The rain garden on the Cook County courthouse lawn has been the center of controversy in recent weeks and we’ve had a few complaints about the Cook County News-Herald
coverage of the complaints about the rain garden.
There were objections that we sensationalized the public reaction at the Memorial Day ceremony. I believe that any of the hundred-plus people in attendance would disagree. If anything, the unhappiness of those in attendance was downplayed.
I was standing on the raised edge of the rain garden to take pictures as the ceremony took place. I stood among the plants growing around the perimeter and wondered if I should stand there—was I stepping on weeds? Or were the scraggly plants growing on the berm some sort of landscaping?
I was there when American Legion Post Commander Don Wilson encouraged audience members to talk to their county commissioners about how they felt about the rain garden whose lower levels encroach on the memorial’s half circle of flags. I was there when a spontaneous— and loud—round of applause met his statement that he would like to see the rain garden removed.
Thecoverage of the Memorial Day event was difficultfor me. Theunhappiness over the rain garden was obvious. Normally there is no clapping during the solemn Memorial Day ceremony. But the burst of discontent clearly showed that the public agreed with Commander Wilson.
I also agreed. I feel the rain garden is much larger than necessary. I was on the committee formed to construct a new monument in 2000. A committee of Cook County veterans and citizens worked very hard to raise money to create a memorial to replace the deteriorating stone monument at the courthouse, erected in 1947. The group labored over the wording on the new memorial, finally coming up with the simple statement: Thismemorial
is dedicated to the men & women
who served their country in war and
peace.
The committee envisioned the flags of all of the branches of the military in a half-circle around the new and old monuments. When our group was considering a veteran’s memorial, it felt a lovely green lawn around the flags was appropriate.
I don’t like that the rain garden has changed that vision. But when it was time to write the article, I set those feelings aside. I debated on how the dissatisfaction of the crowd should be handled and decided it should be in a short sidebar. Thetitle of the sub-story was Ceremony changed because of rain
garden.
To sensationalize the story, the rain garden could have been the whole story. The title could have been something like Rain garden ruins Memorial
Day ceremony.
Instead of choosing a photo that shows a ceremony divided by the rocky berm, I selected the meaningful photo of our American Legion veterans and focused on the memorial speeches, the beautiful bagpipes and our local high school musicians playing Taps.
I didn’t show bias in that coverage. I saved it for this column. Now, in Unorganized Territory,
an editorial format, I am sharing my dislike of the rain garden and my dismay that it will cost the county—the taxpayers— thousands of dollars to change it.
I don’t really blame anyone for installing the rain garden. I am not opposed to the idea of rain gardens. I understand that they serve the purpose of filtering sediment runoff from parking lots and gas and oil dripped off our automobiles. However, I think when such a project is undertaken, there should be a better description of what it will look like.
I am not very good at picturing something from a sketch. I have been shocked by a number of local construction projects over the years—the expansions of Dockside Fish Market and Angry Trout Café and Stone Harbor Wilderness Supply, the new North House Folk School Mill Shop, the rip-rap ditches through Cedar Grove Business Park. All of them were larger than I expected. I imagine there are other people like me who can’t picture what something will look like until it is finished. Thatis certainly the case with the rain gardens and why there is such a feeling of betrayal.
Proposals for change, especially to our public spaces, should be presented in a clear manner—detailed conceptual drawings or even architectural models. And changes should be posted or published where the public can see them and comment—or at least get used to the idea.
There should also be an “exit” for projects that don’t work. I am appalled that removing the rain garden would mean that the county will be out at least $17,000. That is just what must be repaid to the entity that provided grant money for the rain garden— there would be additional costs to level it and restore the lawn.
I encourage our commissioners to carefully consider future grant applications and acceptances. What strings are attached? If something is developed, like the rain garden, that doesn’t fit our community, what are the penalties? Can a reversion clause be written into grant contracts to ensure something like this won’t happen again?
Finally, I hope our commissioners seek compromise. As with so many issues, I’m sure the community is fairly evenly divided over this issue, between those who want the rain garden and those who want it gone. Let’s try to find a solution that doesn’t make that division deeper.
The solution could be simple— shrink the rain garden so it is outside the memorial half-circle of flags. Landscape the sides of the rain garden—perhaps create a walking path with stones bearing the names of local veterans. Make minimal changes that would allow the rain garden to do its job while the memorial continues to remember and honor our veterans.
Americans usually believe that
nothing is impossible.
Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Leave a Reply