After the overwhelming voter rejection of the disemboweling of the Ridgeland Common Pool, the Park District of Oak Park released a statement. It began with:
“While a majority of Oak Park residents voted ‘no’ on the recent bond referendum to fund an indoor aquatics facility at the Ridgeland Common Recreation Complex, the park district remains focused on meeting the community’s recreational needs.”
Now maybe I’m just being overly sensitive, but why are those two clauses set in contrast to one another? Something about starting the entire thing with “while” is just off, much like the park district’s oft-cited survey indicating broad support for an indoor pool. The first part almost seems like a rebuke of the will of the people, and the rest like the district thinks they know better than those who live in it. But maybe my well-earned disdain of PDOP is tainting my view. The statement continues:
“‘The Park District of Oak Park Board of Commissioners and staff remain committed to serving our community and appreciate the strong engagement throughout this process,’ said Kassie Porreca, president of the Park District Board of Commissioners.” (OK, that sounds pretty good, actually.) “We respect the outcome of the vote and will continue working to provide high-quality recreational spaces and programs for all.”
Hold on. Was there a chance that they weren’t going to respect the outcome of the vote? And why does this read like a concession, like the PDOP Board had somehow lost? Why are they even taking a side in the first place instead of simply hewing to the desires of their constituents?
This was not a nailbiter of an election. Roughly 76% of Oak Parkers rejected the initiative, and it was obvious from the beginning that the community was lining up against it. But PDOP, and the board we elected to represent us, was apparently caught completely off-guard by this. And if they misread the room so badly in this case, how can we possibly have confidence that they have any understanding of our needs?
The pool is one of the few capital projects that we’ve actually been able to vote on. I suspect that many of the other recent projects approved by the board would have been rejected by voters. Why do we need brand new buildings at pretty much every single park in the village? Even the CRC likely would not have enjoyed broad support had PDOP been more forthcoming that there would never be an indoor pool there.
Glaringly, PDOP’s statement makes no mention of making any operational adjustments to ensure they are more aligned with the community. And so it is not enough to simply vote against the pool. We need to demand that the park district make substantive changes and be more accountable. I will be going to the PDOP board meeting on April 16 to let them know how I feel, and I hope that 3 out of 4 of you will too.
Dan Stark
Oak Park