i'll admit i feel disappointed by openlands. i don't know why. i knew they weren't committed to saving jackson park from private development. but i wish they were. if i feel disappointed there's usually good reason to be. they seemed to be concerned about the hundreds of trees that were marked for destruction. r. says that city parks are not really their focus. but it's not just a city park, not just great lawns and old trees, it's a nature 
sanctuary, or that's what the signs say, and that's how nature has come to regard it. i keep thinking about nature living under the obamaland 23 story illuminated tower, under constant security and surveillance. and i can't help feeling kind of left hanging by openlands, who i thought were committed to keeping open lands open. maybe city parks and city sanctuaries are not their focus, but this small oasis is critical to migratory and local species, including human kind. they may be doing other important things, but for me, and for many others whose voices are unheard, there is no area more important than the paul h. douglas nature sanctuary. 
anyway, thanks openlands, for surveying me, and asking what is important to me.