|
Parks |
To the Parks web home of hydepark.org. HPKCC program home. Committees. About HPKCC. Quality of Life Hot Topics and Issues.
The Parks Committee of HPKCC
This page brought to you by Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference, its Parks Committee, and HPKCC's website, www.hydepark.org. Join the Conference! Contact the Parks Committee Chair: hpkcc@aol.com, attn. Gary Ossewaarde.
- Latest meetings and actions
- Mission, areas of attention
- From the March 2008 Reporter: Kenwood Park, Guidelines, and Olympics
- Other HPKCC board resolutions and actions on parks
- Some needs of the committee
- HPKCC letter on proposed new guidelines for councils. (Coverage of issue-
Park Issues page.)
Recent
The committee as a whole has not met lately but remains in communication with ourselves and park advocates in the neighborhood and citywide. We seek revitalization of current and creation of new councils.
Lately we are concerned with consequences of parks loss of funding resouces and cutbacks in the parks budget.
A Letter was sent in February 2007 to the Mayor and Olympic Committee setting forth principles, concerns, questions needed through study, and insistence upon community consultation before the Olympics in our area can go forward. View it in the HPKCC Olympic letter page. See the Olympics page which includes report on meeting with Park District (in December 2007 Reporter).
February 2008, the Committee sent a letter calling for consistent policies consistently applied for councils, in light of the dissolution of the Kenwood Park Council. The park district replied favorably, but the committee, as well as park councils that have seen draft guidelines are very disturbed by the contents. See letters, replies, in Park Issues. A meeting was held April 4 between some of the councils, CPD and Friends of the Parks, putting the matter on a slow burner, backing off from most PD proposals, and setting up a joint review committee.
Kenwood Park's disputes and (disputed) decertification of the council in late 2007 over alleged missing paperwork prompted the preceding-referenced letter, and two large public meetings, as well as offer of the Conference president, with encouragement of the council and Ald. Preckwinkle to chair one of three committees looking toward a renewal of the council. Find reports and final action (2008 into late 2009)in the Kenwood Park Usage Reports page.
Here is the report published in the HPKCC Conference Reporter March 2008.
View from the Parks: Kenwood Park and Kenwood Council Dispute Affects Communityby Gary Ossewaarde
A dispute over expansion of one of the baseball diamonds in Kenwood Community Park (Farmers Field, at 50th and Dorchester) ended in challenges to the validity of the advisory council. The HPKCC parks committee (chair, Gary Ossewaarde) was asked to lok into the matter by council leaders, one of whom answered questions from the Conference board in February.
While the Conference has not taken a position on the expansion of t his diamond for league play by 11-13-year olds, we wrote Park District General Superintendent Timothy Mitchell of our concern about status of the council, allegedly over lost registration paperwork, and the likely role of an absence of consistent, objective and transparent procedures and environment for establishment, accountability, listening to or dissolution of park advisory councils.
We in fact found differences even in Hyde Park that could not be accounted for by park sizes, needs, or offerings. And we found that when this particular dispute led to deadlock between two powerful sets of park neighbors and users that could not be resolved with satisfaction to both parties by the council with help from the local alderman, it was all too easy for some party to inquire into the council's standing via filed paperwork, which was then not found.
"As is often the case," we wrote the Superintendent, "the informal and inconsistent operating practices of the Park District were not a problem until a dispute erupted. This is exactly the time when a transparent and empowered Advisory Council should be available to help resolve the issue." We concluded that consistent, objective, and transparent policy "is necessary for us to be confident that the seven Park Advisory Councils currently in Hyde Park and South Kenwood are properly and with confidence" able to do their jobs.
The Park District was indeed aware of such problems and preparing a new set of guidelines at the time, subsequently submitted to select councils for review. Widespread reaction was that the document needs revision lest it seriously damage local oversight and participation in our parks.
Meanwhile, the Kenwood council has continued to consult with the District and local officials and to plan for clean up days, fundraising for park programs, and new elections. The Conference believes park councils should be forums for conflict resolution, not bodies to be controlled.
Our Parks Committee notes these among issues and possible solution highlighted by the Kenwood Park disputes:
1) Too often new, or changes to existing, facilities desired by user groups or park officials are executed with insufficient or no advanced vetting or negotiation with park councils, neighbors, and the wider community. Helpful is insistence by public officials that fait accompli and lack of public input will not stand.
2) Demands on park space are constantly growing throughout the city. First, parks should have framework plans that are living governing documents. Second, there should be careful broad-input review of proposed uses that sequester parks in whole or in part. Planning needs to keep in mind that parks are first and foremost public, open, general use lands. Also, every effort should be made to accommodate, with safety, competing uses (and near neighbors) within parks and among parks of various sizes.
On the Olympics...
The Conference has received virtually no response on requests for information on Olympic planning and impact. We continue to monitor and to participate in communtiy presentations, meetings and task forces, work with park councils and other organizations, and to post a full range of information and views in our Olympics and sub pages. Our board has been concerned enough about some of the possible inpacts, weaknesses in planning and genuine input, and incomplete benefit agreements that a resolution of opposition to the Games was introduced in early 2009, but not passed.
Addressing the parks:
Our local parks are among our most important community assets. When they work well and look good, they are a delight. When they do not, they can seriously harm their communities. The smaller and mid-sized parks and the Lakefront north of Jackson Park have seen much for us to celebrate and some frustrations in recent years. Is the bucket filling up or springing leaks?
We started a conversation on various parks and what common concerns we can work on. We are considering a survey to and build relationships with the various councils and see what we can do together. A report is forthcoming. Report below.
- At a follow up meeting January 30, 2007, we concentrated on developing a set of questions, concerns and principles regarding Olympics use of area parks for 2016 Olympics venues. This was framed into a cover letter and document sent to Mayor Daley, the Chicago 2016 Committee, and Park District Supt. Tim Mitchell. Text is in HPKCC Olympic letter. We wil post responses if any.
- Around the Parks Update-from the Spring 2005 Conference Reporter, below
The Parks Committee of HPKCC works with local park advisory councils and city-wide advocacy and interest groups to
Starting from almost the formation of the Conference in 1949, the parks committee has been highly active. In the 50's and 60s it was concerned with gaining and figuring out how to use, with real community design input, parks greenspace for the community as one outcome of urban renewal, combating crime and gang and drug use of the parks, preserving the trees where they existed in areas slated for parks. Its spinoff Sculpture Committee held sculpture fundraising and design competitions led by some of the community's major leaders. By the 1970s and 1980s it locked horns with a then-inattentive park district over conditions in the parks and beaches. Barbara Fiske was one of its chairs. In the 1990s it was revived and a the end of the decades brought most of the parks together into a consortium for common concerns. It was very active over getting the new Nichols/Murray gym and fieldhouse right and Promontory Point, for example. It is especially concerned with needs of smaller parks.
Since the Conference is the nonprofit umbrella for the Nichols Park Advisory Council, and for LILAC (concerned with the Metra embankment), the Parks Committee has special relationships with these. We also maintain databases and do considerable work with the Jackson Park Advisory Council, including maintaining its website.
The HPKCC Parks Committee has also convened informal community and regional meetings of council leaders and parks advocates and held forums under the name South Side Parks Consortium.
Some current common issues are park cutbacks, trash collection and maintenance breakdowns, ensuring ongoing community input in park/school agreements and in planning for new facilities, encouraging avenues for community participation and volunteerism such as through the Hyde Park Garden Fair.
Localized issues of area-wide importance include Promontory Point; lake shore reconstruction, access, and amenities; crime and Nichols Park upkeep, communications incl. with the school, facilities; Olympic venues; natural areas policies.
Chairman: Gary Ossewaarde (direct email), telephone (773) 947-9541, Conference email hpkcc@aol.com
HPCCC Letter to Chicago Park Disrict, March 26, 2008 related to the guidelines and park councils.
Timothy J. Mitchell, General Superintendent and CEO and
Timothy M. King, Legislative and Community Affairs
Chicago Park District
541 N. Fairbanks
Chicago, IL 60611Dear Mr. Mitchell and Mr. King:
Thank you for your reply of March 6, 2008, to our letter of February 19. We were surprised to learn that you have been seeking comments and suggestions on revision of the 2000 Guidelines and are nearly ready to adopt a final document. The role of the Conference is to promote the good of parks in collaboration with councils, staff, and elected officials and to bring together community groups and organizations such as park councils to share their experiences and strengths. While we encourage parties such as park councils to be open and to function well and collaboratively, we do not recommend or support conformity to particular rules of internal operation.
You will recall that our letter was written in response to an ongoing park council issue in our area. We asked that the Park District have and apply, consistently and fairly, an internal policy for such circumstances. We were not thinking of a new set of guidelines, and certainly not a code for every procedure, such as may be suggested by the enumeration in your letter. Because we agree with you that PACs are separate entities, we are concerned that this kind of micromanagement could make it hard for councils to be formed and long-lasting and would dampen resident work and support for their parks. Perusal of your proposed document online confirms our concerns that this may be a turn for the worse. We hope and expect that all the councils, not just a few, as well as relevant stakeholder groups, will be given ample time to review and comment.
We believe that any guidelines should be guiding recommendations and should build and clarify a reciprocal partnership of collaboration. Guidelines need to include the Park District’s support for councils, such as a structure of communication and structure of full consultation in advance on projects and other park changes. While councils cannot set park policy, they are elected, and ideally representative of the community.
We stated that councils representing parks of different sizes, reach of constituency, or circumstances need room to adapt operations to their needs, not just needs of the Park District. Councils ebb and flow as issues and opportunities gain community attention. CPD Policy needs to make sure the varied councils can function and can operate in an open manner, and that policies do not themselves block communication or become an occasion for abuse or advantage within councils, by third parties, or staff within the District. We suggest that the District internally should have its own clear internal policy for what happens when there is a challenge to a council, allegation of abuses by any party, or unresolved disputes, with possibly a well-thought-out review body that could include rotating membership from various councils.
We should be in agreement on some important parameters for councils:
· They should be first and foremost a way for residents to come together freely for the good of their parks through an independent body,
· They need mutual open communication with and respect for and from park authorities local and citywide,
· They be need to be open to all interested parties, not a restricted set of constituents, and be confident that views and requests will receive an open hearing and response,
· Leadership needs to be democratically elected and act in that spirit,
· They need to meet openly and frequently and operate according to basic but reasonable, performable, flexible guidelines.Our expectation is that the District will not enact policies that skew who may be member or officer in a council or inhibit or kill the councils and their ability to attract volunteers and raise appropriate funds for park needs. Rather, we hope that the District, through a period of input, will arrive at a document that promotes trust, reciprocal partnership, and fair dealing.
Sincerely,
George W. Rumsey
PresidentGary M. Ossewaarde
Vice President and Parks Chair
Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference
