Greetings, All:  

We write on the fifth anniversary of the City Council’s approval of Ordinance O2018-7136, which awarded 19.3 acres of former public parkland carved out of Jackson Park to the Obama Foundation for construction of the Obama Presidential Center.  As a 2018 Halloween treat, the Foundation was given the site for its use for 99 years for a flat fee of $10.00.

The terms of that agreement and the processes by which it was arranged were challenged in a lawsuit filed long ago in federal court by Protect Our Parks and six other plaintiffs.  Finally, just a week ago, on Oct. 24, there was a long-delayed hearing on an appeal of that lawsuit in the US Court of Appeals for the 7^th Circuit.   

The POP suit asserts, among other things, that the agreement was an improper transfer of public trust property; that the requirements of the Master Agreement as defined in the ordinance were violated because the Obama Foundation did not have adequate funding for the construction of the OPC and its supporting endowment when the transfer occurred; that the federal reviews were flawed because they improperly segmented the OPC project from the roadwork being performed, despite the fact that such roadwork (and the 200 million plus federal monies associated with it) are necessitated only by the OPC project; and that the environmental impact reviews that assessed the federally-funded work needed to accommodate the siting of the OPC were improperly conducted.

Members of the three-judge panel asked probing questions of both the defendants (City of Chicago and Chicago Park District, Obama Foundation, and US Department of Transportation among other federal agencies) and the plaintiffs.    One judge questioned the City on the terms of the 99-year agreement, which sounded to the judge more like a full transfer of property than a lease.  Another asked if the Obama Foundation had fulfilled the terms of the Master Agreement simply by filing papers to establish an endowment without also providing funding adequate to fulfill its stated function to maintain and operate the OPC for 99 years.  Also questioned was whether the federal agencies had had to defer to the City’s decision to site the OPC in Jackson Park and so could not consider alternative configurations, as had been asserted.  The POP attorney Richard Epstein was pushed on why the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the agreement between the City and the Obama Foundation.

The defendants are asking that the appellate court affirm the prior dismissal of the POP suit by the federal district court.  The plaintiffs are asking that the appellate court reverse that prior district court ruling (in whole or in part), and allow them to proceed with their claim that the terms of the Master Agreement were violated.  Further, the plaintiffs are asking that, at a minimum, construction on the OPC be halted while proper federal reviews that consider the entire unitary project and possible alternatives are performed, while a full environmental impact review is completed, and until it can be proven that the public trust doctrine has not been violated.  The Court would normally issue a ruling within thirty to ninety days.  However, it took many months to release a ruling on a related issue previously raised by POP.  

So, stay tuned, but don’t hold your breath.

****

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 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, 67 E. Madison St., Suite 1817, Chicago IL 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:  

Here are some recent developments and opportunities for action:

Chance for a Fresh Start on Much-Needed Golf Courses Restoration 

In our prior Update we had lamented that Crain’s reporter had not followed up on an unsolicited statement by Valerie Jarrett that the Obama Foundation would no longer be an advocate for the proposed Tiger Woods golf course in Jackson and South Shore Parks.  Thankfully, the Tribune did pursue the matter, diligently seeking clarifications from the Park District, the Obama Foundation, Tiger Woods’ planning firm–TGR Design, and the Chicago Parks Golf Alliance.  The trail of noncommittal statements and declinations to comment led to the conclusion that the plans for the TGR project have indeed stalled, and public attention is correctly turning to the more realistic and desirable possibility of restoring the two existing courses.

We join many others – local golfers and other park users alike – in urging the Park District to delay no longer in developing with full community input a revised plan to update and maintain the separate Jackson Park and South Shore Park golf courses.  We would hope Alderman Yancy will be instrumental in guaranteeing community input in the planning process. 

As the president of the national Olmsted Network noted in a letter to the Tribune headed “Abandon golf course plans,” there is an opportunity to honor and advance Frederick Law Olmsted’s vision of ecologically sustainable and class equitable access to active recreation as a key feature of public parks.

The Bridge at the Center of Jackson Park’s Future

For those who do not regularly read the Hyde Park Herald, we commend to your attention a valuable  report by Marc Monaghan, “Is Jackson Park ready for its future?”  It is projected that 700,000 visitors will flock to the Obama Presidential Center each year, starting perhaps in 2025. But as Mongahan notes, should any of those visitors wander beyond the shiny new OPC into Jackson Park, they will find a public park long neglected and ill maintained.   The article highlights many park features needing attention, but we focus here on a central problem: 

the continued closure of the Columbia Bridge (locally known as the Darrow Bridge), which should be the key link between the east and west sides of the northern half of the park. It was deemed a safety hazard and closed to pedestrians and bicyclists a full decade ago.

The bridge is not only an important missing link for crossing the park; it is an important and unique link to the history of Chicago architecture, landscape design, and the World’s Columbian Exposition.   The placement of the bridge was included in Olmsted’s original 1871 design for Jackson Park;  finally built in 1880 and with many of its original stones still in place, it is the oldest structure in the park; it was designed by Burnham and Root with modern engineering features combining masonry and iron that presaged the pioneering skyscrapers to come; it was adapted by Olmsted when he prepared the landscape design for the Exposition, introducing modern landscaping features that continue today. 

One would think that such an historically significant structure would be carefully preserved and lovingly maintained; instead, having received no real attention since the 1930s, the Columbia Bridge can be Exhibit #1 for the benign neglect and bureaucratic bungling that afflict Chicago public parks away from downtown. Over the past decade (and before) there have been periodic promises of repair and varying explanations for delays, but no action.  So it is particularly distressing to learn now of the current plan for its reopening as revealed by funding applications prepared by the Chicago Department of Transportation, which controls bridges even in the middle of Jackson Park.

A 2020 CDOT application for use of state funds stated “The Columbia Drive Bridge will be removed and replaced with a structure that matches the existing structure as closely as possible.”   No consideration of preservation and restoration; no assurance that the historic limestone abutments will not be replaced by concrete ones; no promise that the replacement design will not be an over-engineered and needlessly costly version of the new South Side DuSable Drive bridges; no statement that the bridge will never become part of a trans-park roadway; no acknowledgement that Jackson Park is on the National Register of Historic Places and therefore any construction plan would require Section 106 review and approval because federal funds would also be needed for the project.

Then, to add insult to injury, it is revealed that funds for work on the Columbia Bridge – some $14 million –are available in Chicago’s 2022-2026 Capital Budget, but carry the restriction that they must be spent by 2025, at this late date an unlikely possibility.  

This information provokes several reactions.  Dismay at the bureaucratic tangle that gives CDOT control of a bridge in the middle of a public park managed by the Chicago Park District so that conflicting priorities and interests result in neglect, delay, and disarray.  Frustration with CDOT’s lack of transparency about its plans. Disgust with CDOT’s disregard for historic structures and its refusal to explore engineering options that could accommodate both historic preservation (and aesthetics) and utilitarian transportation standards (or, in the case of Promontory Point, erosion protection requirements).  

It’s hard to know where to direct one’s outrage, but if you are concerned after reading the Herald report, we suggest you send your comments to Alderman Desmon Yancy (Desmon.Yancy@cityofchicago.org / 773-324-5555) and Park District Superintendent Rosa Escareño (Rosa.Escareno@ChicagoParkDistrict.com).

Take a Walk in Jackson Park with Friends of the Parks

As part of its Walk in the Parks series, FOTP is sponsoring a visit to Jackson Park on Saturday, October 14, 10 am to 12 noon. The event is sure to be of interest to Jackson Park users and advocates. 

FOTP Executive Director Juanita Irrizarry offered a preview of the event:

Greetings, All:   

Picking up where we left off six months ago, let’s review what has changed regarding Jackson Park and other mid-South Side public parks.  There have been positive steps as well as continuing inertia.  What has not changed is the need for continuing vigilance and engagement.

Encouraging New Leadership in City Government

Desmon Yancy, new 5^th Ward Alderman, has stated repeatedly that his focus and support is for initiatives that reflect the wishes of and serve the needs of local community members, not top-down projects that benefit special interests.  In this regard he has expressed skepticism about the Tiger Woods-designed golf course proposed for Jackson Park and South Shore Cultural Center and about the City’s plan for renovating Promontory Point with concrete steps rather than preserving and repairing the current limestone revetment.  We hope he will provide new leadership on these and other park projects.

Encouraging New Leadership in Jackson Park Advisory Council

Transitions take time and JPAC is still getting organized under its new leadership.  A central focus is enabling presentation and discussion of differing points of view about the management and future directions of Jackson Park in order to reach a shared vision.  Representing this effort particularly are two newly formed committees – Obama Presidential Center and Golf Courses; each is just beginning to consider the many issues affecting Jackson Park’s role as a public park serving primarily South Siders and other Chicago residents. 

JPAC meetings, held each month on the second Monday, are open to all, as is participation in the committees.  If you are not already a member, come join the conversation.  https://www.jacksonparkadvisorycouncil.org/membership/

A Bump in the Fairway for the Tiger Woods Golf Course

In a report notable for its lack of probing follow-up, Crain’s Chicago Business reported last week on an interview with Valerie Jarrett, CEO of the Obama Foundation, in which she indicated that the Foundation is no longer an advocate for the Tiger Woods golf course project. 

Since Crain’s report is available only to paid subscribers, we refer you to a follow-up analysis by BlockClubChicago for a clearer examination of this announcement.  Regrettably, neither article included any informative comment from the Chicago Park District or the Chicago Parks Golf Alliance.  It is the 2016 agreement between those two parties, an agreement in effect until 2026, that is the basis for the golf courses project.  So, while we welcome the Obama Foundation’s reversal, we do not think the issue is settled yet. 

We hope the chatter set off by Jarrett’s comment will prompt the Park District to come clean with information about the status of the project and to start developing, with full community engagement, a Plan B – one that is financially feasible and environmentally sensitive – to refresh and maintain the golf courses for local players, young, old and in-between. 

Funding for OPC Still Incomplete

Valerie Jarrett’s interview with Crain’s was surely intended in part as outreach to the Chicago corporate community as the Obama Foundation is actively and urgently soliciting donations to enable the completion of the Obama Presidential Center in 2025, on its announced schedule, and to support its future operations.   

As was reported last month in the Sun-Times and in the Tribune,  the Obama Foundation had its best fundraising year ever in 2022 ($311 million), but to meet the goal set in 2021, it still needs to raise another $1 billion in the next three years. Given that many of the donations received to date have been restricted to programmatic initiatives already underway, and given that the Foundation’s annual staffing and other operating expenses are already sizable, it is unclear if the full $700 million needed to complete the actual construction of OPC is already in hand.  And beyond those immediate construction costs, at least $1 billion is needed for an endowment sufficient to sustain the facility and the programs into the future.  

POP Lawsuit to Get Day in Court  

Another lingering shadow over the OPC is the lawsuit filed by Protect Our Parks and other plaintiffs challenging the propriety of transferring 19.3 acres of Jackson Park to the Obama Foundation for the construction of the OPC.  The POP suit asserts that the reviews of 2018-21 that assessed the environmental impact of the federally-funded work designed to accommodate the siting of the OPC were improperly conducted and the ensuing determination was flawed. 

The POP suit further claims that various state law prohibitions were violated, including but not limited to: improper delegation of legislative authority to a private party; improper transfer of public trust property; and failure to allow the plaintiffs the right to bring action for violation of the Master Agreement due to the Foundation’s failure to have adequate funding for the construction of the OPC campus and to establish an adequate endowment, both of which were conditions for the City of Chicago’s transfer of property to the Foundation.  

After more than two years of legal maneuvering and foot-dragging delays, the POP lawsuit is finally scheduled for a hearing on October 24 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2721 before the US Court of Appeals for the 7^th Circuit, located in the Dirksen Federal Building.

 “Improvements” on and over the Midway Plaisance

The siting of the OPC in Jackson Park has had an unfortunate spillover effect on the Midway Plaisance.  To fulfill its obligations to the National Park Service related to federal funding for Jackson Park in the 1980s, the City has designated the eastern tip of the Midway – the segment east of the railway embankment – to be “replacement parkland” for a small portion of the park space lost to the OPC.  The City’s planned “improvements” would eradicate a natural wetland and erect an expansive children’s playground on the site encircled by heavy vehicular and train traffic.  The Midway Plaisance Advisory Council has opposed the City’s plan from the get-go on grounds of safety, equity, and environmental impact.  It is promoting an alternative plan that would retain and enhance the wetland feature for its environmental and educational values and that would locate the proposed playground elsewhere in a park-poor area of Woodlawn that would be safer and more accessible for children and their families.   

While the future configuration of the eastern tip remains muddy, the planned reconstruction of the 59^th / 60^th Street Metra Station that looms over the Midway is moving forward.  On September 18th, at 1:00 p.m., there will be a final virtual meeting to define the MOA concluding reviews of the impact of the project on area historical and environmental resources. (The link for the zoom session is https://rkk-it.zoom.us/j/86393653437 .)  The reviews are required because part of the funding for the project comes from the Federal Transit Authority.  The original timetable set completion of the project for 2025, coinciding with the planned opening of the OPC.  

Progress and Opposition for Promontory Point

In March the Chicago City Council unanimously approved an ordinance designating Promontory Point as a Chicago Landmark.  The ordinance made special note of the importance of the Point’s limestone step-stone revetment as a unique feature of the site, to be preserved and protected.  

Despite that formal affirmation for preservation of the Point in its current form, the Chicago Department of Transportation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue to state on their websites for the Chicago Shoreline Protection Project that the existing limestone revetement has failed completely and must be entirely replaced with new structures of concrete. 

In the face of such blatant resistance to incorporating preservation as a rationale and goal for the project, the Promontory Point Conservancy has engaged a national marine engineering firm – McLaren Engineering Group – to assess the Point’s structure and examine the feasibility of repairing the limestone revetment to meet the contemporary storm damage protection standards required for the shoreline erosion project. 

McLaren will issue a full report later in the fall, but at the end of July it shared its preliminary findings: “[T]he limestone revetment currently functions as the original design intended, is not in danger of collapse, and provides adequate shore protection . . . with maintenance and repairs, the service life of the structure can be significantly extended, obviating the need for major demolition and replacement.” 

It couldn’t be clearer that preservation is possible and compatible with the mandate for shoreline protection.  The challenge now is to persuade the Army Corps and the City that this is a both/and opportunity, not an either/or dilemma.

Full information on the current initiative to Save the Point can be found at https://www.promontorypoint.org/

******

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 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, 67 E. Madison St., Suite 1817, Chicago IL 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:  

Here is a quick look at some points of South Side park activity 

Cast your vote for the Parks on Feb. 28

If you are still undecided about voting in the municipal election, the Hyde Park Herald offers a useful guide to 5^th Ward aldermanic candidates’ positions on key issues, including several specific questions about public parks:

• Do you support making Promontory Point a Chicago Landmark?
• Do you support the November referendum to preserve trees in Jackson Park and South Shore Nature Sanctuary?
• Do you support the currently proposed overhaul of the public golf courses in Jackson Park and South Shore Cultural Center Park?
• How would you work with the Chicago Park District to ensure that residents have a say in developing plans for these local parks?

Do your homework and vote for the candidate whose responses most closely match your commitment to and concerns about South Side parks.

Join ongoing park discussions

• Jackson Park Advisory Council – Getting organized into topical committees.  Next meeting March 13.
• Midway Plaisance Advisory Council – Still opposing UPARR designation for eastern tip of Midway.  Next meeting March 8.  (Contact at midwaypac@gmail.com )
• Washington Park Framework Plan – in progress; next public meeting TBA

Preservation of Promontory Point – two more steps 

The US Army Corps of Engineers announced on January 30 a new process for the Chicago Shoreline Project that is to protect Chicago’s lakefront from storm damages and erosion.  In a shift from the prior plan, Promontory Point will now be treated separately from the other stretches of the lakefront that have not already been covered with concrete-step revetments. There is funding designated specifically for Point planning and there will be a separate NEPA environmental review and consultation process for the Point with opportunities for public input.  (The Corps has clarified that any public comments relating to the Point that were already submitted last month as part of the NEPA review for the general shoreline project will be redirected to the new NEPA review when it begins.)  

As previously noted, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks approved preliminary City landmark status for Promontory Point at its January meeting.  On February 15, the Chicago Park District Board of Commissioners gave its unanimous consent to the proposed landmarking of this particular CPD property, setting the stage for final approval by the City Council, perhaps in April.  

These actions both seem positive steps for efforts to preserve the limestone revetment and other historic features of the Point.  However, as previously noted, the devil is always in the details and continued engagement with the governmental agencies is necessary throughout the NEPA review (which should include a full Section 106 historic preservation review as well) and the development of engineering designs for repair and restoration (significant terms consistent with historic preservation guidelines that have so far been avoided by city and federal agencies). 

We will keep you posted at each step.  You can also stay up-to-date at https://www.promontorypoint.org/.

 Renovation of Midway Plaisance Metra Station – inching along

The project to renovate the 59^th St/60^th St. Metra Station, which has been on a slow track for more than a decade, is taking another short jerk forward. Plans for the project were outlined in March 2021, detailed in a Section 106 Historic Preservation report released in May 2022, presented to consulting parties in June 2022, and awarded federal funding in December 2022.  Now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which is the federal lead agency funding the project, has scheduled a March 6 session with consulting parties to discuss changes to address the comments submitted last June.  

There is a long Supplemental Report, but the substantive changes to the plan are few; all relate to the design of the two track-level headhouse structures and are intended to address concerns by the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office about the contemporary design not fitting with the surrounding historic context. Changes are now proposed for the tint of the glass, the size of signs, the design of the roof trusses.   Concerns mentioned by various other consulting parties are given minimal attention:  Lack of toilets (which could be used by park visitors) – not standard for Metra stations; coordination with the Park District regarding its plans for the eastern tip of the Midway – something that will be done; bright lighting and loud platform announcements bothering nearby residents – will be minimized as much as possible; tree removal – will be kept to a minimum and not in parkway.  So concerns are acknowledged, but the cursory responses provide little satisfaction. 

If you have reactions or comments to the revised plan that you would like submitted to the FTA and Metra, you can send them to jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com by March 5.

****

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 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, 67 E. Madison St., Suite 1817, Chicago IL 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

Happy New Year to All:

2023 promises to be even busier for our South Side parks than last year. Here are some current events for your attention.

Vote for parks in the aldermanic and mayoral elections  

There is now a once-every-four-year opportunity to highlight and promote park issues with our elected officials.   We encourage you to learn about the candidates and to ask them about their positions on specific park issues.  

We attended the League of Women Voters Forum for 5^th Ward Aldermanic Candidates on January 8at Montgomery Place and distributed to all twelve aspirants an information sheet on the proposal for the Tiger Woods golf course.  (The latest version of that handout is appended at the end of this Update.)   We also attended the 5^th Ward Aldermanic Candidates’ Justice Forum on January 15 at Hyde Park Union Church.

Between these two forums, candidates were directly asked for a yes or no response to three important park questions:  Do they support preservation of Promontory Point, including the limestone revetment?  Do they support the ballot referendum initiative to have the City and Park District stop cutting trees in Jackson Park and preserve trees in South Shore Cultural Center Park?  Do they oppose using the eastern tip of Midway Plaisance as a UPARR replacement site for recreational space lost in Jackson Park to the OPC, rather than finding sites in Woodlawn or South Shore?  All 12 candidates responded “yes” about the Point at the first forum.  Two candidates were absent from the Justice Forum (Gray and Palmer), but all ten present responded “yes” to both the tree-cutting and Midway questions.

This is wonderfully encouraging news, but we must recognize that those were easy, feel-good responses, particularly reflecting the sentiment of the audiences.  However, as always, details and nuances are important (see below regarding the Point) and the candidates’ levels of understanding of these park issues vary greatly.   So continued engagement with the candidates on these issues by many voters is important in the weeks ahead.

There will be another 5^th Ward Candidate Forum next Sunday, this one sponsored by 

the Obama CBA Coalition and Not Me We. 

Sunday, January 22, 2:00 – 5:00 pm

South Side United Methodist Church

7350 Jeffrey Boulevard

The first half of the forum will be devoted to questions relating specifically to affordable housing and development/displacement issues.  The second half will cover other ward issues, including parks and the golf course (which of course relate to the first discussion topic also).  The forum will be a panel format, with questions submitted in advance and asked by a moderator, not from the floor.  If you have questions, reach out to 312-880-7265.  

In the mayoral race, it is not clear yet who might be a champion of public parks. We encourage you to pose questions and share information as you can.  There is one upcoming local opportunity to talk directly with a mayoral candidate:  Hyde Parkers Brigid Maniates and Matthew Isoda are hosting a fundraiser for Brandon Johnson on Sunday, January 29, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at 5450 S. East View Park, Apt. 3.   All are welcome, with or without donations, but if you do plan to attend, please send a note to brigidmania@gmail.com.

Promontory Point — a step forward and a pause for NEPA review

The Commission on Chicago Landmarks voted on Thursday to approve preliminary landmark status for Promontory Point, a significant first step toward more protection for preserving the Point and particularly its distinctive limestone revetments. As reported by both BlockClubChicago and the Herald, the vote was unanimous, with several of the commissioners mentioning their own personal experiences with the Point.  Final approval of Landmark status rests with the City Council and it is hoped that could be secured in April, though no firm schedule is set.

While the hearing was mostly a chorus of praise for the Point, it also aired the continuing failures to communicate and lingering distrusts between the Promontory Point Conservancy and other supporters of Point preservation and the multiple government agencies — Park District, CDOT, and Army Corps – that have responsibility for the site. Alderman Hairston, who has been a strong supporter of Point preservation efforts throughout her tenure, was particularly forceful in reminding the City (in this case CDOT) and the Park District of their failures to deal openly and in good faith with her and the community over the past two decades.  She warned them to heed now the community’s wishes for true preservation and repair. All commissioners present voiced support for preservation of the limestone revetment, 

As the Herald report makes clear, however, the devil is in the details and semantics is important whether it be the meaning of “locally preferred plan” or the nuances of the levels of preservation – repair, restore, or rehabilitate – that might be applied to the Point. (For clarification of those terms, see here.) CPD and CDOT officials continue to talk about “rehabilitation,” which leaves open a huge loophole for the possibility of installation of their now standard concrete platforms but with just a few limestone blocks positioned as decoration.  This would not be allowed under an honest reading of the Chicago Landmark guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Preservation, both of which now apply.  Point lovers should continue to be alert and vocal.

The final steps to becoming a Chicago Landmark are not the only challenges remaining for the Point.  Most immediate is the renewed planning by the US Army Corps of Engineers to restore and protect the entire Chicago shoreline.   A necessary step in this planning is an Environmental Assessment of the area, from Evanston to Indiana, under the terms of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to identify the valuable shoreline resources that would be adversely impacted by construction so that customized plans for those segments can be developed. The assessment considers not only environmental resources but also cultural, historic and social resources.  

As a first step the Army Corps is asking for input from formal stakeholders and also individuals about aspects of the shoreline that need special attention and care.  The original deadline for comments (January 17) is being extended because of complaints by the Promontory Point Conservancy (and probably others) that the notice was not distributed properly or widely. The new deadline has not been announced, but you should have another week at least to gather your thoughts about areas the need special treatment along the local shoreline – e.g., the Point, the South Shore Nature Sanctuary – and elsewhere over the 26 miles. Submit your comments and concerns to ChicagoShoreline@usace.army.mil.

Jackson Park Advisory Council starts the year with new leadership

Our final Update in 2022 was focused on the run-off election for the presidency of JPAC.  As many of you already know by now, Michael Scott was selected in a close vote.   Both he and his opponent have expressed their hopes for a united, effective organization.  

The first JPAC meeting of 2023 will be held on January 30, at the Washington Park Refectory (because the Jackson Park Fieldhouse is inaccessible), from 6 to 8 p.m.  The meeting will be structured as a workshop with small-group discussions about how JPAC should operate going forward.  A good time to get re-involved or involved for the first 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 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, 67 E. Madison St., Suite 1817, Chicago IL 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

**********************************************

Get Informed:
The “Tiger Woods PGA Golf Course” in the 5^th Ward

What is the proposal?

• An 18-hole golf course to be created by merging two well-used existing courses in Jackson Park (18 holes) and South Shore Cultural Center (9 holes).
• Often misleadingly described as a “renovation,” it is a total demolition of both current courses as well as of many adjacent non-golf park features. 
• A top-down initiative, drawn up behind closed doors with no organic public support.
  • The University of Chicago’s 2014 confidential proposal to locate the Obama President Library in Jackson Park included a plan for a merged and expanded golf course.
  • The concept was then nurtured in private conversations involving University representatives, now-ousted Park District CEO Michael Kelly, and golf consultant Mark Rolfing and on occasion Obama Foundation representatives.
  • The project was announced in late 2016 by Mayor Emanuel and (as was later revealed by the mayor’s private emails) deliberately misrepresented as a community-driven initiative. 
  • It was presented in the Park District’s South Lakefront Framework Plan discussions (2017-18), along with the OPC, as a done deal, not subject to substantive review.

How would the proposed course impact South Side communities?

Environmental and Other Inequities

• Diminish access of underserved South Side communities to lakefront park space and amenities, even as Chicago is trying to overcome its long history of inequity in public parks. This move would be an embarrassing setback.  
• Disadvantage community golfers with increased fees and decreased course access.

 Environmental Losses 

• Remove some 2,100 mature and heritage trees in Jackson Park and SSCC, exacerbating public health problems, such as asthma and heat trauma, in a time of increasing urban air pollution and rising temperatures

• Threaten the safety of lake water for both recreation and consumption with toxic chemicals used for golf course maintenance  
• Diminish the South Side lakefront as a safe and essential stopover for thousands of migrating birds and for other wildlife

Recreational Losses 

• Reduce park space available for non-golf activities (soccer, baseball, softball, basketball, tennis, rodeos, beach play, picnicking, people walking and dog walking)
• Reduce access for community golfers to the repurposed golf course
• Eradicate the major portion of the South Shore Nature Sanctuary at SSCC, a haven of tranquility for humans and wildlife
• Limit public access to the lakefront and completely exclude access to major portions of Jackson Park and SSCC for weeks at a time during prime season for outdoor recreation in order to stage for-profit golf tournaments

Can Chicago afford to build this course?  No!

Economic Costs – High

• 2023 guesstimate:  $150 million (total course construction and related infrastructure costs, with allowance for effects of pandemic and inflation)
• Original marketing of the proposal indicated the course “renovation” would be largely funded with $25 million in private donations (ignoring the need for $58 million in publicly funded infrastructure).  A revised estimate in 2019 more than doubled the course cost (to $79.3 million), still ignoring the infrastructure cost and with no evidence of private donations to pay for the course reconfiguration (as opposed to support for youth programs).   

Economic Benefits — Low 

• A Park District internal report commissioned in 2019 treats the project primarily as a real estate development and revenue generator for the City and Park District, not as a plan to improve parks for community users. 

• Estimate of new tax revenue attributable to the project over the first 15 years:  an annual average of $160,000 for the County and $520,000\ for the City.  Even those modest projections may be too high, as they unrealistically assume that there will be a major tournament every other year, whereas one every five years would be more likely.  (And even that frequency is not assured; there may never be a PGA tournament here.)
• Increased spending and taxable revenues would be in the lodging and food-and-beverage sectors, mostly concentrated downtown.  There is no projection that there would be major direct spending in South Side communities around the parks.

THERE IS A WIN-WIN ALTERNATIVE:

Improve and invest in the existing golf courses and surrounding parks!

• Improve the existing two golf courses to benefit both golfers and other park users and the surrounding communities
• Focus on serving the local golfing community (including youth) rather than a wished-for small clientele of affluent golfers from elsewhere
• Continue and expand current youth golf programs, which are in no way dependent on the TGR design 
• Implement environmentally sensitive restoration, preserving existing trees and protecting the South Shore Nature Sanctuary, and establish a program of routine maintenance to forestall a return to the past pattern of neglect and decay
• Set a realistic timetable for the full project and a realistic, affordable budget 
• Seek corporate and individual philanthropic support for both construction and programming, which will likely be more forthcoming with a reality-based, transparent plan for community golf

Prepared by Jackson Park Watch, January 15, 2023 (http://jacksonparkwatch.org/)

***REMINDER***

Run-off Election for President of Jackson Park Advisory Council

Wednesday, December 21, 7:00 pm, at South Shore Cultural Center

As noted in the prior Update, 2023 will definitely bring a change in leadership to the Jackson Park Advisory Council.  You can help determine its new direction.  

The Hyde Park Herald characterized the issue as a choice between two opposing views of the role of a Park Advisory Council:  

• whether it is to support the actions and programs of the Park District without question (represented by the prior board and by the candidacy of Duwain Bailey)   

OR

• whether it is to support Park District programs and to weigh in also on “policy” issues, such as the construction of the Obama Presidential Center or the proposal for the Tiger Woods golf course (represented by the candidacy of Michael Scott).   

We believe JPAC can best be an advocate for Jackson Park and for all users of the park by embracing both roles – that is, both by supporting and monitoring park stewardship and Park District programs and by accurately assessing and representing the full range of community sentiments about park operations and proposals for major new initiatives such as the OPC or the golf course expansion. Such a comprehensive approach would be consistent with JPAC’s purpose as stated in its by-laws:  to advise and to make recommendations to the Chicago Park District concerning matters relating to Jackson Park and to patrons of the park.  (We note that patron has a dual meaning – as user/customer and as supporter – both of which are rightly applicable here.)

Who are the candidates?

Duwain Bailey is a district manager for Primerica Financial Services, an insurance company serving middle income families, and executive director of the Network of Woodlawn, which is currently focused on the multi-million-dollar Woodlawn Central development along 63^rd St.  He has previously worked as a public administrator for programs of the State of Illinois, City of Chicago, and Chicago Housing Authority. He is aligned with the prior leadership of JPAC that has been in office for the past decade.

Michael Scott, a long-time resident of Hyde Park and patron of public parks, is a professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at the University of Illinois at Chicago.  He is currently vice president of the Promontory Point Conservancy and has served as parent and community representative on the Local School Councils for Ray Elementary School and Murray Language Academy.  He is aligned with park users who have become dissatisfied with JPAC’s actions and inaction on key issues over the past few years.  

Who can vote?  

To vote in this special election, members of JPAC must have attended two JPAC meetings in the preceding 12 months (including the election month, defined here as November). We regret that the potential voter pool has been reduced this year by the cancellation of two regular meetings (January and October).  As stated by a Park District official last month, the list of eligible voters will be unaltered from the November election meeting.  

***

If you qualify to vote in this special election, we urge your attendance on Wednesday evening. Remember to allow extra travel time to SSCC because of the now predictable traffic jams and, of course, the never predictable weather.

We believe that Michael Scott can best facilitate conversation among the diverse JPAC constituencies, balancing the new leadership team to assure that all voices are heard and all perspectives are represented to support the common goal of maintaining Jackson Park as a public asset for all Chicagoans.

As always, we thank you.

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

Greetings, All:

Yes, this is indeed the busiest time of year. However, this year there is important parks business that deserves and requires your attention and action in the coming weeks, even amid your traditional pleasures and pastimes.

MIDWAY PLAISANCE – 

CPD Community Zoom Meeting on Tuesday, December 13, 5:30 pm

The Chicago Park District has scheduled the 5^th (and final) Community Meeting for its proposal for “Midway Plaisance East End Improvements.”  This will be a virtual meeting – a webinar via Zoom.  You can register for the meeting here. 

Records of all prior community meetings and versions of the proposal are finally available on the CPD Capital Projects—Projects in Design website.   Oddly there is no mention of or registration link on that website now for the upcoming 5^th Community Meeting. That announcement went only to prior meeting attendees or commentators, but anyone can participate.

The announcement promises an overview of community feedback about the 4^th Community Meeting and a presentation of the final design plans for the universally accessible play space.    JPW outlined objections to and specific concerns about the CPD proposal in the prior Update and submitted those comments to the Park District.  We remain hopeful that the “final” proposal will be responsive to the many questions that have been repeatedly raised about the project.

JACKSON PARK ADVISORY COUNCIL – 

Run-off Election, Wednesday, December 21, 7:00 pm, at South Shore Cultural Center

As many of you witnessed and the Herald reported, the annual meeting of JPAC – held on Nov. 22 to elect officers for 2023 – was a weighty event.  The Herald characterized the election as a struggle between opposing definitions of the role of a Park Advisory Council:  to support the actions and programs of the Park District without question or to weigh in on “policy” issues, such as the construction of the Obama Presidential Center.   

The either/or dichotomy about the nature of JPAC does not seem accurate or necessary.  We see no conflict in JPAC embracing both roles. It can and should be an advocate for Jackson Park and for users of the park, not only by supporting park stewardship and programs, but also by accurately representing the full range of community sentiments about park operations and major new initiatives such as the OPC or the Tiger Woods golf course. Weighing in on such “policy” issues is presumably what the adjective “advisory” means in the title Park Advisory Council.

We see the election run-off as an opportunity to recalibrate JPAC meetings from monologues to dialogues and to re-establish JPAC as an active advocate for Jackson Park rather than a passive rubber stamp for top-down decisions. 

The Nov. 22 meeting, awkwardly rescheduled to bump up against Thanksgiving, featured the unexpected withdrawal of current officers from consideration and the nomination of new candidates for the four leadership positions.  Three officers – VP Spencer Bibbs, Secretary Russell Pike and Treasurer Eric Rogers – were elected.  However, there was a tie vote for the presidential candidates, requiring another special election meeting. 

After some delay, the date for the special election has just been announced as Wednesday, December 21.  There are objections to this date, which awkwardly falls in the middle of the very busiest week of the holiday season when many will be traveling.  But, until there is further notice, we urge you to mark your calendar for Dec. 21 if you meet the eligibility standards.

An official of the Park District, which counts ballots and certifies the election, has stated that “[t]he list of eligible voters will remain unaltered from the November elections. Members must have attended 2 JPAC meetings between 12/21 and 11/22 in order to be eligible to vote in the special election.”(We note that there is some concern and confusion also about this defined span.)

The candidates for president are Duwain Bailey and Michael Scott.  Basic information about their backgrounds and positions is provided in the Herald article and more information will be available before Dec. 21.  We believe Michael Scott offers the best opportunity to balance the JPAC leadership team and to assure that JPAC is opened to diverse voices and perspectives.

WHY BOTHER?

Good question.  Why should you take time now to participate in the design review for the Midway or in the JPAC elections? Why, especially when it is commonly understood that the Park District spotlights Park Advisory Councils that support its actions and ignores or stonewalls PACs and advocacy groups that have differing visions for their parks.  But in both cases the CPD practices the same top-down management that is responsive less to community interests and feedback than to mayoral dictates and to private monied interests.  As a result, parks, especially larger parks, are treated as revenue-generating spaces for rental or for development rather than as community treasures and valuable public assets in their own right.  

So why bother?   First, because public parks are inherently worth preserving and supporting as civic assets essential for our individual and collective well-being.  Second, because there is a new wave of park activism across the city.  The protests by Douglass Park residents against the intrusions of Riot Fest have led to more scrutiny by the Park District Board over the leasing of park space for large for-profit events. It is a small step toward accountability, but it seems to indicate that the new Park District superintendent and the new chair and members of its Board of Commissioners are paying attention to which way the wind is blowing.  The overwhelming support in the November election for a non-binding referendum to stop the cutting of trees in Jackson Park and to preserve trees at the South Shore Cultural Center Park signals the centrality of parks in the now prominent discussions of environmental protection, justice and equity.  Third, because the upcoming city elections offer an opportunity to elevate park issues so that all candidates for mayor or alderman are asked their position on the protection and expansion of parks generally and on park issues specific to their constituency.  And fourth, because it is important to continue to fight for free and open access to our public parks and to resist their privatization, commercialization and monetization. Like schools, health care and safety, parks are one of our basic public rights.

FOTP RECOGNIZES NEW VIPs 

Park advocacy is not a one-and-done effort.  Perseverance is the key, and Friends of the Parks has been leading the way since 1975.  One of its first initiatives that year was a clean-up of Jackson Park.

On Saturday, December 10, as part of its annual Parks as Democracy Conference, FOTP presented its 2022 Volunteers-in-Parks Awards to recognize exceptional efforts on behalf of Chicago’s public parks.  Among those recognized:  

Susannah Ribstein, steward of the South Shore Nature Sanctuary,  received the VIP Award for Stewardship

Promontory Point Conservancy received the VIP Award for Advocacy.

JPW supports both of these initiatives and welcomes their recognition by FOTP as part of a stellar group of VIPs.

****

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 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, 67 E. Madison St., Suite 1817, Chicago IL 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:

TRICK OR TREAT?

Today is the fourth anniversary of the approval by the Chicago City Council of the ordinance   siting of the Obama Presidential Center in Jackson Park. The Council members approved Mayor Emanuel’s request unanimously with no debate, giving the Obama Foundation effective control of 19.3 acres in the midst of a renowned public park for 99 years. 

The ordinance committed the City to direct some $200 million of public funding for road changes and other infrastructure work to facilitate the project.  It also required the Obama Foundation to pay the City $10.00 (total) for the use of the park space and to certify that the Foundation had raised full funding for construction of the Center and for an endowment to support its maintenance and operations over the next century.  

We assume the $10 lease fee has been paid, but the City (by then headed by Mayor Lightfoot) waived the other financial requirements and allowed the Obama Foundation to begin construction in August 2021 without certifying that it had sufficient funds in hand to build and operate the center.  There is still no evidence that those “required” benchmarks have been met, even as trees have been leveled and deep holes dug. 

LESSONS FROM OLMSTED 

In recognition of 2022 as the 200^th anniversary of the birth of Frederick Law Olmsted, the Chicago Architecture Center last week sponsored an on-line discussion entitled “Past, Present and Future of Olmsted Landscapes in Chicago.”  Presenters were local historian and preservationist Julia Bachrach (author of The City in a Garden: A History of Chicago’s Parks), photographer Duane Savage (long-time resident of Washington Park and a leader of the Washington Park Camera Club), and Patricia O’Donnell (head of Heritage Landscapes and a specialist in Olmsted landscapes who was an advisor for the recent Army Corps’ GLFER project to revitalize Jackson Park lagoons and plantings).  The session concluded by asking for their thoughts on the Olmsted legacy in Chicago and on the benefits and drawbacks of the OPC. community.  

Some of their observations: 

• Locals Duane Savage and Julia Bachrach were direct in lamenting the community’s loss of park space to the OPC. Said Savage, “[With] all the open spaces on the South Side of Chicago, they did not need to build anything inside of a park. . . This idea of placing things right in the park has to stop. What is the use of having these grand spaces if they are going to be chewed away by motorists getting to a tourist location?”  Bachrach wished for an opportunity to give President Obama a tour of Jackson Park: “I would tell him I’m a North Sider and I would want to have Jackson Park a thousand times more than Lincoln Park. . . In Washington Park and Jackson Park there is a sense of discovery; you lose yourself in nature. . .This idea that a good park has to have all these bells and whistles like Maggie Daley Park I think misses the point.  It’s sad to add this major thing to an existing park and not understand the asset that you have.”

• Patricia O’Donnell was more circumspect, given that she is now advising the Park District on the efforts to mitigate OPC-related damages to the GLFER project.  She focused on what we can learn from Olmsted: “I think Olmsted’s legacy is enduring because it is correct.  [The goal is] offering nature in the city and welcoming everyone.”  Channeling Olmsted’s vision, she stressed that good parks are flexible and have multiple uses; they should not be fenced off for single uses.  In Jackson Park, for instance, she noted the continuing problem of the fenced golf driving range blocking the stretch between the Music Court and Hayes Drive.  Washington Park has its great meadow; Jackson Park does not. 

• Supporting the Olmsted view of parks as inclusive and diverse, Bachrach registered her disappointment that the Park District is still talking about combining the Jackson Park and South Shore golf courses. She sees that as a move in the wrong direction that will serve only a very selective, small group. 

• Finally, all joined O’Donnell in stressing the need for caretaking and maintenance of parks.  Politicians are too dazzled by promises of big money and fancy designs, and we need first to value and maintain the assets we already have.  There must be active and persistent advocacy on behalf of parks, generally and individually.

* * * *

Jackson Park and Midway Plaisance both exemplify the sad lesson that “benign neglect” can suddenly turn into “destroy to improve.”   With that lesson before us, we encourage park lovers to continue to let the powers-that-be know what’s on your mind about Jackson Park and its park neighbors.

SPEAK UP ABOUT THE MIDWAY   

It has now been more than three weeks since the Park District held the fourth community meeting on its proposal to “improve” the eastern tip of the Midway Plaisance in order to “replace” recreational space lost in Jackson Park to the Obama Presidential Center.  In spite of promises that the slide presentation and the video/audio recording of the October 6 meeting would be posted on the CPD website for the project within two weeks, the record is still not available and CPD has not responded to questions about the delay.  

We’ll wait no longer to recap the meeting, particularly since it was sparsely attended due to heavy rain and strong winds that evening that amplified the now regular construction traffic jams, the media coverage was also spare and incomplete, and the Park District is still accepting public comments on the proposal. 

The Block Club Chicago article on the meeting provides a general overview but glides over details.  The meeting was purportedly to report on and respond to the public comments on the design plan that had been presented at the end of June.  However, the prepared presentation did little to substantively engage the many criticisms and questions submitted during July and August.  A Q&A session allowed for some direct questions, but there were few direct responses. The designs for the site generally and for the accessible play space were basically the same as before, though there were some problematic and confusing additions.  

• To criticisms that the decision to use the Midway as the UPARR replacement site was a top-down edict promulgated without proper community input and without concern for equitable distribution of parks, Heather Gleason, Director of CPD’s Division of Planning and Construction, did acknowledge the widespread public dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency in the site selection process.  She then asserted that neither the City nor the Park District had legal authority to renegotiate the terms of the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement that codified the selection.  

This position has been challenged by the Midway Park Advisory Council in print and again at the meeting and seems contrary to the language of Section VIII of the MOA. In the face of the Park District’s no-can-do response, an individual community member requested that the Park District’s counsel be present at the next meeting specifically to address the question of amending the MOA, given the widespread support for such action. Preservation Chicago and Friends of the Parks also spoke out at the meeting in support of amending the MOA and relocating the UPARR replacement site, and Openlands and Landmarks Chicago advocated for such a move in their written comments submitted before the meeting.  

It is important to note that this particular spot at the border between Hyde Park and Woodlawn is already park rich, and, as Park District officials acknowledged in response to a direct question, there has been no systematic demographic survey of the nearby area to support the site selection.   Rather, the immediate beneficiaries of siting the UPARR replacement space on the Midway will be the OPC, just a block south, and the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools Early Childhood Center, just a block north. Meanwhile, surrounding South Side neighborhoods, especially West Woodlawn, are chronically park poor and will remain under-served.

• To the many expressions of concern about the safety of the site for any play area and particularly for one aiming to serve children and others with various disabilities, the Park District responded that it had been in discussion with CDOT (which was not represented at the meeting) and showed marks on the map for two proposed crosswalks and drop-off areas on the Midway east and west roadways near the train embankment. There was also reference to plans to coordinate traffic signal patterns and to use the public parking lot at 60^th and Stony (controlled by the University).  It was, at best, a gesture to recognize a problem, but without evidence of careful analysis or a finalized workable solution.

• To concern about the lack of nearby, accessible public restrooms – a chronic problem throughout Chicago’s parks but again one deemed particularly important given the target audience for the play area – the Park District announced a proposal to install an accessible porta-potty on each side of the central play area and expressed hope that a permanent facility could be built later when funds were available.  We believe these unattractive twin towers will be appropriately embarrassing emblems of the inadequate planning for this worthy but woefully mis-located project.

• To the widespread objection to the plan to eradicate a 0.4-acre natural wetland adjacent to Stony Island Avenue, the Park District revealed but did not fully explain a modified plan that would expand and develop the “lowland area” but also would install a stormwater filtration and drainage system (a feature not needed for a natural wetland). Park District officials refused to use the term “wetland” even though the area had been so identified in the Environmental Assessment report (Appendix f) issued by the National Park Service in 2020 and even though Park District staff did volunteer that the City has already paid the mitigation fee to secure replacement wetland in Will County.  This additional instance of the Park District’s continuing lack of transparency and Orwellian use of language only fuels more distrust and bears more investigation.

• To the concern that the proposed plan ignored the community’s past usage of the Midway site as a sledding slope, the Park District staff shrugged.  

Perhaps the presentation and recording of the Oct. 6 meeting will be posted by the time this reaches your email box.  Please check the CPD capital projects website just in case.  If they are still missing, look again at the July 8, 2022 Draft Plan for Review in light of this summary and consider submitting new or additional comments on the Midway Plaisance East End Improvements Feedback Form. 

SPEAK UP ABOUT TREES

Next week residents in seven precincts adjacent to Jackson Park will be able to vote on an advisory referendum, sponsored by Save Jackson Park, asking that the City and Park District stop cutting more trees in Jackson Park and South Shore Cultural Center.  Some 380 trees have already been clear cut in the initial OPC construction work; roadwork could take another 470 and the proposed golf course over 2000 more.  That’s quite a loss of oxygen-producing, heat-reducing live trees that would take four decades to replace. The numbers speak for themselves.

*****

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 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, 67 E. Madison St., Suite 1817, Chicago IL 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:

As autumn arrives, here are some actions you can take and information you can use to support Jackson Park and its companion parks.

Mark your calendar – Thursday, Oct. 6, 5 pm – to support the Midway Plaisance 

The Park District has announced a “community meeting” for Thursday, October 6, 5:00 pm, at the South Shore Cultural Center to present the results of the 45-day comment period on its proposed redesign of the eastern tip of the Midway Plaisance and to discuss the next steps for that project.  

The CPD website for the project includes both the draft design presented as of June 8  and a compendium of the comments about the design that were submitted through August 22.  The comments make for interesting reading if you can download and magnify the document.  The great majority of the comments (88 of 106) oppose the use of the Midway as UPARR replacement land and oppose the proposed design in all or part, objecting particularly to the removal of the small wetland. 

Also available at the Thursday session will be information on the upcoming Burnham Building Restoration, the Jackson Park Plan for Interpretive Materials project, and the upcoming Washington Park Framework Plan.

Comment on a proposed new Park District ordinance before Oct. 31

The Board of Commissioners of the Chicago Park District is showing a new and refreshing responsiveness to park-user complaints.  The immediate prompt for optimism is its recent response to the many complaints about large private events taking over park space and making a park inaccessible to regular users for extended periods (e.g., Riot Fest in Douglass Park, Lollapalooza and the newly authorized NASCAR race in Grant Park).  

The Board has proposed amendments to Chapter VII, Section C of the Chicago Park District Code that would be codified by ordinance.  The amendments would require that any permit application to use park space for an event or activity with 10,000 or more attendees per day must receive approval from the Board of Commissioners (Section C.3.c.), and would make the Board’s decision to approve or deny a permit final and not reviewable by the General Superintendent (Section C.6.a.).  

The proposed amendments have been posted for a required 45-day public comment period, which will conclude on October 31, at which point the change would become effective upon approval by a majority of the Board of Commissioners.

JPW believes this is a positive step toward accountable management for the Park District and a step back from monetizing public park space as its first priority. We believe parks should be respites for people, available at all times, and not rental space for profit-making corporations. We encourage support of the amendments.  However, we will suggest two additions to strengthen and clarify the proposed text:

1. The text should specify that Board approval is required for an event/activity with 10,000 or more attendees per day that is proposed for any park property, regardless of the classification of that particular site within the CPD classification system. No loophole exceptions.
2. In addition to the number of daily attendees, a second key criteria for assessing any large event permit request should be the length of time for which the event would make the park space inaccessible by regular park users.  For instance, the time for setup before and then repairing the damage after Lollapalooza make areas of Grant Park unusable for six or more weeks during the prime season for park use.  Similarly, the PGA golf tournaments envisioned for the proposed Tiger Woods golf course in Jackson Park and South Shore Park would close the course for regular public players for at least three weeks, again in the middle of an already short season.  Such infringements on the use of public parks should not be acceptable.

We urge you to review these materials and to submit your own comments before Oct. 31.   See the CPD notice page on its website for the text of the amendments and information about uploading your comments there or submitting them by phone, USPS mail or email.

Keep up to date on Promontory Point News

The Promontory Point Conservancy continues to push for restoration of the Point’s revetement as part of the City’s efforts to secure the lakefront shoreline.  Restoration is the optimal approach from a cost perspective and also because of the Point’s listing on the National Register of Historic Places.   

Cost Estimates: The City and Park District’s “Locally Preferred Plan” is to demolish the limestone revetment and replace it with a new concrete and steel structure (as already lines much of the lakefront).  Their current estimate for this is $75M.  In sharp contrast, to follow the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Preservation for a preservation design that requires repair, restoration and rehabilitation rather than demolition would cost an estimated $25M maximum.  

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: The controversy over the preservation of the historic limestone revetment at the Point has now been advanced by the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (ILSHPO) to the ACHP.  This is a significant step.  The ACHP is an independent federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our nation’s historic resources, and advises the President and Congress on national historic preservation policy.  The ACHP has the authority to insist that any project follow the Secretary of Interior Standards and that design decisions are carefully considered under a Section 106 Review, and it can adjudicate between the current “Locally Preferred Plan” and the federally funded preservation study, sponsored by Representative Robin Kelly, to be done in 2023.    

Keep up to date on the status of the Protect Our Parks suits against the OPC

The often-quoted maxim “Justice delayed is justice denied” would seem to be the perfect label for the suits filed by Protect Our Parks since 2018 to challenge the construction of the Obama Presidential Center.  Richard Epstein, a member of the legal team for Protect Our Parks, recently summarized the case, outlining the multifaceted arguments and the frustrating delays it continues to face.  

Meanwhile . . .

Brace for more congestion and traffic jams in Jackson Park.

*****

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 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, 67 E. Madison St., Suite 1817, Chicago IL 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:

Supposedly we are in the lazy dog days of summer, but there is a lot going on in and around Jackson Park.  

Amid the noise we would like to focus your attention for the moment on just one controversy – the designation of the eastern tip of the Midway Plaisance to “replace” some of the acreage in Jackson Park that has been commandeered for the Obama Presidential Center.

Prior Updates (January through May) have covered  the convoluted logic and slippery process behind the City and Park District plan to “improve” the Midway east of the railway embankment in order to meet requirements attached to prior funding (UPARR grants) for Jackson Park from the National Park Service. 

Here is where we are now:

On July 8, the Park District posted its draft plan for review during  the required 45-day consulting party and public comment period, and invited all interested individuals to submit comments on the proposal by August 22, using a particular portal on the CPD website.   

More detailed versions of the draft plan were presented at a virtual community meeting on June 21 and are available on the Park District website – both the PowerPoint slides and  a video/audio record of the slide presentation and discussion.   

The Hyde Park Herald provided a summary of the meeting and noted that the questions and comments by community members were largely critical of the project.  There were objections to the process for selecting the site, to the proposed design for a  play space that would dominate the site, and to the eradication of the existing  half-acre wetland.  None of these objections are addressed in the subsequent draft plan now posted for review.

What you can do before August 22:

We encourage you to review the latest plan for changes to the Midway tip and to submit your own comments and suggestions.  Even if you have already provided feedback at earlier stages in this discussion, it would be worthwhile to repeat those comments or offer additional remarks directed specifically to the draft plan.   We note that the Park District does not provide a public record of the full comments and suggestions it receives and, we assume, does not carryover comments and suggestions that have been previously ignored.  So, repetition is necessary, and the more comments submitted, the better.  

In addition to submitting a statement on the Park District comment portal, we suggest that you consider sending a copy of your comments to several other parties, including the signatory agencies to the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement that authorized this misguided proposal for the Midway:    

Federal Highway Administration, Arlene.Kocher@dot.gov
Illinois State Historic Preservation Office,  Anthony.Rubano@illinois.gov   
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, rnelson@achp.gov
City of Chicago, Department of Transportation, gia.biagi@cityofchicago.org
Illinois Department of Transportation, Anthony.Quigley@Illinois.gov
Chicago Park District,  rosa.escareno@chicagoparkdistrict.com
National Park Service, Herbert_Frost@nps.gov
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Chicago District, chicagodistrict.pao@usace.army.mil (with subject line:  Attn Col. Paul Culberson)
Alderman Leslie Hairston, l.hairston@cityofchicago.org; ward05@cityofchicago.org
Hyde Park Herald, h.faris@hpherald.com
Jackson Park Watch, jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

Food for thought:

As you make your own assessment of the draft plan, we recommend you read this statement by the Midway Plaisance Advisory Council, which has opposed the use of the Midway tip as UPARR replacement land since that was first proposed in 2018.  MPAC is advocating now for a revision of the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement so that the UPARR designation could be redirected to open space(s) elsewhere in the neighborhood, which would allow for an actual expansion of public parkland.   

We also offer here for review JPW’s statement to the Park District. 

*****

Jackson Park Watch has previously stated our opposition to the proposed use of the Midway tip to satisfy the UPARR requirements and we summarize our reasons here:

• The process of selecting the Midway as the UPARR replacement site made a mockery of the City’s promises for community engagement in the decision and indeed completely ignored the expressed objections of the Midway Plaisance Advisory Council.  
• The City’s interpretation of the UPARR requirements was blinkered, seemingly designed to serve primarily the Obama Foundation by combining a solution to the UPARR impediment with a plan to spruce up the Midway’s eastern tip in anticipation of visitors to the OPC from outside the neighborhood.  But the City failed miserably to take advantage of a special  opportunity to provide new, additional park space to underserved neighborhoods such as West Woodlawn.  
• The  designated “replacement” site is not a vacant lot in need of development, but rather it is already a public good that, like much of Jackson Park and many other South Side parks, has long been neglected when it should have been maintained and nurtured. The decades of inadequate park maintenance across the area are evident in crumbling pathways and bridges, untended plantings, flooded underpasses, and unplayable tennis courts and athletic fields, features that have been used by the Obama Foundation, media outlets, and even elected officials to claim that the parks are underused  and in need of “transformation” when all that is needed is regular care of what is there already.      
• The site is inappropriate for the proposed design of which the central feature is a universally accessible play area.  The site is difficult and unsafe to access;  surrounded by heavy traffic and noisy train tracks, exposing users to air and sensory pollution;  lacking in restroom facilities that could be particularly important for the targeted audience (defined as young children and disabled individuals of all ages). 

Here we comment on the specific design plan presented by the Park District at a public meeting on June 21 and presented in summary  (without any changes to reflect community input at that meeting) for the required 45-day Public Comment period that began on July 8.

• The long-neglected restoration of the Cheney-Goode Memorial is the primary achievement of this plan and to be applauded.  It should be the central feature of the site.
• The universally accessible nature play area that is the central feature of the draft plan seems to be a comprehensive assemblage of activities that could serve a wide range of disabled children and adults as well as able children under about age 10.  The assemblage of 25 separate stations has the feeling of boxes being checked to meet every need.  But it also has the feel of being tightly jammed into a space too small for its worthy ambitions.  The maximum capacity was projected by design team staff as 125, but the area would be unusable if anywhere near that many individuals of different ages and needs (plus caregivers) showed up at the same time.  The play area as designed requires more space, on a different site, to realize its potential and to be the showcase model that the Park District hopes it will be.  
• Beyond its crowded appearance, the expansive play area and the vertical mix of its individual elements clash with Olmsted’s open space design.  Also jarring is the introduction of  a pastel-roofed outlook amid a maze of wooden structures and planting.  A different plan would be needed to be compatible, spatially and aesthetically, with the historic site.
• We are told that the current plan is defined to be responsive to the requirements demands of the National Park Service for active recreation space, but current community use of the space for such activity is ignored.  The wide stretch of the playground (north to south) along with the ornamental plantings at each end will create a barrier that effectively eliminates one of the current recreational activities frequently mentioned by community residents – sledding down the railroad embankment to the center of the Midway.  This is in spite of design team response to comments at community meetings that “we hear you.”  Removing the playground and rethinking the plantings could preserve this pleasant (and active) pastime and also allow for the open space required by NPS without the need to eliminate the wetland.
• The July 8 plan continues to include the CPD’s plan to eradicate the half-acre of wetland at the eastern end of the site by regrading and the installation of new drainage. Many members of the community have spoken in opposition to this eradication on environmental grounds as well as because of the cost and futility of the proposed changes. We support the recommendation that the wetland be retained and featured as an important and natural element of the Midway.  We believe that there would still be adequate space for an athletics area as mandated by NPS (though we also believe that it would be an unnecessary feature for the site given the better athletic fields just to the west).    
• Many of the features that community members cited as essential if the proposed play area were to be built are either not yet included or not fully illustrated in the draft plan presented on July 8 for review. Chief among these are a safety fence around the play area, a safe drop-off or accessible parking area, and a restroom.    
  • The outline for a fence is shown on Proposed Design diagram #3, but the fence is not shown in either of the “View” illustrations in which the play area appears entirely open and unprotected.  Appearances and details are important.  It seems likely that an illustration of the play area surrounded by a fence would further emphasize the intrusiveness of the design for the site.  No decision about the design should be made until there is full information about the fencing to be installed. 
  • The July 8 materials do not include any reference to the repeated community  concerns about safe access to the site.  There was mention by staff at the June 21 community meeting of discussions with CDOT regarding better crosswalks and a drop-off on the south side of the site and of looking to the parking lot at 60^th and Stony (which is owned by the University) for possible accessible parking.  We believe that those discussions should be concluded and the results incorporated into the plan presented for public review before any final decision is made about the site or the design. Such features are necessary, not optional, regardless of the final design for the site.
  • There is no reference in the July 8 materials to community concerns about access to a restroom for users of the site and particularly for users of the universally accessible play area. Community members suggested that restroom facilities could be developed in collaboration with the to-be-renovated Metra station.  Cross-agency collaboration is difficult but not impossible and is especially important in an age of budget tightening, and it should be pursued.  No decision about the current design should be made until that important need is resolved.

Given the misguided use of the Midway tip as a UPARR replacement space, given the misfit of the current draft plan for the chosen site, given the many community concerns about the current design, and  given the reported lack of final funding, we suggest elements for an alternative plan that would be more appropriate, more effective and, most likely, less costly:

• Transfer the UPARR designation to another space (or spaces) in Woodlawn that would constitute additional parkland and that would be more accommodating, appropriate and accessible for a universally accessible play area.
• Restore the Cheney-Goode Memorial and make it the central feature of the site with an accessible connector path to it across the Midway.
• Maintain and develop the wetland area as a public resource and educational opportunity.
• Develop a design that would be more compatible with long-standing recreational usage of the site (e.g., sledding hill) and would also maintain an open lawn between the wetland area and the Cheney-Goode Memorial for optional recreation.
• Establish permanent safe access routes, drop-off areas and accessible parking.   
• Establish an endowed fund to support regular maintenance of the Midway site to avoid continuation of the pattern of neglected maintenance that has been the rule for at least fifty years.

*****

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 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, 67 E. Madison St., Suite 1817, Chicago  IL 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