Park District garden plots

I've been a gardener in the plots for 7 years. It's not only restful and beneficial but it helps promote a healthy and eco-friendly lifestyle by letting you eat what you grow. For many older people it also helps them stretch tight budgets. But enough of the good stuff. To my fellow 600 gardeners - remember who moved your garden plot the next time you vote - and vote accordingly. Start taking names ... Start a petition, get names, and get the ear of the people we elect "to serve us."

Naperville has a winning formula with the garden plots for decades. Message to Park District: Don't screw around with it. Leave it alone. There does not need to be any change along West Street. Put the new athletic fields where you want to move the garden plots. The school has sufficent athletic fields now. Yes, we understand the main goal is to increase festival space but we do not need festivals to overcome the entire area.

The garden plots are a nice amenity to the community. Not everyone has a huge lot and enough space for a garden plot or maybe just the layout of their lot or their neighbor house, etc doesn't lend itself well for a gardening space.

Many Naperville voters live in apartments, condos, and townhouses and for them this is their only option if they want to grow flowers and vegetables. Causes me to think back to my days living in married student housing at ISU and the garden plots we had behind Cardinal Courts. What a great break from summer classes and a chance to meet neighbors!

What concerns me about the whole idea of building more athletic fields in the West Street area is that there already is not near enough parking for the athletic fields that are already there. It amazes me the vigor by which the city requires a business to provide adequate parking and the schools and park district appear to be exempt.

At the same time we have hundreds of parks distributed throughout Naperville along with dozens of schools. In this day and age of high gas prices pinching young family budgets I really don't know what the park board is thinking by centralizing these playing fields. If they were distributed throughout the neighborhoods it would be a lot more convenient, closer to home, and the parking would could more easily be absorbed by neighborhood parks scheduling a few games here and there.

What scares me is if the park district intends to be a good neighbor and provide storm water retention and parking consistent with other users in the city then a great deal of this open space is going to be squandered with asphalt and another algae infested mosquito breeding ground.

There are already a bunch of inequities that need to be righted before any scheme or proposal moves forward. "In her Last Will and Testament dated July 31, 1935, Caroline Martin Mitchell conveyed four parcels of land to the City of Naperville for park, municipal and public purposes.

Tract A was comprised of 11.73 acres and contains the home of Caroline Martin Mitchell along with other buildings now known as the Naper Settlement. The Martin Mitchell home is the 'Mansion' at the Naper Settlement.

Tract B was comprised of 5.63 acres on the North Side of Aurora Avenue, north of her home. A granite marker commemorates the location of the historic buildings previously existing on this site as part of her Will. The property has been incorporated into the Riverwalk.

Tract C was comprised of 176.90 acres, portions of which have been conveyed by the City over time to School District 203, the Naperville Park District, Edward Hospital, the Naperville Cemetery Association and Louise McGirr. Other portions have been leased by the City to the Naperville Park District for the Community Garden Plots and the Sportsman's Club.

Tract D was comprised of 10 acres from which the city received an undivided half interest. This site is known as the Von Oven Scout Reservation."

Tract C is what bothers me because of the wording... "portions of which have been conveyed by the City over time..." Conveyed in what manner? The school district portion is troubling because Naperville residents in SD 203 essentially got a free high school location. Compare that with what Naperville residents in SD 204 just paid for their new high school location and explain how that is fair if this land was intended to benefit all Naperville residents? On the other hand the land being used by Edward Hospital was most likely "conveyed" to them way back when it was Edwards Sanitarium and a municipal run hospital. I'm not sure that what is now a private organization that can afford to pay its CEO over a million dollars a year should be getting a free ride from the city from any land from the Mitchell estate. The city should be collecting fair market value for all of the land being used by Edward Hospital. Does anyone know who Louise MeGirr is, which parcel was conveyed to here, or why? I've never heard any explanation of the background, logic, or justification for that conveyance. The final piece is the most interesting in that the garden plots were not conveyed to the Park District, rather leased to the Park District by the City for the express purpose of providing garden plots. It seems to me that if the Park District does not want to provide garden plots then the land should revert back to the City and the City should make all decisions regarding what use, if any, and by who would be best served with this land.

Frankly the conduct of the Park District and the School District has been arrogant and to me very upsetting. They are free benefactors of a gift to the city. The city, not the Park or School District, owns the land and is responsible for managing it. Yet the Park and School District have joined forces and are bullying everyone, the citizens, the city staff, and the city council as to what the future use of this land will be and they want to divide it up to meet their needs.

An analogy would be a landlord who owns a building in town and has leased out portions of the building to several tenants only to find out that the tenants have hired a consultant and decided how they want to carve up his building for their own use. How many landlords would be keen on this idea, especially when you consider how much or how little most of these so-called tenants, but that what they really are, are paying for rent!

This whole process has got to be gotten under control by the city council. They own this property and are responsible for managing it in the best interest of the voters. Right now the Park District and School District are each trying to make a land grab for something that isn't going to cost them a penny.

It would make a whole lot more sense for the city council to appoint a citizens commission to oversee all of the tenants using or occupying any portion of the Mitchell estate. These commissioners should be totally independent citizens without any conflicts of interest or other ties to any of the existing entities that are using, occupying, or proposing to occupy a portion of the estate. Acting in the best interests of all of the citizens of Naperville rather than pushing forward just the personal agenda of the school or park district would make a whole lot more sense if any decisions need to be made regarding future uses or change of existing use of the Mitchell estate.

If the athletic fields should be dispersed throughout the district to make them more convenient and save on travel expenses, why shouldn't the garden plots be dispersed throughout the district to make them more convenient and save on travel expenses? Why should I have to travel across down to make use of the garden plots? I'd like a garden plot closer to my home to make it more convenient for me. I'd like to save money on gas by having a closer plot. Why should all the plots be located in one place?

The community plots should be considered a landmark, something that can remind the current leadership of things BEFORE they showed up.

You want land, let's see how good your political power is with the DuPage Forest Preserve. IDOT couldn't move them.

I agree with Anon. at 6:47p.m.

Why should only District 203 benefit from the land parcel that was meant for all Naperville residents....? Certainly some fair market value portion should be shared more equally with the other school district which has a large portion of Naperville residents.

Personally, I don't use the garden plots nor do I have an intention of using them, but they have become a 'part' of our city. Each time I pass that area I am always anxious to see the stage at which the parcels are at for the season. If anything, I would hope to see more garden plot areas spring up in other portions of the city for more residents to enjoy.

I know sports are very important for our kids (all of my kids are in sports) but it is also important for them to get involved with working with the soil or having an activity to do with the family; like planting a garden.

I say keep it as is and add more plots in other areas of Naperville!

lilly wrote

"I agree with Anon. at 6:47p.m.

"Why should only District 203 benefit from the land parcel that was meant for all Naperville residents....? Certainly some fair market value portion should be shared more equally with the other school district which has a large portion of Naperville residents."

Naperville Central was built before there was a District 203, and at the time it was built, it was the high school for all of Naperville---including people living in what became District 204.

Eric,

You are right on the money. The current location of the garden plots is incredibly inconvenient for the vast majority of Naperville residents. No matter the amount of produce grown, no matter the comraderie, for people who live near 95th street or Diehl Road, they are inconvenient and traveling to them is ecologically harmful unless one wants to walk or ride their bike. And to use some of the most valuable land in Naperville to continue this practice is just bizarre.

Distribute plots throughout the city. If the attraction of these plots is that their soil has been enhanced through use as garden plots through the years, then truck it to new locations. But to hold this land hostage for some veggies, no matter how good they taste is just nuts.

The actual date that Naperville Central was built isn't the issue. Let's not forget that "old" Naperville deliberately split off what is now SD 204 so that they would not have to pay for all of the new schools being built.

As it happens School District 203 also includes some areas outside the city limits of Naperville. Naperville residents also live in School District 204. The four parcels were given to benefit all citizens of Naperville, not just a portion, as in not just those who reside in SD 203. There is an inequity where non-Naperville residents enjoy the benefit of the city allowing SD 203 to get free use of this land while at the same time Naperville residents who live in SD 204 see sky high tax bills because they have had to pay for each and every school site.

A bigger question that needs some honest answers from both the school and park district is who will be using the new athletic fields. A huge portion of what is already park district athletic fields isn't well know or advertised that these fields are "reserved" exclusively for the high school and are not made available for general public use. Yet we are all paying Naperville Park District tax to support, operate, and maintain these parks whether we live in SD 203 or SD 204. Before any additional athletic fields are built we deserve a right to know if these fields will be made available to the entire community or if they are intended to be added to the high school collection of "reserved" fields.

The city council has done a poor job of this by turning over huge portions of this land to the high school and even larger portions to the park district. Now the two of them have gotten together and made additional deals between themselves as to how the land is currently utilized along with their grandiose, self-serving, plans for the future. The net result is that most citizens are being cut out of the process or never will be able to directly benefit from what they are cooking up.

The worst abuse and misuse of this public trust is allowing Edward Hospital to use any of this land at this point. Edwards has not been a government hospital for a long, long time. Edwards has a service area far wider than Naperville and is quite frankly a cash cow that is so flush with money that it can afford to pay all of it's top docs and CEO over a million dollars a year each. Do we want to talk about all of the million dollar plus lawsuits Edwards has also paid out of pocket in just the last few years? Edward Hospital does not deserve a free ride on public land. Edwards should be paying fair market rent to lease every square inch of land that is under their control.

Years ago the city council made a terrible decision by allowing the high school to be built upon this land. In consistent fashion with other thinking exercised by the city council in those times it was terribly short sighted. The Martin and Mitchell families are both probably rolling in their graves looking at the poor stewardship the city has exercise on their gift to the people of Naperville.

Hopefully the current city council will come to their senses and fix some of these long standing inequities and exercise a clear vision for the future use of this land.

"The actual date that Naperville Central was built isn't the issue."

I disagree. At the time it was built, the high school benefited all of Naperville, in keeping with the directive of the Martin Mitchell bequest. That it now only benefits half of the population of Naperville was not something that could be foreseen, but what can be done about this now?

Anonymous at August 6, 2008 1:23 PM,

You are trying to reverse history. You are second guessing what should have taken place 75 years ago.

You are like the Monday quarterback.

Give me a break!

At the time the land was donated there was only one high school for Naperville. An insignificant amount of Lisle residents were attending this high school. Land could be bought for 5k an acre. It was an insignificant contribution of land.

The world is very different. Our forefathers could have never visualized this land would be worth millions an acre 75 years ago.

No one had any intent to screw District 204 residents or taxpayers.

Everyone who sold 50 years ago for 10k an acre would like his land back to resell for 5 million an acre. It simply does not work that way.

I think you need to move forward with your life and not backwards.

People bought homes in Disctrict 204 knowing what their tax bills were going to be in advance. No one deceived them!

I am sure a plot of land in District 204 is much cheaper than a plot of land near the downtown or within 2 miles of it. Should District 203 residents say it is unfair they have to pay so much more for their land than District 204 residents. Higher values of land means higher taxation.

I think you are opening a can of worms that should not be opened.
Let us try to reseal this can of worms. It sounds like sour grapes to me!

Again we have $204 people complaining about their high taxes??? Give me a break already. Here is a free clue. Stop voting yes to increasing your taxes with every referendum. You are not getting screwed, you screw yourselves. We are talking about the garden plots which should stay where they are. If you want some in other areas of town, set aside land for more. Not trucking dirt out for crying out loud to other sites as some one suggested.

Facts are not sour grapes. Unless of course you just don't like hearing the facts.

Let's not forget that "old" Naperville included most of the area that is now SD 204. The families that lived in the area that became SD204 had been paying taxes to SD 203 all along just like everyone else. When they got thrown out of SD 203 they didn't get one red cent and not one school building for all the decades of taxes that they had already paid. And then they had to start all over from scratch and start building schools.... elementary, junior high, and a high school. No one had any intent to screw SD 204 taxpayers? You have got to be kidding me? SD 203 took all of the existing school assets and you claim no one was screwed? No one in SD 203 wanted to pay a dime for all of the new growth west and south so SD 204 was split off you claim no one was screwed? Reality is that no one in SD 203 got screwed, that is for sure.

If SD 204 can't or doesn't benefit from a gift to the city of Naperville then there is no logical reason why SD 203 alone should benefit. And lack of foresight by the city council many years ago is an inadequate defense to the realities of today. In fact it may very well be illegal and may violate the very terms and intent of the way this gift was bequeathed to the city and that can of worm should definitely be opened. These four tracts of land were a gift to benefit ALL of the residents of Naperville.

What would be fair would be for the experts to determine the fair market value of all of the land that Naperville Central sits on plus the fair market value of all the athletic fields that the high school has exclusive use. The city should charge SD 203 for one-half of the fair market price and then convey this exact amount of money to SD 204. That way both SD 203 and SD 204 would have a fair and equitable 1/2 interest in the value of the land bequeathed to the city and it would level the playing field for all Naperville taxpayers.

And if taxpayers in SD203 don't want to pay the city the 1/2 of the fair market value fine. Supposedly Naperville Central is a dump and needs to be torn down anyway. Fine. Tear it down. Give the land back to the city and let SD 203 go purchase their own land to build a new high school. Fair is fair. It is time for the free ride in SD 203 to end.

SD 203 just paid over 16 million dollars for their new high school site. You are right. Land IS more valuable in downtown Naperville. So let's take a theoretical value of $20 million dollars for the Naperville Central site... 1/2 of that would equate to $10 million dollars and would definitely be well received by everyone in SD 204 as just compensation for their children's fair share interest in the value of the land that was bequeathed to them and which they do not get to benefit from.

No, I disagree. I think this can of worms need to be opened and this can of worms needs to stay fully open until fairness and equality has been served to all of the students and families in Naperville. And everyone in SD 203 can blame those same shortsighted city fathers for not having done this, not having done the right thing way back in the '70's. Yep, back then it wouldn't have cost nearly as much, but you know it is never too late to right a wrong.

Anonymous,

You are confusing two issues. The first is the people in District 204 being treated unfairly when they split off from District 203. This happened long before I moved to the area, so I'll take your word for it that these people received no compensation when this happened. I agree with you that this was not fair to the people living in District 204 at the time.

On the other hand, the area that comprises District 204 was FAR less populated then than it is now, and I'd imagine it was far less populated than was District 203 at the time. The schools that have been built there since then have largely been paid for by people who moved into the district AFTER it was created. Nothing unfair about that.

The other issue is the location of Naperville Central on land that is supposed to be for the benefit of all of Naperville. If you want to curse our city forefathers for their lack of foresight in not knowing that the area's sole high school would one day be off limits to many future Napervillians, be my guest. If you want to launch a movement to force the relocation of the high school, or to get financial compensation for the residents of District 204 for this horrible inequity, good luck with that. I suspect that even many of your fellow district residents will view this as so much crying over spilled milk.

-JQP

Why can't the Park District set aside some of the land at Commissioners Park for new garden plots?

Or how about at the new park district land near 248th and 95th?

I don't know where the idea that Mrs. Mitchell restricted here largess to projects that would benefit all of Naperville came from. I believe that the phrase in her will was "park, municipal & public purposes." I fail to see why the building of a school is not a public purpose no matter which school district benefits.

If one looks at the uses that the Martin-Mitchell estate was put to, I think Mrs. Mitchell would be proud. A school, parks, museum campus, scout camp, cemetary, and hospital. What a great monument to two great founding families of Naperville! The only thing that is missing is that none of it is named for the Martin and Mitchell family except the Mansion itself. The only other reminder is the monument to Century House that is now a parking lot. Any master plan has to include a suitable recognition of the Martin and Mitchell families.

Anonymous,

You are crying over spilled milk...your entire post sounds like sour grapes.

As Eric said there was no promise that ALL residents in Naperville should benefit equally. There was no promise that their land had to even benefit any Napervillian.

You sound like the son who inheritied 1000 shares of Yahoo from your Dad and watched them plumet from 500 dollars a share to 20 dollars a share while your brother who inherited 1000 shares of Google from your Dad watched his shares rise from 80 dollars to 600 dollars.

Your Dad did not know which way these stocks would go. He was trying to be fair to both you and your brother. It sounds like you got screwed by the market...not your Dad!

This land that was worth a few thousand an acre was given to Naperville Central. Maybe Martin-Mitchell made other contributions in other areas of town that we do not know about. No one decades ago could have known that downtown Naperville would achieve the appreciated value in land that it has reached. At the time of this donation, I doubt all this acreage of land could have sold for a few hundred thousand dollars at most. Now it is worth at least 200 million based on a million an acre which is below average for downtown and near downtown.

Under your assumption you want Naperville Central to donate 100 million to District 204. Sorry, but Naperville Central does not have that money. We just passed a referedum giving it and few other schools 80 plus million for remodelling.

Really, how do you expect Naperville Central or District 203 to come up with that kind of money. And that land could be worth 400 million when the real estate bust goes to boom again.

District 204 deserves NOTHING! Even if it deserved something, it would only be entitled to the fair market value at the time of the donation which is a few thousand dollars.

As Mr. Public said most of District 204 residents were not even in Naperville at the time of the bequest. They moved here after the FACT.

Yes it is sour grapes and you are fantazizing Anonymous.

I have a friend who is a lazy loser who feels his Dad who passed away should have given him his money instead of passing it on to his Mom. Everyday, instead of working hard, he prays that his Mom will die soon so he can inherit the money which he thinks should have been his 30 years ago. He is nuts!

You sound like a nut yourself! Sorry! But nuts apparently are a dime a dozen these days on Ted's Threads!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. With all the nuts on this site, I am not suprised Host Ted needed some time off to move. As painful as moving is, I think dealing with nuts daily can be just as PAINFUL!

AA,

No sour grapes and not fantasizing. You can try your best to dismiss this, but the facts don't change and the issue won't go away. And if you think for one minute that everyone who lives in SD 204 and who is aware of this inequity doesn't think they were sold out by SD 203 and screwed by the City of Naperville you are sorely mistaken.

You obviously must live in SD 203 and hope and pray this goes away so that you can go on screwing SD 204 residents and not have to pay one red dime out of your pocket for all of your schools like taxpayers on the other side of town.

Do you really think in today's judicial system that a jury would agree with your faulty logic? Absolutely true that thousands of people have moved into SD 204 since it was formed. At the same token, who is left living in SD 203 from the time of the bequest? No one. Which make time a great leveling factor.

I could very easily see where a jury could order the eviction of SD 203 from this land or order the city to fairly compensate, in kind, all of the other residents in the other half of Naperville by ordering an equity payment to SD 204. There are several other viable options as well that could lead to an equitable settlement; one of which would be to force the sale of some of the land to a private developer as one way to generate the money needed to make things equitable with SD 204 residents. Kind of a shame that a lot of the open land would be lost, but then that is what is likely to happen because of cheapskates like you who don't want to pay their fair share.

You have exploited the potential fair market value way beyond my realistic number. Regardless a jury will make awards based upon today's values not upon some long past date. True the land is worth something. Also true is that the taxpayers of SD 203 are not entitled to a free ride on public property at the expense of the taxpayers of SD 204. There is no way the city of Naperville could successfully defend a lawsuit based upon such blatant discrimination and selective use of public land.

By Anonymous on August 7, 2008 10:52 PM

I live in IPSD 204 and I think your theory is all wet. What part of Mrs. Mitchell's Will do you think has been violated? What part of the 1938 Agreement do you think has been violated? What part of the 1939 Deed do you think has been violated? And, if you get past these questions, how are you going to get past the question of standing and statute of limitations? It's only been about 50 years and the limitations period probably ran before IPSD was ever founded? Do you realize that there is a provision of Illinois law that permits governmental bodies to give land to one another for the public good? Do you realize that that was the way that what was the Electrical Utility Building on Eagle and Jackson became the Ruben Community Center was by gift to the Park District? Do you realize that the city and park district are not co-terminus and the gift benefited people who aren't even a resident of the city.

Haven't we the residents of IPSD 204 learned anything from the Matea litigation? You have to have a valid legal theory before you can even get to the jury. Why waste public funds on frivolous litigation?

In what lunatic direction has THIS thread gone?

From what I'm reading, it appears as if Naperville officials literally grabbed southwest-side children by their collars, marched them out of school, and dumped them onto a desolate, wind-swept prairie known as SD 204 with no infrastructure, no schools and no support.

This is crazy talk.

So Anonymous believes that 203 residents are enjoying benefits and amenities not available to his (or her) kids? Have you SEEN Naperville Central lately? This poor school is hurting. Central is no palace, especially compared with the Xanadu known as Neuqua Valley.

And by the way, Anonymous, you are wrong. It isn't just 203 residents who "enjoy" benefits of using that land. Every resident of Naperville benefits from good schools. You should know that.

Anonymous wrote:

"Absolutely true that thousands of people have moved into SD 204 since it was formed. At the same token, who is left living in SD 203 from the time of the bequest? No one. Which make time a great leveling factor."

Thank you for conceding the point: nobody who was a victim of the supposedly unfair way in which District 204 was created is still living in the district. I don't know why you think it's relevant that the then-residents of District 203 have also since moved on.

BTW, the only person who might benefit from the lawsuit you're talking about is whatever crackpot lawyer you find to represent you.

BTW, someone asked "Does anyone know who Louise McGirr is, which parcel was conveyed to here, or why? I've never heard any explanation of the background, logic, or justification for that conveyance."

The McGirr parcel is the southside of Martin Ave where the medical building and nursing home were built. Why, I don't know. Maybe the Sun can go back into it's library of clippings and tell us.

John Q. Public,

Have no fear! There is no crackpot lawyer that would ever represent Anonymous! The Anonymous here has lost his faculties of common sense.

Maybe the American Indians should hire this crackpot lawyer and evict all Napervillians from their homes. After all it was once their land!

District 204 has Taj Mahal Neuqua! District 203 has crumbling North and Central.

I stated it was 80 million we had to pay up. I believe I was wrong and it was over 110 million for repairs to the schools in District 203.

We are paying our fair share for our school just as District 204. Life is rough for both of us. But to sell that land from underneath Naperville Central to give Anonymous and his children some money borders on utter insanity if not borderline stupidity!

I am just hoping this is not the same Anonymous I have admired on other threads such as the Napergate related threads. I sure hope it is a different Anonymous!

Eric,

Thank you for validating my point. If the city can give part of the land to SD 203 and part of the land to the park district and the city can give the old electric bldg to the park district then there is ABSOLUTELY no reason why part of the land, or proceeds from part of the land, can't be given to SD 204.

This land is owned forever by the city of naperville. There was no magic date by which it needed to transfer from one hand to the other. Some of was transfered at one point, some of it at later dates. There is no clock running and no stopped clock that prevents the city from giving what is due to SD 204.

Actually if the truth be known, a greater number of residents, students, houses, and square miles now reside in SD 204 so if making this right is done on an equitable and proportionate basis then SD 204 would actually be due more than what SD 204 received from their deal.

Anonymous, if District 204 wanted to build their third high school on some of the Martin-Mitchell land, you wouldn't hear any argument from me. Apart from that, it's ridiculous to demand some sort of compensation for the fact that Naperville Central is already there. There are far graver "injustices" in the world, and far more worthy fights. This one has "loser" written all over it.

Anonymous on August 8, 2008 9:37 PM

If that is what you want, a voluntary transfer from the City to IPSD 204, go ahead and start lobbying. But if you want to force the issue through litigation, it's not going to happen.

BTW, did you ever stop and consider that when the transfer of land to the old high school district occurred in the 1950's that all of what is now Naperville was in the old high school district? The city didn't cause the high school district to be divided between 2 unit districts, nor could the city have imagined that happening in the 1950's because I don't think unit districts even existed then. Plus, if memory serves me, the people of now IPSD 204 started their petition drive to form a unit distict first and the people of NUSD 203 reacted with their own petition.

Part of the point of my argument is that the Naperville Park District and SD 203 are both acting like spoiled children who both believe they have some type of entitlement to the Martin-Mitchell estate.

They got together and decided how they would like to carve it all up to meet their needs to the detriment and exclusion of everyone and anyone else. This is not their land to decide it is public land and up to the people thru the city council to decide who uses it and how. Last time I checked, when they pulled together their hand-picked group of "stakeholders" to give the appearance of public input, there wasn't a single person at the table to represent SD 204. SD 204 was deliberately not invited to participate. They all act like SD 204 doesn't exist and that is wrong.

Case in point. When SD 204 was having trouble finding and affording a school site for the new high school did anyone from the city approach SD 204 and say hey we have some land you can use? Did anyone form either SD 203 or Naperville Park District approach SD 204 and tell them the same thing?
No! Not a peep out of any of them. No intergovernmental cooperation. They all were mute as church mice while SD 204 struggled to solve their own problem while a gift to the city and all of Naperville was sitting there the entire time for the express purpose of solving problems like this.

This is far from over and there are many, many winnable aspects of this case.

So, back to the original topic of this thread…”How high a priority should the garden plots be on the city's agenda when figuring out what to do with the 212-acre Caroline Martin Mitchell estate? What does gardening mean to you?”

There were a couple of letters to the editor of the Sun in the past weeks which attempted to show that more people currently use the garden plots now than would use any athletic fields built in their place. The letters were based on false presumptions that the only people to enjoy any new athletic fields would be those actually playing the games. For instance, their calculations failed to account for the total number of athletes on a team and instead focused on how many players were on the field at any given time (no alternates and no substitutions were accounted for). The calculations also failed to account for the non-athletes which would also be enjoying the games—namely spectators such as the parents of the athletes and also their friends.

Open space athletic fields, such as a soccer field, can be used and enjoyed by others when not in use for a game. People can walk, fly a kite, play catch, practice, etc. The garden plots virtually privatize public space with no alternate use allowed when there’s no active gardening. I’m sure none of the gardeners would like to find me playing catch with my son in their gardens.

One of the main arguments of the garden plots is that they’ve been there for so long. I think that argument rings hallow. Would anyone even bring up such an argument for a baseball field or a soccer field?

There should be some compromise made which would allow for an increase in the athletic fields and a decentralized garden plots. This thread has clearly shown that not everyone who would like to garden likes the current location of the plots. Is there any real rationale for why the plots can’t be moved or dispersed? Does it not make sense to try and make maximum use of our remaining open space? Can’t we make room for expanded athletic fields and place the garden plots along the periphery of the open space?

T.B.

T.B.,

There are dozens and dozens of neighborhood parks that can and should be used to provide garden plots and additional athletic fields.

There is no logical reason to add additional athletic fields to an area that is already way too crowded, that doesn't have enough parking, and it already is too dangerous for kids just trying to cross West St as it is.

This area is in the heart of Naperville. It could be one of the crown jewels of the Naperville Park District if someone there had even a little bit of vision and creativity. Carving it up into more dime a dozen little league baseball fields and soccer fields will never achieve such a dream and only squander the opportunity of what this area could become.

Right now many of the existing athletic fields have a sweetheart deal between the Park District and SD 203 and are not truly open to the public even though these fields are held in public trust and sit on public ground. These athletic fields are reserved only for high school use. I am reluctant to see any additional public space taken out of free and full access and use by the general public. I would support a master plan that preserves and increases the open space that can be accessed and used by all.

The general downtown area is already overcrowded and it is only going to get worse with all of the grandiose plans of the developers. There have great plans for Water Street and South Washington is going to be slowly transformed over the next decade or so. These areas ripe for development are just a couple of blocks away and it just doesn't make sense to try to pull additional people downtown for athletic fields when these events could be taking place in dozens of neighborhood parks that are sitting wasted, many of which are totally devoid of trees, landscaping, or flowers. I'd rather see kids being able to play baseball, soccer, football, tennis, etc. right in their own neighborhood than having to get in the car and drive somewhere every time they have a practice or a game.

The number of public basketball courts in Naperville is how many? The number of public tennis courts in Naperville is how many? The number of public handball/raquetball courts in Naperville is how many? The number of public swimming pools in Naperville is how many? The number of public volleyball courts in Naperville is how many? The number of public miniature golf courses in Naperville is how many? The number of water parks in Naperville is how many? And this is just a short list of what we don't have much of.

And how many people live in Naperville and pay taxes to the Naperville Park District? And how many towns around us, many of which are a whole lot smaller, have found ways to provide their residents with a lot more recreation option than Naperville despite all of Naperville's many and greater resources?

There are some who seem to think the Naperville Park District is doing a great job. I look around and see both new and old parks that are in severe neglect. Yeah, the grass gets mowed, but that is pretty much the extent of it. I'm talking about a severe lack of professional landscape management and planning. I'm talking about parks without flowers. I'm talking about parks without bushes or shrubs. I'm talking about parks that don't even have walking paths thru them; heck some don't even have sidewalks around them! I'm talking about park after park after park that doesn't even meet the city's own standards for parkway trees! I'm talking about nothing even close to a botanical garden, or a rose garden, or even a real flower garden anywhere in Naperville. Thankfully we have Cantigny, Morton Arboretum, the Forest Preserve and other opportunities because it sure doesn't look like we will ever have anything other than a bunch of plain jane parks in Naperville. Fact is the Naperville Park District always has been run by and is currently run by people with little vision, people who are incapable of envisioning or planning to make our parks better or even trying to make them truly great, people who's sole aim by all appearances is to be the cheapest of the cheap. Well I guess they have been good at being cheap. And it shows.

Yet I can look around and see other nearby and neighboring towns delivering a whole lot more park and recreation opportunities. For those who's needs are focused on baseball, soccer, football, well I guess they probably think the park district is doing a swell job. For the rest of us, well we will have to continue to travel to other towns won't we?

Anonymous,
You have so many complaints about everything and such great vision that maybe it is time for you to run for Mayor.

The Napergate Man had a few complaints about a few subjects. His complaints appeared legitimate!

You seem to be complaining for the sake of complaining.

Putting flowers in athletic fields seems a bit crazy to me. Do you think the football and soccer players will jump over these flowers successfully every time when the momentum takes them out of bounds?

Who is going to pay for all these flowers! Who is going to maintain them? Who is going to water them? Are you trying to increase my taxes?

On second thought, maybe you should not run for Mayor! I could see you doubling our taxes in 5 years! I am comfortable with Mayor George Pradel for now as he seems the frugal type...my type of man!

Anon –

Maybe you missed my point, or maybe I wasn’t particularly clear.

I wasn’t necessarily advocating for more athletic fields of any particular kind, just pointing out that keeping the plots is (I think) not a good use of space. Some people seem particularly resistant to change regarding this and I don’t understand why.

Can the parks be better? Yes. Could they be worse? Yes. A couple of larger parks near me have been completely re-done, yet I had to beg and beg for a bench at the park nearest me. No play equipment (none is there now). No huge expense. Just a bench so people can sit and relax as they watch their kids play and run.

Do I care about bushes and flowers etc as you mentioned? Probably not. I’d rather the park district concentrate on keeping the parks clean, up to date, and keep interesting programs for the kids and seniors.

T.B.

A Daniel Burnhan quote: "Make no little plans," he said, "for they have no magic to stir men's blood � Make big plans, aim high�. "

Back in 1890 Chicago followed Burnham's dream and today the legacy of big beautiful parks remain. Chicago in 1890 had only 1 million people, no sales tax and no income tax. Yet they found a way to build parks and conservatories that were as beautiful then as they are today. And I'm accused of complaining because

Anyone who has such a narrow view to think any flowers were intended to be planted in or near athletic fields obviously doesn't understand the concept of a park and a forest nor the difference between a park and an athletic field. Of course these same people go thru life thinking they are making a cultural decision when they have to choose between going to a movie and a ball game.

Reality is that there are a ton of small towns in places like Wisconsin and Minnesota that have absolutely beautiful parks. People who live in these small towns take great pride and care of their parks and community. It is a shame we don't have that same community spirit in Naperville... that same shared vision of aesthetics.

Just like the block I live on, some homes take care of their yard... others have nothing but weeds and crabgrass. Some homes have beautiful shrubs and gardens and others... like one house has absolutely nothing but a lawn... not a single tree, shrub, bush, or flower around the entire house or anywhere in the yard... the solitary tree is on the parkway I guess because the city requires it.

We all know who in our neighborhood cares about their home and property and take care of it and who doesn't. We also know who in the neighborhood is thrifty, who is frugal, and who is down right cheap. Yes, no one like to raise taxes. Fact is our city is already wasting a ton of our tax money as it is. Just cleaning up the waste and corruption in the system would make this possible without raising taxes one cent. We could start with eliminating the Naperville Park District Police.

Let's take a hard look at some facts. There are over 1,300 municipalities in Illinois and less then 20 of them have park district police. How is it that at least 1,280 park districts throughout the metro area and the state are able to function safely and effectively without needing a separate, dedicated park district police?

Now let's take a look at the actual park district police force... how many officers, working how many hours, at what total cost to the taxpayer? And for all of this effort what crime in our parks is there to report? The Naperville Sun doesn't have anything to report in the police blotter section. Seems the actual arrests are few and far between or else either the park district isn't reporting what is going on to the Naperville Sun or the Naperville Sun is acting as a filter and isn't telling it's readers what is going on (which I strongly doubt by the way). What exactly is going on in our parks that the regular Naperville Police can't handle? Every time I visit the Riverwalk I see Naperville Police on bicycle patrol not park police. So where are the park police and what are they doing?

This is not a rant about or against the Naperville Park District police. It is but one example of waste that has been allowed to start and then grow out of control. While it is a valid example it is not the only example of waste and corruption. There are others. I just believe if we get rig of all of the waste and corruption our parks could truly grow into becoming more valuable community assets which would translate into happier, more content residents with higher property values. And it could all be done without raising taxes one penny. But then I'm just a complainer. Go figure.