I attended the Feb. 4 park district discussion on the possibility of constructing an indoor pool at Ridgeland Commons. I encourage every voter to view the video of that meeting, which is available on the Park District of Oak Park website. Several issues were discussed that are important to consider when voting to issue up to $40M in bonds for this construction project. The current pool needs work. It was constructed in 1962, and the park district says it has reached the end of its useful life. The decision that must be made is either to repair the existing pool at a cost of about $10M or to replace the pool with a year-round indoor facility with a lap pool, warm-water pool, and splash pool.
A survey was conducted that concluded there is support among Oak Park residents for an indoor pool. Having conducted population surveys myself, I believe that this one was conducted with an appropriate design. However, the survey questions did not state that if the indoor pool was constructed, the village would lose one of its outdoor pools. This oversight may have had an impact on respondents who answered the questionnaire. Attitude measures are not always good predictors of people’s behavior. The real question that must be addressed is whether the people of Oak Park will use this facility in sufficient numbers to justify the $40M price tag and the increase in taxes that will accompany it.
Rehm Pool was closed to additional swimmers four times last summer because it had reached capacity on those days. The previous summer, it was closed two times for this reason. By contrast, the Ridgeland Common Pool has an average usage of about 50% of capacity and has not been closed during those same periods. If it were to be open year-round as an indoor pool, there might be more people using it or, conversely, usage might remain at 50% of capacity.
The additional cost of keeping it open throughout the year is not part of the $40M price tag. Our family uses Rehm and the Forest Park pools principally because of the difficulty in parking at Ridgeland Commons. This is not an issue that will be addressed in this construction project. If parking remains a sticking point in the use of this facility (and it will), there is no reason to believe that there will be a substantial increase in usage. As one attendee stated (and I paraphrase), “I don’t want to be walking several blocks with my child on cold February evenings to attend swim classes.”
If the voters decide not to endorse the building of an indoor pool, the park district says it already has $10M in its capital fund to complete the repairs. No further taxation required.
Given everything that was presented to us, I plan to vote No in the upcoming election. To vote Yes would require a leap of faith (or in this case a deep dive) that there is a substantial expectation that an indoor pool on that site would attract enough users to justify such a breathtaking expenditure.
Daniel Beach
Oak Park
