Last week Gov. Rod Blagojevich agreed to a mass transit funding bailout that will raise the sales tax in Cook County and several collar counties served by the mass transit system. But “Hot Rod” Blago, ever the calculating politician, attached a $30 million “string” to his deal: Senior citizens will get free rides on our mass transit systems.
Anybody who stops to think about this even momentarily might wonder about the relationship of a sales tax increase to free transit for seniors. There is none – Blago just wanted to pander to a heavy-voting special interest group with another entitlement. “But what about all those seniors who will be paying the higher sales tax but don’t ride public transportation” you might ask? Blago and his brain-trust are counting on nobody thinking past the superficial “for the seniors” gloss and being able to see just what dubious public policy it really is.
Thinking about this particular “for the seniors” pandering by Blago reminds us of another “senior” entitlement at a local level, one we wrote briefly about several weeks ago (“Some New Year’s Resolutions For 2008”):
For the Park Ridge Senior Center Members: Get rid of your sense of entitlement. While your approximately 1,200 members shamelessly pay a paltry $22 in annual membership “dues,” the Park Ridge Park District is burning through almost $150,000 of our tax dollars each year to give you what amounts to a private club. And a number of you aren’t even Park Ridge taxpayers!
The Park Ridge Senior Center, owned and operated by the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District, is also supported in part by tax dollars from other governmental bodies such as the City of Park Ridge and Maine Township, as well as by charitable foundations like the Park Ridge Community Fund.
In the past few weeks the Senior Center got some well-deserved kudos in both of our local newspapers for some 30 or so of its members making 54 blankets for wounded soldiers coming home from Iraq. Although we question the wisdom of that war, we are staunch supporters of those sent to fight it and believe they deserve the very best this country has to offer – in supplies, equipment and medical treatment while they’re over there, and in medical treatment, education, training, employment and support services upon their return.
But we do question the cost-to-benefit ratio of the Senior Center, at least in connection with the way it has been operating for at least the past decade. That’s because not only is the building’s use limited solely to seniors, but it’s membership is only around 1,200 seniors, a significant percentage of whom aren’t even Park District residents and taxpayers.
That wouldn’t be so bad but for one very troubling fact: The operations of the Senior Center have been burning through hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars. The Park District is estimating an almost $183,000 loss for 2007 alone! At that rate, one could argue that the taxpayers simply gave more than $150 to each of those 1,200 members in 2007; or that those 54 blankets cost us almost $3,400 apiece! And for 2008, the Park District is budgeting [pdf] a $188,000 operating loss!! Why?
One reason is that those Senior Center members pay ridiculous “membership dues” of $30* per year, apparently to try to maintain the charade that they aren’t really receiving welfare from the District’s taxpayers. That’s less than the cost of a Sam’s Club membership, for crying out loud. If that was kicked up to only $100 a year – less than 28 cents a day, still an incredible bargain for having their own clubhouse – the red ink from the Senior Center could be cut in half.
And seniors, don’t even think about playing that “we’ve paid taxes here all our lives” card with us – because we’re not pandering politicians willing to buy that tripe in order to buy your votes. A majority of you are probably sitting on more net assets than most of the non-senior households in town, starting with that house you bought 30-40 years ago that’s appreciated 8-10% per year on average. And you already got a full return on your taxes, and then some, from all that taxpayer-subsidized public education and recreation your kids got (and your grandkids are now getting?).
If you want discounts just because you’re still breathing after all these years, be content with the early-bird specials at places like Denny’s that only have to answer to their stockholders. Otherwise, it’s time to get off the public dole and start paying the costs of what you use. Or you should start sharing that facility with other Park District customers and activities.
If we have any hope of stopping government from shoving its hand ever deeper into our pockets we need to start distinguishing “essential government services” from all the amenities and frills that some special interest or other wants – and too often gets from the unprincipled politicians who are continually trying to buy their popularity with our money.
In the case of the Senior Center, the hard cold fact is that there’s nothing “essential” about that seniors-only playhouse on Western Avenue that warrants it getting a $188,000 handout from the taxpayers this year…or any other year.
* CORRECTION: We originally listed the annual dues as $22, but that was the old rate (although the new rate is also cheaper than a Sam’s Club membership). We apologize for the error.
9 comments so far
Do these seniors have to prove need to belong to the Senior Center? Do only the seniors who can’t afford to go to Florida for the winter or up to Wisconsin for the summer hang out there?
My parents are seniors and live in Park Ridge and they have never been inside the Senior Center. When they want to play cards or socialize, they have friends over, or got to friends houses. And yet their taxes go for a building dedicated to seniors that only a small fraction of all Park Ridge seniors use. It seems wrong that we all – including the seniros who don’t belong – end up paying for that place.
Hey, Watchdog people. Rumor has it that Mayor Frimark and some of his people are coming after you for blowing the whistle on the Senior Center.
Publicwatchdog.org – Park Ridge
It is wise, when preparing a critical letter, to marshal your arguments and double-check your facts. In your recent critical rant regarding the Park Ridge Senior Center, you were deficient on all counts.
Not only was your reasoning faulty but your facts were incorrect. Not a persuasive way to make your point. Your characterization of the Center as being comparable to a private and privileged club suggests to me that your standards indeed need some bolstering. Instead, the Center acts as a sanctuary for those amongst us who have retired from an active economic, productive life and seek ways to occupy their idle time. Many have lost their spouses and many of their childhood friends: thus facing a bleak and lonely future. Organizations such as the Center offer the promise of companionship and a variety of activities. This is just one segment of our Park Ridge population served by the Park Ridge Parks and Recreation Organization.
It is true that the building on S. Western Avenue is used primarily by Seniors, but it is equally true that the soccer fields, baseball diamonds, swimming pools, driving ranges and ice rink are used primarily by aficionados of those activities. And believe it or not, they are not all Park Ridge residents. Just check the license tags of the cars bearing these folks. Is it not also true that Park Ridge residents occasionally visit parks in our sister suburbs. Lighten up Mr, anonymous and shed your age bias, our Park District is doing a very competent job. Can they make improvements? Of course! And it is our obligation as citizens to see that they do.
In contrast to your anonymity, I am pleased to attach my name to my opinions.
Richard J. Brandt
Mr. Brandt:
You assert that our facts are incorrect yet you fail to identify even one such error. Accordingly, we stand by those facts.
You call the Senior Center “a sanctuary” for retirees, many of whom have lost spouses and friends and are “facing a bleak and lonely future” and who, therefore, rely on the Senior Center for “companionship and a variety of activities.”
We have no problem with the Senior Center serving such a purpose, but we do not think that the taxpayers should be forced to subsidize that “sanctuary” to the tune of over $150,000 a year while its members pay a measly $30 a year for the run of the place.
As far as we know, the Senior Center is used not “primarily” but EXCLUSIVELY by approximatley 1,200 seniors, an exclusivity applied to no other facility in the Park District. So you and your fellow Senior Center members – less than 11% of all Park Ridge residents who are eligible for Senior Center membership, according to the 2000 census – are benefitting from “age bias,” not suffering from it.
Sorry, Mr. Brandt, but you’ve done nothing to dispel the notion that the Senior Center is just another form of welfare that doesn’t even require a showing of need.
Mr. Anonymous:
I really wasn’t planning on a protracted correspondence with an anonymous writer, but the almost palpable animosity of your tone makes an answer necessary. Where logic is absent your use of capital letters seems to substitute.
One of your errors was defining the correct amount of the yearly dues. True you later corrected your error but it indicates a lack of research on your part in your original diatribe. Your other errors include faulty reasoning such as your specious argument concerning the use of the facilities. It is a “special purpose” facility, much the same as the tennis courts, baseball fields, ice rink and swimming pools. Not everyone can or does make use of them. Of the total population of our City I would guess that less than 10% of those eligible or able to play tennis on our courts actually do so. Should we plow them under?.
Members of the Senior Center have made capital and other improvements approaching One Million dollars during the period of their use of the facilities; through private grants and bequests. This to a building owned the citizens of Park Ridge. None of their activities are taxpayer supported or subsidized; all are on a “pay as you go basis”. User groups, cultural activities and educational classes, are all conducted by volunteers.
I am not suggesting that economies could not be practiced throughout the entire District, but to single out a single user group for your vicious attack is unconscionable.
Richard J. Brandt
Mr. Brandt:
We here at PublicWatchdog love debate, or “correspondence” if you prefer. We especially love to debate entitlements with people who believe they deserve them for such superficial and happenstance factors as age or gender.
Attempting to equate the Senior Center to tennis courts, baseball fields, the ice rink and swimming pools is disingenuous because none of those facilities discriminates on the basis of age, gender, etc., while the Senior Center is reserved exclusively for “seniors” (although we also question the Senior Center premise that a “senior” is anyone over the age of 55).
From what little financial information is readily available concerning the Senior Center, it appears that the vast majority of Senior Center members have contributed virtually nothing to the cost of that facility or the capital improvements that have been made to it over the years. Moreover, just since 2000 the Senior Center has consumed approximately $1 Million tax dollars simply to cover its operations; and it is budgeted for a $188,000 loss in 2008 – which makes it a bigger money loser for the Park District than even the District’s outdoor pools, and belies your argument that the Senior Center operates on a “pay as you go basis
But if what you’re actually doing is lobbying for continuing taxpayer welfare for the Senior Center members, Mr. Brandt, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Because while we here at PublicWatchdog support assistance for the truly needy, we oppose even a penny going to the merely greedy – especially for such non-essential facilities as your group’s semi-private clubhouse on Western Avenue.
We also suggest that if you really believe that the voters of the Park District support your position on this issue, you should run for the Park District Board in an actual election – rather than trying to grab a Board seat through an interim appointment.
Does Public Watchdog know how many members of the Senior Center are needy? How many needy Park Ridge seniors does the Senior Center serve?
Anonymous 2/27/08 at 3:08 p.m.:
No. And as we understand it, neither does the Park District – because “needy” isn’t something they or the folks over at the Senior Center care about.
But if “needy” (by any reasonable definition of that term) is to be a criterion for the taxpayers’ subsidizing individuals or entire interest groups, then that should be a policy decision expressly made by the Park Board; and there should be a requirement that the “needy” individuals submit financial information to prove that they are needy rather than greedy.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>