Send us your comments. Scroll down to the bottom of the page for a feedback box.
Mural drama
This morning I went to the section of your website where I could vote on the Ridgeland overpass mural and noticed that no one else had voted yet, which would make my response 100% in favor of the one I voted for. I couldn’t take the pressure, so I didn’t vote.In any case, I was looking for an option that read “none of the above” because “Tromp l’oiel” is just plain silly, “Compass Rose” is just plain scary (not to mention having no visual reference to Oak Park), “Photography Oak Park” has a vapid color scheme and includes what appears to be gang grafitti in the upper right as part of the village’s “vitality, diversity and beauty”; and “Landscape with Silhouette”, which I actually like best, has that ominous dark cloud rising above the asemblage of buildings, referencing not so much the Chicago fire as an ad for the Haunted Mansion at Disney World – so get rid of the cloud, and I’ll vote for that one. In any event, I feel that getting exercised over a highway mural is just a way for me to avoid getting exercised over the village board’s apparent determination to lose millions on the Colt Building “renovation”, no matter what. Or maybe over the school board’s determination to hide failed principals in highly paid bureaucratic jobs not subject to public scrutiny while firing teachers to cover their salaries.
Peter Jaffe-Notier
Oak Park
Celebrating the life of Rupert Wenzel
Presented by former village president James J. McClure, July 13, at St. Edmund Church:
I was honored when Steven called me and asked me to say a few words. Although I never served on the board of trustees with him, I admired and respected him for his service in two terms 1961-69 and for who he was as a person.
[Rupert Wenzel] was part of the reform program in the early ’50s to bring city-manager government to Oak Park. After the referendum passed, the need to find good people to serve as trustee who hire a village manager led to the formation of the Village Manager Association which has worked for more that 50 years at picking candidates to run for office and work with the village manager. Despite attempts by opponents and the media to categorize the VMA as an elite cabal, the only purpose of the VMA has been to get the best people possible and let them operate. It’s not “what” but “who.”
Rupert served eight years in eventful times. Civil rights issues and the Vietnam War were backdrops. One of the really defining moments for both Rupert and the Village of Oak Park occurred in 1968, late in Rupert’s second term. The board held open hearings on the Open Housing Ordinance and received a petition with 10,000 signatures not to pass the ordinance. We should remember the context. Rapid racial change and white flight was the norm. Opponents felt the Open Housing Ordinance was adding gasoline to the fire.
The federal law on open housing had not been enacted. In a really courageous action, the board voted 5-2 to adopt the ordinance, and, of course, Rupert was one of the five in favor. The vote was an issue in the next election which many thought they would lose. Instead the VMA slate won 55 percent of the vote. The citizens voted approval.
After his term as trustee, Rupert made a big difference on our trees. Dutch Elm disease had arrived and was playing havoc with our tree-lined streets. He led us to a villagewide inventory of our parkway trees. He encouraged a diversity in our selection of trees so that the diseases or failing of one species would not destroy the parkway effect. The value of diversity in both housing and trees is one of the hallmarks of Rupert’s legacy to Oak Park.
We can surely join with God in saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”
Jim McClure
Former village president (1973-81)
This generation of leaders also deserves some recognition
In response to your column [Dan Haley, July 19] in which you bemoan the fact that “we are the victims of generational change,” I just wanted to let you know that my generation of local elected officials is doing just fine, thank you. You speak of the fact that the people whose local service you admire from 20 and 30 years back were of an era when public service was the culmination of well-lived lives after the leaders had succeeded in raising families and in their professions. You also indicated that they did not need to be elected to the Oak Park village board to make them complete. They were already whole people.
Many of my peers who hold elected office are already enjoying well-lived lives, have in fact already been highly successful in their careers and are working their hardest to provide for their families and rear their children much the same as previous generations did. In fact, we sacrifice tremendous amounts of professional and personal time, most often without compensation of any sort, to serve the greater good of our community during critically important times of our professional and personal lives. Every time I watch a village board meeting on television, I cannot help but think of the extraordinary amount of time folks like David Pope and so many others are giving up with their young children to sit through hours upon hours upon hours of often mundane village business and study sessions. Same with Don Harmon and his countless days spent in Springfield representing our statewide interests. These are already whole people who were highly successful in their pre-political lives and who are making significant professional and personal sacrifices for the clear benefit of our community.
In fact, my generation has been unique in forming its leadership style and abilities because we did not grow up during times of military or social strife unlike previous generations. We were not inspired by anti-war or social-statement rallies or the military because these issues and methodologies simply were not in the forefront during our formative years. Rather, our civic inclinations and dedication to public service have been developed through self-motivation. I think my generation should be acknowledged for developing effective and creative leadership abilities and political interest without the expressed or implied assistance of societal tendencies.
Sure there is some ego gratification in being elected to and holding public office. I will not deny that. There is no such thing as a politician with selfless motivations. The best elected public officials are those with high self-confidence and the drive to succeed and obtain lofty personal and professional goals. Why would anyone be willing to have their personal or professional lives opened up to public scrutiny and/or criticism without a little bit of ego-stroking in return? Seeking and receiving some personal recognition for public service does not make an individual less than whole. Rather, it is a healthy sign that such an individual has an excellent grasp of the realities of holding public office.
Have faith in my generation of political leaders, Dan. We are a highly educated, talented and dedicated group who should be recognized as such.
Bill Sullivan, President of Cicero Township Trustees of Schools Board
Balancing preservation and development is this era’s challenge
I’m writing to challenge some assertions made in Dan Haley’s July 19 column [Legends pass, local politicians are dying a slow death, too].
While no “Oak Park Revolution” seems imminent, many current political arguments do center on the very real likelihood of changes which, if not dealt with effectively and soon, will result in Oak Park becoming far different from the community the leaders of the 1960s and ’70s worked so hard to create and maintain.
It’s very true that inappropriate development posed little threat 30 years ago. It’s also true that historic preservation was less of an issue then because developers weren’t much interested in replacing a community that had evolved nicely over more than a century with whatever junk would maximize short-term profit.
Oak Park’s recent success has created challenges just as real and important as those of the 1960s and ’70s. We can have our current political debates because Oak Parkers then chose to take control of their destiny and do things that weren’t market-driven. If we don’t want Oak Park to become just another generic gentrified enclave in which only the very well off can live, we need to act to take control of our collective destiny once again.
Oft-repeated commitments to diversity ring pretty hollow if we welcome only those who can afford a $500,000 home (or condo or townhome) or can pay Whiteco’s high rents. A commitment to preserving our outstanding architecture and beautiful neighborhoods also rings hollow if preservation regularly gets subordinated to claimed rights to build whatever makes a few people the most money.
Many other communities, around Chicago and elsewhere, have chosen to more effectively balance irreplaceable character and developer profit and seem to be doing just fine.
I’d personally hope that today’s Oak Parkers (the people who really should run the government) share at least some of my views about keeping community character and true diversity. Whether they do or not, the controversies of the day need to be faced and discussed honestly before we find ourselves, through simple inaction, in an Oak Park we don’t recognize and perhaps don’t much like.
Raising important issues and trying to get citizens to think about them and act is, I believe, necessary to democracy and not just the unfortunate, inconvenient result of people with poor self-esteem trying to get noticed.
Gary Schwab
Oak Park
RF park board is starting to resemble the Politburo
As a citizen of River Forest and a taxpayer to the River Forest Park District, I wonder when the RFPD board became the Politburo? First, Chairman Dudek sacks board member Holly Hirst as board secretary because he decided she wouldn’t be around much longer. Then he conducts the bulk of the meeting in executive session. What’s next? Will the chairman declare Ms. Hirst a nonperson and photoshop her out of any picture in park district publications?
On another note, it is obvious to anyone paying attention that Mr. Dudek plans to sue the village over the lights at Keystone Park issue. While I favor the installation of lights, I believe that a suit on the matter is a waste of time and, more importantly, tax dollars. The Illinois Supreme Court has already decided in Wilmette Park District v. the Village of Wilmette that a park district must comply with the zoning requirements imposed by the village. While I am not a municipal law attorney, I can read. The only difference between the Wilmette Park District case and the present dispute between the RFPD and the village board is the names of the parties to the suit.
Nonetheless, Mr. Dudek seems hell bent on suing the village. Even as an outsider, it is clear to me that he is dedicated to suing more to vindicate himself than anything else. He has made it plain that he is unwilling to compromise since he has decided that the lights are a must. Unfortunately for Mr. Dudek, the Illinois Supreme Court has held, in essence, that his opinion in this regard does not matter. The village has the final say about whether the park district can install lights.
I believe that the main responsibilities of any elected official are to conduct the public’s business in as transparent a fashion as reasonably practical and to be cautious when it comes to spending the taxpayers’ money. With the exception of Ms. Hirst, Mr. Dudek and the RFPD board fail on both counts. Too much park district business is being done outside the rightful glare of the taxpayers under the dubious cover of executive sessions. Moreover, the bill for legal fees over this lights issue is already large and is sure to grow exponentially if the RFPD decides to challenge the decision of the village on this issue.
At bottom, Mr. Dudek is free to tilt at all of the windmills he desires if that is what it takes to salve his bruised ego. He just shouldn’t expect the taxpayers to pay for his mount and lance.
Thomas Cargie
River Forest
History teaches, where developers profit, we lose
The developers are at it again. They are close to completely ruining the southeast corner of Oak Park Avenue and South Boulevard. They want to gut the core of the historic buildings in our only successful retail district and go way up with condos. In the process they probably want us to give them an alley or two. If you have ever seen one of these new “historic shell” buildings, then you would know how completely butt-ugly they are. From parking to setbacks to design, the developers will say they are being “historically sensitive” but in fact they are not.
@normal:We are rapidly becoming the victims of our own success. Now that the hard work has been done, the developer-wolves are knocking down what we all have worked so long to create. It took uncounted hours, personal sacrifice and in some instances personal bravery to get where we are today and certainly the people who led us here did not have as a vision “auslander” money men profiting by their sacrifice. And for what? A 5-percent commission or a 10-percent developers fee? Heck, in our storied past we have even had village leaders sell us out for nothing and leave town. Before the first shovelfull of earth has been turned on the incredibly irrational Whiteco project all those responsible have vanished.
Then there are the people who in the past wouldn’t let us be sold out. There are many people in town who know the stories and the individuals better than I, so feel free to add to my list, but, from my perspective, here are a few individuals who asked for nothing, but made a great contribution:
- If Bobbie Larson, Aggie Stempniak, Sherlyn Reid and others hadn’t worked so hard to maintain a welcoming and integrated community … the developers wouldn’t be here.
- If Hasbrouck and Sprague hadn’t done their building survey that helped create the two greatest historic districts in the Midwest … the developers wouldn’t be here.
- If Diane Davis, Bill Dougal and others on Forest Avenue hadn’t created that first Wright housewalk those many years ago to help a neighbor devastated by fire … the developers wouldn’t be here.
- If John Thorpe and others hadn’t brought everyone together to purchase and restore the Home and Studio … the developers wouldn’t be here.
- If Elsie Jacobsen didn’t mobilize people all over our village to save the Oak Park Conservatory … the developers wouldn’t be here.
- If Virginia Cassin hadn’t thought that Ernest Hemingway’s local legacy was worth preserving … the developers wouldn’t be here.
- If Mike Kelly and Marty Noll hadn’t kept local community banking alive through the difficult times of major bank consolidation …the developers wouldn’t be here.
- If Frank Muriello and his investment group hadn’t jump-started vintage commercial redevelopment by rehabbing the southwest corner of Marion and South Boulevard … the developers wouldn’t be here.
- If Galen Gockel and others hadn’t created the junior high schools … the developers wouldn’t be here.
- If Doug Freerksen, Mike Fleege and Paul Wicklow hadn’t created the field of restoration contracting … the developers wouldn’t be here.
- If you hadn’t invested your hard-earned treasure in your home … the developers wouldn’t be here.
The list of Oak Parkers who have made this community great is a long one. And the finest contributions seem to come from those people outside the mainstream–those who don’t have any political aspirations, no personal agenda, no personal profit in mind, those who just see an opportunity to make a contribution and then do it.
Then there is the other side.
The other side is comprised of those who come to capitalize on the good work of others. They are visionless except to the lure of the deal. They care about nothing except what ends up in their pockets. My personal experience from being a neighbor to three different developers is that they will happily step on anyone who gets in their way.
Are they doing great buildings to equal the ones that brought them here? Are they being generous to our local charities? Will you see their names on the roll call of the OPRF United Way, the Oak Park Regional Housing Center or Hephzibah?
No.
They despise historic preservation, they view with disdain the single-family people who are trying to hold onto the community that drew them here. For the developers, it’s get in, get out and don’t worry about the corpse. Their goal is density because in density lies great profits. And with condo density they can take their profits now and leave us to pay the costs that density brings.
Other communities have successfully resisted this trend. Their zoning laws protect their citizens and when developers come knocking with dense zoning variance requests they tell them to get lost.
Paul Hamer