Dunn, Finch and Grossman for park district

Opinion: Letters To The Editor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

As one of the 15 or so volunteers who circulated nominating petitions for them, I would like to ask my friends to vote for the "Alive! Our Parks!" slate of Diane Dunn, Tom Finch and Julie Grossman for commissioners of the park district on April 5 for many reasons.

Since 1991 a total ban on pesticides has existed in the parks thanks to the CARE Party of that era. The insider-incumbent slate supports the current board action of starting spraying again. This is unhealthy for all of us, toddlers in particular. Second, data from the Oak Park Township assessor shows that increases in the property tax levy of the park district under the current board is far greater than those of the other taxing bodies in Oak Park. Their 33 percent increase in only the last five years is much greater than the others, including both school districts, which have increased their tax levy by 10 percent in the same period. More alarming, in the last year the park district is even accelerating its tax increases, the levy increasing from 2008 to 2009 by almost 10 percent while no other taxing body increased theirs by more than 3 percent.

The Dunn-Finch-Grossman slate promises to reduce the property tax levy by 50 percent by selling the administration buildings for commercial development and using the proceeds for immediate tax relief, moving the offices to the low-rent Harrison Street arts district (providing an anchor and additional foot traffic for that district), freezing management salaries, increasing the proportion of benefits paid by managers, and eliminating some of the eight new management positions created in the last five years at a cost of $750,000. Dunn-Finch-Grossman are running for office for the first time, outsiders like most of us, but all have lived in Oak Park for more than 20 years. They are bringing fresh, specific, innovative ideas with a spirit of tax-saving and efficiency-creating intergovernmental cooperation.

Please punch 44, 45 and 46 on April 5 for this new group of involved citizens.

Penny Egerter
Oak Park

Reader Comments

3 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

Really?  

Posted: March 29th, 2011 10:30 PM

They are really going to sell the buildings for "commercial development"? Have you heard that the Comcast Building is going to be turned into a SRO because that now constitutes "commercial development" in Oak Park? Yes, let's punch 44, 45 and 46 so we can have more SROs in Oak Park! Absolutely delusional....

OP Resident  

Posted: March 29th, 2011 9:55 PM

Where do these candidates stand on reducing program costs? The fee structure for Oak Park Park District classes and activities, especially for toddlers and grade school ages, has gone through the roof. I don't understand why these programs have to turn a profit. Cover the costs for an instructor and new equipment so the class breaks even; but don't make money off pee-wee soccer. It makes me wonder if there is widespread mismanagement and waste being covered up by the administration?

It's All for the money from Oak Park  

Posted: March 29th, 2011 8:10 PM

Aeschelman is a paid soccer coach. He wants more soccer fields so he can make more money. Bullock has a consulting firm that lists "park district" as its first client on the list. Does she get business from the park district?

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


            
SubscribeClassifieds
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor