Comments for CitizensForParks.com http://www.citizensforparks.com Plainfield Park District Referendum Blog Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:08:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 Comment on Vote YES for Parks by Art Bowers http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/10/25/vote-yes-for-parks/#comment-51 Fri, 17 Nov 2006 03:55:53 +0000 http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/10/25/vote-yes-for-parks/#comment-51 Hello: My wife and I thank your group for championing the park district. We both voted in favor of the park district referendum. I wanted to let you know that the flyer you sent out to explain the referendum and seek to convince voters to support it just arrived in our mailbox today...November 16. I think your flyer very effectively presented the case for the referendum, and clearly illustrated the low cost to an average household in the area. It is really too bad that it arrived 9 days after the election. Several houses in our neighborhood received the flyer today. If you contracted out the mailing of this flyer, please seek to get a refund. It's a shame. Regards and good luck, Art & Ann Bowers Hello: My wife and I thank your group for championing the park district. We both voted in favor of the park district referendum. I wanted to let you know that the flyer you sent out to explain the referendum and seek to convince voters to support it just arrived in our mailbox today…November 16. I think your flyer very effectively presented the case for the referendum, and clearly illustrated the low cost to an average household in the area. It is really too bad that it arrived 9 days after the election. Several houses in our neighborhood received the flyer today. If you contracted out the mailing of this flyer, please seek to get a refund. It’s a shame.
Regards and good luck,
Art & Ann Bowers

]]> Comment on Plainfield Athletic Club Gives Support by Wayne Baker http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/26/plainfield-athletic-club-gives-support/#comment-26 Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:32:02 +0000 http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/26/plainfield-athletic-club-gives-support/#comment-26 The Citizens for Parks committee would also like to thank the Plainfield Junior Cats and Plainfield Soccer Association for their generous support of both funding, volunteer time and support. The Citizens for Parks committee would also like to thank the Plainfield Junior Cats and Plainfield Soccer Association for their generous support of both funding, volunteer time and support.

]]> Comment on Dinner for Four - or a Lifetime of Recreation? by andrew smith http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/17/dinner-for-four-or-a-lifetime-of-recreational-enjoyment/#comment-25 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:36:17 +0000 http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/17/dinner-for-four-or-a-lifetime-of-recreational-enjoyment/#comment-25 The last statement makes my point, that there are people in plainfield, and as mentioned before, want to make plainfield park district have everything like joliet, bolingbrook, oswego, and surrounding areas have. Of course, there is no mention how areas that have no facilities in their area, or parks, are going to be taken care of. I know that my area in the romeoville area, we have nothing. So is the last poster telling us that residents in OUR area have to support Plainfields projects, and I have seen that there are other areas in the same sitiuation as we are in. who is the sports council??? are they part of the park district? If so, why are they not in all areas of the district, it seems they only take care of the city of plainfield. If not, why are they wanting fields for them? From news reports that they make it sound that they dont have enough fields to play on. I am not voting for this referendem if it is going to provide this group $8 million to provide them with emenities and installations of fields "just for them" to play on them. Thats the problem with government officals that giving hand outs to non profit organizations, and they seem to have a lot of influence with this board. The last statement makes my point, that there are people in plainfield, and as mentioned before, want to make plainfield park district have everything like joliet, bolingbrook, oswego, and surrounding areas have. Of course, there is no mention how areas that have no facilities in their area, or parks, are going to be taken care of. I know that my area in the romeoville area, we have nothing. So is the last poster telling us that residents in OUR area have to support Plainfields projects, and I have seen that there are other areas in the same sitiuation as we are in. who is the sports council??? are they part of the park district? If so, why are they not in all areas of the district, it seems they only take care of the city of plainfield. If not, why are they wanting fields for them? From news reports that they make it sound that they dont have enough fields to play on. I am not voting for this referendem if it is going to provide this group $8 million to provide them with emenities and installations of fields “just for them” to play on them. Thats the problem with government officals that giving hand outs to non profit organizations, and they seem to have a lot of influence with this board.

]]> Comment on Dinner for Four - or a Lifetime of Recreation? by Sandie Lindroth http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/17/dinner-for-four-or-a-lifetime-of-recreational-enjoyment/#comment-24 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:07:21 +0000 http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/17/dinner-for-four-or-a-lifetime-of-recreational-enjoyment/#comment-24 I believe this Park District referendum will pass by a landslide! So many of my friends and neighbors support it. It's about time we have something to be proud of in our Plainfield Park District that compares with surrounding communities. I do hope that we can have a program and facility that resembles the Bolingbrook, Oswego and even Romeoville Park Districts. Wouldn't it be great to have an outdoor aquatic park someday sooner than later. Or how about not having to stand in line at 5:00am to register my daughter for ballet? Or how about not having to squeeze through the narrow hall downstairs to watch my children's class? Or to have ball fields that are plentiful and beautiful. Or how about having an abundance of programs available to every shape and size? The time is NOW. I don't think it's too much to ask for! A dozen of my friends have their families registered at the new YMCA. They spend at least $55 per month, plus the cost of the class. Think about only spending about $55 per year to have the same amenities!!! I know I'm voting YES for this much needed referendum no matter who it benefits. WE need more of everything in Plainfield with the constant growth and needs. I believe this Park District referendum will pass by a landslide! So many of my friends and neighbors support it. It’s about time we have something to be proud of in our Plainfield Park District that compares with surrounding communities. I do hope that we can have a program and facility that resembles the Bolingbrook, Oswego and even Romeoville Park Districts. Wouldn’t it be great to have an outdoor aquatic park someday sooner than later. Or how about not having to stand in line at 5:00am to register my daughter for ballet? Or how about not having to squeeze through the narrow hall downstairs to watch my children’s class? Or to have ball fields that are plentiful and beautiful. Or how about having an abundance of programs available to every shape and size? The time is NOW. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for! A dozen of my friends have their families registered at the new YMCA. They spend at least $55 per month, plus the cost of the class. Think about only spending about $55 per year to have the same amenities!!! I know I’m voting YES for this much needed referendum no matter who it benefits. WE need more of everything in Plainfield with the constant growth and needs.

]]> Comment on Our parks are worth more by Larry Newton http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/12/our-parks-are-worth-more/#comment-14 Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:14:34 +0000 http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/12/our-parks-are-worth-more/#comment-14 Thanks for your comments, Anthony. . . Thanks for your comments, Anthony. . .

]]> Comment on Dinner for Four - or a Lifetime of Recreation? by Larry Newton http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/17/dinner-for-four-or-a-lifetime-of-recreational-enjoyment/#comment-13 Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:13:11 +0000 http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/17/dinner-for-four-or-a-lifetime-of-recreational-enjoyment/#comment-13 How exactly is the Park District bypassing state law? How exactly is the Park District bypassing state law?

]]> Comment on Dinner for Four - or a Lifetime of Recreation? by andrew smith http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/17/dinner-for-four-or-a-lifetime-of-recreational-enjoyment/#comment-11 Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:31:09 +0000 http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/17/dinner-for-four-or-a-lifetime-of-recreational-enjoyment/#comment-11 Ahh now we have the actual wording of the referendem . this is to bypass the tax cap that was imposed on free spending taxing bodies that were out of control.. and those who had big plans especially for white elephant projects. Thou we have seen that even with the tax cap, this has not stopped the park board.. Let see $1million horse riding facility.. for a select area of residents.. money could have been used for some of the projects that benefit everyone.. not a select group.. In a time where people want to see a return on their money.. This board in my opinion wants to have everything that bolingbrook, oswego.. joliet.. etc have. Wasnt it the recommendation of the consulants of the survey recomend that the action committee concentrate their drive efforts in the NW section of the district?? Because that was the greatest chance of maximum yes votes? Plus when is the informational meeting schedule going to be posted? Ahh now we have the actual wording of the referendem . this is to bypass the tax cap that was imposed on free spending taxing bodies that were out of control.. and those who had big plans especially for white elephant projects. Thou we have seen that even with the tax cap, this has not stopped the park board.. Let see $1million horse riding facility.. for a select area of residents.. money could have been used for some of the projects that benefit everyone.. not a select group..
In a time where people want to see a return on their money.. This board in my opinion wants to have everything that bolingbrook, oswego.. joliet.. etc have. Wasnt it the recommendation of the consulants of the survey recomend that the action committee concentrate their drive efforts in the NW section of the district?? Because that was the greatest chance of maximum yes votes?

Plus when is the informational meeting schedule going to be posted?

]]> Comment on Our parks are worth more by andrew smith http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/12/our-parks-are-worth-more/#comment-10 Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:28:28 +0000 http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/12/our-parks-are-worth-more/#comment-10 The fault lies within two entities.. The village of Plainfield, which has no industrial base to speak of. And the Park District in spending money on projects that either money losing or spends money on projects that people hardly use or not at all. Plus all the spending is in Plainfield, not evenly thru out the district. Me bad.. you dont get projects or spending in your area if you dont live in Plainfield..I keep forgetting. The fault lies within two entities.. The village of Plainfield, which has no industrial base to speak of. And the Park District in spending money on projects that either money losing or spends money on projects that people hardly use or not at all. Plus all the spending is in Plainfield, not evenly thru out the district. Me bad.. you dont get projects or spending in your area if you dont live in Plainfield..I keep forgetting.

]]> Comment on We see a bright future for Plainfield by andrew smith http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/09/hello-world/#comment-9 Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:00:44 +0000 http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/09/hello-world/#comment-9 Well , lets see the park district board did decide to buy a horse farm whose costs have exceeded over a MILLION dollars.. boy, I wonder this not sound fiscal behavior, that money could have been used to take care of the areas with NOTHING, and had the possiblity of not alienating areas WHO are not from the baronay of Plainfield. Its Plainfields Park District now..not Plainfield Township Park District. But then again, Of course nothing is free.. but it depends where u live.. if you have nothing in your area.. you pay for nothing.. if you live in plainfield, or ur special intrest group who would greatly benefit from this.. then you get money from areas that have nothing.. well then its too bad for them.. good for us.. I would like to know how long you have lived in the district...it doesnt sound that you are concerned about these underserved areas... where kids live.. and have no where to go with their families to enjoy the outdoors.. in safety. But then again.. Plainfields PD has a habit of doing projects just for one area.. For example trails, which is a breeding ground for crime, plus at the same time no one uses them.. therefor worthless... waste of money.. In response to your comment "Did you ever think that maybe attitudes like yours result in NOT getting projects completed near you when there are people out there that support the park district and what they are trying to do? Wouldn’t it be smart to place parks and facilities where people would use them and appreciate them?" So what you are saying that areas that vote no are and should be penalized for disagreeing with the Park district? If that is the case then it sounds like the BGA, ACLU, and the states attorney should look into this.. this is based on your comment.. basically, you vote no, you get nothing!!! Then my case is made to vote no. I disagree with you begining statement on if the unicorporated areas had a park or recreation center in the area, the rate would be higher.. it would not. But it would mean more a chance of more yes votes on future rate requests since, that area would have a vested interested in the funding of programs.. etc... But with nothing in these areas there is no vested interest to vote for continue to get nothing.. But then again, this is an area whose main industry is homeowners.., and area that is starting to see higher forclosure rates due to taxes.. and lack of strong industrial base. Just homeowners and bad traffic congestion, no public transportatin, this is the main industry of Plainfield. ; Well , lets see the park district board did decide to buy a horse farm whose costs have exceeded over a MILLION dollars.. boy, I wonder this not sound fiscal behavior, that money could have been used to take care of the areas with NOTHING, and had the possiblity of not alienating areas WHO are not from the baronay of Plainfield. Its Plainfields Park District now..not Plainfield Township Park District. But then again, Of course nothing is free.. but it depends where u live.. if you have nothing in your area.. you pay for nothing.. if you live in plainfield, or ur special intrest group who would greatly benefit from this.. then you get money from areas that have nothing.. well then its too bad for them.. good for us.. I would like to know how long you have lived in the district…it doesnt sound that you are concerned about these underserved areas… where kids live.. and have no where to go with their families to enjoy the outdoors.. in safety. But then again.. Plainfields PD has a habit of doing projects just for one area.. For example trails, which is a breeding ground for crime, plus at the same time no one uses them.. therefor worthless… waste of money.. In response to your comment “Did you ever think that maybe attitudes like yours result in NOT getting projects completed near you when there are people out there that support the park district and what they are trying to do? Wouldn’t it be smart to place parks and facilities where people would use them and appreciate them?” So what you are saying that areas that vote no are and should be penalized for disagreeing with the Park district? If that is the case then it sounds like the BGA, ACLU, and the states attorney should look into this.. this is based on your comment.. basically, you vote no, you get nothing!!! Then my case is made to vote no. I disagree with you begining statement on if the unicorporated areas had a park or recreation center in the area, the rate would be higher.. it would not. But it would mean more a chance of more yes votes on future rate requests since, that area would have a vested interested in the funding of programs.. etc… But with nothing in these areas there is no vested interest to vote for continue to get nothing.. But then again, this is an area whose main industry is homeowners.., and area that is starting to see higher forclosure rates due to taxes.. and lack of strong industrial base. Just homeowners and bad traffic congestion, no public transportatin, this is the main industry of Plainfield.

;

]]> Comment on Dinner for Four - or a Lifetime of Recreation? by Wayne Baker http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/17/dinner-for-four-or-a-lifetime-of-recreational-enjoyment/#comment-8 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:47:52 +0000 http://www.citizensforparks.com/2006/08/17/dinner-for-four-or-a-lifetime-of-recreational-enjoyment/#comment-8 Andrew, What you have posted is not true at all. Ever since the Park Board purchased the property on Ridge in 2000, it has been up front that it will be developed as a lighted baseball/softball complex with some soccer/football fields as well. This is not a secret and never has been. Development of this property is desperately needed to serve the growing population of children and adults who want to play organized sports who are moving into this community. It was purchased for this purposed in the last succeessful referendum the Park Dsitrict had, yet it has remained a corn field benefiting no one buut the farmer who grows the corn. I can tell you first hand that the resources of the park district are stretched to its limits and that the problem is not going to go away on its own. Without more fields there will be an even larger gap in the number of children who get to play and the ones who have to sit on the sideline and watch. But this referendum will do so much more than just develop this parcel. There is also the Clow Farm property, as well as a new admin/rec center planned at Renwick Community Park. Those projects extend well beyond the youth sports groups to the community as a whole. Additions to the maintenance staff and equipment are planned so that our district can have well-kept parks like we find in neighboring towns. Wayne Baker President Plainfield Athletic Club Andrew,

What you have posted is not true at all. Ever since the Park Board purchased the property on Ridge in 2000, it has been up front that it will be developed as a lighted baseball/softball complex with some soccer/football fields as well. This is not a secret and never has been. Development of this property is desperately needed to serve the growing population of children and adults who want to play organized sports who are moving into this community. It was purchased for this purposed in the last succeessful referendum the Park Dsitrict had, yet it has remained a corn field benefiting no one buut the farmer who grows the corn.

I can tell you first hand that the resources of the park district are stretched to its limits and that the problem is not going to go away on its own. Without more fields there will be an even larger gap in the number of children who get to play and the ones who have to sit on the sideline and watch.

But this referendum will do so much more than just develop this parcel. There is also the Clow Farm property, as well as a new admin/rec center planned at Renwick Community Park. Those projects extend well beyond the youth sports groups to the community as a whole. Additions to the maintenance staff and equipment are planned so that our district can have well-kept parks like we find in neighboring towns.

Wayne Baker
President
Plainfield Athletic Club

]]>