Ravinia Festival’s Cash Cow – Crown Castle – Has Escaped to a Greener Pasture

You probably haven’t read in the Chicago Tribune, or any of the other local newspapers, about the outcome of the residents’ battle at City Hall over the Ravinia Festival Association’s (RFA’s) attempt to build a 1500 sq. ft. structure to house a “head-in” cellular hub for Crown Castle International Corp. – smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The structure was to provide connectivity for a proposed Distributed Antenna System (DAS) comprised of node antennae to be placed throughout Ravinia Park during concerts – which is still on the table and likely to be passed at the Plan and Design Commission meeting March 15, 2016.  Yet, the cellular hub would be used all year long to provide distribution services to all the major cellular phone providers, such as Verizon, AT&T and Sprint.  Both the RFA and the City of Highland Park asserted that the cellular hub structure was essential for public safety, while the residents in opposition denied this.

Frankly, some of our local newspapers seem determined to prevent residents from accessing news, unless the news has been issued directly from City Hall.  Consider that the Chicago Tribune published an article articulating the City’s support of Ravinia with their headline article, Fixing Ravinia Cell Logjam A Matter of Public Safety, Highland Park Mayor Says the very same day as the October 20, 2015 hearing at the Plan and Design Commission. Published before the meeting, not after. Not a single resident was interviewed for that article.  Yet when residents directly requested that the Tribune investigate and report on the issues further, the response was that this was too complex for the newspaper.  If our small city politics is too complex for the Chicago Tribune, heaven knows how they handle Chicago! 

To be fair, I waited a few weeks since City Hall notified Ravinia’s neighbors by letter about a crucial decision concerning the Ravinia’s proposed cellular hub to see if would be reported in the local press. Their report is simply not happening – likely because the City of Highland Park didn’t furnish the information as a press release – so here is all the news about the Ravinia Festival/Crown Castle Proposal that is fit to print but our local newspapers won’t deliver to you.

*******

In a surprise move, Crown Castle decided to take the “head-in” function – its cellular hub – out of Highland Park. It will lease space at an undisclosed location, according to reports, no new structure is planned. The Ravinia neighbors who fought the Ravinia Festival Assocation (RFA) and the City of Highland Park may claim this as a victory, as surely their tireless work at least resulted in several delays before the HP Plan and Design Commission, extending the process to nearly one full year.  

This is very good news for the Ravinia neighborhood (not to be confused with the Ravinia Neighbors Association that refused to assist the 60+ active Ravinia neighbors who opposed the RFA proposal). This is also a positive outcome for any Highland Parkers who care about Ravinia’s cultural and historic importance, as well as the environment and preserving open spaces.  Yet, overall, this is a monetary loss for Highland Park, and it didn’t have to be that way.  It could have been a win-win resolution if Highland Park had been more sophisticated and strategic. Ultimately, Crown Castle made its own decision without Highland Park.  Who can blame them? After all, providing cellular connectivity to Verizon, Spring, and AT&T is a very lucrative business and every day that cellular hub wasn’t up and running was costing them money – no matter how good the deal was that they struck with the RFA.  

 

The cellular hub never belonged on RFA property for several reasons, not the least of which was the moral, ethical, environmental and, perhaps, legal obligation to support the legacy of the RFA’s major benefactor, Mrs. Elsie Eckstein, who donated all the property subject to certain legal covenants. Without Mrs. Eckstein’s brilliant foresight and generosity, the RFA would likely have ceased to exist long ago.

When Elsie Eckstein gifted this prime and valuable land to the RFA, she prohibited the building of commercial property on it, requiring the new owner to maintain its natural open space as a park. She gave the property a distinct not for profit purpose. She didn’t give the land away so other people could make a profit on it. If that were her intent, the she could have sold the property to developers for residential or commercial purposes.  When Crown Castle abandoned Ravinia, the legacy of Elsie Eckstein was upheld, not by the Ravinia Festival Association, not by City Council, and not by the Ravinia Neighbors Association, but by the neighbors who live around the property.  They actively set out to preserve the unique history of our community, and were vigilant and tireless in defense of Ravinia as it should be.

The departure of Crown Castle is also good news for the neighbors, some of whom live as close as 230 feet (that’s less than a football field away) from where the cellular hub would have been built. Serious noise would have emanated from six five-ton HVAC units in the building, at least half of them running 7/24/365. There was another large noisy generator to be put into place on an outside cement block whenever power would go out.  The City never required Crown Castle to disclose the decibel levels for that generator that could run as long as several days based on past power outages in Highland Park.  It could have been deafening, yet no one protected those residents. Records indicated that neither the City nor the Plan and Design Commission was concerned that the nearest residents would have been subject to, at least, a decibel level equivalent to a living room conversation at all times, night and day. With Crown Castle out of Ravinia, these neighbors will now be able to continue enjoy their backyards and bedrooms without an incessant hum, and their property values will remain intact. They also so not have to worry about being bombarded with additional radiofrequency radiation, although the cellular hub would certainly have been installed according to federal standards. Still, who wants to live next to cellular hub?

What about our public safety problem?  Again good news – the absence of this cellular hub has no impact on safety whatsoever, even though Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering said the DAS structure had to be built as a matter of public safety (see, News from Nancy and Chicago Tribune). Her public safety argument was that on busy RFA nights, later established to be 8-12 nights per year, the cell phone activity of Ravinia’s patrons overwhelms the nearby cell towers, compromising the ability for ambulances to communicate with the Hospital’s emergency room.  (We should note that city’s Fire and Police chiefs were unable to provide any documentation of this at the October 20 hearing, and, if it is so, the residents should be asking them to keep records to support public safety.)  Mayor Rotering reported that she personally approached Ravinia, along with the City Manager and the HP Fire and Police Chiefs, to address these safety concerns. In her press releases, she stated that the DAS system was simply the best solution and “to install the DAS, Ravinia will need to build a new building on its property.”  Not so.

As stated in my report on October 20, 2015, and as I testified at City Hall later that day, it was always clear the “head-in” cellular hub did not need to be on RFA property.  While the cellular hub needs to communicate with the DAS antennae nodes proposed to be placed throughout the entertainment section of Ravinia Park, the cellular hub could be off-site. It’s all about RF – Radio Frequency.  No cords, no cables, just RF. That’s why they call it wireless.

Exactly how far away can a cellular hub be from DAS nodes?  Frankly, I can’t answer that technical question because the City of Highland, the RFA and Crown Castle would never answer that simple question.  I wrote to the City of Highland Park on October 27, 2015 with several important questions, including:

“Technically speaking, how far away can a “head-in building” be from the nodes intended to be placed on Ravinia Festival rooftops and other places at the Park?...What is the farthest from Ravinia that it can be placed and still effectively serve the nodes?”

Months later, with that question and others unanswered, I met with the City Manager and staff on January 4, 2016.  How far away could the cellular hub be? Staff replied that this was unknown but it was asserted that it could not be too far, because it would be difficult to “lay the fiber optic cables.” My reply, “There are none. It’s all about RF – Radio Frequency.”  As I explained to another city leader on October 20, “there are no cables, take a look at your cell phone, it’s the same principle.” After nearly a year of review at the City, no one could answer a very simple question – how far away could the cellular hub be?  

The answer, if given to me in October 2015, would have enabled me to provide assistance to Highland Park in resolving this contentious matter. We could have located other suitable local sites to propose to Crown Castle.  Sites that would not have been on land owned by not for profits who pay no real estate or revenue taxes, such as the RFA.  Sites that might have been on City of Highland Park, District School or Park District property – open real estate that could have been monetized for the betterment of Highland Park.  Or, sites in Highland Park’s commercial buildings where the income earned by Crown Castle from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint could be taxed. Highland Park’s commercial properties need lessees. Whatever the other location, it would be intended to help reduce our tax burden in Highland Park. Crown Castle doesn’t just provide DAS services, it is a Real Estate Investment Trust that monetizes land, and the City of Highland Park should have recognized this.

It seems Crown Castle was the only one who knew how far away from the Ravinia Festival the cellular hub could be built. According to HP City Staff, they don’t know where Crown Castle will be. It wouldn’t be surprising to find it in Glencoe, just south of Lake Cook Road. There is a fine golf course there with a corner for mechanics there.

Unfortunately, City Hall did its utmost to ensure that the RFA, a not for profit organization that pays no real estate or income taxes to the community, would reap the significant financial benefits of the cellular hub. Crown Castle is a substantial REIT, publicly traded on the NYSE:CCI, yet the City of Highland (including its lawyers), along with the RFA, continued to represent at public hearings that a cellular hub providing services to Verizon, AT&T and Sprint was not a commercial endeavor, and that there were no significant zoning issues for placing the cellular hub on property zoned residential.  Indeed, the Highland Park lawyer in attendance on October 20 specified that the Plan and Design Commission could not consider the legal covenants on the land while several other resident lawyers there would argue with that position. Neighbors have been left to wonder what the underlying motivations were in this scenario.  So, another unfortunate outcome from the Ravinia/Crown Castle Proposal is that there are more Ravinia neighbors who have gained a healthy cynicism about the City and Ravinia Festival Association.

To some it appears the leadership of Highland Park was so focused on assisting the Ravinia Festival Association that they neglected to understand either the relevant technology or the commercial opportunity associated with the Crown Castle/RFA proposal.  Crown Castle, the cash cow, has now escaped the barn or, another metaphor, Highland Park failed to see the forest for the trees.  Another community will enjoy the taxes benefits.

The good news, the bad news, and an opportunity lost.

Ravinia Festival to Build Cellular Hub for Crown Castle REIT

Please join your neighbors at a meeting tonight, October 20, at 7:30 pm at Highland Park City Hall with the Plan and Design Commission concerning Ravinia Festival’s proposal to build and lease a new 1500 sq. ft. structure in the “West Park” (the parking lot west of the train tracks).  Only contiguous neighbors were notified about the structure and that it will house a new Distributed Antenna System (DAS) for personal wireless telecommunication.  Unfortunately, most of us don't know what that means and are not familiar with its implications.  Also, there is no notification to the rest of Ravinia and Braeside residents, so few others know about this proposal that may have a profound impact on their lives, real estate values and our community.

In essence, the DAS structure will house a cellphone hub, functioning like a tower - just lower to the ground in a one story building.  The services provided from within this building will be sold to Verizon, AT&T and other cellular providers. The DAS hub will run 24 hours a day, every day, all year long.  DAS is usually associated with poll mounted nodes that are placed on existing infrastructure, such as electrical polls, street lights, and cell towers, pointing up, but the Ravinia Festival's proposal includes this 1500 sq. ft. structure.  The Commission will also review this evening extensive “Appurtenant Equipment” throughout the park (likely the poll mounted nodes but we’ve more to learn).  This is a complicated technical system and you may review the full proposal, including technical drawings, online at the HP City website (click here: http://www.cityhpil.com/Archive.aspx?AMID=70).

Let us not be fooled by a Trojan horse that appears with the face of a Ravinia Festival proposal.  The guts of this proposal is to build a structure housing Crown Castle, a publicly traded (NYSE: CCI) company that is the nation's largest provider of wireless infrastructure.  In January 2014, Crown Castle officially became a REIT - explained on their website as a conversion to align their business structure with their "long term commitment to provide the nation's wireless carriers with the prime real estate they need to meet the demands of their consumers."  Yes, it is undeniable that Ravinia Festival's West Park is prime residential real estate, but don't you think Crown Castle could buy some prime commercial real estate in Highland Park? So, let us strip away the image of this as a Ravinia Festival proposal.  This is a Crown Castle proposal.

You may well be asking yourself - what’s the problem with building a new DAS structure in the Ravinia Festival's West Park? Is it something we need? What are the problems associated with it? Let’s first consider the purported reasons for building it.  

Mayor Nancy Rotering issued an e-mail yesterday in support of the Ravinia Proposal. If you did not receive it, here is a link(click here).  She clearly supports the Ravinia Festival/Crown Castle proposal, primarily providing public safety concerns.  She informs us that more than a year ago she approached the Ravinia Festival with safety concerns about cell phone connectivity, along with the Highland Park Fire and Police Chiefs, and our City Manager.  She is concerned that "On busy Ravinia nights paramedics in ambulances cannot get telemetry signals (EKG’s) sent to Highland Park Hospital until they are near Lincoln School, losing critical minutes for communication with the Hospital’s Emergency Room.” 

In a recent August 2015 memo from Fire Chief Daniel Pease (in the proposal package and likely required by the Mayor for support of the Crown Castle proposal), he stated that “although phone communication is the primary and preferred method of communication for ambulance calls . . . all fire service vehicles are equipped with radios that can communicate with area hospitals.” 

Whether or not cardiac rhythm strips are sent from ambulances by cellphone or through the radio (more likely radio at this point in technology but moving toward cellphones), we can take, as a given, that it is very important for everyone to be able to use our cellular phones in an emergency to contact the authorities. So, I agree with Mayor Rotering, this qualifies as a life safety issue at some level and certainly one that should be concerned as more people drop their landlines.  (We can also pause for a moment to consider why the Mayor and City Council have been concerned that our current infrastructure is delaying the relay of vital health information to Highland Park Hospital, or that people without landlines might not be able to request an ambulance, yet residents have not been so informed.)

I have worked in the interest of public safety for my entire career.  Seeing that there is a life safety concern, there is no choice but to provide the necessary infrastructure.

However, wanting to fix the connectivity issues associated with busy Ravinia Festival nights doesn’t mean that the DAS structure is the only solution, nor does it require that it has to be placed in Ravinia Park (east or west).  It also doesn’t justify that the DAS structure will be running 24/7/365 when Ravinia Festival is only open for a few months, and within that time, there are relatively few “busy events.”  It would appear we are being sold a bill of goods.

Reading up on the technology, it appears that a DAS structure could be built remote from Ravinia Park on existing commercial property.  Additionally, if not alternatively, many DAS systems use existing infrastructure.  Crown Castle specifically states in its website, explaining why the company is an “ideal partner” to municipalities with regard to public safety:

“It’s already there: Using existing infrastructure gets you on the air quicker, saves you money, and puts you in accordance with federal mandates to leverage existing infrastructure.”

Building a DAS at Ravinia Park is definitely not the solution to Highland Park's public safety issues.  There are alternatives but they have not been presented to the community, and apparently not pursued by our city's leadership.

There are many reasons for not building the DAS at Ravinia Park but here are a few:

• Will we be trading one life safety issue for another?  There are many communities in the US and globally who have rejected DAS structures and nodes in their residential areas. Here are a few reports: http://www.rcrwireless.com/20150415/cell-tower-news/tower-removed-over-health-concerns http://www.rcrwireless.com/20150413/hetnet-news/das-residents-oppose-crown-castle-das-deployment  While I'm confident that Crown Castle can do a lot to reassure our community about the safety of DAS nodes, the hub structure is another matter.  Here is a sampling of the warnings to be placed with this building, would you want this next door to your home?
  

• The health effects, if any, from this structure will affect the closest neighbors - many of whom didn't receive a notice of the proposal. Additionally, those neighbors may find their homes devalued when they go to sell.  It's one thing to say you live next to one of the finest, oldest and busiest concert venues in the world, it is another to say that the house is next to or near a large communications hub.
• Ravinia Festival pays no real estate taxes on this property.  In effect, they will be passing through this benefit to Crown Castle.
• Ravinia Festival’s property is R-5: Moderate Density Residential District. Residential districts are not intended to allow commercial, industrial, governmental, recreational, or like uses. Yes, there are exceptions for certain organizations and not for profits, like the Ravinia Festival, but the use of the property must always preserve and protect the residential character – and a DAS structure completely fails in this regard. 
• The property was generously gifted to the Ravinia Festival by Mrs. Elsie Eckstein with certain restrictive covenants in the deed to specifically prohibit its use for commercial enterprises.  While the Ravinia Festival has many commercial enterprises in the park, primarily serving food, such services are a normal part of an entertainment venue.  Ravinia Festival, a not for profit, could never deed any of this property to Crown Castle, a publicly traded company, so why are we looking at setting up a lease arrangement as a get around? Perhaps this is being done in collusion with the City of Highland Park as there is a very close relationship between Highland Park and Ravinia Festival leadership. As we usually say in our neighborhood, “Ravinia will get whatever they ask for, whenever.”
• The West Park of Ravinia has always been open to the public, 365 days a year.  Parents teach their children to ride their bicycles in that park.  Families take leisurely walks there in each season. I happen to enjoy the dragonflies throughout the summer. It’s a fine open space, soon to be despoiled by ancient oak trees being felled and a new building emitting RF and electromagnetic waves every day, every hour, every minute.  Additionally, some of the neighbors believe that after the new structure is built, Ravinia Festival will close off the property to all, except for parking for performances.
• The DAS structure will displace numerous cars that would otherwise park in the lot.  These cars will place more of a traffic burden on our community in various ways, such as using up spaces in the uptown and Ravinia shopping district - displacing shoppers.

I refer to Ravinia Park as “my backyard” because my backyard is edged by the entrance to Ravinia off Green Bay Road.  In the 25 years I have owned my home, I have taken great pride in the Ravinia Festival, and have been a good neighbor.  I have never objected to any of their proposals, even if not entirely in agreement, thinking it was for "the greater good." I should also make it clear that this DAS structure will be relatively far away from my home - much closer to other people’s homes on the north end of the park. It’s really not about me – this should be an issue of importance to all Highland Park residents and the people who have a stake in the Ravinia Festival as a not for profit.

This proposal is not for "the greater good" of the Ravinia Festival, except a unrelated business taxable income, and they should be earning their revenue by selling tickets and associated entertainment, not by foisting a commercial enterprise into a residential neighborhood (for shame!).  Let's make no mistake - allowing this proposal to proceed in any manner (other than placing DAS nodes on the polls at Ravinia) will set a terrible precedent.  This is the camel's nose in the tent.  Wait 'til you see the camel.

This is the time for everyone to object – tonight (Tuesday) - even if you’re not a neighbor, even if you don’t live in Ravinia or Braeside.  This isn’t just about ensuring that the Ravinia neighbors can have daily access to the park.  It is about ensuring that the City of Highland treats every neighborhood respectfully – that residential property remains residential and not commercial.  If you wouldn’t like this building next door to your home, it’s important that you stand with others who will be impacted.

This is also about requiring Ravinia Festival to live up to its charter as a not for profit and to honor its legacy.  If they proceed with this, we should inquire further about the real business of the Ravinia Festival. As a not for profit, it currently enjoys a real estate tax exemption yet, certainly, the City of Highland Park, Lake County and the State of Illinois should be paid real estate taxes from any commercial enterprise. Crown Castle may lease the building from Ravinia Park, but Crown Castle has designed the building for itself, and will use it to sell its services to Verizon, AT&T, and other carriers. A rose is a rose.  Crown Castle isn't a large REIT for nothing.  In essence, though not in deed, Crown Castle will own that building.  Just look at the attached proposal. As a City, we are about to be had if the Plan and Design Commission approve this proposal to build a structure.

Many of my friends complain to me, after the fact, that they don’t like certain decisions made by City Hall, particularly with regard to its impact on real estate zoning. Write an email today to HP's city manager (gneukirch@cityhpil.com) or the mayor and city council members, to express your thoughts and join your neighbors at City Council this evening.

And, please share this report with your neighbors.

The Park District's Beach House...

In an e-mail sent to Executive Director Liza McElroy on September 20, 2012, Highland Park resident Daniel Shure asked the Park District of Highland Park (PDHP) a few simple questions:

·         Who lives in the building at Ravine Beach [Millard Park]?

·         How is it decided who lives in that building?

·         What is the lease or financial deal for those living there?”

He further indicated that he had previously asked this question through the general info e-mail address at the PDHP but had received no response. His e-mail also mentions that he had asked a couple of commissioners, as well as other PDHP employees, about the tenants and “no one seems to know who it is other than they assume it’s a park district employee.”

Ms McElroy provided an incomplete response on September 21 as follows:

“Hi Mr. Shure:   The Park District no longer rents the space at Ravine Beach.  The Park District is looking into demolishing this building and this is something that Park Board will address over the coming months.  Thanks for your inquiry. Liza” (McElroy to Shure) [emphasis added]

Desiring a complete and transparent response from Ms. McElroy, Shure sent an e-mail the next day pointing out the disparity that, even though she said the Park District no longer rents the space at Ravine Beach, people continue to live there:

“If the Park District no longer rents the space does that mean the couple that live there are living rent free?  They are still there. Who are they?  How were they chosen to live there?  And, what was the financial arrangement between the Park District and the couple?” (Shure to McElroy)

By this, Dan was indicating that he continued to see individuals who appeared to be residents there even after Ms. McElroy's initial reply.  

Not receiving a timely reply from Ms. McElroy, Shure sent another e-mail on September 25 as a reminder.  He sent yet another reminder on September 27, and, finally, on October 1, he sent a brief e-mail with one additional question:  “Is there a reason you are not answering?”

Executive Director McElroy ultimately replied to Shure’s September 22 e-mail on October 2 as follows:

"Hi Daniel:  I am sorry, I have been out of the office and am still catching up.  At this point, I have nothing further to add to my previous comments.  Liza” (McElroy to Shure) [emphasis added]

Dan is entitled to answers, and we should be interested in them. The PDHP needs to provide all relevant information about the rental of the Ravine Beach house -- how long people have been living in the Ravine Beach Field House, how the property was evaluated for rent, how much the rent was, whether it was paid, whether the tenant was an employee of the Park District or the City of Highland Park, etc.  At the very least, from a compliance and governance perspective, it is appropriate for Dan to have asked about the policies and practices for determining who could live at the beach and if they were paying full value for the enjoyment of living in what might be the only house directly on the beach in Highland Park. 

After reviewing the PDHP’s financial statements made available on the web, there doesn’t appear to be any distinct line item for rental of the Field House (although it would appreciated if the PDHP could point out where it is, if it exists).  Clearly it was reasonable for Shure to ask the Executive Director about the arrangements concerning the Ravine Beach Field House.  It is unacceptable to provide him with wholly inadequate and mostly non-responsive answers. Why no answers to simple questions?

Ironically, for those who have been following the PDHP’s roughshod treatment of more than 1000 residents who signed a petition to oppose placing another beach house on the Rosewood Beach shore, the Millard Park/Ravine Beach Field House was mentioned several times by residents in public meetings as an existing building on the lakefront that could serve as viable location for Park District programs in lieu of sacrificing the shoreline at Rosewood.  Apparently, Ravine Beach was fine as a lakefront home for unidentified lessors, most likely PDHP employees, perhaps for decades.  Now the PDHP has determined that it should now be demolished. 

Answers to Dan's questions?  Dan has been forced to take a path that is becoming increasingly too familiar with the PDHP.   On October 4, he filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to gain access to relevant records.  He has received no response to date.  If the information is noteworthy, it may be reported here.  Regardless, isn’t it time for the Park District of Highland Park to stop acting like a fiefdom and start being open and responsive to the residents who pay dearly for the PDHP?

The Park District of Highland Park’s (HPPD’s) organization chart, approved March 3, 2012, states that the CITIZENS OF Highland Park are at the tippy-top of the org chart.  Everyone at the PDHP ultimately reports up to the residents.  Even the executive director.   Looks good on paper, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works at the Park District of Highland Park.

REAL, not "purported", SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO THE BEACH HOUSE

The Rosewood Beach Project.  Talk about Down the Drain in HP!  More than 1000 Highland Park voices have been unilaterally determined to be “obsolete ” by the Highland Park Park District (HPPD).  Starts me thinking about just who is really obsolete in HP…could it be the Park District Board of Commissioners?

The HPPD is scheduled to decide tonight (8/23/2012) on the Rosewood Beach Project that most notably includes the alleged Interpretive Center.*  While we won't know for several hours the HPPD Commissioners' decision, clearly they consider about 4% of HP’s population (and a much larger percentage of its voters) to be absolutely irrelevant and obsolete.

In a August 22, 2012 letter, the Executive Director of theHPPD, Liza McElroy, tells Amy Lohmolder (who submitted a letter on behalf of the Ravinia Neighbors Association – the RNA) that “…your email is inaccurate in describing the purported “significant” public opposition to the Rosewood Beach Project…The opposition petitions you cite address an obsolete and now-abandoned plan that is significantly different from that which the Park District of Highland Park is now considering…The vast majority of the signatures on the RNA’s petitions were obtained well before the Task Force presented even its preliminary recommendation to the public in May of 2012…”

I’ve news for Ms. McElroy and the HPPD Commissioners:  there isn’t “purported” significant public opposition, it is actual significant opposition, and sticking your head in the Rosewood Beach sand doesn't make it go away.   

Of course, Ms. McElroy is right about the sequencing of the RNA petition.  Can't address whether more or less of them were made previously or recently. Yes, the HPPD held all the cards very close to its vest until recently when the RNA gained enough prominence to ensure that the HPPD would make the process more  purportedly “transparent.”  By the way, the process has hardly been transparent -- the public meetings consist of residents expressing their frustration or their support and the HPPD Commissioners, staff and consultants not answering any questions.  Incredibly, pro forma financials were not presented until the last meeting and at the last minute -- no one in the room could really even ask a question of the financials being presented on the way in the door. Additionally, the RNA had to submit FOIA requests just to get basic information from the HPPD.  So much for transparency.

Ms. McElroy is absolutely wrong about any obsolescence of those signatures on the RNA petition. A unifying point for all the people who signed that petition, whenever they signed it, was and is that they were and are opposed to an "Interpretive Center" -- an unnecessary building on the beach of any size intended for class rooms, parties, rentals, etc., as well as any overbuilding on Rosewood.  The people who signed those petitions continue to be supportive of the admirable job the RNA has been doing of looking out for the best interests of all HP residents when it is clear that the HPPD isn’t.   

The HPPD can’t stick its head in the Rosewood Beach sand and pretend that the 1000+ people who signed the RNA petition and who oppose the beach house don’t really mean it anymore.  We did, we do.

The HPPD has all the signatures, phone numbers and, likely, e-mails for all signatures on the petition.  They certainly haven’t contacted me to determine whether I am still opposed to a Interpretive Center on the beach.  Whether it is 4000 sq. ft. or 1900 sq. ft., whether you call it the Interpretive Center or the beach house, my signature on the petition is still good as are all the rest (and, if there is an exception to that rule, it would be just that, an exception).  If we need a referendum concerning the beach house, bring it on!

We can assume that Ms. McElroy issued her letter with review and authorization by Scott Meyers, the President of the HPPD Board ofCommissioners.  Perhaps even full Board approval for such a sensitive issue was required. Or, if Ms. McElroy sent it on her own, shame on her!  In any event, let's hold the responsible people accountable.

Many in HP may not be familiar with your Park Board. In addition to Mr. Meyers, the Board of Park Commissioners include Cal Bernstein, Lori Flores Weisskopf, Elaine Waxman and Brian Kaplan.  Remember these names because they will likely be presented again for another election to the HPPD or elsewhere in the City or County.  Hold them accountable for their votes on the Rosewood Beach Project.  Remember that one of the best HP City Councilmen (ever!) lost an election in 2009 by only 10 votes.  Remember these names. Your 1000+ votes count.  Hold your Park Board Commissioners accountable for how they treat you, your neighbors, your Park District and your funds.  They are elected by us, and it is our job to ensure that the right people sit in the seats -- people who can be good stewards of our tax dollars.

In a few hours, in a forum designed to give the impression of a transparent process, the residents who still have the patience to show up will be afforded their last opportunity to speak before the HPPD.  As before, each one will be given 2 or 3 minutes to voice his concerns and then HPPD Commissioners will finally answer a the ultimate question.  Beach house or no beach house? Improvements or no improvements for Rosewood Beach?  Yes, President Scott Meyers told us at the last meeting that the beach house simply cannot be carved out of the plan (which may be procedurally correct on an initial vote, but a second vote could be called to adopt the compromise plan without a beach house). 

Regardless of the outcome, whether you are glad or not, please remember there are a few issues that go beyond the decision: 

• The HPPD has shown 1000+ residents extraordinary and lasting disrespect
• The process has been lacking in transparency
• The HPPD has been intransigent about the beach house from the outset, causing extreme divisiveness in the community and, as a result,
• There has been entirely too much focus on the Beach House, leaving the very real environmental issues concerning the habitat restoration and engineering project for the shoreline left largely unattended by all.

Shameful conduct by the HPPD.  

*********

*Regarding the alleged Interpretive Center, really, it appears that it was always intended to be more of a beach house for residents to rent for parties than a center to learn about the beach environment, because, after all, if you want to learn about the beach environment, you’re not sitting inside a building on the beach! This, of course, raises all sorts of questions about the good faith of the HPPD in dealing with residents and the government grantors.  At the first HPPD open meeting there were several people passionately supportive about the ability to bring students to the beach's "Interpretive Center", as if that were the primary purpose, and it isn’t.  The primary purpose is rentals.  Likely one of the reasons the HPPD finally flopped the sham name to the "Beach House."

Looking for that "commitment to transparency, accessibility and ethics..."

Sharing a letter sent to Mayor Nancy Rotering today -

March 15, 2012

Mayor Nancy R. Rotering
nrotering@cityhpil.com

SUBJECT: Termination of the Storm and Sanitary Program & Reimbursement to Residents

Dear Mayor Rotering,

Congratulations on completing the search for a new city manager. David Knapp appears to be an excellent choice and I look forward to welcoming him to Highland Park.

As you know, in addition to a good mayor, a knowledgeable and sound city manager can have a significant and positive impact on the city.  Unfortunately, the lasting legacy of our former city manager is that nearly 50 residents were seriously harmed financially with regard to an ill-conceived storm and sanitary sewer program.  There were several other better solutions to HP's storm sewer problems but he decided upon and promoted the very worst alternative, patently inequitable, discriminatory, and unfair, and the City Council accepted his proposal. 

Other communities in northern Illinois addressed their city's storm and sanitary sewer systems holistically and ensured that the entire community paid for any necessary updates to the infrastructure. Our former city manager and City Council devised a program to foist the entire infrastructure problem on individual homeowners in uncapped and undefined amounts possibly as high as $20,000+.   Nearly $250,000 was paid by about 50 of these unfortunate HP residents in 2008 -- an inequitable financial burden that the City has yet to foist upon all the other residents, yet was clearly ready to do so at the clip of 50+ homes per year had not the Ravinia Neighbors Association put up a fight.  You were a part of that fight, and that fight helped you to gain a seat as a Councilman which, in turn, helped enable you to succeed in your election as a mayoral candidate. 

To the best of my knowledge, this storm and sanitary program has yet to be terminated by the City Council under your leadership.  Yet, approximately 50 of our fellow residents and neighbors have borne the brunt of this shameful program.  It’s long overdue and time for the Mayor and Councilmen to do the right thing now -- reimburse all those who were coerced and forced to pay under threat of lien for this program.  Terminate the program and embark on a new program that is equitable, effective and cost efficient for the community.

As indicated in my blog, “Down the Drain in HP,” many of these homeowners were in their retirement years, some of them had to move or leave the community as a result.  I've had calls from widows, as well as families trying to pay for their children's college tuition, or just get by, and they are asking, "why is Mayor Rotering doing nothing about this? Why is the City of Highland Park not reimbursing us? They know this is wrong but the Mayor and the Councilmen just don't give a damn about us." The homes of some of these residents were foreclosed upon by the banks and some are no longer able to live in our community. I've informed those who are in touch with me that I wrote to the Mayor and all the City Councilmen but only Paul Frank has met with me, and Jim Kirsch had a phone conversation with me. That Steve Mandel is strongly opposed and the others are silent. I’ve told them that Paul Frank informed me that he is “sympathetic” but he doesn’t believe City Council can reimburse the residents because the City doesn’t want to set a precedent of [doing the right thing and] acknowledging they did the wrong thing and making it right ("because they have made so many other errors in the past, so this might mean other residents will want reimbursement, too, for other mistakes").  Is that the kind of reasoning that our mayor and City Council should abide?  In any event, the reimbursement requested by these residents is completely distinct from any other program in the City and would not set a precedent with regard to former programs.  However, the point is that we look to the Mayor and Councilmen to do the right thing, under any circumstance.

This is a sad, disgraceful story community story. In the face of the facts that have been disclosed to this current City Council, they cannot just say that this program was started by former City Council.  It is the current City Council’s job to resolve this and yet they show an egregious callousness to our City's residents and the principles of community and equitable treatment under the law, made worse in the economy that existed then and now.

Over the years, I have heard various councilmen indicate that the City of HP's program was the only way the work could be done.  No other viable alternatives existed or exist even today in their minds. This is likely because the former city manager didn't provide them with alternatives, and they didn’t and haven’t looked for any. It is clear that many of the Councilmen have never taken the time to read the detailed information in my blog or to seek the appropriate information from the City’s Public Works department.  Everyone in HP city government has failed to fix these problems and search for better answers.

So, I reached out to the Mayor of Downers Grove, MartinTully, and he provided me with the Downers Grove Sanitary District PrivateProperty Infiltration and Inflow Removal Program, a copy of which is attached with this e-mail.  Not only will you find a practical solution to the City of Highland Park's problem, you will see the overriding philosophy of Downers Grove:

“The financial assistance is being provided by the District to recognize that the removal of I/I from the sanitary sewer system benefits all users of the system and, therefore, the costs of this removal should be paid by all users as a system cost. The program also provides a mechanism to insure that the work is performed cost effectively and in a manner which protects the integrity of the sanitary sewer system.”

Downers Grove asks permission to go onto private property and the community – not individual residents -- pays for all the work need to be done to ensure that the storm sewers do not invade the sanitary sewers and vice versa.  The Mayor of Downers Grove informs me that the residents are very pleased with this system.  Isn’t it amazing that their community with a lower per capita income (according to Wikipedia) has the ability to provide more valuable services to their residents than Highland Park?  I would be glad to provide you with an introduction to Mayor Tully who has shown great leadership in his community and perhaps he has other valuable insights to share with our community.

As you’ll see, the Downers Grove program was determined by their Sanitary District.  So, I have copied Daniel Pierce on this correspondence.

 Quoting from your email today to Highland Park residents:

“Less than a year ago, four new Council members and a new Mayor came to City Hall. We ran for office out of a desire to serve our community, to make our City government more responsive to our residents and to use your money wisely.

We made a commitment to transparency, accessibility and ethics.”

I would like to see the Mayor and City Council walk the talk. So far, this community has seen the former and current mayors and councilmen turn their back on 50 residents that have been harmed by the City of Highland Park, a City Council that for too long has ignored this issue and has not been willing to do the right, fair, and just thing and reimburse residents who who were cherry-picked to bear the burden of an ill-conceived sanitary line program.

I would like to meet with you as soon as possible to seek a resolution of the storm and sanitary sewer program.  If possible, it would be great to meet with the new City Manager, too. We can meet jointly, or I can meet with David Knapp on my own.  Please provide me with several of the earliest possible dates to meet with David Knapp and you. I will do my best to arrange my schedule to accommodate yours.  Please advise me a few dates, and please schedule 1.5 hours for the meeting as there are considerable details that need to be discussed not only for resolution, but to also constructively move forward in way that’s a benefit to our entire community.

Frankly, it is very difficult for me to find the time to keep going back to City Council on this issue.  Running the City equitably is not my job.  Learning everything I now know about storm and sanitary sewers is not my job.  I’m not even one of the people whose homes were affected by this inequitable program.  Yet, I care about deeply about this City and look to City Council to fix this problem once and for all. 

Respectfully, and with best personal regards,

Debra

Remove the blight - Revise the HP Code on political election signs...

In anticipation of the election season, the City of HP posted information today regarding placement of political election signs.  This issue arises with each political season.  When will City Council take action to prevent this blight to our community? 

Unfortunately, many HP candidates consider signs to be a critical factor in their own personal success, which is why we've seen such an uptick in the number of signs during the last few elections for mayor and council.  So, it may be rather unlikely that City Council will revise the standards without your input.  Our visual enjoyment of the streets of HP, even in an election season, is really not in their self-interest, but it becomes relevant if you make it clear to your City Council what you need from them.  They know the signs are unsightly.  All you need to do is to remind them that they need to do what is good for our community and that you want them to overhaul the City Code on political signs now. This reflects our community's desire to limit waste and the number of unsightly signs to the greatest possible extent while, of course, preserving everyone's right to support political candidates.

Do you like driving through HP during an election season? Did you know there is no limit whatsoever on the number of campaign signs, as long as they are spaced more than 12" apart? They can be as large as 6 square feet and as high as 6 feet.  Nor is there a time limit on how long those signs can be up before or after an election.  Yes, political signs are an expression of free speech but the community can balance that with appropriate standards.  We have a right to enjoy our beautiful community. If your neighbor is a candidate or just politically passionate, you could be coming home every night for years to a yard that looks similar or worse than the image included in this posting!
 
Indeed, for several months during the last major city election, my neighbors and I had to gaze upon more than 30 election signs across the street for the Mayor and Michael Cohn (running for the NSSD 112 school board and who owns the fence to which all these posters were affixed).  After complaints to City Hall and several weeks, Mayor Rotering, kindly came out to the right of way on a cold day and in the deep snow to remove most of her signs (which, she informed me, had not been placed there by her but by a supporter). Candidate Cohn was completely indifferent to the complaints of his own neighbors and the signs remained up for many more weeks.

We have a Design Review Commission in the City of Highland Park.  We care about how our city looks, having an extensive sign code for businesses that reflects our expectations of a beautiful community.  Please contact the Mayor and City Council and tell them it is time to revise the standards for political signs. You can find their e-mail addresses here.

Summary of the HP standards concerning political signs is here.

Long term residents recognize that we didn't suffer for as many months and with as many signs as we do today.  Perhaps this level of eyesore in years gone by reflected the good judgment of the candidates and how much they treasured our community.  Today, we can't rely on good judgment, we need to rely on good standards.  Please contact City Hall and tell them they need to work on this.

The list of the residents forced by the City of HP to pay more than $237,000...

In response to yesterday's blog, we were contacted by several people who asked questions such as "how do I know whether my parents had to pay and need reimbursement?" and "how do I know whether, or how soon, the City of Highland Park will send me 'the letter' demanding payment?"  Additionally, another reader wanted to know who the people are that already paid, and how much.  In essence, the question is, who are the people who have already suffered this financial injury and are they friends of mine?

We can't say when the City of Highland Park will take the Sewer Program off of "hiatus" and put it on your street again. We can only say it remains a viable program, one that Councilman Mandel recently referred to as "huge success."    We haven't heard anything from Mayor Rotering or any other councilman to confirm they will propose to terminate the program "as is" and take another look to develop a program in which the financial burden for improving City infrastructure is placed on the City.  So, it appears more likely than not, at this time, that the Sewer Program will raise its ugly face sooner rather than later, and, individual residents will continue to bear the burden of improving the community's infrastructure.  

EVERYONE who has ever had their sanitary line rodded for tree roots, or who should have this done, is at risk of getting "the letter" that will most likely cost you a minimum of $4,500 for a line on a small lot to $20,000+ for larger properties with deeper lots.  The definition of a broken sanitary lateral line in need of repair, according to City Hall, is any line that has ever been rodded for tree roots or that has tree roots. Given the fact that Highland Park is a Tree City and our parkways are usually beautifully planted with trees, chances are that you will eventually receive "the letter."  When?  Probably when it is least convenient for you, such as when you're selling the house, or you're ready to pay your children's tuition, or you're just about to retire.

Of course, you can prevent this scenario by contacting Mayor Rotering and all the Councilmen and telling them in no uncertain terms that this must stop -- that the  City must pay for improvements to storm and sanitary sewer infrastructure.

The group first targeted in the Sewer Program is revealed in today's blog in the Invoice List the City of Highland Park provided to us in response to the FOIA request.  (Finally figured out a way to post some documents on this blog.  It will be too small to read initially, but if you click on the page, it will expand, with a further opportunity to zoom in on it.)

You'll see friends, neighbors, former neighbors, maybe family, and see how residents were chosen from various neighborhoods.  It's hard to know why an entire neighborhood wasn't addressed at any time -- perhaps it is easier to shove "the Code" down residents' throats if you don't concentrate them into a viable group.

In talking with some of the people on this list, we've found people who have said "why did they choose my home, but not the home down the street where they have to use special toilet paper because their sanitary line is really broken?"  They think the other home has been entirely skipped. To which we reply,  the neighbor just wasn't targeted in this wave.  The City will be back for them.

Did the City choose a handful of residences in one neighbor and then a handful of residents in another neighborhood, rather than just improving a single neighborhood at a time, in an effort to "divide and conquer" the residents?  We really don't know, as we haven't seen any documentation, nor has anyone interviewed City Hall about this.  Unfortunately, we suppose it is possible...perhaps time will tell.