Tonight the Park Ridge City Council will have another opportunity to strike a blow for sane, fiscally-responsible government for the second straight week, when the Zoning Code map amendment for the Whole Foods project comes up for a second reading.
We’ve got two words of advice for our aldermen: Defer it.
And defer it with the express and unqualified direction to the developer (Park Ridge 2004 LLC) and/or Whole Foods that the map amendment will not be taken up again until they legally commit to doing this deal in a way that is acceptable to the Council – and that, unless the developer drops its demand for any bribe money whatsoever, what is “acceptable to the Council” will not be determined until the Council drafts and thoroughly debates a complete overhaul of the ridiculous City Council Policy No. 31.
This particular developer bought this property several years ago as a speculative investment; i.e., accepting certain risks in return for the prospects of a substantial reward from developing the property. The original plan was for a 168-unit condo complex to be built by then-mayor Howard Frimark’s campaign contributors Bruce Adreani and his Norwood Builders, which required a zoning map amendment to change the site to R-5 multi-family residential from…wait for it…B-1 commercial, the classification the same developer now wants restored.
The City accommodated the developer back then with that change, and even agreed to let it build 8 units more than the Code permitted for the size of the site. As we noted in our 10.19.07 post “An EOP Riddle,” those 8 extra units would have netted the developer and/or Norwood an estimated $600,000 of extra profit, but at least it wouldn’t have come directly out of the taxpayers’ pockets.
The market for condos cratered, however, and the developer now wants to abandon that R-5 plan in favor of this B-1 opportunity.
Frankly, we vastly prefer B-1 over R-5 because we believe Park Ridge already has become over-dense, from the standpoint of housing units, for its over-taxed infrastructure. And we think a Whole Foods would be an excellent addition to the City’s retail base, but not at any price.
From a public policy standpoint, we believe the only “acceptable” way to do this deal is with NO subsidy/incentive/bribe to the developer or to Whole Foods. If our community needs to bribe businesses to get them to locate and invest here, we’ve got big problems that need to be addressed directly instead of papered over with cash handouts to those businesses.
The more important reasons for our objection to such bribery, however, is our belief in fundamental fairness and a level playing field for all retailers, as well as our opposition to this kind of corporate welfare for the well-off (Whole Foods) and/or the risk taker (Park Ridge 2004 LLC). As we understand it, the subsidy they are demanding from Park Ridge taxpayers will enable the developer to offer the rent deal Whole Foods wants while at the same time enabling the developer to increase the profit or reduce the loss on its speculative investment – which is just another variation on the “privatizing profits while socializing losses” theme.
That’s just plain wrong and should not be tolerated, even if it means Park Ridge’s “clean” eaters will need to continue burning fossil fuel traveling to a neighboring town to buy organic.
Which makes us wonder where Park Ridge’s “99%”-ers have been hiding during this debate.
Why aren’t those residents who profess to abhor how the federal government has bailed out Wall Street and who have replaced Dick Cheney’s photo on their dart boards with Jamie Dimon’s showing up to “Occupy 505 Butler Place” in support of the Council’s not giving in to this local bit of crap-italism by a national retail giant? Whole Foods Market Inc., No. 273 on the Fortune 500 list, is doing so well that near the end of last year it hiked its dividend 40% and announced a $200 million share-repurchase program. Why should Park Ridge taxpayers subsidize that kind of performance?
We realize it’s much easier to sit around railing idly against NATO, Wall Street and the “one percent” – or to park oneself in front of MSNBC or FOX and shouting “Right on!” or “#$@% you!” at Lawrence O’Donnell or Sean Hannity – than it is to regularly show up at Park Ridge City Council meetings and actually try to do something to improve local government and the community, irrespective of how one might define “improve.”
But if you don’t accept “trickle-down,” then shouldn’t you start working from the “grass-roots” up.
UPDATE: Last night the developer and Whole Foods blinked…and agreed to do the Whole Foods project without any tax-sharing subsidy/bribe from the taxpayers. For those keeping score, that means the City will get an extra $2 million or more that otherwise would have gone to the developer and/or Whole Foods over the 20-year term of the proposed revenue-sharing agreement.
Well done, gentlemen! For the second week in a row this Council showed that, unlike at least two decades of its predecessors, it actually has a spine and is willing to stand up to shameless demands of private special interests looking to feed from the public trough.
Which proves, once again, that “no” is the most powerful tool in the negotiating toolbox – and a tool that boneheaded bureaucrats and clueless politicians usually keep in the box because they lack both the brains and the…guts to use them on behalf of the taxpayers. And in addition to winning that battle of wills, the Council also voted 5-1 (Smith dissenting) to approve the zoning map amendment from R-5 to B-1, but with the proviso that it will revert back to R-5 if the developer doesnt’ t get a building permit in 12 months and an occupancy permit in 36 months.
In addition to a big shout-out to the Council for actually walking the walk, we also want to offer a shout-out of another type to those gutless wonders and self-serving whiners who bashed the Council for risking their supply of organic lemonade. And chief among those naysayers are certain members of the City’s Economic Development Task Force who, at their meeting last week, barbecued Ald. Sal Raspanti (4th) for actually DOING HIS JOB and standing up for the taxpayers against corporate greed. Those EDTFers let it be known that the Council’s “no” vote on the proposed tax-sharing arrangement irresponsibly jeopardized the chances of bringing Whole Foods to Park Ridge.
How does it feel to be proved almost immediately and totally wrong, folks?
We suggest that every one of those EDTF chowderheads who ripped on the Council for taking its hard-line position against throwing away tax dollars RESIGN from the EDTF, because they have demonstrated both their incompetence and their lack of good judgment – which, if the Council had listened to it, would have cost us taxpayers over $2 million. The City doesn’t need that kind of “citizen input,” even if it’s free.
To read or post comments, click on title.
18 comments so far
I think it’s clear that it’s the developer, not Whole Foods, who needs the sales tax revenue sharing plan to pan out.
Rather than defer, I’d rather see the council go ahead and vote to change the zoning back to B-1 now. Why drag this thing out? If Chody’s deal doesn’t pan out someone else can step in with another plan. Keeping it R-4, other than as leverage for this deal, won’t do anything to help the City (or the taxpayers).
EDITOR’S NOTE: We agree that this is to bail out Chody and his fellow investors.
But we disagree with changing back to B-1. The change from R-5 was specifically in response to this project. Much as we would prefer B-1, if this project isn’t going to go through, then there’s no legal reason for changing back to B-1.
I really want a Whole Foods in Park Ridge, even though I’m not a big organic food fan and don’t shop at WF more than a few times a year when I just happen to drive by one and stop in. I think it would add an upscale element to the community, but I think your points about this being corporate welfare are exactly right.
And like you I wonder where are these people (I have to assume Park Ridge has them) who militantly view themselves as part of that 99% who condemn Wall Street but aren’t condemning Chody and Whole FOods.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s easier to beef globally than act locally.
2:18:
You’re second paragraph is very true. I would also suggest you turn it around. By that I mean all these people who are more then happy to condemn the WF deal or any other deal and shout at the heavens about fair treatment yet are perfectly willing to accept every special deal (personal and business)their attny and or acct can find them to mitigate their taxes.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re comparing apples to oranges. This Chody/Whole Foods proposal is a policy/governance decision which does not implicate legality/illegality. That is substantively different from people employing competent counsel or accountants to exploit legal loopholes. That’s one reason why we prefer a modified flat tax with no loopholes: Make $100K, pay $20K; make $1 million, pay $200K Sounds fair to us.
I think we should leave the flat tax debate for another time. I was simply responding to the poster.
The poster asked why are all these folks willing to condemn Wall Street not willing to condemn this deal (a valid question).
I feel it is just as valid to ask why all these who condemn this special deal are willing to accept and looking for special deals of their own.
As a example, I would bet of those really pissed about this WF special deal, some of them have liscense plates on their cars form Michigan or Wisconsin. The register their vehicles at the lake house (even though it is not their primary residence) to aviod sales tax and purchasing a PR city sticker. This is a special deal for those who can afford lake houses. I am not claiming that anything is illegal. You can call this apples to oranges all you want but the mind set of the developer/WF and these people are exactly the same. They are trying to take advantage of a screwed up system.
I just wonder why a person who is so against special deals would “employ competent counsel or accountants to exploit legal loopholes”.
I guess the mind set is special deals are wrong except my special deal!!!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: These are apples and oranges issues because the systems in which they operate are different, even if an intent to gain personal advantage is the same.
There is no “loophole” in any law that Chody and/or WF are looking to exploit, they are just attempting to exploit the customary soft-headedness of public officials in the hope of getting the Council to blink before they do. Registering one’s car in WI to avoid the higher fees in Illinois and PR, on the other hand, is a purely legal issue and is either exploiting a loophole (if there is one) or violating the law (if there isn’t).
But if you don’t see it, you don’t see it.
PD:
If the public officials blink what will WF and the developer have??? Their own loophole!!!
Who created all these other legal loopholes??? Soft-headed public officials who blinked or even accepted money (campaign donations….ha!!!) from a developer or a business or some other party of interest. This can be written off or money can be put of shore etc…etc…etc.
It is the same damn thing but at a different point in the process. It becomes a loophole after the fact. Both are legal and many who bitch about it go home to nice little loopholes of their own.
I am glad at least you agree the intent is the same.
EDITOR’S NOTE: A “loophole” in what? What legal obligation do they currently have for which any action the Council takes will provide a “loophole” that gives them an “out” they don’t currently have?
C’mon, these concepts really aren’t that tough, even when you try to torture them.
You are giving the 99% credit for being able to understand the deal, while ultruistic of you, not realistic.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Okay, we’ll just hold the top 49.5% of that 99% accountable for understanding the deal. Now, what’s THEIR excuse?
Do you know how they voted last night?
EDITOR’S NOTE: See today’s UPDATE.
I see you answered my earlier question on how it went, thank you. Great news. Let the organic lemonade flow! 🙂
EDITOR’S NOTE: Beats the heck out of Kool-Aid.
Anon 5.21 4:04 pm: The word is “altruistic”. I don’t believe “ultruistic” is a word, unless it means “really, REALLY altruistic.”
Anyway, fantastic news about the council’s vote last night.
Who’s on the EDTF?
EDITOR’S NOTE: According to the City’s website, the EDTF members are: Kyra Cavanaugh, Tom Chisari, Amy Degrasia, Leo Dietlin, Sheila Duda, Curtis Edlund, Tania Forte, Dan Galuska, Gail Haller, Sergio Lazzara, Roger Loeffler, Barbara Low, MaryJo MacSwain, Steve Marti, Jackie Mathews, Vicki Mutchler, Mike Quaid, Franklin Ramirez, Mary Ryan, Bill Scharinghausen, Jared Skiba, Barbara Tyksinski, Janet Van De Carr, Keli Walbert, Jim Ward and Herb Zuegel.
We’re betting that, since there are no videos of their meetings to memorialize who said what, the minutes of last week’s meeting will get sanitized to cover several people’s tails – now that they’ve proved themselves to be shallow-thinking ankle-grabbers whose main idea of economic development so far is mindless bribery.
We forewarned you 5.5 months ago before about things not appearing as transparent as you would like them to be regarding a different situation and governmental agency.
Items presented to the public are not necessarily indicative of what is occurring behind the scenes.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, and objects in the mirror are closer than they appear. Cut the Delphic Oracle impersonation and state your business.
That is great news. It seemed like a no-brainer to me, but from the comments I was reading its like we’re afraid to say no to anybody even if they want to rip us off. In retrospect, we should have said no to the developer of the Uptown TIF and maybe we wouldn’t be in such a hole there.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Woulda, shoulda, coulda is the epitaph of those old vision-less, gut-less Councils that fiddled while “Rome” burned. Let’s hope these guys can keep up the good work.
So the developer suddenly doesn’t need this revenue to “close the gap” he was talking about? Seems suspect. I guess we can only assume he really was just seeing if there was anything extra he could pocket, courtesy of City Hall. Sad.
So did the council approve the map amendment?
EDITOR’S NOTE: To paraphrase “Inspector Renault”: We’re shocked, shocked to find that a developer would try to put one past public officials – especially given our City government’s stellar record on the Uptown TIF project.
The B-1 map amendment was approved by the City Council on a 5-1 vote (Smith dissenting), but the approval was conditioned on the developer applying for a building permit within the next 12 months and receiving an occupancy permit within 36 months, otherwise the B-1 zoning will go back to R-5.
I love Inspector Renault.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re partial to Rick and Lazlo, but Renault has his openly-corrupt charms – since it is just a movie.
It feels GREAT to be proved totally and immediately wrong when the news is good for Park Ridge.
Too bad there is no way on earth you could ever truthfully say the same.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Just one of those crosses we’ll have to bear.
I just read this tidbit in the Herald-Advocate about Jim Smith’s rationale for his dissenting vote: ”He objected to a number of issues, from the way a traffic study was conducted to Whole Foods’ claim that it sells healthy, organic foods, the latter of which Smith called ‘superstition, not science.'”
Wow. Do his fellow aldermen even take him seriously? And haven’t I heard that he is in favor of Mariano’s? Is their so-called healthy food not “superstition”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Whether Smitty favors Mariano’s is probably a moot point because we suspect Mariano’s and its developer are looking for same kind of City subsidy/bribe that the Council just refused to Chody and Whole Foods. But it was perversely entertaining to watch Smitty desperately throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the Whole Foods project, including beefing about the architecture/appearance of the store itself.
Smitty appears to be over his skis on a lot of issues, but he represents perhaps the most apathetic ward in the City, so his constituents have the write-in representative they deserve.
You write in your update that the city saved over $2 million by not accepting Whole Foods’ tax sharing proposal, but the Herald Advocate story says that Whole Foods would only get $156,000. Which one is it?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Embedded in our 05.17.12 post is Chody’s/Whole Foods’ tax-sharing proposal graph. As we read it, the “$156,000” to which the H-A writer refers is merely the ONE-YEAR amount projected for each of years 11 through 20 of the 20-year deal. And, as we read that graph, during the first 10 years of the deal, Whole Foods was projecting another $1 million of revenue-sharing cash going into its pockets.
In our opinion, either this particular H-A writer or her editor really prefers the old Frimarkian-style of deceptive, let’s-make-a-deal spendthrift government to the fiscally-responsible kind currently being practiced at 505 Butler Place. Consequently, we don’t expect her to accurately portray any perceived “achievement” by the current administration if she/they can possibly avoid it. So either that $156,000 number is bad reporting or intentional misrepresentation, your choice.
You may find Smith “perversely entertaining” but I just get uncomfortable and sometimes angry when he spouts off nonsense. What an embarrassment to the City. I’m glad I missed his latest attempts to thwart the approval of the map amendment, I’m not sure my blood pressure could have handled it.
I guess the only positive about his kooky views is that maybe they will motivate someone in his ward to challenge him? That is if anyone is even aware he exists, which according to you sounds doubtful.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Smith has 3 more years left to his term. But as we’ve previously written, the 3rd Ward appears to be a “hotbed” of apathy and uncontested elections over the past 20 years, so don’t bet on a vibrant democracy suddenly breaking out there.
Re: your comments to 5:56. I just assumed her $156k number was bad reporting and/or editing. I wouldn’t have guessed she was trying to make the current council look bad. If so that’s really awful.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If it’s just “bad reporting,” then it’s a chronic condition with her, at least since Schmidt became mayor.
But look on the bright side: if she and her newspaper actually did a really good job of reporting and editorializing, there’d be no need for this blog.
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>