Guess where this is. Yep, Glen Oak Park.
While we’re waiting to preserve some important, but man-made, objects in Glen Oak Park through historic-designation status, the Park District is uprooting acres of trees in the heart of the city to make way for the big zoo expansion. Why do I get the feeling we’re fighting the wrong battle here? What’s more precious: the Squirrel House, which is a nice addition to the park, or the trees, which are the park?
The Park Board’s mission is, “To enrich life in our community through stewardship of the environment and through provision of quality recreation and leisure opportunities.” I fail to see how the Park District’s actions are consistent with this mission statement. The operative word is “and.” It doesn’t say “stewardship of the environment” or “provision of quality…leisure opportunities.” One might justify expanding the park as a way of providing leisure opportunities, but how can they do it at the expense of the first part of their mission?
I know this train has already left the station, but the sad thing is that the community voted with their dollars that they weren’t excited about having this zoo (fundraising efforts were sluggish, to say the least). Instead of listening to that resounding vote of no-confidence, the park board decided to plug the funding gap with tax dollars and tear down the trees anyway.
I still stand by my statements in my previous post, but nevertheless, this is the reason people are cynical about the Park District. This is why they think the board won’t listen if they come to the board with their concerns. This is why we’re all skeptical of the Park Board’s commitment to their mission.
UPDATE: I should also mention that according to the Park District’s 1994 Master Plan, the Park Board’s “Fundamental Responsibilities” are:
- To provide opportunities for wholesome recreational activities that relate to the needs and desires of all citizens.
- To conserve our natural resources.
- To be the guardian of a quality environment for our citizens and encourage the creation, restoration, and preservation of aesthetic values in our community.
Furthermore, one of the their strategic goals is: “Remain a leading force in the preservation of the historical, cultural, and natural environments of the community.”
So, again, how does turning a large portion of Glen Oak Park into an African Zoo exhibit mesh with their fundamental responsibilities and strategic goals?
Something like 27 acres of trees were uprooted!
If that is the Park District’s mission statement, how does potentially carving out PPD land for #150 fit into the equation? That has always been a mystery to me.
If you read the #150 master facility plan, the BOE/administration planned to build a new Whittier facility on land that is currently part of Bradley Park. Somehow that plan hasn’t moved forward, and we know the outcome of the GOS/GOP proposal. How does decreasing the amount of park land fulfill their mission statement?
If you think it is hard to get good people to run for the park board now, just wait until the zoo opens and the money starts to drain at an unprecidented rate. The PPD will be virtually beyond repair at that point and noone is going to want to be in a position of responsibility as the rest of the PPD programs begin to crumble from a lack of funding.
First, I disagree with some of the things the PPD has done lately (GOS thing, pressing on with zoo expansion despite an utter lack of interest). And I don’t much care for Bonnie Noble, but that’s a bit of a story.
BUT I would just like to say that the PPD is amazing – compared to the utter LACK of any sort of parks district in multiple other towns I’ve lived in. The variety of parks, programming and events is really stellar, folks.
Be thankful for what is here, seriously. And the zoo expansion won’t crumble the PPD. It could drain it significantly – but I participate in multiple parks programs at the non-resident fee (county not city resident) and if the 1000+ children participating in soccer alone tis year is any indication, the PPD is doing fine fiscally.
The zoo won’t drain the PPD, the PPD will drain the citizens. That’s the beauty of government, they rarely go broke. They have unlimited funds available from the population. At least that seems to be what most government officials think.
I’m somewhat conflicted about zoos, but in general I think they are probably a bad idea. I have seen so many animals in the confines of a zoo looking totally pathetic. I’ll never foget visiting the zoo in Topeka, KS, and seeing graceful, handsome giraffes standing on cement-hard dirt, straining to reach leaves on a branch that lolled just beyond their long reach. Yet, some large, well-managed zoos do provide good breeding programs that help sustain species. Zoos do educate us. Seeing animals horribly confined can be pretty painful. Seeing acres of trees ruthlessly bulldozed to make way for a zoo expansion hurts even more. I believe we do need smart, capable people to run for the Park District Board. Look into it please if you think you might have the time.
Does anyone remember the article in the PJS a while back about a man whose grandfather had planted 4-5 acres in walnut trees? The gentleman sold those trees to one of the North Carolina furniture manufacturers for approximately $6M. A lot of the trees in GOP were old-growth hardwood. Do you suppose anyone on the park board has looked into selling them to the furniture industry to help defray the cost of the zoo expansion and perhaps repair the run-down historical park structures?
How many years of 1000 kids playing soccer do you think it takes just to pay for the new concession area? Almost all PPD programs operate at a loss, that is fine they are and should be subsidized with the tax money we provide. There is a delicate balance that can be heavily impacted by one or two big money losers. Facility maintanance and needed upgrades to older park district facilities will suffer the most as money is needed to keep the shiny new zoo alive.
The trees would not have been worth anywhere near the 6M range. There were however many furniture grade logs worth perhaps 10-20 thousand had they been harvested by a small mill logger. Most larger loggers would not touch them as many city trees have hidden nails, fence post, or other metal objects within. My guess as the trees were just torn up and thrown out.
As a side note the wood that could have come from those logs would have had a premium value based on having come from the park. People love that type of history.
Pekin Hardwood?
I guess calling them was too hard.