Tonight at Maine East High School (Dempster and Potter, 7:00 p.m.), the Park Ridge City Council will meet as a Committee of the Whole to discuss the text amendment to the city’s zoning code recommended by the City’s Planning & Zoning (“P&Z”) Commission, by a 7-2 vote, on September 8th. That recommended amendment will permit homeless shelters in Park Ridge but prevent them from being located within 500 feet of any day care, nursery or grammar school.
The Park Ridge Ministerial Association (“PRMA”) and the supporters of the “PADS” brand of homeless shelter they want to bring to Park Ridge are opposed to any governmental oversight, but the 500-foot restriction has them even more agitated – because the PADS franchise depends on free space and free labor provided by local churches, often in their parochial schools.
The PRMA and the pro-PADS contingent, however, may have acquired a powerful ally in City Attorney Everett “Buzz” Hill, who looks like he is trying to set the table for Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark’s Alderpuppets on the City Council to nix that 500 foot restriction by opining that the restriction might not be legally enforceable.
Hill, who said nothing about the legality or enforceability of the 500-foot requirement when he sat through the P&Z meeting at which it was discussed and approved or during the three weeks following its recommendation, offered his opinion via e-mail [pdf] this past Saturday in response to a request by Alderpuppet Don Bach (3rd Ward). Hill concludes – without referencing any court decision or other legal authority in support of that conclusion – that “the practical effect of the [500-foot] rule will be to keep sleeping shelters out of PR altogether” and that “the courts will find this to be an illegal zoning restriction.”
That sure sounds to us a lot like Fr. Carl Morello’s criticism that the 500-foot limit, “along with all the other proposed recommendations would make it difficult, if not impossible, to have this ministry in Park Ridge,” doesn’t it? Must just be a coincidence, huh?
Besides lacking any legal authority, Hill’s conclusion ignores the fact that the 500-foot restriction would appear to permit a PADS shelter in as many as 7 local churches which don’t have schools and are not within 500 feet of one. And it would permit shelters in a variety of other buildings around town, although those buildings might need to be retrofitted with certain features to meet city code – just as the basement of St. Mary’s Episcopal was going to need retrofitting when it was announced as the PRMA’s original PADS shelter site back in January.
That Hill would come up with such a conclusion is not surprising. He knows that Frimark is strongly in favor of the PADS shelter, and that Frimark is the political godfather of at least four of the Alderpuppets who will be deciding the final wording of the amendment: Jim Allegretti (on whom Frimark bestowed his vacated aldermanic seat without having the decency or the integrity to advise the then-sitting Council consenting to Allegretti’s appointment that Allegretti had contributed to Frimark’s campaign fund), Don Bach, Tom Carey and Robert Ryan.
Hill also knows that Bach and Ryan are already in favor of PADS shelter; DiPietro is unlikely to have the spine to defy both Frimark and the PRMA; and the mere suggestion of a lawsuit is enough to send Allegretti into full Chicken Little “the sky is falling” mode. So even a half-baked and legally unsupported opinion is likely to provide whatever legal cover may be needed to ensure at least the four Council votes necessary to deep six the 500 foot rule – and choose the comfort of the non-resident PADS-approved homeless over the safety of our local school children.
In addition to the safety of children, let’s not forget that there are two other important standards identified in Table 1 of Section 4.8.E of the Park Ridge Zoning Ordinance, which are supposed to be considered for any zoning ordinance text amendment:
“The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the City.”
and
“That the proposed amendment will benefit the residents of the City as a whole, and not just the applicant, property owner(s), neighbors of any property under consideration, or other special interest groups, and the extent to which the proposed use would be in the public interest and would not serve solely the interest of the applicant.”
How does a PADS shelter do anything more than serve the narrow religious interest of the PRMA leadership and the PADS supporters? If these factors truly matter, there should be a referendum in April to determine how voters from the entire community feel about this important civic issue.
Meanwhile, we encourage you to show up tonight at Maine East and watch Buzz and the Alderpuppets tap dance under the watchful eye of Mayor “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark and the PRMA – while trying to make the average voter and taxpayer think that the dance is really for them.
UPDATE (9/30/08)
Last night’s City Council COW (Committee of the Whole) meeting was about as anticlimactic as a three and one-half hour meeting – without any break! – can be.
It started with introductions by Acting Community Preservation and Development Director Carrie Davis and City Attorney Everett “Buzz” Hill, leaving to meeting chair and Park Ridge Mayor Howard Frimark the more mundane tasks of reading the names of people wishing to address the Council, rapping his gavel to quell the occasional outburst, and loosely enforcing the 4-minute speaking limit. And it ended with the Council adjourning – without any aldermanic discussion of these issues – immediately following the conclusion of the public comments.
The main focus of most of the citizen comments from both the proposed text amendment supporters and its white-shirted opponents was the restriction on homeless shelters within 500 feet of any nursery or elementary school. As the meeting went on it became increasingly clear that this is not a homeless shelter issue but a PADS homeless shelter issue – because the 500-foot restriction impacts the PADS franchise model more than it would other homeless shelters not based on the free use of churches and parochial schools the way PADS is.
The text amendment is likely to be on the agenda of next Monday (Oct. 6) night’s regular City Council meeting.
45 comments so far
PD:
I understand the logic of your position. The 500 ft restriction does not, in and of itself, keep shelters out of PR all together. I am not a lawyer but I do not see how the city attorney’s analysis could lead him to that conclusion.
Having said that, if I take the arguments put forth by those against PADS as legitimate, which I am inclined to do, the result would be keeping PADS out of PR all together. I do not pretend to agree with 100 % of ever argument put forth against PADS, but that does not mean I do not think they are legimate concerns for citizens to voice.
Battle one was around St. Mary’s and PRMA backed down. Battle two, if the council approves the new text, keeps the shelter out of SPC or any school. Do we not then just revert back to battle one? If we are all in agreement that the efforts and objections of those around St. Mary’s were legitimate and even noble, then can’t we agree that those same objections will in all likelyhood exist in virtually any location that might be choosen and meets the 500 ft rule? As far as I know St. Mary’s would be a “legal” site under the new text and yet we all know it will not go there.
If I am sympathetic to the positions of those near St. Mary’s, as parents and home owners, I am also sympathetic to those who live in neighborhoods around other suggested areas.
I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight. It should be a hell of a show and I look forward to your update tomorrow!
I am an attorney and a long-time member of St. Paul of the Cross parish. I do not support a PADS shelter in Park Ridge because I disagree with the palliative philosophy of the PADS approach – it encourages people to feel very good about doing very little to deal with homelessness.
But I take serious issue with the opinion of Atty. Hill when he writes that the 500′ rule “probably guarantees the city will lose an otherwise winnable case in court.”
No attorney worth his or her salt ever talks in terms of a “guarantee” of a win or a loss unless the facts are so extreme and the applicable law so clear that only one result can be expected. Having attended some of the City meetings and read everything I can on this issue, the facts and the law both appear to be in favor of the 500′ limit instead of against it, so Hill’s “guarantee” is totally over the top.
So I have to wonder why a seemingly competent attorney would talk in such terms, and wait until the eleventh hour to do so? Like others have stated before, something smells.
will you be attending the meeting tonight to challenge Atty.Hill? We need all the help we can get!!!
Another attorney here, throwing in my hat to say that my read of the relevant statutes and governing case law appear to be in favor of the 500? limit.
Any competent first year law student could craft a reasonably compelling response to this effect.
Why an attorney who purportedly specializes in the area, and with 33 years of experience, can’t do the same is beyond me.
anon on 09.29.08 9:30 am makes a good point: if we’re not trying to keep a shelter out of park ridge entirely, rather than talking about where it can’t go, why don’t we start talking about all the places it could go – along busse hwy? in the “higgins corridor”? on devon in the south park area? in a vacant store front in uptown?
Will one of you attorneys please attend tonight’s meeting?
E.E:
Thanks for the comment. I think a part of my point is that if one agrees with the arguments from those around St. Mary’s, then where exactly in PR can we put it? Everyone talks about Busse or Higgins. I will admitt I have not lived here for 25 years as some have. But I see Higgins near the “El” has neighorhoods and apartments and condos and families. Devon near South Park has lots of homes and children walking around, which as I recall was a part of the St. Mary’s argument.
So has I have said before, when I consider all the objections I have heard, I have yet to hear of any legitimate solution to a location for a shelter.
Anon at 12:43:
May I propose 311 N. Aldine?
Seeking Nessie,
Outstanding suggestion!!! I’m fairly certain the owners are away on weekends, during the cold weather months, spending their time in Bonita Springs, Fla. Surely, being the good Christians they present themselves as being, they would open their home to a few of the unfortunate, needy homeless.
Seeking:
Forgive me. Again I am not a long time resident. I know where aldine is but exactly what structure is at 311 North?
The light bulb went off and I looked it up. You actually know the Mayor’s home address off the top of your head? I congratulate you!!
I have heard many funny suggestions but still no legitimate ones!
Putting it in Frimark’s house (311 Aldine) is not the worst idea. Let him walk the walk.
But seriously, folks, it’s not up to the opponents of the shelter to find the right location, it’s up to the supporters of the shelter to find it – so long as it’s 500 feet from a school, it passes at least that part of the test.
What the heck, let the PRMA rent out the empty restaurant on NW Hwy (“The Charcoal Grille”?) and let the homeless enter from that back parking lot. Maybe Joe Freed, the landlord, would donate the space or give the PRMA a deal on it since he can’t seem to get a tenant in there. Or maybe the WA-MU office next door. Same deal, Joe?
A1:19,
What are your “legitimate” suggestions for a site for a PADS homeless shelter?
But maybe I should ask first, do you believe there should be any regulations attached to the location and operation of a homeless shelter in Park Ridge?
Or every PADS supporter can take in one of the “safe” (as approved by PADS) guest into their own homes on Sunday night so we won’t even need a shelter at all. They are “safe” because they’ve been approved by PADA, aren’t they?
Alpha:
The original post talked about the fact that the city attny said 500 ft would in essense not allow a site in PR. I think he is wrong but I think when you all the objections in the aggregate ther result is, in effect, no shelter.
If I give equal credence to all the objections then I cannot think of a site that would work. It seems to me the objections we all hashed through when St. Mary’s was the site apply in most other areas and that is without even considering the concerns of business owners.
In terms of regulations, I think there should be regulations attached to a homeless shelter just as there are to any business, or as there were to me when I wanted to put an addition on my house. For example the 500 ft clause seems to be a reasonable requirement.
Having said that, if this shelter is going to service the entire homeless population, I am skeptical that there will be a package of regulations that addresses everyones concerns.
A2:11,
The issue in today’s Watchdog post is the 500 ft. regulation, as it is currently recommended in the current version of the ordinance.
The 500 ft. recommended regulation for distance a homeless shelter my operate from a school, daycare, or nursery is what the city attorney has said would render a shelter “difficult, if not impossible” in Park Ridge. Do you agree with that?
What regulations do you believe should be attached to the operation of a homeless shelter in Park Ridge?
Alpha:
As stated in previous posts, I think the city attny is wrong. I think that there are many locations that are 500 ft from where a shelter could operate. So to say it directly I do not think that the 500 ft makes it difficult or impossible for a shelter to operate in PR.
A2:56,
Thank you.
As to my other question, what regulations do you believe should be attached to the operation of a homeless shelter in Park Ridge?
Is the city attorney elected? Or appointed?
All of your arguments against PADS are logical. Many even have legal footing. But, those that espouse these dispositions lack what is called “heart”. This is not about being religeous, it’s about doing something decent- or supporting those who do – for our fellow man. Get a life.
Anon PR Resident,
Speaking of people who need to “get a life”… just for you, a book recommendation! “We The Living” by Ayn Rand. I certainly don’t subscribe to the Rand-ian philosophy hook, line, and sinker, but you sure could use a big heapin’ helpin’ of something that isn’t kool-aid laced.
anon PR resident,
You say “doing something decent- or supporting those who do – for our fellow man. Get a life.”
When you start taking in homeless people into your own home, in proximity to your own children (or grandchildren, or neices and nephews, whatever), then, and ONLY THEN, are you entitled to tell others what we need to do for our fellow (wo)man. Get a clue.
Pretty much a waste of time, but it was worth it if only to hear Fr. Carl try to attack whoever made public his e-mail to the City Council (in which he called people who support the zoning amendment racial and economic bigots).
But you hit it right on the head when you say this is all about PADS, not about the homeless.
A9:35,
I’ve come to believe your observation is exactly correct. I used to think the PRMA and PADS proponents were just misguided in believing that a PADS shelter model program would really amount to much in the way of assistance for the homeless.
However, I’ve come to believe that what this really is about for the PRMA and PADS supporters is pride, power, and bragging about good works.
There have been a number of alternatives offered to the PADS shelter model, and all the groups that claim to want to help the homeless have remained stone cold silent on those alternatives, not even bothering to address why those alternatives are lesser than the PADS shelter model, or why those alternatives would not work.
I believe you are exactly correct, this is all about PADS, not about the homeless.
I just checked the PADS to Hope website and can’t find anything on it about their finances, even though they used to have couple year old financial info posted. And their “Hope Center Stats” (about all the people they’ve helped) stop in June 2005. That isn’t an encouraging sign.
Like I’ve been saying for months – this thing is a scam. It was never “let’s do something for the homeless” it was “let’s do a deal with PADS”.
So PRMA pushes a no-bid, sole source, no due diigence no disclosure deal for PADS then blasted anyone who had the audacity to question what it was. They sneaked the deal out in the dark of night then told us that any decent person would welcome it. PRMA pushed this ungodly arrangement at its congregations with intimidation and insult. They threatened to sue – then they “wanted to be a good neighbor” and “never wanted to divide the community”. Uh-huh. PRMA preachers and priests turned their services into PADS advertisements. And one more time PADS IS NOT A MINISTRY; IT IS A CORPORATION.
Then Morello puts in writing that if you don’t buy their bilge you’re a bigot/un-Christian/heartless and goes on to say – in writing – that he thought the whole P&Z process was cooked and was upset that it actually dared to work on behalf of the people! That must be part of the Ministry of Corruption, so we probably don’t have any right to interfere. And when it comes to light, the only problem he has is that a written communication to elected officials was disclosed! Once again – everything in the dark.
PADS put an audit letter in its annual report with an obviously home-made income statement (no balance sheet, no cash flow, no notes) violating every standard of financial disclosure. Then they pulled the financials off the website – again, no disclosure, in the dark. PRMA’s go-to person reported that they had no financial information. So much for due diligence, so much for “good stewardship”. The people who pitched this cried on stage, for what looks like a deal that would put 90% or more of every dollar they receive into their collective pockets while volunteers provide the food, the labor, the facilities.
Why haven’t we heard anything about other vendors/programs PRMA reviewed or interviewed, how PRMA came to the conclusion that there was a need in the first place or how they had determined that PADS was a legitimate organization makes the most of the resources PRMA wants everyone to make available? But what really tells you this whole thing isn’t right is a bunch of clergy shouting down parents who dare to be concerned about their children’s safety. You don’t act like that if you’re acting in good faith.
Thank you Mr. Butler!!!!!!! Well said. It is curious that as soon as the fine people of P.R.starting sniffing around the Pads web-site and their financials they seemed to just dissappear. I’m sure they are just updating them for us. I’d hate to think that they are hiding anything.Naaaaah this fine organization wouldn’t do that would they?!?!?
I concur wholeheartedly with Mr. Butler. PADS is a secular business selling “ministries for hire” like they are Amway franchises, in this case to a PRMA leadership that is either too gullible for words or, more likely, has some kind of stake in PADS’s expansion and growth.
And when the Archdiocese of Chicago says “trust us” to look out for our kids, that institution’s long history of abuse and concealment suggests that even “trust but verify” probably isn’t enough.
The PRMA is playing hardball we-want-it politics. And Howard Frimark’s City Council, with help from City Atty. Buzz Hill and Acting Chief of Police Tom Swoboda, looks like it’s ready to give them exactly what they want.
Ironically, the one thing the homeless and the children have in common is that they’re both just props for PADS and the PRMA.
Does anybody out there have any idea which of the PRMA members was the one who brought PADS into the picture? If there is anything funky going on with PRMA’s undying love of PADS, finding out who made the connection might give some clues as to what the real deal with PADS is.
While looking into who made the connection with PADS can someone answer a question for me? Are there any other organizations out there in greater Chicagoland that area similiar to PADS. By that I mean other organizations who have a “turn key” homeless program where they could come into a facility and set up shop. I have done some limited research and found none.
The reason for the question is that while there may something “funky” going on, the answer as to why PADS may be more basic.
It could be that PRMA wanted to do this and looked in the market for expertise. It could be that this is all they found. It could be that PADS was a known comodity among other churches and other people they knew. I know we will all scream about shortcuts and if they really cared they would do it themselves, not outsource, etc..etc…etc.
As I have said here before whether it is PADS or “ACME homeless”, as long as the model is the same I think we would be in the same place.
a “turnkey” operation for convenience’s sake is a poor excuse for a real homeless program, especially one run by local churches when the turnkey operation funnels outsiders into our community. if we have people in our community who are hurting and need help, why bring in outsiders? it may be easy, but it’s also irresponsible and a dis-service to the people of our community who have allowed these local churches to prosper over the years – like by building morello’s gym in which he wants to put outsiders rather than focus on taking care of the people already here who are in trouble.
A4:07,
Can you answer a question for me?
Why anyone believes this foundational principle of faith, as Carl Morello said is at the heart of the Church’s corporal works of mercy, needs to be fulfilled by a secular “turn-key” organization?
EE:
My comment was not intended as a defense of their actions. I said I know we can jump on it and, as I thought would happen, someone did.
A4:25,
Do you have an answer as to why a “turn-key” operation is the only way for the PRMA to fly?
It seems to me that personal expressions of faith should be undertaken, personally; without fanfare. You seem to understand that the PRMA went looking for “expertise” in the “market”. I’m wondering why matters of faith and corporal works of mercy should be outsourced to secular organizations. That is an entirely new concept to me, and something I find to be rather “funky”.
Alpha:
I cannot defend it! First of all I am not Catholic or a regular church goer. Any discussion of a churches Corporal works is well beyond me.
I just think it is possible that PRMA got together and discussed what they perceived as an issue. Someone said “Gee, ya know father Phil has worked with…” and they called them. PADS came in and talked about their network of shelters and how people can get involved in the HOPE program. The talked about people had to register and their misconduct code etc….etc… It all sounds great on paper, right??
Again, I am not defending it. It is possible there was something “funky” but I can certainly see it happening this way as well.
I guess related to using an outside organization I would appear that, right or wrong, the Catholic Church does it all the time. Take a look around the Archdiocese of Chicago website. There are all kinds of organizations the church supports to adress issues they would perceive as their “mission”
http://www.archchicago.org/news_releases/news_2008/news_090808.shtm
Again, not a defense but is it possible they looked at all the conponents (registration, background checks, rules and regs, counseling, job search) and saw an existing program they thought offered more then they could? I know we all think they suck so please don’t comment but isn’t it possible, as misguided as it may seem that it could have happened this way.
Alpha:
I have no answer. I am not saying it is the only way. I am saying it is the way they may have choose.
I terms of how personal expressions of faith should be expressed, I will leave that to you to judge. Quite frankly, I am better off not judging another persons faith -I struggle enough with my own.
I am not saying I defend their decision but I understand it. I am not a church, but I do it all the time. My aid to my fellow man is most often expressed by writing a check or other donations rather then reinventing the wheel or diving in myself.
by the way, in case you have not already noticed, my typing sucks!!!
A5:02,
Two answers! My lucky day!
Anyway, don’t you find it odd that when the issue of homelessness was hottest, back in the 80s, that none of these long time parishes sought this path? Don’t you find it odd that now they are choosing to do so, when by nearly most accounts the number of homeless are decreasing, and homeless advocates have even begun to poopoo overnight homeless shelters?
I think the PADS organization is hanging onto their business model for their desperate public-money-ciphoning lives, and they’ve enlisted some rather shallow thinkers and doers to help them remain viable.
PS I noticed, but unless you really annoy me, I’ll ignore it and choose not to make fun of you with it. Sincerely, I’m more interested in the message than either the messenger or style of messaging.
Alpha:
Once again it is very clear you have out researched me!
I will have to admit that back in the 80’s I was not paying much attention to this issue. In the early 80’s I was still living at home in highschool. In the mid 80’s I was in college and in the late 80’s I was early in my career living in the City.
In terms of the statics and different models used, I think they vary in part becuase this is such a difficult problem with a low success rate. I know that there are other church based organizations out there that are not PADS based.
http://www.lpcsonline.org/
I would guess that their clients would bring the same concerns that have been expressed about PADS.
I guess I can understand your point about the money but I think if they were looking to get rich they picked the wrong scam.
If you are looking for a starting point-man, look no farther than Pastor Larson of St. Lukes Church on Prospect and Cedar. He is not only a member of the PRMA but is also on he City’s Human Needs Task Force, and has been the spearhead and driving force of this PADS program.
However… never offered up “his” church to be a PADS site!!!!???
….oh yea and certainly don’t forget Fathers Stone and Gunnderson. They also put their 2 cents in, well their parihiners 2 cents anyways.
A5:43,
I’m available for gold star awards every other Thursday evening.
But seriously folks, I personally believe that you sell a lot of younger people short by excusing your own inattention dut to age, time, and place. My experience of young people has been different.
I agree that there are a number of models out there. I disagree that they all bring the same concerns.
I’ve seen more penny ante scams than get-rich-quick (or even slow) scams. I will forever remain astounded at how cheaply so many people are willing to sell themselves.
Pastor Stephen Larson the one who compared the City Council sitting at the long table on the auditorium stage to the Last Supper? After he said that, I counted and sure enough there were 13 people seated at that table. ANd Mayor Howard occupied the Jesus seat.
By the way, his parish bulletin, in inviting parishioners to the homeless “vigil” on October 5 at St. Paul (rembember to wear white!), states: “City Hall has locked the doors of Park Ridge churches as a shelter to the homeless.” At least he didn’t call anybody a racial or economic bigot.
But hey, Steve, there’s no school within 500 feet of your shop, is there? Steve? Oh Steve?
Alpha:
Wasn’t offering any excuses for my behavior. I am not proud of it but it is the way I was.
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>