[BCNnet] Finding common ground
Veronica Cook
vmcook@ameritech.net
Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:37:22 -0600
--------------021CC0992EFA84AEE870F13B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Jane and John,
I am a subscriber to BCNnet, but not a very active participant. However,
I had to complement you on your insightful message about the dog runs in
the forest preserves. Your examples are wonderfully well done and
thought provoking.
As a city dweller I have watched this issue become a divisive one on the
Lakefront, which again is designed to be "forever free and clear." No
one can deny that there is a culture change in the dog ownership
category. And neither can anyone blame people for wanting to make
provisions for the lifestyle they have chosen. But as you so cogently
point out, there are other culture changes in a variety of categories
as well, which will often conflict with one another. But none of this
changes the basic mission of the Forest Preserve to protect this
pitifully small and beleaguered amount of natural area. If anything, the
population growth (some would call it "explosion" and suggest it is the
real culprit) simply reinforces the need for preservation. Otherwise, as
you so point out so graphically, the Forest Preserves (as also the
Lakefront) will become simply a conglomerate of carved up special use
areas.
Thank you again for such a thoughtful and powerful response.
Veronica Cook
Lincoln Park
Jane & John wrote:
> All, here are some thoughts we would like to add in the spirit of open
> discussion of DFAs. We thought it might be a way of helping clarify to
> others why we take the position we do. We've been having a discussion
> with a few people off list, and it was suggested that some of the
> thoughts below might be of interest to the larger group. John and Jane
> BalabanNorth Branch Restoration Project
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please consider the following scenarios. All of these are currently
> happening or will happen shortly or could conceivably happen at some
> near future date. How do you think a FP Commissioner should answer
> these requests and on what basis? 1) A group of Chicago Native
> Americans requests that FPDCC fence off 100 acres so that they can
> create historical native american buildings and exhibits. This would
> be primarily to allow them to experience nature and teach traditions
> and culture to their children, but they would welcome visitors as
> well. They ask to be in control of scheduling who can come in and
> when, and would install locks, in order to protect their buildings and
> displays. They would raise money to pay for the fence. They would
> charge a small admission fee to pay for the time of the docents.
>
> 2) A group of paintball players requests that FPDCC fence off 50 acres
> of degraded woodland for them so their group can enjoy the sport of
> paintball wars in a natural setting. The fence would be required so
> that the public doesn't wander in and maybe be hurt by flying
> paintballs. They would welcome other groups but ask to be in control
> of scheduling who can come and when, in order to avoid conflicts and
> having too many people on the range at one time. They would ask for
> locks and key card readers to be installed and would limit the number
> of key card holders in order to avoid conflicts and having too many
> people on the range at one time. They would raise money to pay for
> the fence through the sale of key cards. They might charge a small
> admission fee to help pay for regular woodland cleanup.
>
> 3) A group of motocross bike riders requests that the FPDCC fence off
> some 80 acres of Palos hill country for riding, training and
> competition. There is no better way to ride motocross than flying
> through nature enjoying the hills and the trees. The fence would be
> required so that the public doesn't wander in and maybe be hurt by
> speeding bikers. They would welcome other groups but ask to be in
> control of scheduling who can come and when, in order to avoid
> conflicts and having too many people on the range at one time. They
> would raise money to pay for the fence. They would charge a small
> admission fee to help pay for regular course maintenance.
>
> 4) A group of dog owners requests that the FPDCC fence off some 40
> acres of field and woodland and wetland as an area where they can
> enjoy nature with their pets off leash. The fence would be required
> so that the public doesn't wander in and maybe be hurt by unleashed
> dogs and also to keep unleashed dogs from running out into traffic.
> They would ask for locks and key card readers to be installed and
> would limit the number of key card holders in order to avoid conflicts
> and having too many people on the range at one time. They would raise
> money to pay for the fence through the sale of key cards.
>
> 5) A group of soccer players requests that the FPDCC fence off 5 acres
> for several soccer fields. The fence would be required so that the
> public doesn't wander in and maybe be hurt by players more intent on
> the game than looking for visitors. They would welcome other groups
> but ask to be in control of scheduling who can come in and when, in
> order to avoid conflicts and having too many people on the fields at
> one time. They would raise money to pay for the fence. They would
> charge a small admission fee to help pay for regular field
> maintenance.
>
> 6) A group of birdlovers and birdwatchers asks the FPDCC to fence off
> 200 acres in the center of a square mile of grassland to protect
> grassland nesting birds. The fence would be required so that the
> public doesn't wander in and disrupt the breeding habits of the
> nesting birds. They would ask for locks and key card readers to be
> installed and would limit the number of key card holders in order to
> avoid conflicts and having too many birdwatchers on the main nesting
> range at one time. They would raise money to pay for the fence
> through the sale of key cards.
>
> 7) A group of campers asks the FPDCC to fence off an existing building
> and 40 acres of nearby woodlands and fields. They enjoy nature by
> camping out with their children and friends and would use the area to
> teach critical environmental skills to a new group of adolescents and
> young adults. They would welcome other groups but the fence would be
> required so that they can be in control of scheduling who can come and
> when, in order to avoid conflicts and having too many people in the
> campsites at one time. They would raise money to pay for the fence.
> They would charge a small admission fee to help pay for regular site
> maintenance. We believe that this issue is really not about dogs or
> dog owners. It's about the fact that a couple of hundred people
> essentially were able to buy 22 acres of forest preserve land for $50
> apiece -- and then got to use that money to build a fence around it
> and lock the rest of us out! Everyone screamed when Rosemont Mayor
> Don Stephens bought 3 acres for millions of dollars, but no one seems
> to care about this sale. In fact people are talking about giving
> exclusive rights to even more groups. Those groups just happen to be
> dog owners at present, but there's no telling who the next group will
> be once people learn they can buy exclusive rights to acres of forest
> preserve land.
--------------021CC0992EFA84AEE870F13B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Jane and John,
<p>I am a subscriber to BCNnet, but not a very active participant. However,
I had to complement you on your insightful message about the dog runs in
the forest preserves. Your examples are wonderfully well done and thought
provoking.
<p>As a city dweller I have watched this issue become a divisive one on
the Lakefront, which again is designed to be "forever free and clear."
No one can deny that there is a culture change in the dog ownership category.
And neither can anyone blame people for wanting to make provisions for
the lifestyle they have chosen. But as you so cogently point out, there
are other culture changes in a variety of categories as well, which
will often conflict with one another. But none of this changes the basic
mission of the Forest Preserve to protect this pitifully small and beleaguered
amount of natural area. If anything, the population growth (some would
call it "explosion" and suggest it is the real culprit) simply reinforces
the need for preservation. Otherwise, as you so point out so graphically,
the Forest Preserves (as also the Lakefront) will become simply a conglomerate
of carved up special use areas.
<p>Thank you again for such a thoughtful and powerful response.
<br>Veronica Cook
<br>Lincoln Park
<br>
<p>Jane & John wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<font face="ti">All, here are some
thoughts we would like to add in the spirit of open discussion of DFAs.
We thought it might be a way of helping clarify to others why we take the
position we do. We've been having a discussion with a few people off list,
and it was suggested that some of the thoughts below might be of interest
to the larger group.</font> <font face="ti">John and Jane Balaban</font><font face="ti">North
Branch Restoration Project</font>
<hr>
<br>Please consider the following scenarios. All of these are currently
happening or will happen shortly or could conceivably happen at some near
future date. How do you think a FP Commissioner should answer these
requests and <b><u>on what basis?</u></b> 1) A group of Chicago Native
Americans requests that FPDCC fence off 100 acres so that they can create
historical native american buildings and exhibits. This would be
primarily to allow them to experience nature and teach traditions and culture
to their children, but they would welcome visitors as well. They
ask to be in control of scheduling who can come in and when, and would
install locks, in order to protect their buildings and displays.
They would raise money to pay for the fence. They would charge a
small admission fee to pay for the time of the docents.
<p>2) A group of paintball players requests that FPDCC fence off 50 acres
of degraded woodland for them so their group can enjoy the sport of paintball
wars in a natural setting. The fence would be required so that the
public doesn't wander in and maybe be hurt by flying paintballs.
They would welcome other groups but ask to be in control of scheduling
who can come and when, in order to avoid conflicts and having too many
people on the range at one time. They would ask for locks and key
card readers to be installed and would limit the number of key card holders
in order to avoid conflicts and having too many people on the range at
one time. They would raise money to pay for the fence through the
sale of key cards. They might charge a small admission fee to help
pay for regular woodland cleanup.
<p>3) A group of motocross bike riders requests that the FPDCC fence off
some 80 acres of Palos hill country for riding, training and competition.
There is no better way to ride motocross than flying through nature enjoying
the hills and the trees. The fence would be required so that the public
doesn't wander in and maybe be hurt by speeding bikers. They would
welcome other groups but ask to be in control of scheduling who can come
and when, in order to avoid conflicts and having too many people on the
range at one time. They would raise money to pay for the fence.
They would charge a small admission fee to help pay for regular course
maintenance.
<p>4) A group of dog owners requests that the FPDCC fence off some 40 acres
of field and woodland and wetland as an area where they can enjoy nature
with their pets off leash. The fence would be required so that the
public doesn't wander in and maybe be hurt by unleashed dogs and also to
keep unleashed dogs from running out into traffic. They would ask
for locks and key card readers to be installed and would limit the number
of key card holders in order to avoid conflicts and having too many people
on the range at one time. They would raise money to pay for the fence
through the sale of key cards.
<p>5) A group of soccer players requests that the FPDCC fence off 5 acres
for several soccer fields. The fence would be required so that the
public doesn't wander in and maybe be hurt by players more intent on the
game than looking for visitors. They would welcome other groups but
ask to be in control of scheduling who can come in and when, in order to
avoid conflicts and having too many people on the fields at one time.
They would raise money to pay for the fence. They would charge a
small admission fee to help pay for regular field maintenance.
<p>6) A group of birdlovers and birdwatchers asks the FPDCC to fence off
200 acres in the center of a square mile of grassland to protect grassland
nesting birds. The fence would be required so that the public doesn't
wander in and disrupt the breeding habits of the nesting birds. They
would ask for locks and key card readers to be installed and would limit
the number of key card holders in order to avoid conflicts and having too
many birdwatchers on the main nesting range at one time. They would
raise money to pay for the fence through the sale of key cards.
<p>7) A group of campers asks the FPDCC to fence off an existing building
and 40 acres of nearby woodlands and fields. They enjoy nature by
camping out with their children and friends and would use the area to teach
critical environmental skills to a new group of adolescents and young adults.
They would welcome other groups but the fence would be required so that
they can be in control of scheduling who can come and when, in order to
avoid conflicts and having too many people in the campsites at one time.
They would raise money to pay for the fence. They would charge a
small admission fee to help pay for regular site maintenance. We believe
that this issue is really not about dogs or dog owners. It's about
the fact that a couple of hundred people essentially were able to buy 22
acres of forest preserve land for $50 apiece -- and then got to use that
money to build a fence around it and lock the rest of us out! Everyone
screamed when Rosemont Mayor Don Stephens bought 3 acres for millions of
dollars, but no one seems to care about this sale. In fact people
are talking about giving exclusive rights to even more groups. Those
groups just happen to be dog owners at present, but there's no telling
who the next group will be once people learn they can buy exclusive rights
to acres of forest preserve land. </blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------021CC0992EFA84AEE870F13B--