[BCNnet] FPDCC Public Land Use (incl. DFAs)
Rbdoeker@aol.com
Rbdoeker@aol.com
Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:00:54 EST
-------------------------------1073746854
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jill
I think the gotcha on this is that the FP commissioners approach issues --or
have them forced on them by citizens-- in a haphazard manner.
They rarely have mission-statement discussions. What they have to vote on
are specific actions. A general position statement about the FP's mission
somehow never translates into 'vote No on dog parks or parking lots for museums or
swimming pools or .....'
Letters about DFAs now are great but we will need them again in May/June. A
letter now does not negate the need for another in the summer when the DFA
proposal comes before the Board.
"The train's left the station' because the Thatcher Dog group is actively
seeking a DFA spot. Based on the experience at Montrose Beach I see nothing that
will cause them to give up. Dog groups get a lot of support and
encouragement for their work. Their success will encourage others, and this cascades to
a growing expectation by dog owners that DFAs should be provided by the FP.
It rapidly is seen as an entitlement.
That's what has happened in Chicago. I can't go to a meeting in my
neighborhood without hearing at least 3 people call for a DFA. The citizens are
completely oblivious to the efforts that the dog owners had to go through to get DFAs
elsewhere. What they see is that others have a dog park and we don't. Right
now the park district requires the dog group to pay for 50% of the DFA
($50+K) but the next Park Superintendent could change.
Thus, I personally believe that the best offense is a good defense: Beat the
dog groups to the FP in terms of designating where DFAs might be. The
environmental community should set the limits -- not the dog groups -- but you can
only do that if you are the first to act.
I understand that this goes against the beliefs of the BCNers who take the
approach of Just Say No. Were the Cook County forest pristine wilderness I,
too, would Just Say No . I'd say No if there was even a chance of getting it
back pure wilderness. The new superintendent, Steve Bylina, will make a big
difference with his emphasis on forest preservation but he can't take out the
swimming pools, golf courses, etc.
The delay in consideration of the DFA concept rolled from March to the summer
is probably a reflection of the FP getting a new boss. The pilot is for 1
year. March is the anniversary of the Board approval. Bylina apparently
clarified that the 12 month pilot meant 12 months of actual operation, which takes
us to the summer.
Randi Doeker
Chicago
In a message dated 1/9/2004 10:29:39 AM Central Standard Time,
JA@psych.uic.edu writes:
Chris W has questioned the efficiency of birders debating dogpark issues
that are unrelated to habitat and species protection.
I'd like to take her point further, and question the efficacy of focusing on
dogparks, rather than the underlying issues related to the planned use of
FPDCC land.
The DFA issue is a symptom of a problem, and it's more efficacious to focus
on the problem rather than the symptom. It would be far less contentious, as
well!
We should refrain from reducing this to a "birder vs. dogowner" issue,
despite the fact that a DFA was the lightning rod for the current debate.
The problem has presented itself with different symptoms in the past
(parking lots to gun ranges), and the problem will continue with different
symptoms in the future, without the creation of land use guidelines.
It is my hope that we can influence the creation of these guidelines by
maintaining our focus on the FPDCC's mission to preserve, protect and
restore natural lands.
In November, the FPDCC called for a halt to consideration of additional DFAs
until the Beck Lake project could be evaluated. In November, they felt this
would be accomplished by March. According to Randi's recent post, the time
frame has been extended.
I am distrustful of "political time" because I don't understand it.
When I contacted Richard Newhard, Resource Director for the FPDCC in
September, he assured me he knew of no plans for a DFA in Thatcher. Six
weeks later, I was told "that train had already left the station" and I
should not fight the DFA proposal. A meeting with a commissioner scheduled 2
weeks in advance had to be canceled, but an effort was made to reschedule it
with 1 day's notice. Although it is a different political entity, the IL
Port Authority asked us to wait for public hearings to voice opposition on
their proposed Marina. When efforts were then made to push it through
without public input, an Army Corps of Engineers Project leader screamed at
me for "waiting until the last minute" to voice my concern. So when is a
good time? I certainly don't know and I won't waste energy trying to figure
it out. But I will write letters, now and later!
I hope all of us will contribute as we are able, when we are able, and that
we find common ground to defend. The Forest Preserve is a good place to
start.
While well-written, I believe the COS DFA proposal would better serve the
goals of the birding community if it were reworked to reflect the overall
land use issue, rather than specifically focusing on dog parks.
I have already admitted a lack of comprehension for "political time" so I
won't offer an opinion as to whether COS has enough time to withdraw their
proposal for revision, or if BCN can afford to delay a vote on 1/24.
But as I see it, the issue really isn't about dogs.
Jill Anderson
River Forest
-------------------------------1073746854
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUTF-8 http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charse=
t=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<DIV>Jill</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think the gotcha on this is that the FP commissioners approach issues=
--or have them forced on them by citizens-- in a haphazard manner. </=
DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>They rarely have mission-statement discussions. What they have to=
vote on are specific actions. A general position statement about the=20=
FP's mission somehow never translates into 'vote No on dog parks or parking=20=
lots for museums or swimming pools or .....'</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Letters about DFAs now are great but we will need them again in Ma=
y/June. A letter now does not negate the need for another in the=20=
summer when the DFA proposal comes before the Board. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"The train's left the station' because the Thatcher Dog group is a=
ctively seeking a DFA spot. Based on the experience at Montrose B=
each I see nothing that will cause them to give up. Dog groups ge=
t a lot of support and encouragement for their work. Their succe=
ss will encourage others, and this cascades to a growing expectation by dog=20=
owners that DFAs should be provided by the FP. It rapidly is seen as a=
n entitlement.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That's what has happened in Chicago. I can't go to a meeting in my neig=
hborhood without hearing at least 3 people call for a DFA. The citizen=
s are completely oblivious to the efforts that the dog owners had to go thro=
ugh to get DFAs elsewhere. What they see is that others have a dog par=
k and we don't. Right now the park district requires the dog group to=20=
pay for 50% of the DFA ($50+K) but the next Park Superintendent could change=
.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thus, I personally believe that the best offense is a good defense:&nbs=
p; Beat the dog groups to the FP in terms of designating where DFAs <U>might=
</U> be. The environmental community should set the limits -- not the=20=
dog groups -- but you can only do that if you are the first to act.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I understand that this goes against the beliefs of the BCNers who=20=
take the approach of Just Say No. Were the Cook County forest pristine=
wilderness I, too, would Just Say No . I'd say No if there was=20=
even a chance of getting it back pure wilderness. The new superi=
ntendent, Steve Bylina, will make a big difference with his emphasis on fore=
st preservation but he can't take out the swimming pools, golf courses, etc.=
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The delay in consideration of the DFA concept rolled from March to the=20=
summer is probably a reflection of the FP getting a new boss. The pilo=
t is for 1 year. March is the anniversary of the Board approval. =
Bylina apparently clarified that the 12 month pilot meant 12 months of actu=
al operation, which takes us to the summer.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Randi Doeker</DIV>
<DIV>Chicago</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 1/9/2004 10:29:39 AM Central Standard Time, JA@psych=
.uic.edu writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid"><FONT face=3DArial>Chris W has questioned the efficiency of birde=
rs debating dogpark issues<BR>that are unrelated to habitat and species prot=
ection. <BR>I'd like to take her point further, and question the efficacy of=
focusing on<BR>dogparks, rather than the underlying issues related to the p=
lanned use of<BR>FPDCC land. <BR>The DFA issue is a symptom of a probl=
em, and it's more efficacious to focus<BR>on the problem rather than the sym=
ptom. It would be far less contentious, as<BR>well! <BR>We should refrain fr=
om reducing this to a "birder vs. dogowner" issue,<BR>despite the fact that=20=
a DFA was the lightning rod for the current debate.<BR>The problem has prese=
nted itself with different symptoms in the past<BR>(parking lots to gun rang=
es), and the problem will continue with different<BR>symptoms in the future,=
without the creation of land use guidelines. <BR>It is my hope that we can=20=
influence the creation of these guidelines by<BR>maintaining our focus on th=
e FPDCC's mission to preserve, protect and<BR>restore natural lands. <BR>In=20=
November, the FPDCC called for a halt to consideration of additional DFAs<BR=
>until the Beck Lake project could be evaluated. In November, they felt this=
<BR>would be accomplished by March. According to Randi's recent post, the ti=
me<BR>frame has been extended.<BR>I am distrustful of "political time" becau=
se I don't understand it.<BR>When I contacted Richard Newhard, Resource Dire=
ctor for the FPDCC in<BR>September, he assured me he knew of no plans for a=20=
DFA in Thatcher. Six<BR>weeks later, I was told "that train had already left=
the station" and I<BR>should not fight the DFA proposal. A meeting with a c=
ommissioner scheduled 2<BR>weeks in advance had to be canceled, but an effor=
t was made to reschedule it<BR>with 1 day's notice. Although it is a differe=
nt political entity, the IL<BR>Port Authority asked us to wait for public he=
arings to voice opposition on<BR>their proposed Marina. When efforts were th=
en made to push it through<BR>without public input, an Army Corps of Enginee=
rs Project leader screamed at<BR>me for "waiting until the last minute" to v=
oice my concern. So when is a<BR>good time? I certainly don't know and=
I won't waste energy trying to figure<BR>it out. But I will write letters,=20=
now and later!<BR>I hope all of us will contribute as we are able, when we a=
re able, and that<BR>we find common ground to defend. The Forest Preserve is=
a good place to<BR>start. <BR>While well-written, I believe the COS DFA pro=
posal would better serve the<BR>goals of the birding community if it were re=
worked to reflect the overall<BR>land use issue, rather than specifically fo=
cusing on dog parks. <BR>I have already admitted a lack of comprehension for=
"political time" so I<BR>won't offer an opinion as to whether COS has enoug=
h time to withdraw their<BR>proposal for revision, or if BCN can afford to d=
elay a vote on 1/24. <BR>But as I see it, the issue really isn't about=
dogs.<BR><BR>Jill Anderson<BR>River Forest</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1073746854--