I oppose the beach structure personally and respect the rights of any of our cities shareholders to seek representation in front of any of our governing bodies,. However, I do not support this action before the RBTF even announces their proposal.

I believe we have all had our opportunity to vett our thoughts, concerns and objections and now it is time to come together and let the task force and elected board do ttheir job and improve our beach to the benefit of all.

Certainly we can expect that whatever the result some will be dissatisfied. However, we hired the board by majority vote and let's let them do their job!

This past week I visited quite a few park facilities (great weather!) that I hadn't visited before and found maintenance issues at many of the spots. While I support a park facility at Rosewood Beach (undecided on the interpretive center) I am concerned at how the Park District is planning to maintain their current parks & facilities.

While I am a member of the RNA, I, too, find this last ditch attempt to be heard rather disrespectful to the process & to the task force. In my opinion, the RNA have not behaved in a manner that garners my continued support & I will not renew my membership next year.

You know what I find distasteful? That the RBTF is complaining about a group of Citizens exercising their right to petition their government. The RNA, et. al opposed to the structure went before the RBTF and made their views known. The RNA, et. al felt that their views were being ignored by the RBTF and/or the Highland Park Park District Board, so the RNA, et. al appeared before another governmental body which has jurisdiction over the matter.

The City Council didn't have anything on the agenda, the RNA, et. al simply chose to speak during a period of time set aside for "Other Business From The Public" - items not on the agenda.

There's nothing wrong with this at all. But there is something wrong with the RBTF complaining about it. Although they discuss the rights of the RNA and individual to express themselves about any item on the City Council agenda, the RBTF is It's essentially attempting to squelch the free speech rights of the RNA, et. al who spoke - and that's patently wrong.

When you serve on a public body, you have to expect that people are going to say things you don't like. You need to have a thick skin. If you don't, then you ought not to serve.

The fact that the item didn't specifically appear on the City Council's agenda isn't relevant. The fact that the RBTF doesn't like the tactic isn't relevant either. What's relevant and most distressing is that the RBTF apparently takes issue with exercise of certain portions of the Constitution.

David

I think you are somewhat adding drama to RBTF comments as I believe they recognize and accept the ability of RNA to appear before any body including the Council or the Board to express their opinions. What I believe was objected to was this happening prior to the release of either the Task Force recommendation or the Boards final decision thus perhaps making it somewhat premature and I'm the authors eyes a little disrespectful to the rather professional and public involved process that brought us to this point.

Certainly, I also believe that they could have merely ignored the action, thereby not giving said action new life in foums such as this. Many members of the task force are not professional politicians but residents such as us and may have taken it more personally than they should have . Not really a big deal in the big picture.

Using the RNA's figures of 920-960 signing their petition, they were only able to secure signatures from about 4% of the approximately 23,000 registered voters in HP. I was originally against the IC. However, after attending the first RBTF meeting, changed my opinion. I was bombarded with e-mails from Doug Purington to sign the petition a second time, which I refused to do. I do not wish to squelch anyone's right to free speech. However, I do not appreciate the RNA speaking for me (a member) or any other member. They came to the City Council representing their membership. In my opinion, they would have garnered more respect if they approached the podium as individual residents and not a collective entity.

How many times have the powers that be tried to convince us that we are just too late, and the deal is done. I think any time we can speak up, we have to do so.

(Dog beach and boat launch together. More human beaches!)

The HP residents had a perfect right to go before the City Council -- a decision taken only AFTER the Task Force finally voted 6 to 1 to proceed with their original plan to include the IC on the beach -- and to place it nowhere else. If the Task Force sees it as "inherently disrespectful to itself" it should look to itself for its refusal to even discuss, publicly or otherwise, ANY of the proposals put forth in good faith by the community as good and plausible sites where an IC could be placed, putting on aires, and squelching any public discussion of an alternative view.
The community group had a perfect right to respectfully vent its grievances to City Council in the face of the TForce's refusal to discuss in good faith ANY alternative ideas, even as it recognized that their own view was in contention in the community. (In a democratic society the views of the Rosewood Beach Task Force is not the ONLY world.)