The “news” article on arguments presented at the Farmers Market about the D200 referendum on a pool-financing bond issue is both misleading and one-sided. [Uncertainty in pool referendum fight, News, Oct. 26] A few egregious “highlights”:

1. Fully six paragraphs are devoted to the paid “Yes” campaign manager’s talking points, with virtually zero indication that the “No” side has cogent contrary arguments — as you and your reporter must know.

2. One “No” proponent is portrayed as “passionate” in his commitment, but his argument is reduced to an airy idealism — as if he had not come to grips with the hard factual choices. Others are quoted as acting out of ignorance — even sheer intellectual laziness. And the concrete fact-based arguments of articulate and well-informed “No” proponents are somehow left out entirely. This is a false picture, and a pernicious one.

3. The article gives the “No” side’s name, “Pragmatic Pools Solutions,” but doesn’t even hint at the actual proposed “solutions,” which are in fact pragmatic.

4. Worst of all, perhaps, the article suggests that the “No” side is distorting key facts. The shoe is on the other foot. The article says that the group “tacks on roughly $15 million” to the pool cost so as to include in the total “the cost of demolishing and rebuilding the garage.” It calls the resulting total “the inflated figure.” Yet the garage-related cost is a necessary cost of building the proposed pool: the board and its “Yes” allies admit there is no alternative. Suppose you had to tear down an old house to build your new dream house on your lot: would you want the contractor to omit the demolition cost from the total?

Philip Fertik

Resident of Oak Park for over 30 years

Join the discussion on social media!

3 replies on “Article on ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ sides wasn’t balanced”