Much like the communities of Oak Park and River Forest, my family was divided on how to vote in the recent District 200 referendum. But even some of those who voted “yes” were unhappy with the plan offered by the school board. So what have we learned from the referendum outcome?
We learned that the decision to finance a portion of a new pool with a bond issue and higher taxes was an error in judgment. Normally, I would agree that future residents should share in the cost of any public capital investment by means of bond financing. But this is not a normal situation.
First, we have one of the highest property tax levies per capita in the state of Illinois. Second, the district has a large amount of cash just sitting in a bank which is more than sufficient for the cost of a new pool facility plus classroom and cultural facility needs.
We also learned that none of the four plans offered by the board’s “working committee” — comprising essentially board president Jeff Weissglass and member Fred Arkin — was without serious shortcomings. The board’s final choice had the disadvantages of causing major disruptions at the school for up to two years while also putting all faculty and student cars back on neighborhood streets for the same period.
Meanwhile, the board’s working committee vigorously opposed consideration of any plans utilizing the West Field, even though two such plans were offered by board member Steve Gevinson. Neither of Gevinson’s plans would have had the adverse effects of the plan offered in the referendum. Both of the plans he offered would have freed up more space in the existing field house pool area for other uses.
What to do next?
If the board is now sincere in wanting a fresh start, it can prove it by hiring a new architect. The board’s working committee tried every means possible to prevent a public viewing of Gevinson’s proposals even to the point of having Legat prepare a bogus version of Gevinson’s underground pool option. As proof, see the WJ article “What could have been” [Homes, Aug. 10], which presents an underground pool designed by Garret Eakin and Frank Heitzman at an estimated cost of $35 million. Compare that to the underground pool option as prepared by Legat and promptly rejected by the board with its estimated cost of $53.4 million.
Even if a new architect is chosen, the next D200 board could be largely guided by the same board members who brought us to the present unhappy state. The next question is, will the board elected next spring allow a new architect to think outside the narrowly defined geographical boundaries set by the current board?
Finally, Steve Gevinson should be recognized for his heroic efforts toward achieving a better outcome. I deeply regret that he has chosen not to run for re-election, but I can certainly understand why. My thanks also to Garret Eakin and Frank Heitzman, who did a fantastic job at no cost to the taxpayers of Oak Park and River Forest.
Lawrence Christmas is a former Oak Park village president.