Damn. I was really hoping that it would go to Washington Park. I am curious as to what will happen in the neighborhood. Also too bad that part of the Green Line was torn down awhile ago which would have gone to here. Oh well. Hoping that their revitalization plans for part of Woodlawn work

Yea, I mean if community development is actually an aim, I dont think there will be much of an impact from the Jackson site. People are just going to visit via LSD the way they do for MSI, and depart the same way.


Also still wish this wasnt going IN the park and taking away existing recreational assets from the residents theyre supposedly trying to "support".

FOTP was involved early on, and some of the residents got angry for at FOTPL for trying to tell them what their own community wants. At least according to the meetings they had, the residents didn't seem too concerned:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...113-story.html

Well, last I checked it wasnt decided by the people one way or the other. Obama said what he wanted and he got it, thats all there really is to it.

And some residents in the actual community spoke up and told people from outside the community (including you and me) to stop trying to decide for them how they want to use their park land. I guess you didn't actually understand part the article or anything I quoted. Obama got what he wanted to, you're right - but at the same time - as the article clearly shows - there were many residents who were not against giving up some of the park land in their own community for it.

Well, while I realize this is a touchy subject due to socioeconomic differences that exist within the city, at the end of the day the fact is it is City of Chicago parkland and it is just as much mine as it is anyone else's who lives within the boundaries of this city. No one "owns" it except for the citizens of Chicago as a whole. I have just as much a right to Jackson Park as a southsider has to Montrose Beach. Which is why land grabs like this trouble me, regardless of what its for and who's behind it.

Also, anyone can stand up and speak at a meeting. I have no doubt there are people on both sides of every conceivable issue. Again, without putting those sentiments into context its impossible to say how they should be weighted.

While I generally supported Obama, I wonder how different this conversation would be if say George Bush had for whatever reason decided he wanted City of Chicago parkland and we had a mayor sympathetic to that wish.

I wish people felt as strongly about paying for public improvements in those neighborhoods as they feel about their right to the amenities in those areas. (not directed at you of course)

Museums are perfect for parks. Only bizarro groups like FOTPL think otherwise.

I know you said it wasnt directed at me, but for the record I absolutely think its shameful that city services and improvements are doled out according to the wealth of a given area. Its despicable and a continuation of racist and discriminatory practices that have been present in this city for almost as long as its been in existence. Theres no excuse for why southside streets should be in any worse condition, or why streetlights arent adequately maintained, or parks are allowed to fall into disrepair. I think the amount of money thrown at downtown in particular is disgusting, at the expense of surrounding communities. I would gladly love to see a reversal of that.

Technically we elect people to make decisions about the public good and public resources for us. So one could argue that yes indirectly it was decided by the people.

I dont disagree. Nevertheless, we are in a city (and a subsection of the city in particular) filled to the brim with vacant land. I would much much rather see unimproved land developed first rather than already improved land torn apart and redeveloped. The benefits are far less in my eyes, and I dont like the precedent in general. I wish our default solution as a matter of policy was the first rather than the latter.

Everyone would like the vacant land be used for that, but the thing is that there's not enough vacant land available right now, at least not that I know of, that is that large which would work in a legitimate area. There is a huge difference between having 4 vacant lots next to one another and needing 20 acres of open land for something. 20 acres is either the site of a former industrial site/warehouse that's not there anymore - which is undesirable anyway or a park. We're talking about the Presidential Library. They aren't going to stick it in some former 30 acre warehouse site in Austin that got demolished a decade ago. The actual number of sites that can fit something like this in the city, of this importance, is not many.

Regardless, I do find it funny how people bitch about these types of parks that they don't even use. How many people on here actually use Jackson Park on a somewhat regular basis where putting a Library there is going to be hurt? How many people on here have used the park more than 10 times in their lives outside of MSI? That's why the residents of the community speak up and why some were pissed off about outsiders trying to tell them how they should be using their community's parkland.

speak for yourself. i spent the day in jackson park 3 or 4 weeks ago and was one of the few white northsiders at the Chosen Few Picnic. do i use it daily? no, i live in edgewater. thats not really the point and i already laid out why i feel that way.

Okay, so basically you think you're entitled to tell people how their community park land should be used because you went to a music festival over July 4th weekend, even though you hardly ever use that actual park. Got it. In that case, I spent a week in West Hollywood a few months ago so I'm entitled to tell them how their neighborhood should be. Just because you spent a day in Jackson Park for a music festival doesn't mean all of a sudden your voice means more than the residents who actually live around it. Maybe you'd have a point if the actual residents agreed with you - but now you just sound like an entitled prick who thinks he knows what's best for people because they spent a handful of hours somewhere. In reality, your voice basically means just as much as anyone else's (and probably less than the people who actually live around this site).




The main point is that the Library is going in the site, FOTP already unsuccessfully tried to block it (wouldn't be surprised if they tried something else now) and the residents who actually live around there don't seem to care that 20 acres of their park land will be used for the Obama Presidential Library.

so is someone from little village not entitled to a say in the outcome of a park in Chinatown? is someone from rogers park not entitled to a say in the design of the 606? is someone from the south loop not entitled to a say in the design of the Paeso trail?

i understand Chicagoans love their little fiefdoms (despite talking out of the other corner of their mouth that we need fewer alderman), but all you are doing is coming up with reasons to divide the city rather than bring it together. i try to be as much a citizen of the entire city as I can be, and yes i take an interest in goings ons in places not necessarily in my ward. last i checked i am entitled to that. or should only Loop residents have had a say in the lucas proposal?

youre being adversarial for no reason. i dont need to lay my credentials on the line or bill my hours for time spent south of roosevelt, to you or anyone else, to voice my opinion on a subject that will impact the city as a whole.

So let's get this straight - giving up 20 acres of park land which mostly south siders use
(let's be honest - most people who go from other parts of town to Jackson Park use it either for MSI, the golf course, or the Osaka Garden - none of which are going away anytime soon)and don't mind to give it up for a Presidential Library is dividing the city? If there's anything that would divide the city, it would be to deny the south side another economic opportunity and give it to the north side.

You're right, you have every right to say these things - as do I. It doesn't make what I'm saying or you're saying right. At the end of the day, it should be decided by the people (and in this case the people who live around there already decided that they don't mind 20 acres going away for the library).

no, you are dividing people because you called me and i quote "an entitled prick" because i have a differing opinion about how the development of the museum should have been approached.

It's my opinion that you're talking like an entitled prick because you think you have more of a voice than anybody else because you once went to a house music festival for a day in a park miles from where you live (and somehow mentioned your race, which has absolutely zero importance to what we're talking about). I'm sure the residents of Woodlawn would be beyond excited to hear about your privilege.

you are the one who asked when the last time was i used jackson park. i answered the question.

please quote where i said i deserve more of a voice than anyone else that is a city resident as a result. ill wait.

First of all, I didn't ask you, I made a general statement about the forum. Second of all, I also asked how often people on here use said park. You answered it and you said you barely use it, which exactly proved my point. People complain about stuff because in theory and in their minds it goes one way, except they never participate in that thing. The way you speak is as if you are entitled to a high opinion opinion because you used Jackson Park a week ago dancing to Jesse Saunders. That's great - why don't you tell the residents of Woodlawn what you think the park in their back yard should be used for.