[moorhosj]

Lincoln Park is a giant public park spanning most of the north lakefront and is interrupted with structures both public and quasi-public, but we certainly wouldn't want it to be further interrupted with additional structures.

Your own slippery slope argument below implies we have no choice but to further interrupt Lincoln Park with additional structures. Unless that isn't a valid argument and we can evaluate each proposal on it's own merits.

What happens in the next hundred years when there are 8 more presidents from Chicago? Are we to give up further limited public lands for said presidents' libraries? Where does it stop? That is why Friends of the Parks sues now and with Lucas and will sue again and again if need be.

Something that has happened once in 250 years is now going to happen 8 times in a century? Seems like a stretch. If it does happen, we can evaluate each of those proposals on their merit. The slippery slope argument is weak and undercut by your own comments above.

They are advocates for the public land. The land that was designated to stay free and clear and for all Chicago's citizens.

Would you describe Cornell Drive's 6 lanes plus a median as "free and clear"? If not, why isn't Friends of the Park working to eliminate it? When all you can point to are the things you stand against, what are you standing for? FOTP's website lists three "signature projects", Lucas Museum, Obama Library and Last Four Miles (report came out 10 years ago). That says all I need to know.