Every so often, almost perplexingly, one or other of our local governmental bodies actually gets something “right” – rather than just not getting it wrong.

This past Wednesday night (May 29), the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board – after some serious deliberation – appears to have made the “right” decision on an issue we wrote about, critically, in our May 20, 2013 post: making the historic Solomon Cottage on the Park Ridge Youth Campus property available as the new home of the Park Ridge Historical Society (the “PRHS”).  And it will be done by the District’s giving the PRHS a 20-year lease of that 105-year old building at a mere $1 per year.

Yes, $1 per year.

While that kind of deal normally would have us searching high and low for undue influence on behalf of some well-connected-but-undisclosed special interest, this looks and sounds legit for several reasons – not the least of which is that the PRHS is reportedly going to initially commit approximately $120,000 of its own funds to making the Solomon Cottage “habitable”; and then another few hundred thousand dollars of private funding to turn the building into an interactive historical museum.  The PRHS also will be responsible for the utilities and routine maintenance.

In other words, this looks to be a no-cost deal for Park Ridge taxpayers.

And not only will it save this historically-significant structure from demolition but, also, it will save the District’s taxpayers the estimated $80,000 in demolition costs the District was planning to incur because operating/programming the deteriorating Solomon Cottage was not part of the District’s Youth Campus Park redevelopment plan.

Can we get an “Amen”?

Okay, let’s not get carried away just yet.  There’s still a ways to go – and a number of details to iron out – before this plan becomes a reality.  Which means there’s still plenty of time and opportunities for it to get bollixed up.  And the public still needs to weigh in on this landlord-tenant twist, because such an arrangement between the District and the PRHS was not one of the advertised features used to sell the Youth Campus referendum to the voters last month.

Additionally, whatever lease agreement is drawn up MUST totally protect, if not outright favor, the District and its taxpayers.  That means there better be a cracker-jack inspection and evaluation of the structure to ascertain the condition of its foundations, walls, windows, roof and mechanical systems before the District effectively gives the PRHS, as its tenant, the legal right to demand major repairs that could consume tens of thousands of tax dollars and turn this “deal” on its head.

As more than one Park Board member noted Wednesday night, the District doesn’t need or want another Senior Center-style public/private “partnership” boondoggle that cost the District’s taxpayers $150,000+/year in ridiculous subsidies, the $330,000 Kemnitz bequest, and a lawsuit and legal fees to sort things out.  And neither do the taxpayers.

So for now we’re giving a big Watchdog bark-out to both the Park Board and the PRHS, including its treasurer, Kirke Machon, whom we took to task in our May 20 post for being the mouthpiece for the PRHS’s earlier “Ubi est mea?” (an homage to the late Mike Royko) freeloader approach to this venture, one that would have had the Park District throwing at least $120,000 of our tax dollars – if not the whole $500,000-plus – into a deteriorating building it had no plans of ever using.

This has the makings of one of those rare win/win deals, with the private PRHS contributing a boatload of private money for the improvement of a public building.

Now it’s up to the Park District and the PRHS not to screw this up.

To read or post comments, click on title.