks at FOTP, 17 N. State St., Suite 1450, Chicago 60602, ATTN Kevin Winters.  Such checks should be made out to FOTP with a note stating they are intended for Jackson Park Watch. 

As always, we thank you.

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid

Jackson Park Watch

www.jacksonparkwatch.org

jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

www.facebook.com/jacksonparkwatch

Greetings, all!

City poll woefully inadequate

As noted in last week’s Update,  the FHWA/City announced that an on-line “poll” would be sent to Section 106 consulting parties to get feedback on the suggestions for resolving the adverse effects (whether labeled ‘mitigation’ or not) made before and during the May 6 webinar and to allow for the submission of new suggestions.   That announcement included the following:

Please share the poll with colleagues in your organization and any outside groups that have an interest in contributing to this process, including youth groups and others that are familiar with Jackson Park. We encourage each consulting party to submit at least one mitigation suggestion and these will be compiled and noted at the 2nd consulting parties meeting. 

On May 13, the City sent a subsequent message with additional (and confusingly incomplete) instructions and the link to the Survey/Poll. The full message is provided below.

Prior to sending this out as suggested by the City, we of course checked out the survey.  Sadly, but not surprising at this point, it is limited, restrictive, does not repeat those “resolve adverse effects” suggestions that have been presented to date (such as the one JPW presented before and during the May 6 webinar), and does not facilitate the presentation of new and creative ideas.  Rather, it focuses on suggestions that are the equivalent of moving the deck chairs on the Titanic, all of which utterly fail to resolve the severe adverse effects of the OPC and related road changes on historic Jackson Park and the Midway Plaisance.

Nonetheless, we encourage everyone to respond to the poll for the record.  However, we suggest that before starting the survey you have two or three phrases ready for the chance to volunteer your own thinking.  The survey starts by asking for zip code and then consulting party (there is a drop-down menu, you have to choose one).  Then there are four highly restrictive and limited choices for comment, but each one does also allow you to make an independent entry.  Note that the submission deadline is Monday, May 18, by noon.

Feel free to identify JPW as your consulting party, if you wish.  If you do so identify, please send a record of your suggestion to jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com.  We continue to have grave concerns about the Section 106 process, but we think public participation remains important.

_____________________________

City’s Message to Consulting Parties:

From: Todd Wyatt <todd.wyatt@cityofchicago.org>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:43 PM
Subject: Survey and Reference Materials for Jackson Park Sec 106 Consultation
To: Todd Wyatt <todd.wyatt@cityofchicago.org>
Cc: DPD <dpd@cityofchicago.org>

Good morning Consulting Parties,

As a follow-up to our meeting on May 6, 2020, the project team invites you to participate in a SURVEY (ctrl+click) designed to collect feedback on mitigation examples, and to receive your new mitigation ideas. Please complete the survey by noon on Monday, May 18^th. Your input will be analyzed and incorporate into the next meeting on May 20, 2020 (9:30am – 11:30am). 

Please reference the meeting materials from our May 6^th meeting which provide useful educational information on mitigation. These materials can be found on the project’s web page (ctrl+click).

Additionally, the project team has prepared a response (attached) to the relevant questions and comments received from the chat box during the May 6^th meeting.

Thank you for your continued participation in this project, and we look forward to reviewing your input at our next meeting on May 20^th. Please register if you haven’t do so already. Please contact me with any questions.

---

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DONATIONS!

Thanks to all who have supported us financially.  As always, we welcome your contributions.  If you have any questions about contributing, please contact us at jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com and we will get back to you. You can contribute in three ways:

• You can contribute via checks made out to Jackson Park Watch sent to directly to Jackson Park Watch, P.O. Box 15302, Chicago 60615. 
• You can contribute via PayPal here.
• You can contribute via checks from donor-directed funds sent to our fiscal sponsor Friends of the Parks at FOTP, 17 N. State St., Suite 1450, Chicago 60602, ATTN Kevin Winters.  Such checks should be made out to FOTP with a note stating they are intended for Jackson Park Watch. 

As always, we thank you.

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid

Jackson Park Watch

www.jacksonparkwatch.org

jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

www.facebook.com/jacksonparkwatch

JACKSON PARK WATCH UPDATE – May 9, 2020

Greetings, all!

In our last Update (April 19), we pointed out that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has been in high gear, issuing bureaucratic, misleading, confusing, and arcane documents, and scheduling a blizzard of Section 106 meetings, all in a seeming effort to move toward approvals of the proposed Obama Presidential Center and its related road changes as soon as possible. This FHWA drive continues.  In this Update we present some key points.

Accelerating the Section 106 review

In January the FHWA presented the “final” Assessment of Effects (AOE), which documented yet again that the planned construction of the Obama Presidential Center (OPC) along with the related road changes would have severe adverse effects on Jackson Park and the Midway as well as on the Chicago Park Boulevard System. Consulting parties were given until mid-March to submit comments, and many including JPW did so, raising a large number of questions and objections.

In April, having dismissed all but one of these questions and objections without explanation, FHWA made one small alteration, pronounced the AOE final and announced plans to move on to the next stage, resolution of adverse effects, with a series of rapid-fire webinar meetings focused on “mitigation.”

JPW and others questioned the focus on “mitigation,” which by regulation should be considered only after avoidance and minimization measures. We also protested the use of the webinar format, which is unsuitable for actual consultation and legitimate discussion. An additional concern is that the use of an online format limits participation to those with internet access and technical skills, thus shutting out a part of the relevant community.  As has become typical, FHWA responded with a confusing explanation of its definition of mitigation, stating that avoidance and minimization can also be included under that label.  It also insisted that the webinar format is well suited for its purposes. 

The first of these webinar events took place on Wednesday, May 6, and the presentation and initial raw transcript are on the City’s website.  Note the continued use of the single term “mitigation” throughout by FHWA and other staff, despite occasional indications that all of the proposals to resolve the adverse effects, regardless of category, would be considered. 

With agreement by Matt Fuller prior to the webinar, JPW submitted a multi-part proposal for resolving the adverse effects to Jackson Park and the Midway.  We were able to outline the proposal briefly during the webinar itself. Our proposal is provided as an attachment to this Update.

In a new and important development, considerable attention was paid during the webinar to whether FHWA is obliged to approve the use of federal highway funds for implementing the City/Obama Foundation proposal to close Cornell Drive and make the myriad additional related road changes.  By extension, the same question was raised as to whether the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the National Park Service are required to agree to the requests concerning changes to the GLFER project and the City’s location of replacement parkland on the east end of the Midway Plaisance park.  This issue of the scope of federal authority moves the discussion beyond the FHWA assertion that it cannot evaluate “City Action” and will continue to be pursued.

Next steps?  The City is preparing an on-line “poll” to be sent to consulting parties to get feedback on the suggestions for resolving the adverse effects (whether labeled ‘mitigation’ or not) made before and during the webinar and to allow for the submission of new suggestions.  Consulting parties are encouraged to circulate the link widely so that anyone who has an interest in contributing to this process can do so.  JPW will send out information about the link to the poll as soon as it is available.

We encourage everyone to respond to the poll and submit one or more suggestions for resolving the adverse effects.  Think big and broadly.  Do not worry about whether to label your suggestion “mitigation” or not – you may want to label it a “resolve adverse effects” proposal. Suggestions for resolving adverse effects that you might want to consider making include: withdraw the attempt take the east end of the Midway Plaisance for “replacement parkland”; keep Cornell Drive open between 59^th and 63rd streets albeit with traffic calming measures and improved pedestrian and bicyclist access; find legitimate replacement parkland equaling 19.3 acres in Woodlawn and/or South Shore; keep the Midway Plaisance roadway open between Stony Island Avenue and Cornell Drive; save the existing Women’s Garden and improve access via replacement of steps with ramps; move the OPC tower and building complex out of Jackson Park; site the OPC in Jackson Park but redesign the OPC tower to be more harmonious with the Olmsted design of the park and to eliminate visual competition with the Museum of Science and Industry.

USACE GLFER request comment deadline extended

In the April 19 Update, we reported on the “stealth” public notice from USACE asking for comments on a request that it agree to changes in the just completed GLFER project in order to accommodate the construction of the OPC. As noted, we had objected to the lack of legitimate public notice and the short comment period. To its credit, USACE quickly agreed to reissue the public notice and to extend the deadline for public comment until May 15.

As a result, there is still time to submit comments if you are interested.  We encourage you to do so; instructions for submissions are in the notice. The comment that JPW submitted is attached below.   We note that the USACE is not automatically required to agree to the request from the City and Park District.

And yet another federal review – 4(f) evaluation rushed forward

Two full years ago, FHWA submitted the highly controversial first draft of its “4(f)” review of proposed roadway changes to Jackson Park.  It asserted that a proper review of alternatives to the closure of Cornell Drive did not need to take place because the proper ‘baseline” for the review is the post-construction condition of the area – after Cornell has been removed – not the current condition.

Now the FHWA has posted, without announcement, another version of its 4(f) report with a deadline of June 8 for review and comments.

We will comment on this complex issue at length in a subsequent Update, but do want you to know the full extent of the high-pressure campaign the FHWA is now mounting.

Protect Our Parks appeal to be heard May 21

On another front, the Appeals Court hearing for the POP lawsuit contesting the City’s transfer of land in Jackson Park for the OPC is set for May 21, as was previously announced.  However, the format of the hearing has been changed to a Zoom meeting. Reportedly, the session will be live-streamed or recorded for general viewing on YouTube, and we will share details as they are available.  

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DONATIONS!

Thanks to all who have supported us financially.  With this recent FHWA speed up, we will require additional financial support for the outside expert resources we need to continue our work.   We will welcome your contributions.  If you have any questions about contributing, please contact us at jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com and we will get back to you. You can contribute in three ways:

• You can contribute via checks made out to Jackson Park Watch sent to directly to Jackson Park Watch, P.O. Box 15302, Chicago 60615. 
• You can contribute via PayPal here.
• You can contribute via checks from donor-directed funds sent to our fiscal sponsor Friends of the Parks at FOTP, 17 N. State St., Suite 1450, Chicago 60602, ATTN Kevin Winters.  Such checks should be made out to FOTP with a note stating they are intended for Jackson Park Watch. 
  
  

As always, we thank you.

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid

Jackson Park Watch

www.jacksonparkwatch.org

jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

(To be removed from this e-mailing list, simply respond with “please remove my name.”)

Attachments: 

JPW proposal for resolving Section 106 adverse effects

JPW comments on USACE Public Notice 19-17 Jackson Park

(If you cannot open one or both of these attached documents, contact us at jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com and we will send them to you directly.)