There are a lot of reasons to not like the pool plan proposed by the Park District of Oak Park. The plan would remove the Ridgeland Common outdoor pool, replace it with a smaller pool, eliminate the diving area, shorten the lanes and (one assumes) transition from a seasonal model to year-round operation without clearly outlining the long-term operating costs. These are substantive issues that deserve careful public scrutiny.
However, what has been largely absent from public discourse is any mention of the mechanical issues at Fenwick pool since last fall, where the park district hosts weekly lessons. These issues have canceled programming for both children and adults. I have experienced this firsthand, as the Adult Intermediate swim class I was registered for was cancelled. I have also seen how disrupted swim instruction affects children — my own daughter struggled during the interruptions caused by COVID. It is frustrating for families, and it undoubtedly places strain on park district staff, lifeguards and instructors whose programming and employment have been disrupted through no fault of their own.
Should we build a new indoor pool? I’m not certain. It is a complex question and highly dependent on personal priorities. Because it is nuanced, we should respect that reasonable people may reach different conclusions. At the same time it is worth acknowledging that the park district was unexpectedly confronted with a problem outside of their control that has severely impacted their program offering for both fall and winter.
I think we should give them a little benefit of the doubt for the rushed referendum, knowing they are seeking to provide stable, quality services to the residents of Oak Park, and it is understandable that they would want to reduce their dependency on other spaces to provide stable, high-quality services to Oak Park residents.
Joshua Reed
Oak Park
