Last nights meeting was a clear glimpse of what is about to happen. For years Lonnie Sacchi has wanted playground equipment out of the parks as well as our children. The RCA is about to vote yes for his warped vision of Olmsteds legacy. This is just the beginning down a path of nightmares to come.
They can disguise it anyway they want, no one can deny a decade of Lonnies Landmark columns.
It was an instructive meeting. For those who weren't there or didn't watch it, one of the actions the Board took was to direct our Village attorney to draft an Ordinance dissolving the Parks Recreation Board and replacing it with a commission, thereby vesting control of the Parks and Rec levy to the Board of Trustees. The Ordinance will be presented at the August meeting and voted on in September. Here's some other points I took away from the meeting:
-None of the RCA Board members could articulate why the dissolution of the Parks and Rec Board is a good idea. Shevitz came closest with his laboured argument that Parks and Rec should be treated like any other department and be subject to the full control of the Board, but he was unable to say why this was a good idea. Kind of like saying the Sun is hot because it's hot.
-Once again, not one citizen stepped up to voice their support of the proposal to dissolve Parks and Rec. Not one. President Gorman claimed that he and the other trustees had heard from a number of citizens who weren't at the meeting who were in favor of the proposal, but he didn't identify them. Both he and Sacchi claim to be implementing the will of the people, but they can't identify any people who support this. I believe that this is because very few people have. Until they can demonstrate some support for their ideas, I think it reasonable to conclude that the majority of Riversiders are against this idea.
-The RCA members are primarily interested in getting their hands on the Rec levy. They have no ideas beyond that. Once they get the money, they can spend it as they choose, as due to the nature of our Village, almost anything in Riverside could be considered fair game for "Parks" spending.
-Ben Sells is the only trustee who seems to a) understand exactly what the Parks and Rec Board does and b) has any concern for how this proposal will impact the families who use Parks and Rec services.
-Despite claims to the contrary, the RCA board members vote as a bloc. No independence whatsoever, no willingness to listen to opposing views, no interest in anyone or anything that flies in the face of what they see as the truth. Their minds were made up a long time ago, and these Board meetings are really just for show, and for the RCA guys to tell everyone how great they are. There was a period there where all they did was talk about all the wonderful things they've done--it was a little orgy of self-congratulations.
-Gorman said he doesn't micromanage, but then said he needs to micromanage. Which is it?
-Despite the RCA-bloc claims that nothing will change when the Parks and Rec Board is dissolved, I fear that we are headed for a period where the Rec portion of the equation is going to be left by the wayside. It won't be all at once, but it will happen by deferring maintainence, eliminating certain programs and spending the money on projects and programs that comport with the views of Sacchi and Reynolds. They don't care about Rec. They don't like the Rec Department, they don't like the staff and they don't like the Rec Board.
-The members of the Rec Board should be commended for their class and dignity in the face of snide innuendos from the RCA Board about their spendthrift ways. Frankly, I would not have been surprised if they had resigned en masse and walked out of the meeting. On that point, all the RCA Board members were particularly nasty to the public last night--they were contemptuous towards questions, dismissive of suggestions and opinions from the audience and--as always--borderline hostile to women. Classy guys.
A system that has served our Village well for over 75 years is about to be torn down for no good reason and despite opposition from the majority of residents. There's no reason to do this, no compelling argument, no evidence that it will save money or streamline services. It's an ugly power grab promulgated by a small group of unpleasant individuals with a dubious political agenda.
Does anybody know the history of the Olmsted Society? Does anyone know why they became to be?
FLASHBACK 1968:
The height of the Baby Boom generation. There were young kids all over the place. The whole village was crawling with babies and young moms and bicycles. Oh, the humanity. Add some hippies (the older baby boomers) on "hippie hill" to complete the picture.
Well, you just couldn't have TWO or THREE Little League games going on at the Big Ball Park and have the little brothers and sisters run into the street, so somehow, to give them a place to be safely occupied while mom and dad watched the baseball games, playground equipment was bought and placed onto the little park across the street, including a turtle sandbox, and henceforth, the same.
Well. Certainly this could not stand. Certainly playground equipment as placed across from the Big Ball Park (not named "the Longcommon") was not part of the Olmsted's original plan. And so a group of people joined together and thus the beginning of the end of the playground equipment. The F.L Olmsted Society was conceived. Yes, in this case, life began at conception.
FLASHFORWARD 2010:
They will begin the slow process (or maybe speeded up, who knows) of removing the PLAYground equipment will occur. Like years ago, there will be no maintenance of the toys, and one by one, the toys will be removed until there will be nothing left.
The mission, which began in 1968, will be accomplished.
As the Olmsted Society president, and a mother of two that utilize Parks and Rec on a very regular basis, this continued argument about FLOS somehow being behind a Parks and Rec "land & cash grab" is ridiculous.
FLOS was originally organized 40 years ago to apply for (and achieved) National Historic Landscape Landmark Status. Over the years, FLOS and the village have disagreed on best use questions, be it native plants vs. cultivars, or location of a playground (not NO playground). In the meantime, FLOS has for over 40 years been actively planting trees and shrubs; created the Olmsted Collection at the Riverside Library; and currently provides the village with hundreds of volunteer man hours each year in the public common and natural areas weeding and pruning.
Please formulate your arguments whether or not Parks and Rec should or should not be a board or commission without dragging Olmsted into this. I can assure you, this is not an Olmsted issue.
A friend recently reminded me that without Olmsted, Riverside is just another suburb. She is right.
If you would like to learn about Frederick Law Olmsted, or would like to know what the Olmsted Society is about, please visit our website. www.olmstedsociety.org
Kim Jacobs
president@olmstedsociety.org
KimJ. I have a question, as a mother, President of Olmsted Society and supporter of the RCA members when they were running for the Trustee seats- what are your thoughts on what the RCA Members of the Village Board is doing to the Parks and Rec. Board/Dept. ?
I don't know what it means when one says that without Olmsted Riverside is just another suburb. Riverside is appealing largely because of its layout and location and the size of the lots. If Olmsted had not designed Riverside, and someone else had, it might be more attractive or less attractive.
I guess all that I can say at this point in history that Riverside is what it is.
KimJ, there is no doubt the FLOS has done good things over the years. I've been a member and over the years have volunteered hundreds of hours of my time. However, what I've outlined is the history of its inception. Yes, the collection in the library is good. Without Olmsted planning the village, it is not necessarily just another suburb. Hinsdale comes to mind. It's historic and yet it has a viable parks and rec dept. and a viable downtown business district. Would be more viable, were we not be in the middle of a depression.
I am disheartened that the RCA bloc has voted against the will of the people. Disgusted, actually. The election of April, 2011 begins now.
Every time anyone invokes the FLOS, you or another member come on to assure us that it is an apolitical organization, dedicated to volunteerism and to the preservation of the Olmsted legacy. If that's the case, perhaps you can explain why the FLOS has repeatedly staked out political postions in its newletters. If you look at the FLOS newsletters from Spring and Winter 2007, you'll note that the president's column (at the time, Jim Reynolds) addresses the TIF. Indeed, in the Winter newsletter, he asks the reader to "Join the fight to stop the TIF and preserve our heritage here in Riverside, by joining the Olmsted Society."
With that said, I don't believe that the FLOS is behind the Parks and Rec power grab. However, the fact is that two former presidents of the FLOS now sit on the Village Board. Both of theses individuals have publicly expressed a very conservative interpretation of the Olmsted legacy. It is no great leap, then, to think that the dissolution of the Parks and Rec Board is at least in part inspired by the desire of these two trustees to implement their vision. Nothing to do with the Society itself, but everything to do with how these former presidents of the society view their public duties.
Let's get this topic back on track, the elimination of the Rec Department. I'm not in the Olmstead Society but I do not believe that the Olmsted Society is behind this.
Elimination of the Rec Department is a huge mistake. I don't know anyone in town in favor of this. Families with young children are going to suffer as a result of this decision. Trustee Sachi has been pushing for this for years, he now gets his wish, at our expense.
I was at the meeting last night - out in the hall - and I didn't get the same impression at all. The public comments were pretty much the same idea - that the Board wants to destroy/eliminate the Rec epartment, which was answered over and over again that that was in no way the case. I did not see or hear anyone disparage the comments of anyone, including the women who spoke. It appeared to me that the strategy of those who do not want any change were charging things that are unproven at best, and in some cases borderline preposterous. Like "this will destroy/erode property values." "They want to grab the funds." Etc.
I heard several trustees say they will continue to support the Rec department, unlike the rhetoric (and actions) of the previous Board. I have no reason to doubt them. There is to be no elimination of the Rec Department. The above comments to the contrary are totally misrepresenting the case and the statements of the Board members. But you know that.
What I found disappointing was that after this item ended, almost everyone left before the auditor could present a few snapshots of the Village audit. Even the members of the press left to gather comments from the disgruntled. This was the important item on the agenda. People should know that, despite drastic cuts in revenue, the Village is coping, and in fact, after one year, fund balances have increased. Expenditures have been lowered, promises of Fiscal Responsibility" are being kept. Those are facts.
Too bad more people weren't there to hear them and spread the word.
You must log in to post.