.

New Community Group Favors Rosewood Redesign

As the Park Board gears up to vote on the proposed Rosewood Beach project, two groups of residents continue to argue for and against it.

As the Park District Board of Commissioners inches closer to determining the fate of , residents continue to debate its proposed redesign.

There are currently two community groups discussing whether or not the plan should be adopted by the Park Board. Ravinia Neighbors Association (RNA) , a roughly 1900-square foot multi-purpose building that would cost between $579,000 to $630,000 to build, while the newly formed Friends of Rosewood (FOR) .

Want Highland Park news in your inbox every morning? Subscribe to Patch's newsletter.

"[RNA] keep trying to speak for the entire town of Highland Park and we thought that was enough," said Michelle Holleman, FOR organizing committee member. "We've formed more to promote the plan we believe in."

Though RNA members have and spoken at meetings against the proposed plan, the group favors every aspect of it except for the interpretive center, according to RNA Publicity Director Doug Purington.

"It's not all or nothing," Purington said. "We want every single part of that plan to move quickly except for the interpretive center."

Purington says that in addition to creating a larger environmental footprint and unnecessarily blocking the view, the building will lead to more people on the beach than the space can handle.

"They want to get the whole ball of wax and they've been pushing for that," Purington said about the plan's supporters.

Holleman, however, thinks RNA's opposition stems from its members not wanting these facilities and the increased activity they may lead to in their backyard.

"We are lucky to have this space and we need to use it for people responsibly," Holleman said. "We're just here to generate support."

What happens if the board votes 'no'

The Rosewood Beach task force presented its redesign plan for the beach to the board on June 21, after a year of meetings with architects and a construction manager to come up with a plan its members felt fit the whole community. The task force's plan includes a boardwalk, the interpretive center, viewing areas, a concession stand and bathrooms. 

"It's not just, 'I grew up in New Jersey and we have boardwalks there,'" . "We've kept in mind how Highland Parkers use that beach."

The project's estimated cost is $3.8 million, according to the Park District's website. Construction cost would be funded through grants and Park District reserves and revenues generated through rentals and programming would be used to help offset operational and maintenance costs.

The board expects to vote on the plan as a whole at its July 26 meeting, according to board president Scott Meyers. If the board approves the plan, the next step is to develop a schematic for the city of Highland Park and the Army Corps of Engineers. 

"The final vote is up or down to provide preliminary approval of the entire task force proposal as a whole," Meyers told Patch this week. "If we vote against the plan we will go back to the drawing board and figure out why it didn't pass."

The voting process will not include the opportunity to remove parts of the plan, like the controversial interpretive center. Doing so would be inconsistent with how the board first outlined this process, according to Meyers.

"It wouldn't be appropriate to just lop off part of the project," Meyers said, pointing out that the task force was enlisted to create a singular vision for the beach. "We owe it to the public and the task force to call for an up or down vote."

If the board votes against the redesign, the proposal process would most likely restart. The task force would probably be reconvened, or a new one would be created, according to Meyers. He said it would be very time-consuming.

"No one is looking to slow down the process, but at the same it's time better that we get it right than we get it right now," he said.

Embracing multiple viewpoints

The last time two community groups were formed to favor or oppose a citywide topic was when . The Park District , and has received hundreds of emailed comments about the plan, in addition to feedback from FOR and RNA members. Meyers told Patch he's happy to see so much community participation in this process.

"My hope is that having more view points available will hurt misinformation," Meyers said. "We sincerely want to hear what people think."

Though Meyers declined to provide his impression of the proposal while the board is deliberating on it, he did give an example of how resident participation has helped the process along. After a number of residents emailed concerns that birds might fly into the glass used for some of the structures, the board reached out to various environmental services and found out that the type of glass proposed would create visual noise, decreasing the chances of bird collisions. 

"We want information," Meyers said. "We're listening to comments as they continue to come in."

The Park Board meets for a workshop meeting on Thursday, July 12 at 6 p.m. at West Ridge Center.

For more news and updates, "like" us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

lisa Temkin July 12, 2012 at 02:59 PM
I believe the Friends of Ravinia have misunderstood RNA. Considering the number of residents in our city, most have no idea that anything is being planned for Rosewood Beach. The Task Force made little effort to solicit resident input. The Highlander is published by the city, but I truly believe that if asked to publish something to inform residents about the beach, Mayor Rotering would agree it's appropriate. Has anyone approached the city and asked them? I also gave commissioners Waxman and Weiskopf a list of questions regarding the project. That was July 3rd and I haven't received a response from either of them. I'm hoping they intend to respond to me. Lisa Temkin
Ed Brill July 12, 2012 at 04:34 PM
"The Task Force made little effort to solicit resident input." So the RNA holds out the public comment from the two hearings as evidence of public opinion being against the interpretive center but the same Task Force that held those meetings made little effort to solicit input. That in addition to all the emails, interviews in the press, feedback forms on pdhp.org, etc. It's an interesting new spin but hardly accurate.
Bryce Robertson July 12, 2012 at 04:49 PM
Lisa, how exactly have the Friends of Rosewood misunderstood the RNA? They have shared their views more times than ever necessary - anyone knowledgable about the project knows of the RNA's viewpoint. The RNA (note: as a whole, not members individually posting viewpoints unrelated to the RNA's published view) is that the new structure will get used to the point that parking and use demand at Rosewood will become too high, thus creating traffic backups onto Sheridan, loud noise, etc... They are quite OK with the IC being placed on a ravine somewhere, or at Moraine Beach... where there has been no mention of these supposed problems. However, if it still gets used as much as the RNA members are predicting... won't that be a "problem" for those of us who live near, say, Moraine Beach? I don't see adequate use of Park District facilities a bad thing. Take a look at Gillson Beach over in Wilmette... talk about used to capacity... yet I never hear anyone in Wilmette complaining that they have a very attractive beach there! Sounds like a "not in my backyard" approach to me.
Carl Lambrecht July 13, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Bryce "Not in my backyard". The Highland Park Park District has a building on the Lake at the end of Ravinia Drive. Let's use if for the public. It has a toilet and a shower but not for the public. WHY??. It has acres of land above the beach for parking. If you have questions call Carl Lambrecht 847 432 8255
Bryce Robertson July 13, 2012 at 03:00 PM
Carl: I assume you're talking about Millard Park, at the end of Ravine Drive: http://pdhp.org/index.aspx?page=165 In terms of why the toilet/shower building isn't open to the public, that's a very good question. The toilet and showers located at Moraine Beach are open to the public, and from your description here and on other articles, it sounds like a similar building. If you find out why that isn't available for use, please let us all know. I went on Street View, and the building looks suspiciously similar to the water treatment buildings near my house and Park Avenue Beach, so there's always a possibility it is an office or plant of some sort dealing with water treatment. With that being said, the lovely PATRIOT Act comes into play, and nobody is allowed near it. It closed off a similar nice beach spot up near the HP/Highwood border.
Carl Lambrecht July 13, 2012 at 06:52 PM
Bryce Part of the building is occupied by an employee of the Park District for a purpose I do not know.(Maybe Lake Front Home) Most of the building is empty. This could easily be used for the public. The cost would be a few thousand dollars not millions. Anyone can come to the building. I have been a number of times inside the empty space. The upper level is a large empty area. It once had a home which was destroyed by the park district. If you have questions call Carl Lambrecht 847 432 8255
David Greenberg July 13, 2012 at 11:39 PM
I find the whole acronym "Friends of Rosewood Beach (FOR)" to be a contrived attempt at demonizing anyone who isn't in support of the Interpretative Center at Rosewood beach - as if somehow, if one doesn't like every aspect of the proposal, one is suddenly an enemy of the Park District and Rosewood Beach. This is not only ludicrous, but the tactic is repugnant. I don't live anywhere near Rosewood Beach, but I do live in Highland Park, and I'm OPPOSED to the Interpretative Center - we don't need more facilities in the Park District, we have more than enough already. And a nearly 2000 sq ft house located on the beach is a very, very poor idea. There's many aspects to this plan that haven't been received a thorough public vetting, such as: Grant Restrictions/Requirements which limit what we can use the facility for, who's allowed to use the facility, what we can charge for usage, how we deal with changing rules/regulations from the Grantors, etc. Even worse, the whole project has a NEGATIVE ROI already. The proposed Interpretative Center will reduce the negative ROI by an estimated $10K/year - which means that it'll still lose about $50K/yr. As I told the Park Board last night - that's a lousy business proposition, and as a businessman, not one that I'd invest MILLIONS into. You'll never recoup your investment, and you can bet that the rest of the costs will continue to rise.
Ed Brill July 14, 2012 at 04:05 PM
David, don't most government projects have a negative ROI by default? Like, paving the street you live on, how did the government make back any money on that? Or putting in fire hydrants? Or street lights? I had the same question when it came to the Fort Sheridan golf course proposal - how can you apply an "ROI" question to government?
The Q July 14, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Ed, with out roads how would you go to the store? How would trucks transport goods? So no, most government projects have a huge ROI in the form of taxes. We buy goods and services and they tax us. The infrastructure is what allows the commerce to go on.
David Greenberg July 14, 2012 at 07:53 PM
Apples and Oranges Ed. For the most part, Roads are necessary. Fire Hydrants are a form of insurance and preventing a recurrence of a "Chicago Fire" situation, Street Lights are another form of insurance or crime/injury reduction/prevention. However, an Interpretative Center is not a NEED it's a WANT. As such, the ROI question is especially appropo.
Ed Brill July 14, 2012 at 08:00 PM
OK I set up my strawman poorly. In Highland Park, we have as a community chosen to have a Park District which is a separate taxing entity. What would the PARK DISTRICT spend money on that would be expected to have an ROI? Everything they do is a want not a need, and yet we have not held Park District projects up to an ROI standard such as David proposes. The new park renovations at Devonshire two years ago...beautiful, wonderful addition to that neighborhood, zero ROI. Where were the petitions and the protests then? :-)
David Greenberg July 14, 2012 at 08:44 PM
Ed, some Park District projects obviously won't be held up to an ROI standard, some will. When you're talking about multi-million dollar structures, I think it behooves us to understand our total cost of ownership. We know there's substantially more maintenance beyond a coat of paint on a slide post and cutting grass. The IC has been held out as being a money maker when nothing could be further from the truth. We have more than enough facilities to maintain and operate in the Park District. How about we stop subsidizing Sunset Valley GC to the tune of $220K/yr, and repurpose that golf club house as an IC instead? Parking is there, the building is there, it's not at risk of destruction from ice dams or flooding. And if we let the GC revert back to nature, we can use that building as a way to interpret the prairie grass and wetlands.
forest barbieri July 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM
ROI falls into two categories: a.) Return on investment evaluation on a pure business or dollar for dollar investment. How many dollars in versa how many dollars or % return EBIT combined with any tax considerations. Used by investors and for profit businesses. b.) Return on investment of a governmental agency is not tied to dollars or favorable tax treatment as they are either the taxing entity or recipient of said taxes. ROI of governmental projects such as the Park District are a function of value provided to the community in a direct or indirect fashion. They add value in a non numeric fashion and we would hope, add value to living within the community. The measure of (a) is simple math. The measure of (b) is determined by the collective community. Ed you actually mentioned your golf course again. Really? Time to move on, that was check & match over, quite awhile ago:)
David Greenberg July 15, 2012 at 07:49 PM
re: B) "ROI of governmental projects...are a function of value provided to the community in a direct or indirect fashion. They add value in a non-numeric fashion and we would hope, add value to living within the community... The measure of (b) is determined by the collective community." Sorry Forest, I respectfully disagree. Not looking at the actual numbers, and fudging things in a "non numeric fashion" is what's gotten this State into the mess it's in right now. It's what gotten the housing industry into a mess with sub-prime mortgages, and the credit card industry into a mess with lending to people who couldn't pay it back. It's a simple formula: ROI (%) = (Net monetary benefits / program costs) * 100 In this case, the program costs are high - millions of dollars. Every year there's thousands more in maintenance, repairs, staffing, supplies, and set-asides for future replacements. The net monetary benefits? Not there. In fact, we've been told they're STILL negative even after adding this building. Public sector organizations would at least want to break even, and we're not doing that, we're being asked to subsidize yet another unnecessary facility. This is a lousy investment all the way around.
Dan Jenks July 15, 2012 at 09:59 PM
David, here is an idea I think you’ll like. Let’s privatize the Park District. We auction off the parks, Centennial, the Water Park, Rec Center, etc. to one or more private companies. The money HP receives can be used to pay off debt. Citizens of HP will no longer have to pay any more money to the Park District. Hooray! The new owners of the old PDHP assets can then charge whatever fees they want to residents or non-residents to use these assets. Citizens can pay “a la carte” for whatever services/access they want and a market will then develop. If the not enough people want to pay enough to support a park, like Sunset Park, well then the new owner can sell it to a developer or someone else who else who has a higher economic use for it. Let’s let the market determine how many swing sets or grassy fields Highland Park needs! Clearly the PDHP’s assets are being sub-optimally used from an economic standpoint and why should we continue to subsidize inefficiency? Recreational opportunities are a WANT not a NEED! After all, if someone can’t afford to belong to a country club to swim, play tennis or golf, too bad – they should just work harder or stop whining!
David Greenberg July 15, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Dan, I'm fairly confident that your comment is somewhat sarcastic, but there is some merit to the proposal. I'd have no problem privatizing Centenial, the Water Park, Deer Creek Courts, Sunset Valley Golf Course, Country Club, or the Rec Center to a private company - if they could make money with it, and it nets us a profit, that's ideal. As for open park lands such as Sunset Park - I'd argue that the open lands is what the Park District is supposed to be about and that the other facilities such as an ice rink, water park, rec center and country club are outside of that traditional mission. A park is a place to go and recharge yourself - some benches, picnic tables, a playground for kids, grass, trees. Those costs are relatively low and quite manageable. As soon as you start deviating from that you venture into the realm of on-going substantial costs that aren't low, and the way to manage them is to have some sort of user fees to offset those costs. Ideally you want to break even, but what's nicer is making a bit extra to fund the eventual upgrades that are necessary. If someone can't afford something, that's certainly unfortunate, but not a problem that the taxpayers must solve - there's many things that many people can't afford. But are you saying that the taxpayers should just fund everything for everyone if they can't afford it on their own? We need tax relief. We don't need more facilities to support.
Dan Jenks July 16, 2012 at 04:27 PM
My prior comment was meant to be satire. David, I will say that you are an articulate voice in the wilderness for your anti-spending positions (as even the RNA wants to spend money fixing up Rosewood). But your belief in solely using “ROI” to determine whether a project should be undertaken just doesn’t work in the context of the Park District and its spending decisions. Financial analysis has some role to play in the decision-making process but one can’t rationally use it as the only factor in determining which projects to approve (which is your approach). As you know from economics and as Forest touches on, parks provide improvements to our collective “utility” (the quantifiable and non-quantifiable value provided) and measuring utility is about looking at the interests of the collective community. Part of the analysis is objective, part is subjective (how do you calculate the ROI on being able to change into your bathing suit or use the bathroom while at Rosewood?) It’s an intellectually untenable dodge to say “some projects won’t be held up to an ROI standard, some will.” Which ones get the pass? Just open spaces? How do we know if we have too much park land or too little land? There is no bright line rule in this area – it’s all about judgment and balancing multiple considerations
Dan Jenks July 16, 2012 at 04:28 PM
You define the mission of the Park District narrowly – it should provide open spaces. Most people would define the mission more broadly – it should provide open spaces and recreational opportunities. When evaluating whether to open a new program/facility (even a park), a number of questions should be addressed. Some are financial – does the activity/facility pay for itself and, if not, what is the ongoing expenditure? Can the PD afford this expenditure given its overall financial condition? Some aren’t financial – How many people will use the facility/activity? Does the facility fit within the neighborhood? Does the facility duplicate existing Park District/non-Park District offerings? In the context of Rosewood Beach, the ongoing expenditure seems reasonable and the beach is only swimming beach in HP. As the Park District is funding its portion of the cost out of reserves, it is reasonable to believe that the PD can afford this cost. I think the Interpretative Center design fits the location and I believe this structure will be well used. Does the Intrepretative Center duplicate existing offerings? Depends on how you look at it – in my opinion, the answer is no. Regardless of my views, these are questions that the Park District Board will rightly consider, balance and evaluate.
Anthony Bilotti July 17, 2012 at 04:37 PM
After years of public input, it is time to allow residents the use of their only swimming beach. From my perspective, the proposed plan has sufficient merit to allow a favorable vote now, without more delay. Not all human values are captured in ROI calculations. Make no small plans.
David Greenberg July 17, 2012 at 06:39 PM
Residents are NOT restricted from using their swimming beach. They're more than free to use it for laying out in the sun, or swimming in the Lake. Nothing's closed, have fun. We don't need an IC on the beach, and I refute the assertion that it has sufficient merit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that putting a building on the beach where it can be damaged by high water, ice dams, or other environmental issues is a meritless idea. True, not all human values are captured in ROI calculations, but putting a beach house on the beach isn't analogous to how we dole out health care, or whether we engage the death penalty for criminals - it's analogous to building a house, and building a house is an ROI calculation. Make plans that make fiscal sense. This plan doesn't.
David Greenberg July 17, 2012 at 06:47 PM
The beach is the only swimming beach in HP because we chose to use another swimming beach for a dog park. That notwithstanding, Rosewood is still a swimming beach that's open and available - people can certainly use it today if they wish. As for duplicating existing PD offerings - I'd argue that the IC is duplicative of other locations that could be repurposed or used w/little to no expense. To wit: * Sunset Valley Golf Course club house. SVGC loses money to the tune of $220K/year. If we close SVGC, that'll free up rounds to be played at HPCC, and we can repurpose the entire SVGC property as open lands. The existing club house could be a very nice IC - parking lot is more than adequate, and there's plenty of space for campers to do their thing. It might even be nice for the proposed party rentals. * Hidden Creek Aqua Park - I'd argue that it's cleaner than the lake, a safer/more controlled environment than the lake, and it also has more than enough parking. It abuts the SVGC, so again, an outdoor non-enlosed IC could be dropped right there on the course and not impact anything. It also has better transportation infrastructure. As for the other considerations you review - I understand they're part of the equation as well, but one can only discuss so much in < 1500 chars :-)
David Greenberg July 17, 2012 at 06:49 PM
The reason for the "some will, some won't" statement that I made is because it's difficult to thoroughly discuss all of the reasoning behind that statement in < 1500 chars. I agree that there's no "bright line", but in this case, it's not even a blurry line - we're still in the hole every year with no hope of ever breaking even on that facility, and costs will only go up every year.
DFB July 18, 2012 at 05:49 PM
At this stage, Is there any way to vote or formally go against this IC project? I have personally never received any information that gave me an opportunity to formally indicate for or against. I do not see anything on the subject except in the Patch online. Perhaps there could have been other opportunities, but I do not live online. I would expect that a referendum (unlikely possibility) on the IC would certainly find the majority of the community against putting a building such as this on the beach, as the Park District seems to insist upon. It appears to be a terrible idea to have such a building on a public beach and it certainly qualifies as a blatant waste of tax payer funds now and into the future. Like the federal government, the city needs to consider not spending tax payer funds so freely. People are having to move from HP because their taxes are so high, even in comparison to Lake Forest!
David Greenberg July 18, 2012 at 08:23 PM
HP had a community referendum about such a project years back, and it failed miserably - the community told the PD: "NO!". A few years later, the PD came back and tried to push through a $6 million monstrosity on the Beach - that was in the midst of the pension scandal, and the public rightly cleaned out the Park District Board. Now here we are a THIRD TIME (that I recall, it could be more), and they're still pitching this. The solution? Clean the Board again. In the meantime, the City has certain amounts of oversight and jurisdiction, and you and those who feel as you do need to appear before the City Council and impress upon them that they ought not to allow this project to move forward.
Dan Jenks July 18, 2012 at 10:30 PM
David, the total project, before grants, is expected to cost $4.6 million. The Interpretative Center is expected to cost between $579,000 and $630,000, or roughly 14% of the total project cost. (see http://www.pdhp.org/index.aspx?page=516). According to the Park District, “a significant portion of that cost will be covered by IDNR/DCEO grants.” So let’s say the total cost to the Park District is at most $500,000 (11%). You want the City of Highland Park to review and override the Park District’s decision to spend $500,000? The Park District’s budget in 2011-2012 was roughly $20 million. http://www.pdhp.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=99) $500K represents 2.5% of the Park District budget and is a one-time expense. Maybe we should just have a referendum on this and every other modestly controversial issue – let’s be like California and take every decision away from our elected officials – more democracy! I’m sure we will have equally good results [that’s satire]!
David Greenberg July 18, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Dan, the IDNR, et. al grants come with their own set of restrictions and requirements that will dictate what we can and can not use that facility for, how we can offer programs to the public, what we can charge, how we can restrict access, and more. The restrictions alone are quite troubling and we ought to say "No thanks" to the grant money. Another issue is whether or not our broke State will actually cut a check for what they promise. As for the City of HP reviewing and overriding the PD's decision - it's not about the money the PD wants to spend, but rather WHERE they want to locate what they're proposing to spend our money on, and the USE of the property they propose to spend our money on. The City most certainly does have oversight on those issues, and there's been court cases decided in our neck of the woods (Wilmette), at the Appellate level which deal with this sort of issue. As for the referendum: We already had one on a beach house at Rosewood. We already said no.
Dan Jenks July 19, 2012 at 12:28 AM
I don’t know what the restrictions are in the grants and yes, the State of Illinois has major credit and payment difficulties – so I agree that these are questions/factors that should be considered and evaluated in determining whether to go ahead with this project. My guess is that the Task Force has evaluated whatever restrictions might exist in coming up with their recommendation. As for City determining WHERE the structure should be allowed and the appropriateness of the USE, I just don’t think the question of the Interpretative Center rises to that level. Putting up a modestly sized recreation building on the beach is well within the proper scope of the Park District. If you think this decision should be reviewed, then I’m not sure where you draw a “principled line.”
David Greenberg July 19, 2012 at 01:17 AM
I don't believe that the Task Force was charged with evaluating the impact of any grant restrictions, but I'd defer to the Chairman of the task force for that. As for calling the IC a modestly sized building - it's 1950 sq ft - which is larger than many houses in HP, so I don't agree that it's modestly sized at all. The fact is that the beyond the building itself, there's impact to the City to be considered: Parking, traffic, hours of usage, type of usage, security, type of construction, location on the property, design considerations, sound, lighting, etc. so the City does have a say so in the siting of the building. The principled line is defined by the various applicable City Ordinances. The Park District has to comply with them. The relevant Appellate case doesn't set out any "tests" but has more guidelines than anything else (cf: Wilmette v. Wilmette Park). The City can't deny something willy-nilly, but they can't be forced to allow something. Also, the Park District can't do whatever they want and claim immunity either.
Dan Jenks July 19, 2012 at 01:48 PM
In the context of the size of Rosewood park and for a public building, 1,950 square feet is modest. Comparing the size of this structure it to a single family home situated on a small lot is, well, fatuous. Were Rosewood a private property, you could easily build 10,000+ feet at this location under the City Code. As for your laundry list of City concerns, they would apply no matter where the Park District built a new structure. Unfortunately for you, I don’t think any of them apply in this case. For example, it is a stretch to believe that a structure with a capacity for 50 people will require a change in the traffic patterns on Sheridan (although I would love to see a sidewalk and cross walk at the entrance!). There are no lights on this property. There are no changes in hours of use or type of use. You get the point. Finally, I agree with you as a matter of policy that the Park District should follow all applicable City Ordinances and zoning laws, and that if a variance is necessary, the City and its Commissions must be involved. I am not aware of any variances that are required by the Rosewood project and so, logically, David, if this is the case then you have to agree, based on your principled line, the City Council should decline to intervene.
David Greenberg July 20, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Dan, I never compared the size of the proposed IC to a single family home situated on a small lot. I said that the IC's size was larger than many homes in Highland Park - I never referred to the size of the lot the home was situated on because the whole idea behind the comparison was as a point of reference for the kind reader. I don't agree that it's a stretch to believe that a structure with a cap. of 50 will require a change in traffic patterns on Sheridan. With the proposals pitched - there could easily be more than 50 people at Rosewood Beach for a variety of activities, some of which are planned to take place inside the IC. Moreover, as one activity ends, another would likely be scheduled - which means that as say 50 people are leaving, another 50 may arrive. Food vendors, cleanup crews, visitors, etc. all would be using Sheridan Road to access the Beach in some manner. Right now we have very few recorded accidents (about 2) in the past few years. Ramp up usage, and you certainly do have to look at traffic impacts. Sidewalks and crosswalks have their own set of considerations (siting, cost, etc.), not to mention the blind curve by the entrance. There's no lights NOW, but with more usage, comes the thought that lights would allow more usage. So it's certainly a possibility - we've seen it happen elsewhere in our fair City. Whether variances are necessary or not, the City and it's Commissions certainly have oversight and should be involved.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »