This is written in response to two letters published last week by leaders of the pool lobby, D200VotePoolYes, a non-sanctioned, self-described support group for the District 200 school board on the pool issue.
In Peter Ryan’s letter, “Stop the name-calling and move ahead” [Viewpoints, May 18], he continues to assert that there was no sensible pool plan recommended in the 2013 Stantec Report. Yet it recommended two options, including a sensible 8-lane, 25-yard pool in the East Pool/South Gym space (p. 4.23). It was the only option that would not impact other teams or required parking. This pool plan surfaced again as the 2016 Legat Option #2 and actually was first identified as Scheme A in the 2003 Wight Report. The pool lobby opposed this plan in 2013 and opposes it today.
The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “lobby” as, “A group of people seeking to influence politicians or public officials on a particular issue.” Ryan dislikes the label “pool lobby,” yet it accurately describes his group and its issue. School board members were actually the first ones to identify Ryan’s group as a “pool lobby.” In the Jan. 13, 2015 school board meeting minutes, two members labeled the group’s actions accordingly. This should not be news to Ryan as his comments were also recorded in the meeting’s minutes.
In the recent community meetings, attendees favored two very different pool options, a classic case of “wants” versus “needs.”
In Mary Roberts’ opinion letter, “Who uses the OPRF pool?,” she does not disclose the price tag associated with her choice, Option #4. At $42.1 million, it costs nearly double that of Option #2. Option #4 would demolish the existing garage (even though a recent assessment concluded that it should last another 25 years) to build a 40-meter pool and a new parking garage. Taxpayers are still paying for the existing garage.
The total annual maintenance costs of the pool options have not been released. Yet Option #4’s costs will be significantly higher with its much larger pool and the additional costs of operating a large addition to the school.
Roberts’ labeling of Option #2 as a gut rehab is incorrect. This pool plan would yield a new standard-size, high school competition pool. It would also renovate the West Pool, yielding a 4-lane, 25-yard pool. I support solving the pool problem with sensible Option #2. If the new Option #5b comes close to its preliminary cost estimate, I would fully support it.
Evanston Township High School is often compared to OPRF, as it possesses many similarities, including size and demographics. Evanston has two pools that were built in 1958 and is one of two high schools that routinely hosts the state swimming championships. Evanston successfully runs a full aquatics program in pools that are actually smaller than the two pools in Option #2.
In finalizing the pool solution at OPRF, it will come down to “wants” versus “needs” and 20 million more taxpayer dollars weigh in the balance.
Monica Sheehan is a resident of Oak Park.