The suburbs of Illinois I am from are referred to as "the North Shore", which is shamefully characterized by wealthy, pretentious and entitled individuals. For 20 miles south of my hometown of Lake Bluff, there are beautiful homes with wealthy families and 20 miles to the north there are run-down apartments and rampant crime. With such a wide variety of socio-economic individuals, I can't say I was surprised when I saw this issue arise. The majority of residents of Lake Bluff had been complaining about letting the non-residents in. This was primarily targetted at the "low income" non-residents who were notorious for smoking on the beach and bringing large groups who took over the grills and often loitered their beer bottles. The Lake Bluff residents had an unspoken rule to keep the beach clean since it was their tax dollars that went to the beach maintenance. A group of Lake Bluff residents proposed to the city board that no non-residents be allowed down to the beach any more.
I will briefly break down each parties beliefs so that it is easy to understand how each party holds a stake in the dilemma of to let or not let beach residents to the beach anymore:
- Residents: The residents of Lake Bluff have their city tax dollars spent each year to maintain the up keep of the beach. These tasks include replacing erroded sand, buying new lifeguard safety equipment, and having cleaning/maintenance crews to ensure the beach is running at its best. The group was frustrated to increasingly see more and more non-residents using and abusing the beach that they are paying tax dollars to keep clean. The group wanted exclusive rights for only residents to use the property as they felt it was their given right.
- Non-Residents: After years of being able to use the beach, they felt that they should be able to continue to use the beach. Also, information was not clearly streamlined and they felt the beach was "public property", even though it was privately owned by the Park District who had purchased it for city use years ago. There was also tension with the residents over them believing the residents found them "unworthy" for beach use.
- The Board: The Board is the group of city council government that oversaw park district operations and therefore the beach. However, the Board's primary goal is to maintain the happiness of the tax payers and therefore the residents.
- The Park District (Beach) Employees: We felt both sides due to the nature of our roles. As employees we recieved complaints from both residents and non-residents. Residents constantly complaining and stereotyping that some "clear non-resident" was doing some trivial behavior that interrupted their tax-payer right to have exclusive access, where as the non-residents would speak about how they deserved to have beach access since "they have been coming here for years prior".
This was more than just a battle over who could use the beach, but rather a battle of power, influence, and socio-economic status. The North Shore is known for being "a bubble", where its residents grow up priviledged and entitled. It was seeing this behavior and class war that really brought to view how pertinent classism is still today.
The battle began in a series of moves and unintentional counter moves that eventually resulted in a semi-resolution of the conflict.
- The Board made a decision to ban all non-residents from beach usage. This resulted in us as employees having to have one employee sit at the top of the beach hill and check photo-id to ensure that they were residents. If they had no photo id on them that indicated a Lake Bluff residency, then they were unable to have beach access. Residents are happy to see diminished attendance resulting in cleaner beaches and exclusive beach access.
- There is a massive influx of complaints by non-residents who drive sometimes from 30+ minutes away to be declined at the entrance due to newly introduced regulations. This resulted in high stress and pressures for the beach employees by constantly being barraded by unhappy non-residents.
- As an employee, we voiced our concerns for the new regulation. The new rule had left our employees unhappy, stressed, and unmotivated. There was a series of individuals who left as they were fed up with constantly being harassed by non-residents who felt entitled to enter the beach. We propose a $5 daily entrance fee for non-residents so they can use the beach but also contribute to revenue for beach maintenance and up-keep.
- The Board accepts an implements a $10 daily entrance fee. However, residents are upset that non-residents can still enter and claim that the fee is not enough to parallel their taxes that go towards beach upkeep. Non-residents complain that they should not have to pay after years of free usage. The staff still has occassional arguments with residents and non-residents but the over all stress level from angry patrons has severly diminished.
- Now, five years from this $10 daily entrance per person fee still exsists and has resulted in some of the first profit turning years from the beach which is usually a tax sink hole. Complaints also still persist.
I think a lot of times we believe that conflict resolution results in both parties being happy and that compromise gives each party satisfaction to leave the deal happy. However, this example clearly outlines that even in a compromise to give each what they want at a small cost:
- Residents: Less non-residents entering the beach due to a fee that deters X% amount of patrons. Additionally, less taxes are allocated to the beach as profits turned from fee based collections cover maintenance costs.
- Non-Residents: Non-residents regained beach access, although they still do not feel they should have to pay a fee based on historical experience. They also argue that a $10/per person fee is too steep of a rate and that it would cost a family of 5 $50 for a day at the beach.
- The Board & The Park District (Beach) Employees: Both recieved less complaints as their policy reduced some amount of complaints against residents and non-residents. However, in both cases neither had fully diminished complaints.
This was an outcome, but it was an outcome that still left people angry. Was there a better alternative? Perhaps, but do to social pressures there is little way to say so. This battle was based on socioeconomic struggles, not a genuine desire to keep the beach well maintained. A sensitive topic like this never becomes resolved. There will continue to be tensions between the resident and non-residents groups whether at the beach or not. Everyone has the opportunity to be more mature and civilized, but the culture we live in does not encourage fostering deep caring relationships and results in childish debates such as the one I have discussed above.
As it so happens, I live across the street from a park that is maintained by the Champaign Park District. There is also a commons grass area and sidewalks between the houses in my neighborhood where there are walkways without streets. Park District also maintains the commons gras area. I have never heard the expression - privately owned by the Champaign Park District. I would consider these as public spaces - to be used not just by Champaign residents, but also people from Monticello, Mahomet, Rantoul, etc. if they so desire.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my parents used to live in a large condominium in West Boca Raton that was gated. You needed an ID card to get in or to be identified as an acceptable visitor by a resident. This really was private property, though it had the same sort of walkways as my neighborhood in Champaign has.
With that I'm trying to identify the tension you describe. It sounds like the history of the place had the beach considered one way and then the residents wanted to consider it a different way.
Let me add to this, that there is some park just north of the Bahai Temple in Evanston (I think the park is in Wilmette) where I used to play frisbee golf with one of my classmates back when I was in grad school in the late 1970s. If memory serves that park was free and open to all, at least at the time. It would be interesting to know how parks and beaches south of Lake Bluff but north of Evanston are classified. It would highlight whether what happened at your beach is in accord with norms elsewhere or unique because Lake Bluff is on the boundary.
You mentioned differences in income as a driver of the tension. You didn't say a word about race. I suspect that mattered too, maybe more so than income. My limited experience with managing tensions due to race is that people tend to act more aggrieved than they otherwise would if race were not an issue. Even if a sensible solution gets put into place, hard feelings can remain for some time.
The entrance fee that you mention is the obvious sort of solution. I can't say whether $5 or $10 is the right number and if that should be a cost per vehicle or a cost per person. But the principle that some of the costs be borne by users, whether resident or not, seems sensible on the economics. No doubt what is perceived as reasonable depends as much on the history of such access charges as it does on current usage. But it sounds like a sensible approach was ultimately achieved even if people are still resentful of it.
The idea is that the park district privately owns the beach so that the beach can only be used by residents of the district, it is not public for all users.
DeleteYes, I would agree with you. Nationality tends to be a huge difference in the views, but not as you may suspect. The biggest race of tension was with Eastern Europeans. This is mostly because of the amount of smoking they would do at the beach. Smoking is illegal on public property in Lake Bluff but is not regualted. So while the tension may have been a result of frustration with enforcement, it was taken out on the difference in people as an irrational justification for wanting sole possession of the beach.