In the DeKalb story, the first wave of political pressure came when the NIMBYs packed a park board meeting to express their dire predictions of how the recreation center would ruin the tranquillity of their neighborhood.

In the early spring of 1998, the DeKalb Park District board of commissioners voted to go forward with a project to construct an indoor sports and recreation center. The project seemed like a slam-dunk.

The $4.5-million facility was designed to house two indoor soccer fields, two gymnasiums, an aerobic dance facility, a wellness center and offices. The center was slated to be built next to DeKalb High School on a four-lane state highway, with 50 acres of buffer around the west and south sides of the building, the high school on the north and the four-lane highway on the east. Next to the high school, physical education classes and extracurricular could make use of the facility on a daily basis, saving the school district the necessity of constructing such a facility of its own. Likewise, the park district could make use of the high school's indoor swimming pool, saving the park district the cost of constructing its own.

Yet it came as a surprise to many when the city of DeKalb objected to the sports and recreation center's construction on the grounds that it would negatively impact four homes on the other side of the four-lane highway. But it should have come as no surprise to the park district that the city would raise objections, considering the recent history of similar occurrences in other Illinois communities.

Park districts all over the state have faced situations where people have objected to recreation facilities being built in their back yards: the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) situation. In many of these cases, elected council persons and city planners have taken the side of the objectors, for what apparently are political reasons.

In a political world it makes perfect political sense that the city would support the objectors. City councils are generally elected by wards, and need to have the support of their neighborhood residents to get reelected. On the other hand, park board members are elected at-large and tend to seek the support of the community as a whole, because that is who elects them. It's all about politics.

In the DeKalb story, the first wave of political pressure came when the NIMBYs packed a park board meeting to express their dire predictions of how the recreation center would ruin the tranquillity of their neighborhood on the other side of the four-lane highway. When that line of dialog didn't move the park board to scrapping the project, they went to their alderman.

The city's response was predictable. Through it's planning staff, it tried to negotiate a planned unit development (PUD) with the park district. Under this PUD, the district could avoid the city's formal planning process if it agreed to build the facility under the condition that it be moved farther back from the highway than the unified development ordinance (UDO) required, and that it be turned sideways with a lower roof than the park district's plans specified, also not required by the UDO.

When the park district rejected this offer on the grounds that it was not required to exceed the UDO, the district was forced into the city's formal planning process. It was forced into this formal process because die Wilmette decision by the Illinois Supreme Court (Wilmette Park District v. Village of Wilmette, 112 Ill.2d

32 Illinois Parks and Recreation

6 (1986)) had determined that park districts cannot legally avoid the formal planning process of municipalities. This is because the state of Illinois has given municipalities planning responsibilities, even though it has provided park districts with the responsibilities of developing recreational facilities.

The city of DeKalb's formal planning process began with a series of hearings at the plan commission level, and then another series of hearings before the city council. All of these hearings were attended by the NIMBYs, who were provided opportunity after opportunity to discourage the district with proceeding with the project, unless it moved the building back, turned it around and lowered the roof.

During this process, the park board held its ground, pointing out repeatedly that if the city council refused to issue a building permit to construct the facility, it would be guilty of unreasonably withholding this permit, impeding another governmental unity from performing the duties authorized by the state legislature. Reluctantly, the city council approved the project, but not before expressing its regret that it could not help the NIMBYs more.

I have talked to park district directors and board members all over this state and heard many similar stories about how city planning staff and city councils have tried to intervene on behalf of NIMBYs. Responses to these interventions have been varied. In some cases, park districts have submitted to the will of the city, and in others they have ignored the planning process altogether.

However, one solution has stood out as the most reasonable. In spite of the Wilmette decision—that park districts cannot ignore the formal planning process—some cities have recognized that it is not in their best political interest to squabble with park districts over NIMBY issues. One place where this has happened is Wheaton.

In Wheaton, the park district and city have coauthored an agreement where it is respected that the park district has been provided the authority by the state legislature to develop recreation facilities and that the city can risk charges of unreasonableness by withholding approval. Under the Wheaton agreement, the park district avoids the humiliation of appearing before the planning commission, itself an appointed advisory board, that might be put in the position of reviewing the decision of the elected park board.

Under the Wheaton agreement, the construction plans for any park district facility construction project is negotiated directly between city planning and park district staffs. If an understanding cannot be reached, it goes directly to the city council for determination if city staff has unreasonably withheld approval.

All of this is preferable to what happened in DeKalb, where only through brute political force were we able to overcome the city planning staff efforts to change the project. On the other hand, in retrospect, winning a political fight was kind of fun.

DAVID N. EMANUELSON
is the director of the DeKalb Park District. His last story for Illinois Parks & Recreation, "Politics and the Media," appeared in the July/August 2000 issue.

Under the Wheaton agreement, the construction plans for any park district facility construction project is negotiated directly between city planning and park district staffs.

September/October 2001 33