Q and A: Reggie Griffin, President, ECC
Subject: Coffee Shop Meeting, Fall 2009, sent 3/15/2010
Reggie:
When we met at the coffee shop on Bryn Mawr (Zanzibar, Fall 2008), you told me that the ECC would not take a position on landfill expansion until a thorough review of all positions on the issue, which included hearing presentations of a quantitative nature from opponents of the plan.
That was not true.
Instead I note that ECC has taken the Friends of the Parks proposal in its entirety and thrown its support to it. Your report is simply a cut and paste job from Friends of the Parks. Its contained in your so called planning document. This is not only disingenuous but deceptive.
First, your group never considered the over 18,000 people who voted in the 2008 elections and voted AGAINST landfill expansion---over 63% of the voters! I guess they don't count....only ECC members, a small subset of interests count.
I don't know what kind of organization ECC is. They certainly don't represent the community. It appears they represent select special interests at the expense of the community.
Shame on you for misleading me into thinking that ECC was simply reflective of the community as a whole. Instead, it appears you are in bed with interests that the majority of the people in this community reject.
Response from Reggie: There was no response, in the 1 1/2 years since our meeting. And there was no response to this e-mail
Q and A: Anne Commeaux, ECC Member and Chairperson
Subject: Park ECC Environmental Plan, sent 3/15/2010
Dear Ms. Comeaux:
As chair of the planning committee for the Edgewater Master Plan, I ask that you answer the following questions, which are based upon some of the statements that were made in your recently released report:
- You make two conflicting claims in your report: One one page your claim that (1) that Edgewater has one of the smallest amounts of community park space of any Chicago neighborhood and on another page you claim that (2) Edgewater has the least amount of parkland of any of Chicago's communities. Both claims are intended to incite. Do you have data that can support either of these conflicting claims? I don't think you do.
I call your attention to a report prepared by Mike Fisher, PE in which he compared the amount of park space to total community area for each of the 77 formally designated neighborhoods in Chicago. Contrary to either assertion promulgated in your publication, Edgewater ranks #20 out of 77 community areas in amount of parkland.
How do you reconcile your claims with the actual numbers?
- Your report states that Edgewater falls below the per capita open space guidelines used by the City of Chicago. When based upon population, this guideline suggests 90 square feet of open space per person. Do you have data to support your inference that Edgewater is grossly below "guidelines"?. I don't think you do.
In Mr. Fisher's pathfinding quantitative analysis of parkland throughout the city, he determined that Edgewater is only fractionally less than the guidelines on a current basis. In contrast, many communities have as little as 8 square feet of parkland per resident.
- Why does your report cite national and local "guidelines" as the basis for your planning objectives, when there is an abundance of actual, on the ground, park use data? Do you have any economists on your committee? I don't think you do.
Because if you did, you would know that the analytical standard is to use empirical data as the basis for any analytical work leading to recommendations, when such data exists, not arbitrary guidelines. And such data exists in Edgewater, as you well know.
Your overarching objective is to promote landfill expansion, in lockstep with Friends of the Parks, which has many ECC members on its board as well, creating a serious conflict of interest. (Your renderings, and verbiage are a simple cut and paste from Friends of the Parks.) And landfill expansion involves creating additional acreage on Lake Michigan, not in the neighborhood hinterlands, which your report only tangentially refers to.
But your problem lies in the fact that empirical information relative to lakefront park and beach useage shows quite clearly that there is a gross underutilization of these facilities, not an excess demand for them. The data does not support your conclusions. So the justification for expending scarce resources to create even more excess supply of facilities is not only irresponsible, but intellectually dishonest.
- Your report claims that numerous community groups and individuals were consulted during its preparation, implying that a true cross-section of the residents were thereby represented in the reports conclusions and recommendations. This is again a mis-representation.
Because in November 2008, a referendum regarding landfill expansion was on the ballot in Edgewater. And an overwhelming 63% of those voting rejected landfill expansion. Of the 55 precincts, the majority of the voters in 54 of them rejected landfill expansion. Is this not a better representation of the views of the residents of this community? Or do the views of a select group of insiders at ECC trump the views of the majority?
I would most welcome your response to the abovementioned issues that really call into question your report, your conclusions and your recommendations. I don't hold out much hope that I will. In any event, I do invite you to read monograph after monograph regarding the falsity of what you are proposing at www.stopthelandfill.org
Response of Anne Comeaux: "We'll look into it." To date, nothing from her "looking into it". Don't expect anything either. Why? Because she can't rebut the statements enumerated above, which seriously calls into question the "scholarship" of her work, and the willingness to promulgate unsupported claims in furtherance of the ideological agenda of the ECC zealots and dictators. Remember, these people are in it for themselves, not for the community. They are transparent in their motivations.
Two subsequent e-mails to this tree hugger (thats what she calls herself, believe it or not) have gone unanswered. Similarly, 2 additional e-mails to the figurehead of ECC, Griffin have gone unanswered. And finally, 2 additional e-mails to the co-authors with the tree hugger, one of whom is a retired college professor, have gone unanswered. Its nice to know that even this professor doesn't have the data he claims to have used to support his conclusions.