Shrubtown October 31, 2018

Opinion: Shrubtown

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Marc Stopeck

Answer Book Editor/ Editorial Cartoonist / Weekly Sales Representative


Love the Journal?

Become our partner in independent community journalism

Thanks for turning to Wednesday Journal and We love our thousands of digital-only readers. Now though we're asking you to partner up in paying for our reporters and photographers who report this news. It had to happen, right?

On the plus side, we're giving you a simple way, and a better reason, to join in. We're now a non-profit -- Growing Community Media -- so your donation is tax deductible. And signing up for a monthly donation, or making a one-time donation, is fast and easy.

No threats from us. The news will be here. No paywalls or article countdowns. We're counting on an exquisite mix of civic enlightenment and mild shaming. Sort of like public radio.

Claim your bragging rights. Become a digital member.

Donate Now

Reader Comments

10 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

Michael Nevins  

Posted: November 2nd, 2018 8:15 AM

I humbly/honestly request that the OPRF board place the largest public expense in the villages history on the ballot in 2020. The residents of OP & RF can then calmly decide if what the volunteers of Imagine have done is in the best interest of the school/community. This is simply too large of a project to solely let a small group of well-meaning people determine (and I'm including the board in that category). Maybe the residents ARE clamoring for knocking down the field house for a large pool with seating for 600.....or perhaps this is just the outcome when a small special interest group spends years lobbying (see illustration above). I personally believe that an expense of this magnitude will speed up the escape - at reduced home values - of many, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Bruce Kline  

Posted: November 1st, 2018 2:20 PM

Marty: the thing is the referendum lost by only 26 votes. So it was a "virtual" tie. Of course as someone more astute than me pointed out: "so that means if the referendum won by 26 votes - a "virtual" tie - we would NOT be constructing the natatorium ... we would be having a community wide conversation on what to do?" Right. Really? The outright hypocrisy and misplaced values of the big pool crowd is beyond the pale.

Amanda Poppenk Massie from Oak park  

Posted: November 1st, 2018 12:41 PM

When I talk about this Imagine, pool, issue outside this community the first thing I'm asked is the education level of the people who live here. They can't believe intelligent people keep putting different colored lipstick on a pig and ask "isn't she perfect?". We need ADA compliance bathrooms and elevators, non gender bathrooms AND AN EMPHASIS OF EDUCATION FOR ALL SO OPRF'S TEST SCORES GO BACK UP, not athletics. Yes my kids were involved in athletics all 4 years.

Marty Bernstein  

Posted: October 31st, 2018 11:39 PM

When was the vote on the 2016 referendum rescinded?

Jeff Schroeder from Oak Park  

Posted: October 31st, 2018 3:39 PM

John, it doesn't matter what it covers or doesn't cover. The issue is that they are, once again, going to add more to our tax bills. That would be fine if we could see savings somewhere else. And who is volunteering to lower their portion of our property tax bill? The Library, the Township, the County, District 97? I don't think so.

Michael Nevins  

Posted: October 31st, 2018 1:46 PM

The Imagine plan of demolishing the field house, rebuilding it, and adding an enormous 600-spectator pool is, like the 2016 referendum, a HUGE (although not a majority this time) part of this $220M plan - dwarfing academic/equity enhancements. Just let OPRFHS make their argument and then have the citizens decide with their vote. The previous board president is probably relieved to no longer being on the board, but the reason he was not re-elected was not personal, but solely due to his policy proposals related to the mega-pool. The present board did not run on this plan and so should allow the voters of OP and RF to vote on this matter. Or have their largest financial backer, a member of the 1% and main supporter of this plan, just pay for it out his petty cash (hey - he can obtain a tax deduction!) - rather than further burdening his over-taxed community.

John Zuraw from Oak Park  

Posted: October 31st, 2018 12:59 PM

It's 'Throwback Wednesday.' Alas, we recall the misleading cartoons from the 2016 referendum campaign. That's when the cost of a new pool was exaggerated by including the cost of proposed improvements unrelated to the pool. But this time, will readers really go for the implication that the "Pool Fund" wants $220 million?

Tom MacMillan from Oak Park  

Posted: October 31st, 2018 11:15 AM

Thought we put a stake in the heart of this one with the referendum. But now we are learning that not only does it come back for a horrible sequel, but they work on how to force it upon us without letting us vote. They have to just know they would lose the vote for them to do that. So gross. Everyone involved at the High School needs to be fired if this happens that way.

Monica Sheehan  

Posted: October 30th, 2018 10:11 PM

Another fine editorial cartoon, great job Marc!

Gregg Kuenster from Shrubtown  

Posted: October 30th, 2018 8:45 PM


Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2019

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2019 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad

Classified Ad