Do you support increased privatization of park facilities and services? Why or why not?

City Services

No, Privatization of city property has become one of the most controversial topics in Chicago.
While it may offer additional revenue to the City, it is important to look at the negative
aspects of privatizations. Privatization often means the loss of jobs and in this economy;
our main focus should be on job creation. Privatization often causes constituent backlash
and anger. Privatization usually involves lengthy agreements and whose effectiveness cannot be appropriately gauged.

no

NO. Privatization has proved to be a disastrous policy and I oppose the concept on general principle.

No. I do not agree in privatization of public assets.

No,The City’s motto is “Urbs in Horto”, City in a Garden, and I believe that Daniel Burnham's plan
for public access to public green spaces is one of the things that makes Chicago a great city.

No. No response provided.

Chevette A. Valentine IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

No. Once again I do not support privatization of any federal, state or city run
government owned and operated entities.

NO.The City’s motto is “Urbs in Horto”, City in a Garden, and I believe that Daniel Burnham's plan
for public access to public green spaces is one of the things that makes Chicago a great city.

No,I generally don’t support further privatization of public goods and services. Such privatization
arrangements have historically not been financially advantageous to the City, nor have they
resulted in better services.

In certain select circumstances.
Though I am very wary of the Park District’s embrace of privatization and share
the Friends of the Parks’ concern that the quality of services and the maintenance of the parks
may suffer, I believe under certain narrow circumstances it may be appropriate. A few years ago,
my neighborhood had a wonderful opportunity to welcome a Boys and Girls club to the North of
Howard community. They would have brought wonderful programs to an area of my ward that
really needed them. Unfortunately, petty neighborhood power grabs and a skittish Park District
administration derailed their entry into our neighborhood.

NO

Joseph J. Moseley II IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

No

No, it has been proven that privatization does not work, it destroys employees
and working families who have been working and vested in their jobs for years not giving them
any consideration what so ever.. For instance look at the schools janitorial services, they are
privatized and children have to bring toilet paper to school. I heard testimony from the
November’s school board hearings of horrific challenges particularly in African American Schools
on the Southside that are unacceptable from the lunches to the cleanliness of the bathrooms.

N
The Park District and its services are another asset of the city that, if managed property from within, can be profitable for the City. Although there has been some success of privatization of some park services, proper leadership within the City to control the asset and make it profitable could have been realized as well.

READ MY LIPS. I do NOT, under any circumstances, support privatization of
any city infrastructure or city services.

NO.I am wary of privatization in general, and parks in particular are public assets to be enjoyed with
as few restrictions as practicable. The way to ensure that they continue as such in perpetuity is to
maintain public ownership.

Michael E. LaFargue IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

NO

No. I have been a long time member of the Oz Park Advisory Council and feel strongly about the open use of public space for the public rather than for private enterprises. Privatization of services can sometimes benefit parks and provide programming that would otherwise not be afforded under the current Park District budget, as long as the services that are then provided have a threshold number of “scholarships” given to children or adults who cannot afford the higher prices being charged by the private organization running the programs, in exchange for the free use of the public space. In other cases, “rent” should be charged by the private organizations that can then be used by the parks to improve facilities. One aspect of park privatization that I feel strongly about is the bumping of public school users off public spaces in favor of revenue paying users. This is an unfair practice which needs to stop.

No.Absolutely not. Public assets need to remain public, they belong to everyone. Considering how
expensive the city has become, parks remain one of the few places where all people can enjoy
themselves. Any restriction to the access or use of parks must be banned.

No. privatization takes away the opportunity

Michael E. LaFargue IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

NO

Carlos Ramirez-Rosa IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

Our city’s parks are a public treasure; they should continue to be managed with the public’s interests in mind, not a corporation’s bottom line.

no. Elections, when done right, bring regular people closer to the decision making process,
privatization generally moves people further from that power.

no. Chicago has lost on enough privatization measures for now.

Susan Sadlowski Garza IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

candidate's responce

No; I am opposed to the privatization of any city assets or services.

No,We may need to do some privatization, however it must be cost effective and must not diminish the level of quality that the Park District currently provides. I am a strong supporter of Chicago Park District Employees and do not wish to see their jobs replaced.

NO
Again I am opposed to privatizing any public good

Stephen Niketopoulos IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

N
I think we need to be careful to privatize something that might be a families only source of green space. These resources need to be maintained for future generations to use.

no

NO
See Question 34

no.While there are some instances where privatization makes sense, but where there is a
reduction in city revenues in the long term and lower wage jobs for city residents, we need to
examine other avenues to enhance revenues to build the economy.

No.
Lincoln Park is the front yard of my ward, and I carefully steward the uses of Lincoln Park to keep it open to the public and not privatized.

No. The Park District acts with little oversight, transparency or accountability.
We pay taxes toward it, yet are essentially taxed again through fees – much of them going
toward contractors hired to run such aspects as our harbors. I view this as another source
of asset mismanagement over which we have even less control than we do for the
disposition of other city assets.

No
I have yet to see a privatized asset that reduces costs or improves
service. In fact, the opposite generally occurs, with less transparency, oversight or
accountability