With the announcement that the Park Ridge Youth Campus is closing down, the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District has expressed interest in acquiring all or part of the almost 12 acre parcel for as-yet unspecified recreational purposes.
That brings back memories of November 1996, when the Park District attempted to acquire another large parcel of non-profit land: the 14-acre Edison Park Home property along Canfield south of Talcott. The District needed approximately $8 million to buy the land from Cambridge Homes, which already had acquired it from Lutheran Social Services but admirably put its development plans on hold until the bond-debt authorization referendum could be held.
Such a referendum was needed because the Park District had foolishly used up all its non-referendum borrowing ability a few years earlier to build the Community Center on land it acquired from the YMCA after that organization decided to close down its Park Ridge facility.
Unfortunately for the Park District and its referendum, the City wanted the extra tax revenue that would come from the 50+ single-family homes that were contemplated for what is now Brickton Place – which would come with virtually no additional costs to the City, as Cambridge would be installing all the needed infrastructure; and no additional police or fire personnel were expected to be necessary.
Supporters of School District 64’s April 1997 “Yes/Yes” referendum to build a new Emerson Middle School didn’t want the passage of an $8 million referendum by the Park District in November 1996 to jeopardize the success of D-64’s $20 million+ plans, even though adding all the homes planned for that site was projected to generate more than $100,000 a year in operating deficits for D-64, based on the number of students those homes would add and the cost of educating them compared to the tax revenue they would generate for D-64.
So the Park District was left to sell that referendum on its own, using a “Keep the ‘Park’ In Park Ridge” slogan. And it failed, costing the District the 2 baseball fields, 2 soccer fields, 1 football field, and the tennis, volleyball and basketball courts that were included in the plans devised by the District’s consultant.
Despite the current recession, we have to believe that the price for the Youth Campus will be higher than the $8 million Edison Park Home went for 16 years ago, especially given the Youth Campus’ “Country Club” location.
Which leaves us unsurprised to hear that the Park District may be looking into partnering with a private developer – Mark Elliott? – to split up the Youth Campus land, with roughly half of it being privately developed into single-family homes while the remainder goes for parks and recreation. That could be a win-win situation: converting half of a currently tax-exempt property into taxable property, while at the same time reducing the community’s shortage of park and recreation land.
But although the District can always use more acreage – according to generally accepted standards, Park Ridge arguably is scores of acres short of the parks and recreation space recommended for a community its size – any major capital expenditure like this deserves to go to referendum in order to ascertain and enlist the support of the taxpayers, even if the District has sufficient non-referendum bonding power to do the deal without voter approval.
This is especially important in light of the recent discovery that Centennial Pools are in need of imminent replacement after 60 years of faithful service. With Oakton Pool gone, the District is no longer over-saturated (pun intended) with outdoor water for a community our size in a northerly climate such as ours.
It’s with that last point in mind, however, that we hope the Park District seriously considers a design and/or features for any new Centennial pool complex that would permit the new facility to operate for at least double the customary 3-month outdoor pool season. Perhaps some form of indoor/outdoor facility (such as is available from companies like the Berndorf Baderbau Group) might be the answer, although it will require a little outside-the-box thinking and greater initial expense.
But it beats committing several million dollars of capital, or issuing an equivalent amount of bonded debt and then servicing it for 5-15 years thereafter, for a facility usable a mere 3 months per year.
That doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense, even for government.
To read or post comments, click on title.
18 comments so far
I am not disagreeing with your premise, just curious about process.
Does the Park District have ’eminent domain’ power and if yes, would that help them acquire the property at a reasonable cost?
If no to the above, would a partnership between the Park District and the City of Park Ridge be a viable option for this property acquisition?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, the PRRPD does have eminent domain power, so it can take the property if it wants to – but it would still have to pay fair market value, as that is determined either by agreement or in litigation.
Why would the City want the Youth Campus property?
The City would want the Youth Campus to build a new police station, give special deals to Tastee, Inc for their summerfest, and to offer up TIF property that would triple the debt service costs of the City.
Just kidding!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: As recently as a year ago, we wouldn’t have put any of these boneheaded ideas past the Council. But we think the tide is turning for the better at 505 Butler Place; and only the “special deals” for Taste Inc. would likely pass, although it might not get enough votes to over-ride a mayoral veto.
I don’t think we need new homes in the country club area but if a compromise between the park and a developer is the only way to ensure that at least some of that parcel becomes a park, I’d support it.
I’d also like to see at least one of the historically and architecturally significant buildings preserved.
This latest update makes me feel better about what might happen with the Youth Campus. Not long ago I heard someone was proposing high-density, multi-family housing, including a 10-story high rise building, for the site. That just turned my stomach.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The joint-like deal is still more rumor than gospel, but the PRRPD is definitely interested in getting at least part of the Youth Campus.
We think you might be confusing your residential developments. The 10-story high rise was suggested by Ald. Jim Smith (3rd) as an alternative to Whole Foods at the Touhy/Washington site. But even if it were to be suggested for the Youth Campus property, we highly doubt that it would get past Planning & Zoning or the Council.
This is Adam again. I authored the first Speak Out in the Journal concerning the Youth Campus closure. In the spirit of compromise, I offer the following guidelines for a split Youth Campus residential development and park:
It must be UNOBTRUSIVE – Park Ridge doesn’t need any more McMansions to lay vacant, nor do we need a group of homes that stand in stark contrast to the historical buildings of the Youth Campus.
It must be AFFORDABLE – By Park Ridge standards, at least. Despite the objections residents of the Country Club neighborhood will undoubtedly raise, the homes built here should be smaller with plenty of lawn space to avoid the drainage problems that large new construction has caused elsewhere in the City.
It must be PUBLIC – Any park land adjacent to the proposed homes must remain open to the public, in accordance with Park District rules and local ordinances – it must be open from sun-up to sundown just like all the other parks adjacent to residential areas, with no early closure because it happens to be on the more affluent side of town.
I understand that a City that has been run into the ground financially like ours (Thanks, Howard!) must take measures to increase revenue, but it must be done in a responsible manner that does not simply rob Park Ridge residents of acres of open and green space. Compromise is the key to good governance, but any plan that does not address the three above issues is barely a compromise and more of an insult – to the residents of the City who need a place to play and relax, to the century-plus long history of the Youth Campus, and to the green, tree-lined face of Park Ridge.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t see the City changing its zoning code significantly for the Youth Campus development, nor should it. So the likelihood that there will be smaller homes with plenty of lawn space is slim to none, although we can only hope that the City enforces its building codes up there a heck of a lot better than it did with 322 Vine.
As for any park land being established there, Northeast Park is right across Washington Street, and we’re not aware of that park having any different hours than the others in the District.
While we enjoy heaping blame on former mayor Howard Frimark as much as anybody, in all fairness the genesis of the City’s current financial mess predated Howard’s mayoralty, even if he did his best to exacerbate it.
Finally, instead of as “the key to good governance,” we view “compromise” the way James Russell Lowell did: “Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.” We’ve had our fill of compromise’s half-a-loaf, kiss-your-sister dilution of competing views down to their lowest common denominators just so that craven politicians can pass some politically-expedient palliative that has both sides’ fingerprints all over it for when the inevitable blame game begins.
Or isn’t a $15 trillion national debt – or a $6 million City TIF deficit – enough “compromise” for you?
Sounds like you know your history on the Edison Park Home referendum. I agree that a referendum is needed to determine the voter support for the land purchase. I also agee that the Park District is in dire need of more land. So do you have any further lessons leaned that will help us avoid the problems that sunk the 1996 referendum?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Trust the voters/taxpayers to do what’s right, and don’t try to b.s. them with bogus claims like the Park District is in “dire need” of more land.
Everything the Park District provides is an amenity, so there in never a true “need,” much less a “dire” one, for anything it provides.
Dire need of more land?!?!?!?! Dire need?? I assume you are refering to the definition “desperately urgent”.
Please!!!!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Sometimes “need” is confused with “want.”
Let’s hope that when the PRPD puts the acquisition to a referendum they include in the language of the referendum the annual additional amount of property taxes the homeowners will be voting for if they support the idea of a park on this land instead of property tax paying and builder permit paying homes. I also hope they include the additional annual cost to the park district to maintain this park land, including the cost of maintaining any historical structures on the property and any additional staff that may need to be hired by PRPD. What kind of additional revenue does the park district think they will generate to offset the added costs and how much of the added costs will taxpayers be expected to pick up.
There is also an opportunity cost to the city if the PRPD acquires the land. How much badly needed building permit revenue and annual property taxes will the city and schools be forgoing if the PRPD acquires the land. This should also factor into the decision making process. These costs may just wipe out any benefits-both tangible and intangible-of the PRPD acquiring the property.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The costs to the Park District alone will likely exceed any economic benefits the Park District will receive. But that factor alone doesn’t necessarily make it a bad idea, otherwise we might not have any parks.
But your points are all well taken. And these are the various calculations and considerations that were almost always ignored by public officials in the past.
9:58 PM:
You took the words right out of my mouth!! Seems we spend a great deal of time (at this blog and else where) hammering on things being able to pay for themselves. We debate increases fees for programs to cover costs etc. At the same time we lament that we do not have enough of a tax base.
I am not trying to hammer parks….hell I LOVE parks. But is this not essentially increasing our “debt” (PD) while decreasing our potential tax base (new houses)??
At the same time, when you say we are below what we should have in acerage I am not sure what that means. Are you saying that the people in this neighborhood cannot walk the 3-4 blocks to Hinkley??
I will listen to all the debate, but it seems to me the ones screaming loudest for this spending (that is what it is…spending) are the ones who live in that neighborhood. In this case it seems to be IMBYS, not NIMBYS!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: For what it’s worth, there are certain parks and recreation organizations that have come up with calculations for how much public park and recreation acreage communities ahould have based on their populations. Whether those calculations are meaningful and reliable is debatable, but they exist.
We don’t know exactly who is “screming loudest” for more park land, but as we’ve said: we hope it goes to referendum, and let the chips fall where they may.
It doesn’t sound like the Park District has a well thought out plan for the Youth Campus property. That seems like a recipe for disaster, or at least bad decision-making.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That is a concern of ours, especially because the mindset that the District has too little land makes acquisition the default mechanism whenever a significant parcel of land becomes available.
OK. My “dire need” statement was a bit much. I tend to lean towards hyperbole when I get going. But it is true that by any standard I’ve seen, including two different organizations that evaluate these things and comparison to nearby towns and districts with similar demogaphics, the amount of park acreage per capita in Park Ridge is very low, which translates to crowded parks, rather than as an earlier commenter metioned, parks that are too far away.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We have consciously observed and studied Park Ridge park usage for over 15 years and have concluded that, once you factor out organized athletic activities run by the Park District affiliates, the parks are rarely “crowded.” But as we’ve previously written, if the voting taxpayers want the Youth Campus to be a park, so be it. And if not, ditto.
Is it possible for it to be re-zoned for any type of usage?
A private company could come in, ask the City to re-zone it for light industrial or commercial real estate or anything; or does a large re-zoning request have to go to referendum?
EDITOR’S NOTE:It’s possible for it to be re-zoned, but “light industrial or commercial” in that purely residential neighborhood doesn’t have a snowball’s chance.
In re: “…otherwise we wouldn’t have any parks.” How encouraging that you agree economic value is not the only value there is. You must be mellowing in your dotage!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Not a chance.
But when it comes to making decisions that affect others economically – as virtually all of our governmental decisions do – we prefer facts over anecdotes, and metrics over feelings.
11:11:
Sorry but your comment about “crowded parks” does not hold water, at least in my experience. The majority of my Park experience is at Centennial but I do get to Hinkley about once a week for ball games. I do not think the parks could be described as over crowded.
There is plenty of room for activities, picnics, a jog or a stroll. There are also plenty of park benches to sit and watch the world go by. There also appears to be enough capacity in terms of ball fields.
There may be certain park related activities that become over crowded. For example, on hot days with the various camps using the pools or families on the weekends, Centennial pool can become very crowded.
There are not plans to build any other facilities such as pools on this possible new park and if they wanted to build new facilities such as pools they already have plenty of land on which to do it.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Many chronic facility “users” want facilities scaled to accommodate peak demand, irrespective of the cost to the vast majority of taxpayers who don’t use or want. Which is why the Park District kept Oakton Pool open 5 or more years beyond when it should have been shut down as a $90K/year black hole.
2:55 I don’t think you can judge whether our city has adequate green space just by looking at how crowded the parks are. It’s the ratio of developed land to undeveloped green space (regardless of how many people use or don’t use that space) that planners look at to determine what’s optimal.
I don’t know what those ratios are but common sense tells me more green space in a town that’s already fairly densely developed can only be a good thing. A good thing for whom or what is, of course, debatable.
I happen to find the various benefits of green space — environmental, ecological, psychological, social — much more valuable than whatever benefits might be gained by replacing the Youth Campus land with more homes. A housing shortage is not something we seem to be facing in PR. But once we give up the green space we can never get it back.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And that would be wonderful if some wealthy benefactor was willing to step up, pay the price the Youth Campus owners want, and then turn the land over to the Park District. But that’s not going to happen.
So the Youth Campus people will try to get top dollar for the land. And unless Park Ridge taxpayers vote with a willingness to dig into their pocketbooks to pay for that land through a referendum bond issue, we suspect it will end up being sold to a developer who can make a profit building and selling houses on it. And that’s fine with us, too.
Imagine – if TYC had a Board of Directors truly dedicated to its cause, they could have sold part of the land and realized CEO Dr. Guidi’s dream of a Foster Care Village. Instead, a group of friends gained majority voting control & almost completed their plan of selling the land to their buddies without the public ever knowing what happened.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Interesting theory, but we haven’t seen one shred of evidence that’s true.
Pub Dog-
When you say ” The Youth Campus people will get top dollar for the land “, do you know who the ” people ” are ? I always thought the State of Illinois owned the land. If I recall, way,way,way back, about a million years ago, I read TYC was supposed to operate in perpetuity thru the desires of the original founders. I’m probably not 100% percent sure of the exact wording, but I thought I read something years ago regarding this. Do you have any facts as to the particulars or a broader history of how we got to where we are today in regards to TYC ? Thanks !
EDITOR’S NOTE: We highly doubt that the land is owned by the State of Illinois. But it doesn’t matter who owns it, because they will want to get top dollar for it (unless it’s the State, at which point we’ll have to keep an eye out for some corrupt sweetheart deal).
If anybody has evidence that private individuals own the Youth Campus property, we’ll look into it. But WAG speculation isn’t evidence.
7:15 I heard that theory about the Board of Directors. I have to admit that something does seem amiss about TYC’s closing — the sequence of events (at least that I was aware of) gave no hint whatsoever that they were even considering closing.
If what you allege is true, I am horrified and dismayed at how truly nefarious and greedy those guys, whom I know only in passing, are. True or not, it seems that the situation merits more investigation.
EDITOR’S NOTE: To the best of our knowledge, it’s a private facility so if anybody should be conducting an “investigation” it should be the parent organization that runs it. If they don’t want to do it, why should the City care?
Well, here is a question I have. Who IS on the Youth Campus board? Are they friends with the developer who wants to build there? And are those players also residents in the immediate area? If so, then this whole situation troubles me, and should trouble us all because then it looks like the whole project is being controlled by a group with motives that are self-centered. “Hey, we’ll shut down the campus–some of the kids there are getting unruly right in our backyards– and then our buddy will develop the property. And hey, let’s invest in that development and make a little cash, too!” Could that be what is going on? Because that campus has been operating for a long, long time, through all kinds of economies, through all kinds of residents, and up until now it worked. So what’s changed? The Board controlling it. Someone please dig deeper on this!
EDITOR’S NOTE: We nominate you. All in favor say “Aye.” The ayes have it: congratulations!
Now get going and report back in 30 days with real evidence, not just idle speculation.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>