Comments

• On the article Elect Schneider for Continued Recovery

  

  

  Sonny Cohen

  11:43 am on Thursday, October 18, 2012

  Fact Check Regarding Guido's comment:
  "Stock market up."
  Sure, for the 10% of people that own stocks. Why are you shilling for the rich?"

  In U.S., 54% Have Stock Market Investments as of 4/11. This is down from 65% in 2007 and is trending up again. This is from Gallup and can be found here: http://bit.ly/TwrDdg

  You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

• On the article Interpretive Center on Beach? Park District Listens, Doesn’t Hear

  

  

  Sonny Cohen

  10:16 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012

  Huh? You're a professional and think an environmental impact statement is a cost benefit analysis? That's not accurate. Might want to brush up on what NEPA requires in an EIS, particularly Section 1502.23, "For purposes of complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative considerations."

  Nevertheless, nobody is really arguing the environmental impact of this proposed building. That is until the glass structure is lying under the water and creating a different kind of hazard.

• On the article Interpretive Center on Beach? Park District Listens, Doesn’t Hear

  

  

  Sonny Cohen

  6:05 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012

  You couldn't be more right. That is why I joined over 1000 residents signing a petition in opposition to the interpretive center. Now there's input. I am in complete support of widespread public participation on this plan. Having attended two public hearings and one park district meeting discussing this, the support I have heard is minimal.

• On the article Interpretive Center on Beach? Park District Listens, Doesn’t Hear

  

  

  Sonny Cohen

  1:24 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012

  Ed, I did not change my opinion. I came to the public hearing at Heller to oppose the interpretive center in an otherwise acceptable plan. I arrived late and perhaps misunderstood when you told me there would be opportunity for more public comment. My error.

  Fear mongering conjecture? Not hardly. I'm sure it's possible to build bulwarks against waves and sink caissons to anchor a building in sand. That level of engineering is not planned for this building. You know, that kind of hubris gave Japan (and the world) the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster. The interpretive center is not a nuclear power facility nor subject to earthquake and tsunami (but, yes, riptides). But there is no reason for our community to have this entirely unnecessary risk.

• On the article Interpretive Center on Beach? Park District Listens, Doesn’t Hear

  

  

  Sonny Cohen

  12:35 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012

  Rosewood Beach is a remarkable resource for all Highland Park residents regardless of their homes proximity to the lake. The public swimming beach and its unobstructed tree-lined coast provide all of us easy access to a resort environment. But we need a restroom. And the lifeguards need to store their gear. Improvements by the Army Corps will help stabilize the sand beach as well. These needs are essential and should be met.

  The proposed interpretive center, on the other hand, is a conflict in this land use. It will generate congestion that compromises the interest of beach goers. Located on the beach, it is subject to weather and lake levels that will ultimately destroy it. Unlike actually swimming in the water or enjoying the natural environment, the uses for this facility can be met by locating it elsewhere. Its presence is non-essential.

  Ed, I appreciate your activism that, like mine, stems from your interest in our community. Even more of us should be involved. Your comments, however, are about me and not the policy. As such you are off-base and inappropriate. Sears Tower? Hancock Center? Private residence? Birds? Huh? Stick to the issue.

• On the article Is the Fort Sheridan Golf Debate Over?

  

  

  Sonny Cohen

  10:16 am on Friday, June 15, 2012

  There is a planning process taking place now. The kickoff for public input regarding traffic, lakeshore as well as many other issues is encouraged. As well as commenting your concerns about the public beach here, you and everyone who has a point of view on how the property should be managed sans golf course should submit their comments to fort@lcfpd.org. Don't be cynical, be proactive and participatory.

• On the article Is the Fort Sheridan Golf Debate Over?

  

  Sonny Cohen

  11:46 am on Wednesday, June 13, 2012

  Dear The Q, In spite of my fervent opposition to the golf course, give the homeowners their due. The golf course WAS opened when they purchased. The expectation there would be a golf course "in perpetuity" was another victim of the changing and fickle world we live in. This is only one of many missed expectations everyone has faced. However, to RationalTht, I don't believe that "disappointment" or "golf remorse" should be financially compensated. Maybe by working to insure the Ft. Sheridan Forest Preserve emerges as the remarkable amenity it can be is the best compensation. I believe in a day not too distant when the preserve's presence will drive home sales and property values.

  Reply

• On the article Group Voices Rosewood Complaints to City Council

  

  Sonny Cohen

  11:28 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012

  In response to this comment, "It would be unprecedented that our efforts would be ignored because for a special interest group things weren't going their way," Fairman said."

  It is important to note that there is widespread opposition to the building of an interpretive center on the beach. This is not, in any way, a special interest initiative. In fact, almost 1000 residents signed a petition in opposition to this facility. Petitioners, including myself, range outside the Ravinia District.

  I appreciate the efforts of the Ravinia Neighborhood Association for assuming this leadership in opposition to this poorly conceived facility that leaves a dark mark on what otherwise is an acceptable project.

  Reply

• On the article Forest Preserve District Needs to Pay Up

  

  Sonny Cohen

  9:44 am on Wednesday, April 4, 2012

  Although the golf course is a dead issue and can't be built without becoming a severe economic burden, it is also true that the Forest Board has the opportunity - and arguably the obligation - to both make-good as well as crown the jewel by purchasing the available land adjacent to the Lakefront Openlands Preserve south of the town of Fort Sheridan historic area. Were this to be achieved a legacy for the ages would be realized. Good idea.

  Reply

• On the article Highland Park Out of Step on Fort Sheridan Golf Course

  

  

  Sonny Cohen

  2:12 pm on Saturday, March 24, 2012

  As noted before Ed, it is the golf course that is the drain on the overall Country Club financials with the variable costs of the catering business making a positive contribution to the country club performance. Without the catering business, the golf course financials would be even more dire than they are. Again, I base this on data from the country club, not opinion or spin.

  Acquisition of the HPCC was both brilliant and heroic. I hope we can keep it and would love to keep golf there. But that won't happen with added pressure from a third municipal course. It is counter-productive for the City to advocate for another municipal golf course. It threatens the assets we have in place. It is bad policy.