Greetings, all,

Federal agencies leap ahead to the next review

As many of you may already know, on September 28 the National Park Service initiated a public comment period for an Environmental Assessment of the impact of the proposed construction of the Obama Presidential Center (OPC) on Jackson Park.  This is the first opportunity for public input into the NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act ) review process, which is designed to prevent or minimize potential negative effects of federal actions on the natural and human environment.

The Environmental Assessment (EA) is the first step in gathering information about a project in a number of categories, from wildlife to socio-economic factors.  Based on the EA,  the federal agency can reach a ‘Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) in which case the project will move forward according to a preferred alternative defined by the Environmental Assessment.  Or, the EA can reveal that there will indeed be significant environmental impact and that more detailed analysis is needed, in which case the agency will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in order to identify alternatives with better environmental outcomes.

For the OPC project, the Environmental Assessment  covers the roadwork for which Federal Highway Administration funding is needed. It also incorporates an evaluation of  the OPC plan for the National Park Service (NPS) under the terms of the UPARR (Urban Park and Recreation Recovery) Act that funded improvements in Jackson Park in the 1980s and applied permanent restrictions to preserve the park’s recreational facilities. Additionally, the report includes requested actions to be taken  by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in order to facilitate the construction of the OPC.  Public comments on the voluminous Environmental Assessment report (EA) are being accepted through October 30. 

JPW’s quick assessment of the Environmental Assessment

JPW has long been concerned about irregularities and inconsistencies in the conduct of the NEPA review of the OPC, and unfortunately the EA report now before us only confirms that the concerns were fully justified. 

• Following in the groove of the  Section 106 review – a convoluted and pre-determined sham exercise, this Environmental Assessment skips key facts, is based on an indefensible segmentation of the project under review and on  false assertions about the significance of the South Lakefront Framework Plan (SLFP), and predictably concludes that there will be minimal environmental impact and the preferred alternative is existing plan for closing some roads and widening others, clear-cutting the OPC site and destroying the existing Women’s Garden, and  using the eastern tip of the Midway to as replacement parkland for that consumed by the OPC, among many radical changes. 

• The clear intent seems to be to move forward quickly without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the OPC, even though for a major undertaking of this scale and import an EIS is virtually always required. An EIS would expand the analysis beyond the information gathered for the EA, allow for active public collaboration to define the range of issues and potential alternatives to be addressed in the EIS, allow for a minimum of 45 days for public review of a draft EIS, conduct further research and analysis if then warranted, and allow for a 30-day “wait period” after publication of a final EIS before concluding a decision on the proposed action.  Given the gaps and inconsistencies in the EA, a full Environmental Impact Statement is necessary to consider and minimize the impact of the OPC on Jackson Park.  It all depends on defining  “significant impact.” 

• Similar to the Section 106 review, the federal agencies have established a cumbersome process that seems intended to discourage or limit public input and to yield the pre-determined conclusion endorsing the current OPC proposal. Even allowing for the extraordinary challenges presented by Covid-19, the public comment process for this review seems difficult to navigate and not conducive to productive discussion. Most of all, it seems extremely abbreviated. The still-in-progress Section 106 review began in December 2017.   Yet the time allowed now for reviewing a complex report is barely a month, and the time allowed for oral comments (2 minutes) is absurdly short.  Altogether the process  represents bureaucracy at its most controlling and distant. (See below for more detail about the process.)

• JPW will be submitting a written statement to help ensure that there is a robust public record of the many deficiencies in the review process and in the terms of the EA, and we will share that statement with you as soon as possible.   We encourage those interested to submit your own brief comments for the record as well, and hope you will share your comments with us.  As with the Section 106 review, there is no commitment by NPS to full transparency, so sharing submissions helps overcome that failure.

• Among the issues JPW will be addressing are:  the absolute necessity for an EIS; the deceptive reliance on the SLFP as a public process to develop the current proposals for Jackson Park;  the confusion of asserting that the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement  will resolve negative impacts to Cultural Resources in Jackson Park even before that MOA has been finalized; the assertions that there will be no impact on migratory birds and that the loss of 789 trees is insignificant; the flawed selection of the Midway for a children’s play area.  

What is the review process?

In addition to the content of the Environmental Assessment, the process announced for the required public hearings also raises concerns.

• Unlike the Section 106 review, the NEPA review will have no direct interchange between federal officials and members of the public – no dialogue, no response to questions or requests for clarification.  Instead, all communication is impersonal and indirect. 
  • The federal agencies present their case via the written report and its appendices, and via a 37-minute YouTube presentation that is available on-line now and that will be repeated at each of the webinar sessions announced for later this week.
  • Also unlike the Section 106 review, no designated organizations are given special status as “consulting parties.”  Rather, individuals may submit comments in one of several formats.
    • Written statement submitted via the NPS on-line site by 11:59 PM Mountain Time on October 30, using a standard on-line form.
    • Written statement to be submitted by regular USPS mail service to Todd Wyatt of the City’s Department of Planning and Development. The submission  must be postmarked by October 30, so (as with your Nov. 3 ballot) mail earlier to be sure.  You may use the print version of the NPS comment form, or send a standard letter. 
    • Oral statement (limited to 2 minutes) made during on-line webinars on either October 12 or October 13 (pre-registration required).
    • Oral statement made in person, by appointment, to a court stenographer on October 15, 3-5 PM, at the South Shore Cultural Center.
• NPS will consider only one statement per individual, no duplicate submissions (so either speaking at a webinar or submitting a written statement).
• Even allowing for the extraordinary challenges presented by Covid-19, the public comment process for this review seems difficult to navigate and not conducive to productive discussion. Most of all, it seems extremely abbreviated. The still-in-progress Section 106 review, for instance, began in December 2017.   Yet the time allowed now for reviewing a complex report is less than a month,  and the time allowed for oral comments (2 minutes) is even shorter.  Altogether the process  represents bureaucracy at its most controlling and distant. 

Finally, a couple of observations:

The cover sheet of the Environmental Assessment report includes a note that it cost the NPS $1,372,000 to produce the study.   That’s a useful reminder of how much public funding – federal, state, city – has been and will yet be required to facilitate the construction of the OPC in Jackson Park even though the OPC is touted as a private project to be fully funded with private support.  The expenditure of so much public monies could have been avoided – and valuable public space protected — had the City not embraced the University of Chicago’s proposal to locate the OPC in an historic public park.  Too much has been spent already, but future public expenditures could be minimized if the OPC were to relocate to a non-park site or even adjust its footprint in Jackson Park.  Given the fiscal challenges confronting all levels of government now, financial restraint seems not only wise but necessary.

As you review the complexities of the Environmental Assessment, you will appreciate the astute observations of John Clement in a recent letter to the Hyde Park Herald.

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.  (If you encounter difficulties with PayPal, please let us know.)
• 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 Jack Spicer
Co-presidents, Jackson Park Watch
www.jacksonparkwatch.org
jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

Greetings, all,

Federal Review “Far From Complete”

A spokesman for the Federal Highway Administration says an agreement to address the documented adverse effects of the Obama Presidential Center (OPC) on Jackson Park “is still a long way off,” according to a recent report by Block Club Chicago.  The draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)  that was presented by the FHWA in July to outline various “mitigation” steps elicited widely divergent and strong reactions from the consulting parties to the Section 106 review. JPW has posted its own and several other statements opposing the proposed MOA.  Now we learn that the federal, state and local agencies whose formal approval is needed to conclude the Section 106 review process “are still hashing out their differences” and that reaching an agreement this fall is no longer certain. 

In spite of that uncertainty, the City and the Park District have jumped the gun and taken a first step to initiate work on one of the mitigation measures that is proposed in the draft MOA.  Last week a draft ordinance was submitted to the City Council to authorize the expenditure of up to $100,000 of City funds for “field documentation” of the existing  areas of the Park that would be affected by construction related to the OPC – the site of the OPC campus, roadways throughout the Park, and the east end of the Midway Plaisance where a new replacement area for active recreation is proposed.   Assuming standard procedure is followed, the draft ordinance will be reviewed by the Committee on Budget and Government Operations on September 30 and presented to the full City Council for approval on October 31. While $100,000 is not much given the size of the City’s budget deficit, under current circumstances it is money that could be better used elsewhere.

Can Chicago still afford the OPC?

The proposed ordinance cited above is but one more example of the poorly documented commitment of City funds to support the construction of the OPC in Jackson Park.  As new public costs relating to the Section 106 review are emerging, JPW has noted that the circumstances framing the proposal for the OPC have changed radically in 2020 and a reassessment of the project is required.   The daunting financial challenges posed to Chicago by the impact of COVID-19 on City revenue streams and the parallel impact of rising lake levels were recently outlined by JPW co-president Brenda Nelms in an interview with the Chicago Reporter.

Protect Our Parks stands tall

On  September 4, Protect Our Parks filed a petition to have the full U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals review the recent ruling that denied POP’s standing to file a federal suit against the City for its transfer of  a portion of Jackson Park to the Obama Foundation.  Herb Caplan explained POP’s position and his confidence in its petition in a recent interview with Carol Marin on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight.  POP believes it has a rock-solid case on the standing issue and is prepared to pursue the issue on all available judicial fronts, federal and state. 

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.  (If you encounter difficulties with PayPal, please let us know.)
• 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 Jack Spicer
Co-presidents, Jackson Park Watch
www.jacksonparkwatch.org
jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

Greetings, all,

Significant opposition to proposed Section 106 MOA  

In our last Update we shared JPW’s statement rejecting the draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) proposed by the Federal Highway Administration as the conclusion of the Section 106 review of the proposal for siting the Obama Presidential Center in Jackson Park.  Having seen strong statements similarly refusing to sign off on that draft from numerous other well-known and respected consulting parties, we asked FHWA whether these statements would be publicly released.  Upon learning that the answer was no, JPW has now posted these on the JPW website  to help make clear the strength and breadth of the opposition to this tortured and completely inadequate proposed MOA.  It remains to be seen if the FHWA will pay heed to these strong and legitimate voices  as it prepares a revised version of the MOA.  There is no schedule set for that revision. 

Protect Our Parks to persevere

On August. 21, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the lawsuit filed by Protect Our Parks (POP) against the Chicago Park District and the City of Chicago, challenging the transfer of public park land in Jackson Park to the Obama Foundation for the proposed Obama Presidential Center

While this is couched in legalese, these few things are clear: 

• The POP lawsuit is not dead. The Circuit Court focused on the procedural  issue of what aspects of the suit could be heard in federal court.  In one or perhaps multiple venues, federal and state,  POP will continue to pursue hearings on the merits of the issues it has raised. 

• Because the Seventh Circuit Court remanded the case back to the District Court, Judge Blakey’s original findings are moot.

• If the federal reviews now underway ultimately approve the OPC/road changes as proposed (which seems sadly all too likely), POP has legal grounds to challenge any attempt by the Obama Foundation to begin construction while litigation is proceeding.

In a statement issued on August 27, POP stressed that it fully supports the construction of an Obama Presidential Center on the South Side in any location that is not inside of an historic and dedicated public park and that POP had particularly advocated for the privately owned site adjacent to Washington Park.  

New forces in play

Separate from the POP lawsuit and from the federal reviews, JPW thinks that externalities such as the direct costs of the OPC to the City, the effects on the lakefront of apparently relentless climate-change-driven lake-level rise, and the fallout effects of COVID on tourism in Chicago mean that it is quite unclear whether and when construction of the OPC will begin and exactly what form it would take at that time.

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.

Advance Notice:  It seems possible that, due to administrative issues, JPW may

no longer be able to accept contributions via PayPal after September 15.

We will keep you posted.

As always, we thank you.

Brenda Nelms and Jack Spicer
Co-presidents, Jackson Park Watch
www.jacksonparkwatch.org
jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

Greetings, all,

Dismal MOA and flawed Section 106 process cast cloud over OPC

As Update readers know, the federally mandated Section 106 (Historic Preservation) review of the proposal for siting the Obama Presidential Center in Jackson Park began in December 2017 and is now in its final phase.  The Federal Highway Administration, which is responsible for managing the review, and the City of Chicago, which is the applicant for federal approval, have drafted a Memorandum of Agreement to document the actions to be taken to “mitigate” the severe adverse effects that the project would have on the Park. 

On August 7, JPW submitted the following statement to Matt Fuller of the FHWA (with copies to City, State and Federal officials involved in the review), summarizing our previously expressed objections to the MOA and to the Section 106 review process.  Many other organizations and individuals have expressed similar or additional concerns.   

A selection of the detailed statements that JPW submitted to document these key concerns over the past three years can be found on the JPW website.

August 7, 2020

Jackson Park Watch to Matt Fuller, Federal Highway Administration

Given the woefully inadequate nature of the draft MOA presented on July 16, Jackson Park Watch will not be a signatory to the document. The draft  Memorandum of Agreement does absolutely nothing to address the well-documented adverse effects on Jackson Park of the current plan for the OPC and the road changes it requires. It does nothing to preserve a central portion of Jackson Park as it has stood for over a century, defined by an Olmstedian vision of open spaces and natural areas. It does nothing to preserve the distinctive circulation pattern laid out by Olmsted or to preserve the historic Perennial Garden/Women’s Garden that crowns the intersection of the park with the  Midway Plaisance.  Despite today’s heightened awareness of the civic importance of outdoor space and public parkland, the draft MOA does nothing to provide for new parkland to replace the 19.3 acres that would be lost to the OPC

This completely dismal and inadequate “agreement” is the product of a process characterized by tortured interpretations and misrepresentations.  As a result, the proposed MOA is and will continue to be tainted by a strong sense of illegitimacy, a sense that will cast a lingering cloud over the OPC.  For the record, we offer a few key examples of how the process came to be so fully compromised.

Deliberate misrepresentation of the South Lakefront Framework Plan. JPW has repeatedly pointed out the deceptive use by the City and the FHWA of the Park District’s South Lakefront Framework Plan  (SLFP) to assert that the OPC and road changes were required by prior City planning.  The record is very clear  that the SLFP planning process was launched only after the plans for the OPC and road changes were completed and announced, and that any review, comment, or critique of those plans was off limits during that process.  To the contrary, the planning documents utilized in the public meetings for the SLFP process presumed that the OPC site plan and related road changes were unchangeable. 

Tortured claim that “City action” is exempt from review. The  FHWA accepted and promoted the false narrative that the “City action” — to approve of and facilitate the construction of the OPC and the related road changes  — was fully separate from and independent of any approval and funding actions by federal agencies, despite ample documented evidence to the contrary.  This fiction was then used to declare that, even though the Assessment of Effects report  found that the plans for the OPC and related road changes would have severe adverse effects on Jackson Park, they were exempt from the standard federal review.

Use of improper baseline for evaluation.  As a matter of common sense and logic, when seeking to determine the impact of a proposed action on an existing entity – building, road, park – the evaluation assesses the impact of the proposed action on the entity in its current state. However, the FHWA insisted on an illogical approach in setting the “baseline” starting point for evaluating the effects of the OPC and road changes on Jackson Park.  Rather than taking the Park as it stands today as the starting point for the evaluation, the FHWA chose to evaluate the foreseeable impacts of the proposed changes on the post-construction Park  — the Park as it would be after the OPC is constructed and the planned road changes put in place.  By using this contorted approach, the FHWA avoided conducting a full and legitimate evaluation of the anticipated impact of the proposed OPC and road changes on the Park.

Manipulation of requirements for resolution of adverse effects  Continuing the convoluted and improperly executed Section 106 review process, the FHWA manipulated an important concluding step – development of proposals to resolve the adverse effects.  Substituting controlled webinars for substantive engagement with consulting parties,  it skipped over the legal requirement to consider proposals to avoid and minimize the adverse effects, arguing ex post facto that such considerations had somehow been embedded in the OPC plans from the beginning. Further, in presenting the results of a City-run survey, the FHWA simply excluded from consideration numerous proposals for avoidance or minimization that had been submitted.

In sum, through these and myriad other improper actions large and small, the Section 106 federal review of the OPC and related road changes in Jackson Park has been rendered impotent, setting a precedent that threatens to undermine important federal regulatory protections that have served well to preserve historic and environmentally significant sites for over five decades. 

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 Jack Spicer
Co-presidents, Jackson Park Watch

www.jacksonparkwatch.org

jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

Greetings, All,

Section 106 ending with a whimper

JPW had no expectations that the July 16 webinar run by the FHWA and the City as part of the Section 106 review would result in any substantive change in the trajectory to rubber stamp the proposed plan for the Obama Presidential Center, and those low expectations were fully realized.  

The draft Memorandum of Agreement  presented to consulting parties at the webinar does absolutely nothing to address the well-documented adverse effects on Jackson Park of the current plan for the OPC and the road changes it requires. It does nothing to preserve a central portion of Jackson Park as it has stood for over a century, defined by its Olmstedian vision of open spaces and natural areas. The Women’s Garden would be dismembered, and the distinctive Olmsted circulation pattern would be eradicated. There would be no provision for new parkland to replace the 19.3 acres that would be lost despite how much COVID has heightened our awareness of the importance of outdoor space and public parkland. Instead this improperly manipulated review has skipped over mandatory consideration of measures to avoid or minimize these adverse impacts, and recommends only meaningless “mitigation” steps that are in fact a slap in the face of those who treasure the Park as it is.  The Cultural Landscape Foundation  characterized the MOA terms as a swap of invaluable, historic  parkland for “signage” – abandoning the real for the virtual —  and highlighted, with disappointment, the unexplained decision by the  Illinois State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) to endorse the draft MOA, in a complete reversal of its previous assessment.   

Comments on the draft MOA may be submitted until August 10.  Some additional, as yet undefined review of a final MOA will follow, but our expectations are again low. 

As previously stated, JPW will not be a signatory to the MOA as it now stands.  Beyond recognizing the gross inadequacies of the draft MOA, we have also come to recognize that the whole context for evaluation of the proposed OPC has now changed.

Time to rethink the plan for the OPC

Along with issues of transparency, survey ethics, openness to public input and badly flawed review procedures, the Section 106 process has failed because it is being conducted as if the social, cultural, and economic landscapes that existed when the OPC was first proposed six years ago are still intact. Chicago, along with the rest of the U.S., has been radically changed by the coronavirus, the Black Lives Matter protests, and the sudden onset of a severe economic recession. We don’t know what the future will look like, but we can be sure that it won’t look like it did in 2014. With that in mind, we strongly recommend that there be a fundamental rethinking of the entire OPC project in order to assure its full success.

Although we urgently hope that we will conquer the coronavirus sooner rather than later, we don’t know how the practices that we’ve all taken for granted will carry over into the future.  In particular, will large-scale tourism and packed public venues such as museums be common again? Remember, the large economic benefits that are attributed to the OPC depend upon the very optimistic attendance estimates prepared by the Obama Foundation’s consultants. The pandemic experience casts doubt that there would be 625,000-760,000 visitors annually (a projection that was already more than twice the attendance recorded at any other presidential library or museum over the past forty years). If more people explore the OPC digitally rather than in-person, the economic benefits are, by definition, reduced accordingly.

Most critically, the pandemic has exposed the crucial need for health and social services in Black communities around Chicago, and at the same time has delivered a body blow to the finances of both the City and its residents.  At a time when the City’s budget resources are stretched very thin and will be for the foreseeable future, should the City spend over $200 million to close Cornell Drive, reconfigure other roadways, and commit to the greater unquantified costs for environmental remediation and mitigation measures to accommodate the current plan for the OPC?  In a time of severe financial strain, when the City projects a $700 million deficit, attention should be given to identifying the significant expenses that could be minimized or avoided by rethinking the siting of the OPC.  Reducing the cost of the project by moving it could also accelerate the date by which the Center can open.

In addition to the new economic realities, the lockdowns undertaken during the pandemic have made all of us more aware of the critical value of our public parks as safe and essential spaces to explore natural settings and promote our individual and civic health. Given that new awareness, is it wise to sacrifice a core portion of Jackson Park, when we could have both the park and the OPC if its site were modified or moved? Mayor Lightfoot has called for new (and very needed) investments in underserved communities on the South and West Side. Preserving Jackson Park, by reducing the OPC footprint or rebuilding it on a non-parkland site will multiply the investment in our South Side communities. 

Beyond the immediate and lingering social and economic impact of the pandemic, the current OPC plan should be reassessed  also in the context of  the environmental changes that have now become so evident. Record high levels in Lake Michigan, with predictions of higher levels to come, call into question the practicality of removing Cornell Drive as a major traffic connector for the South Side and beyond.  In particular, the proposed expansion of Lake Shore Drive to accommodate the significantly increased traffic resulting from the closure of Cornell Drive would take place directly adjacent to the rising lake itself, raising the prospect of regular traffic disruptions as higher lake levels combine with the increased frequency of heavy storms.   Climate change does not seem to have been part of the assessment when the OPC roadway plans were developed; it must be considered now.  Similarly, the rising lake levels and the higher water table that follows in tandem have raised questions concerning the wisdom of constructing a massive 235’ museum tower and an underground parking garage immediately adjacent to the  West Lagoon in Jackson Park, originally itself a marshy area, or the feasibility of draining the wetland on the eastern tip of the Midway Plaisance.

Given the convergence of these new challenges – financial, social, environmental, we believe now is the time for a reevaluation of the current plan for the Obama Presidential Center, just as other development plans, private and public, are being reexamined in light of the current crises. The urgency of these challenges cannot be ignored.  The cost to demilitarize the police system, to strengthen the public schools, and to expand public health programs to eliminate racial injustices will be staggering, but it must be paid.  Similarly, the problem of lakefront erosion must be addressed without delay and before other investments can be made. Support for the OPC on the South Side is almost universal and community expectations are high.  But to fully realize those expectations, the City and the Obama Foundation must remove their blinkers and rethink the plan for the OPC within the context of this new era.

JPW Evolves

Given that the Section 106 federal review of the OPC is nearly at an end, and in keeping with her move to Michigan, Margaret  Schmid is stepping back from her active role in JPW.  As she does so, she wants to offer heartfelt thanks to all who have worked with and contributed to JPW in these recent years.  She of course will continue to follow further developments with great interest.

To try to fill Margaret’s big shoes, Ray Lodato and Jack Spicer have joined the JPW board of directors and will work with Brenda Nelms to monitor the many proposals for Jackson Park.  JPW’s guiding principles remain:

• Transparency in decision-making about the Park – no backroom deals
• Meaningful community input on major changes to the Park – no top-down decisions
• Preservation of the Park as a democratic public space – priority to local uses and local users, with maximum grass, trees, and open space
• Development of one comprehensive plan for the entire Park  – forestall its division into unrelated segments

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 Jack Spicer
Co-presidents, Jackson Park Watch

www.jacksonparkwatch.org

jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

Greetings, all,

Dismal MOA signals end of Section 106 process

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued the long-delayed draft Memorandum of Agreement, the final step in the Section 106 (Historic Preservation) federal review of the impact on Jackson Park of the proposed Obama Presidential Center and related road changes.    

A Consulting Parties’ webinar to discuss the MOA will take place July 16.  The draft MOA has been posted on the City’s website so that, in addition to formal Consulting Parties, the public may review and submit comments during the comment period that will close on August 10. Unfortunately, but typically and tellingly, instructions for submitting comments have not been posted on the City’s website, so here is that information: Submit comments on the MOA to FHWA (Matt.Fuller@dot.gov) with a copy to the City of Chicago (todd.wyatt@cityofchicago.org).  Sadly, JPW sees no reason to believe that critical comments or questions will have any impact.

Although JPW had no hopes for the MOA given the FHWA’s practices to date, it is nonetheless striking that the proposed terms of the MOA signal the end of the defining form and feel of Jackson Park as it has stood for over a century.  Key portions of the circulation patterns designed by Frederick Law Olmsted will be destroyed.  The Women’s Garden will be dismembered.  The community will not be compensated with replacement parkland for the 19.3 acres of Jackson Park that will be occupied by the OPC for the next 99 years.  Hundreds of healthy mature trees will be clear cut.  And more.  JPW will not be signing off on the draft MOA.

JPW will send out a complete commentary and analysis after the webinar session.

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

Greetings, all!

The FHWA steamroller hits a bump

In our last Update we reported on the ongoing Section 106 review of the proposed changes to Jackson Park to accommodate the Obama Presidential Center.  We noted that the deeply flawed process seemed designed to ensure approval of the changes with only token and totally inadequate mitigation efforts to address the severe adverse effects of the OPC on the park. 

It was then a pleasant surprise on June 12 when the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that is managing the review process notified consulting parties that the final meeting of the Section 106 review, originally scheduled for June 17, would be postponed for a full month, until July 16.  The FHWA’s explanation for the pushback cited the need to allow enough time for public review of the draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that was to be discussed at that final meeting. The FHWA did not explain, however, why the draft MOA was delayed nor set a date for its distribution to consulting parties.

A fuller explanation for the delay may lie with letters sent along with the FHWA message.  (The FHWA communication to consulting parties and letters referenced below are provided as attachments to this Update, as they are not posted on the City’s website.)

Most important is the May 26 letter sent to the FHWA by the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).   Saying “we believe our role is to protect cultural resources as part of the public planning process,” SHPO offered for the first time its list of what would be needed to properly address at least some of the adverse effects of the project on historic Jackson Park.  While falling short of what JPW and other consulting parties advocate, SHPO’s proposals for mitigation are nonetheless substantive and pointed.  In addition to supporting targeted archeological excavations and restoration of the Cheney-Goode Memorial, the Statue of the Republic, the English Comfort Station, and the Women’s Garden, SHPO also listed several major mitigation requirements under the header of Additional Design Review:

·         Shift the proposed OPC campus to the south to preserve the historic roadway connection between the Midway and Jackson Park and to avoid the demolition of the Women’s Garden.

·         The City’s proposed use of the east end of the Midway Plaisance as UPARR replacement parkland must meet the Standards for Rehabilitation as determined by SHPO.

·         The pedestrian path to replace Cornell Drive should reconstruct the Olmsted appearance in placement, cross section, surface, edges and plantings.

This is extremely significant.  The SHPO is a mandated signatory on the final MOA, and thus its opinion carries special weight.

It is also significant that, while repeating its formulaic response – “we have no authority” – the FHWA has in effect passed the buck to the City.  In a June 9 letter to Eleanor Gorski at the Department of Planning and Development, FHWA asked that  the City provide a written response to the suggestions “received from Section 106 consulting parties asking either (1) the Obama Presidential Center (OPC) be relocated outside of Jackson Park or (2) that the design of the OPC be modified to further minimize effects to historic properties.”     

We commend the SHPO for raising its voice. We can only imagine the behind-the-scenes discussions.  Until those conflicting positions can be resolved, we don’t expect to see a draft MOA.  As we have said many times, the saga continues.

Lake level rises and rises . . . .

In the meantime, as the Tribune has just spotlighted in a front-page article,  Lake Michigan is near its historic high water mark and is expected to continue to rise due to climate factors.  We note this because of the implications for two important components of the OPC plan.  First is the plan to rely on the widening of South Lake Shore Drive between 57^th Drive and Hayes Drive/63^rd Street to accommodate the significant amount of additional traffic that would result from the closure of Cornell Drive between 59^th and 63^rd Streets. This portion of Lake Shore Drive will continue to be vulnerable to rising lake levels and storm damage.  Second is the plan to construct a 235’ tall tower (about 23 stories in height) and a substantial underground parking garage immediately adjacent to the West Lagoon in Jackson Park, where the water table level is rising in tandem with the lake level.  From a purely environmental and engineering point of view, we have to question the wisdom of persisting in these plans. 

What did the City poll actually find?

Readers will remember the on-line survey that the City conducted in mid-May, asking for suggestions about resolving the adverse effects that the OPC and road changes will have on Jackson Park.  It was no surprise to many that the City in effect suppressed the actual poll results, presenting only those that fit its narrow definition of the project.  JPW has asked the full results of the poll, to no avail.  We will now submit a FOIA request asking for that information.

Stay tuned.  As always, we will keep you posted.

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
jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com
www.jacksonparkwatch.org

(to see attachments, contact jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com)

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