I was disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised, to see the tone deaf response from Jan Arnold after the pool referendum was voted down. Despite weeks of hearing from the community that yes, we wanted an indoor pool, but no, we don’t want to lose Ridgeland’s outdoor pool, she dismissed the loss as “nostalgia.”
Couldn’t possibly be that people still enjoy using that pool, must be all the old folks who don’t even have young children anymore. As if Oak Park doesn’t currently have any young families?
I’m also fascinated by her statement that there are no other possible sites for an indoor pool. So that means she’s investigated all of them? Which ones? The plan that had been communicated to the community about the CRC is no longer feasible, I guess, because they accepted an energy-related grant. This, despite the fact that the grant-giving agency no longer exists. More importantly, no one ever communicated to the community that accepting the grant would mean the pool couldn’t be built there.
I’m interested in hearing all the alternate sites they investigated because I saw a number of possibilities raised by community members. Maybe none of them are feasible, which is truly hard to believe.
But the most frustrating thing is there has been absolutely no recognition about how messed up this entire process has been. The lack of communication, and steamrolling ahead with the referendum when it should have been clear to everyone it would never pass is stunning.
Now they have an opportunity to apologize for all this and make a serious effort to investigate alternatives. The question is, does the park district have the capacity to admit that they were wrong and make a serious effort to engage in a process, with the community, to see what is possible?
Sadly, I don’t see that happening, but I remain hopeful that some reflection will take the PDOP down a better path.
Ruth Lazarus
Oak Park