I want to make sure I understand all this.

GGI’s lawyer Mr. Loss is in the billboard business. Would it be too much to assume he keeps up with legal decisions about billboards and ordinances?

Mr. Loss should have been aware of the court decision about impact fees for the court case from Des Plaines. Did I read the memo right? The decision is from 2005? So Mr. Loss knew or should have known that impact fees are unconstitutional?

Then why did Mr. Loss promise to pay impact fees in his letter to Allegretti last June? Why did attorney Jack Owens promise the same thing in his letter last October?

Don’t these guys know the law?

Or were they setting us up?

I think the phrase being used lately on Watchdog is slime buckets, and I could not agree more.

As I understand it, you understand it…

And using the term “set up” is appropriate when you think about how they have used certain of the citizenry to come out in their favor and a certain retailer in town to distribute their nonsensical and misinformational flyers.

If that retailer didn’t have such a fine and, more importantly, unaffiliated butcher operating in the back of the shop I wouldn’t set foot in the joint again.

12:20 pm

As PW writes, Owens is the consummate insider, which explains why he is representing GGI after representing Frimark in his ethics defense, and representing Carl Morello and the PRMA on the PADS shelter, and originally representing Adreani in his Exec. Ofc. Plaza variance request.

From last night’s meeting… no DiFranco sighting, didya really expect him to be there… and scheme is the operative word for Allegretti… what a piece of work.

Ryan, Carey and Bach, all who voted with Allegretti… what the hell are you guys thinking?

My observation… these guys, all of them, could screw up a one car funeral.

9:32, Ryan, Carey and Bach have made council careers out of NOT thinking, which is why they are such bunglers.

Hell, Carey’s best “vote” was his non-vote on the Napleton giveaway, which caused Frimark to cast the deciding vote for one of his biggest contributors. Frimark only got to cast that deciding vote because Bach voted to give Napleton the millions after telling him he wouldn’t buy another Caddie from him. And Bob-blehead Ryan voted with Frimark and Bach on that deal, as did Allegretti.

Frimark’s boys are still delivering Frimark-style city government.

Is there statute of limitations on how long one can throw out the name Frimak when ever something occurs that one disagrees with?? Just curious.

anon on 01.19.10 10:07 am said:

Is there statute of limitations on how long one can throw out the name Frimak when ever something occurs that one disagrees with?? Just curious.

I am curious about that too.

It seems that Mayor Dave is the big boy in the big chair now and doesn\’t seem to have any real leadership skills. assigning blame for Schmidt\’s lack of leadership and general knuckleheadedness to the previous officeholder somehow having some current influence is just…well….lame.

It\’s Mayor Dave\’s show now. he won the election.. any decision that doesn\’t go the way his supporters like should cause those supporters to take a hard look at who they put into the Mayor\’s office.

Frankly, as a citizen, I am fed up with the exucuses of bogeymen lurking in dark corners. Mayor Dave and his transparency regime basically has failed the citizens because of his lack of leadership. And leadership is based on trust : which is something one cannot do when it comes to mayor schmidt.

I would consider several “statutes of limitations” for various types of Frimark crap.

He’s on the hook for as long as any of the alderdopes who contributed to his re-election (DiPietro, Bach, Allegretti, Ryan and Carey) are still on the council, and for anything the council did while those alderdopes were on the council. And he’s on the hook for any stupid decision the council made that he supported while he was mayor. Let’s call it “accountability.”

1030, you are full of something, and it don’t smell good. It was the mayor’s leadership that killed the billboard deal even though Allegretti thought he had all his ducks in a row. The mayor calmly announced he would veto the deal and he used parliamentary procedure to establish the supermajority requirement that made it impossible for Allegretti to succeed. What more do you want? I suspect it is simply his head on a platter.

The fact that the aldermen constantly make sideshows of themselves is no reflection on him.

When 5 of the 7 sitting aldermen give thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to defeat the guy who is now the mayor, you can pretty much bet that they aren’t going to let themselves be “led” by the guy they couldn’t beat.

This is not a leadership issue, it’s an obstructionist issue. And the obstructionists control one vote more than they actually need to carry their agenda, except when a supermajority is needed.

And as we saw at last night’s meeting, when a weasel like Allegretti and cronies like Bach, Carey and Ryan realize they don’t have their supermajority, they pull a procedural manuver to prevent the losing vote from even occurring.

10:30:

I will have to rely on Alpha to check for sure, but I think \ that it \ is fairly clear that you are the same person posting \ all of these over the top rants\.

anon 10:41:

So basically Schmidt gets a pass until about 2012. I have a campaign slogan for him if he chooses to run again…..”Vote for Schmidt!! They would not let me do anything!!”

A11:10,

You are correct. The FDC proxy appears to assign IPs to users of their “gateway.” Those IPs are likely based on cookies placed on the user’s computer by that server; cookies are how computers talk to each other and recognize each other over a network and the net.

A10:30,

As the PRU would ask, were you an English major? Your ability to count votes and understand the number of votes needed to pass or defeat any given piece of legislation appears to be lacking.

CTCM11:01,

Nothing like a bit of revisionist history to put a smile on one’s face. Perhaps you do not recall who it was who used parliamentary procedure to suggest a supermajority vote to override P&Z decisions, across the board? It pains me to admit, Ald. Bach should get the credit for that maneuver. Both Allegretti and Schmidt bumbled their respective ways through [that] issue, and it just so happens to have worked out to Schmidt’s advantage. I am very reluctant to assign “leadership” to bumbling luck, and so too should you be.

Alpha Female on 01.19.10 12:09 pm said

I am very reluctant to assign “leadership” to bumbling luck, and so too should you be.

well said…..an astute observation and certainly makes the case for lack of leadership point the previous poster made….

Wrong Alpha, even without Bach’s unwitting maneuver, a mayoral veto would still have led to same result. Ipso facto, it was not bumbling luck at all.

So CTOACM, Schmidt gets credit for leadership on this issue and Bach, well he is an “aldermonkey”, or “Bachtard” right???

CTCM3:29,

Mayor Schmidt has previously made promises and said he would veto items passed by the council and those promises and vetoes have gone unfulfilled.

Bach’s maneuver wasn’t as unwitting as you would seem to prefer to cast it. What was perhaps unwitting was Bach’s having done something right for Park Ridge. However, Allegretti’s vote for Bach’s amendment was unwitting, as well as the Mayor’s about-face on his promise to veto such a change to overrides of P&Z decisions.

Mayor Schmidt was as aware of the city attorney’s advice at that time (Nov. 16) as the rest of the council, the advice under which Allegretti claimed to have cast his vote.

The deadline for Schmidt’s veto was Dec. 3.

Not until Dec. 21 did city attorney Henn publicly alter the advice previously given to the council, which seemed to take Allegretti by surprise. Nor did Schmidt address the issue in his comments before the council at the Dec. 7 meeting, nor in his emails to supporters, instead preferring to suggest the “compromise”, after talking to more than half the P&Z commissioners, was the best course of action.

Again, Schmidt’s conduct and actions were more bumbling luck than any uncompromising display of unequivocal “leadership.”

However, I understand you and others may have a vested interest in believing otherwise.

Forgive me for being a suck up, but BRAVO Alpha!!!

You are still wrong Alpha. What items passedby the Council did Schmidt say he would veto but did not? Only one as far as I can recall. That was the change to P and Z’s powers, and Schmidt explained why he accepted the Bach compromise. Whether you agree with his reasoniong is beside the point.

There was no pending deadline for vetoing the billboard issue, because there would have been no opportunity to do so until after the Council passed a billboard ordinance, something which would have occurred in February or March at the earliest.

CTCM4:51,

If that’s your story, you’re entitled to stick to it.

The deadline for Schmidt’s veto was for the supermajority compromise.

Schmidt’s “reasoning” wasn’t anything with which I found merit in agreeing or disagreeing, since it struck me more as justifying a waffling compromise than it did a principled position on the issue. I don’t waste my time making attempt to agree or disagree with waffling compromises, even when they prove to be bumblingly lucky for the practitioner.

Fair enough. You do know of course that a mayoral veto would have meant the Council would have been able to override P and Z’s rejection of billboards by a simple majority.

Is it possible that Schmidt knew this and that is why he accepted the Bach compromise, intending to argue that the new supermajority provision would apply to the billboard issue? Remember, Kathi Henn gave her opinion AFTER the mayor ruled as chair that the supermajority vote would apply. So you don’t really know, and neither does 1253 and 445.

Of course all of this is academic. Schmidt got what he wanted: defeat of the billboard measure. Speculation as to whether it was deft politics or blind luck is really immaterial except to the local “pundits.”

It is all aceademic until you use it as proof of his leadership in your first post.

CTCM5:24,

Yes, I am aware that until Ald. Bach offered his compromise and if Schmidt had vetoed what was ultimately passed, the possibility of a simple majority override was possible.

However, at the very moment Bach amended for a supermajority vote across the board, the entire council including Schmidt were operating under the advice of the city attorney that a simple majority would apply to the billboard issue; which should answer your question about what I believe Schmidt understood at that time.

I suspect Schmidt had discussions with the city attorney prior to his ruling from the chair. Shall we make a little wager on that? Additionally, Schmidt’s ruling from the chair came well past his publicly offered waffling compromise in both the papers and in his emails.

Last, your assertion that in the end Schmidt got what he wanted on the billboard issue is eerily similar to Allegretti’s claims about his sole reasons for having cast votes as he did. I certainly hope we have reason to expect better conduct than single-issue votes from Schmidt, which is merely one reason why speculation and concern in this matter, as to whether or not Schmidt was bumblingly lucky (my personal opinion) or exercising some sort of incisive political/proceduarl/policy ability (apparently your opinion), matters beyond being nothing more than grist for the “local pundits.”

I see A5:41 managed to get to the entire point much more succinctly, though less thoroughly, than I.

How do you know that the mayor was acting or not acting based on the City Attorney’s advice when he accepted the compromise? After the vote, Schmidt had two weeks to decide whether to veto the change. Schmidt’s history is replete with instances where he disagreed with the City Attorney’s opinion and turned out to be right. You have no idea what was going through his mind at the time. And either does your snivelling lapdog, Mr. (or Ms.) 541.

It is entirely possible that the mayor told Buzz he was wrong and to go back and look at it again. You don’t know. You are guessing, and you are doing it with a jaundiced eye.

Anyway, this topic is exhausted. OK lapdog, time for you to wrap it up with a witty rejoinder.

CTCM6:00,

What I know is the city attorney’s opinion on the issue until it was altered through Ms. Henn’s further research.

What I know is Schmidt did not address the issue in any way, other than justifying his waffling compromise, until after the billboard issue came up at the same meeting where the city attorney’s original advice was corrected.

What I know is Schmidt never once addressed any State statutes until well after the veto deadline had passed and until the billboard issue came up.

Should I also know and understand Schmidt was not being forthcoming (completely transparent, if you will) about his reasons and opinions (those reasons and opinions he publicly offered for public consumption) on the supermajority issue, prior to disucssion of the billboard ordinance?

In one respect, you are correct; I view the actions of Schmidt “through a jaundiced eye.” Would you like me to detail the reasons why?

Alpha Female on 01.19.10 6:20 pm

In one respect, you are correct; I view the actions of Schmidt “through a jaundiced eye.” Would you like me to detail the reasons why?

please enlighten us–do continue.