For the defense…

Is “statistical significance” the only thing that counts when considering a public policy direction? Is there nothing “significant” about the “suffering” and/or opinions offered by any given “minority” group?

It seems to me to be acceptable to put forward the results of a survey based only on the answers given by an “identifiable” pool…those already opposed to O’Hare expansion. Their voices are no less important because of the way in which they might have been identified; and that readily transparent “identification” shows the integrity of the surveyor as well as those surveyed.

Additionally, those surveyed might be a generally identifiable group, but NO group is monolithic in its’ response(s) to issues…as the survey results show.

So, it seems to me perfectly legit to put forward these survey responses, discuss, debate, etc. Then it becomes the responsibility of our elected officials to determine a course of action best suited FOR EVERYONE, which is when something more “statistically significant” would certainly be in order.

I appreciate the effort Mr. Spanos put into this and I agree with yout general comments Jeannie. Again, I am left with the idea that this is something the city and Alderman should be doing. Is it not their responsibility to determine who has issues and what they are? Better yet, how about determining how proposed changes might cause issues for residents before they break ground – oooops too late!!!

I do agree with PD questioning the information, especially the new runway causing flooding. Just because I think the new runway sucks doesn’t remove my resbonsibility to make sure the information is accurate. People seem to have a tendency to take information as fact so long as it supports their desired results. Can you say health care???

anon on 08.17.09 7:27 am,

Thank you for your comment. My remarks were intended to be confined to consideration of the survey only.

I too agree with the questioning of the flooding and new runway, and the letter writer’s statement of a correlation between the two.

When I read the letter in the paper, I too thought it sounded a bit goofy and, without a cite given for the statement, it came off very weakly. However, I also know one can never be too sure about if, what and why a paper’s editor might choose to leave out something in a letter. An old editor at the H-A, Lloyd Weston, used to edit things out of my letters all the time for reasons that had to do with things other than the usual excuse of “space limitations”…reasons of personal opinion and disagreement he admitted to me. That man drove me nuts; glad he’s long gone.

policy formulation does not require a survey, or a wet finger to the wind. but i agree with the premise of today’s post, that a “survey” of park ridgers who were chosen (it sounds) for the survey because they already had complained about o’hare noise, etc., is not sufficiently credible for our mayor or any other city official to use when discussing the o’hare issue with third parties like congressman roskam.

survey’s done right are supposed to be (although they often aren’t, because of slanted question phrasing and other quirks) somewhat scientific. but from the way it sounds like this survey was taken, it is really “junk science” that is not even marginally credible.

I once managed a construction project (an industrial building) that encroached on wetlands. Although we were required to buy and protect wetlands to replace those that were destroyed, there was no regulation that said the new wetlands had to be near the construction site. If I remember correctly, the protected wetlands could be anywhere in Illinois. So, just because O’Hare replaced wetlands does not mean that the project is not causing additional flooding in our area.

In this case, the new wetlands are in Bartlett. See:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-141353259/ohare-wetland-loss-dupage.html

The additional runoff from the new runway has to go somewhere and it is probably not flowing all the way to the new wetlands in Bartlett. Due to the location of the Des Plaines River, the runoff cannot flow directly into Park Ridge. I would suggest that this is a complex engineering issue and requires an in-depth analysis before people start publishing their opinions. Perhaps the commission that is looking into the flooding in Park Ridge can address this issue to determine if the new runway has caused additional flooding in Park Ridge.

Anonymous on 08.17.09 11:38 am:

Your point is well-taken re wetlands replacement remote from the ones removed.

However, the article you reference doesn’t appear to tell the whole story, because only 90 acres of wetlands are being created in Bartlett while the Corps of Engineers replacement standard is min. 1.5 acres replaced for every acre destroyed.

So if 154 acres of wetlands were lost at O’Hare, a minimum of 231 acres need to be replaced; which leaves 137 additional acres of replacement wetlands to be created somewhere.

Publicwatchdog:

Thanks for the update.

Here’s another reference that details the locations of replacement wetlands:

http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=103451&keybold=forest%20restoration

Here’s a summary:

181 acres in Will County
30 acres in Homer Glen
15 acres at Lake Calumet
90 acres in Bartlett

According to the article, Chicago has to provide 450 acres of wetlands in the Des Plaines River valley. The projects above total only 316 acres, so there may be something closer to the O’Hare construction site but I can’t find any reference to them.

My belief, although I am not an expert in this field, is that none of these wetlands will take the runoff from any new runways at O’Hare airport due to their remote location. I also believe that the runoff is not crossing the Des Plaines River to cause flooding in Park Ridge. But, the additional water has to make its way to the river or the sewer system, or be held in retention somewhere. The way that this water is handled/stored may effect Park Ridge even if a causal relationship is not readily apparent.

I would expect that an in-depth engineering analysis of the effect of new runways on rainwater runoff was done during the engineering stage of the O’Hare expansion project. If so, the PR flooding task force should ask for the results of that study and bring the facts to the residents.

I recall reading somewhere that O’Hare is tapped in, big-time, to the Deep Tunnel. So that might be where the extra run-off goes. And if it helps fill up the deep tunnel, then there’s less room for our water to drain into it, I guess.

That should be a pretty simple question to pose to O’Hare or the Army Corps of Engineers.

I still believe the flooding is caused by the over-building of Uptown, the highest point in Park Ridge.

I think it is all caused by health care reform.