Has this idea been “presented” or even suggested to the above mentioned? I wouldn’t expect them to dream it up on their own. In fact, Sheila Duda, an uptown retailer, not only lamented about the cost of getting a bucket truck, but did not hesitate to ask the Boy Scouts to light the way – presumable to her shop.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If they can’t dream it up on their own, then shame on them. THEY should be the ones leading the way on this because THEY are the ones who are likely to make money from it.

I applaud the efforts of these volunteers. It really shows what a great spirit we have in this city.

However, last year it just didn’t do it for the city. Since volunteers have been doing it, it doesn’t light up the streets like it did before. If you really think AT&T is going to offer lift trucks to non-employees and assume that risk, you are crazy.

Many people who live here and those that don’t, did ask what happened to the lights last year. The city can afford lights, it’s just makes the curmudgeons feel better. Let’s be proud of our city. Instead, we will drive around and wonder “what happened to the tops of the trees?”

it’s such a shame that we even have to ask these volunteers to do this because our elected officials want to make a point.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nobody asked these volunteers to do this. They stepped up because neither the Chamber of Commerce nor the local merchants who get the most direct benefit from the lights stepped up when the City decided it had better ways to spend tens of thousands of tax dollars than on holiday lights.

And if the Chamber and the local merchants – with or without a donation by AT&T of a bucket truck AND crew to operate it – were to step up in the way they should over the next few days, you wouldn’t be the curmudgeon beefing and moaning about the unlit tops of trees.

Editor- Lights benefit the city, not only the “Chamber” and “Merchants.”

Holiday lights aren’t exactly a strange idea for a city. Park Ridge is so freaking dark, that it makes the city look nice for a couple months. Maybe someone would realize that there actually some shops in town and spend some money. But hey, we have the Pickwick!

Maybe the council should be cutting things that actually make a difference financially instead of making this such a “dark” town?
I guess political victories are nice in the absence of sound policy.

Making kids hang lights is a lot easier than solving our TIF crisis.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Light’s in Uptown benefit the merchants far more than anybody else. Otherwise, why not just start holiday lighting the parkways in the neighborhoods?

And making anonymous comments about no “sound policy” without proposing any “sound policies” of your own shows us nothing. What do you want to cut in order to free up $10K for holiday lights? Or do you want to raise taxes for them?

And if you want to talk about “advance refunding” the TIF debt, better bring some facts and figures – because the Council has already explored that alternative and the numbers don’t work.

How about a referendum? Let the residents let the city know if they want their tax dollars spent on holiday cheer.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There are at least 100 issues more deserving of a referendum than holiday lights – unless you’re proposing holiday lights throughout the town at the cost of a couple hundred thousand dollars a year?

But feel free to come to a Council meeting and propose it.

Re: 4:35. I was joking about the referendum. But it would be interesting to know how residents actually feel.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Or it it’s that “interesting,” perhaps the City could commission one of those moronic results-to-order surveys that the Park District and D-64 are so fond of.

Disagree dog. While the volunteerism is admirable, the lighting display every year is embarassing if not depressing for a community like PR. I guess it’s more of a “feel good” gesture by having volunteers do this, but that will only last until someone is seriously injured and it ends up costing residents millions after we’re sued The xmas lights display throughout town used to be something to be proud of, but hey we’re saving 10k 🙁

EDITOR’S NOTE: You used to be “proud” of our holiday lighting? Seriously? That’s what makes you “proud” of your community?

That’s even dumber and more pathetic than believing volunteers unaffiliated with the City who might get hurt hanging holiday lights can sue the City for millions. But, hey, if you donate $10K for the lights you can feel “proud” again – a small price to pay for the restoration of your self esteem AND protecting the City from light-hanger lawsuits.

With ideas this good, you really should be signing your name to these comments.

Ågree with 9:35 in the the volunteer lighting is kind of pathetic. I feel like it’s just one more symbol of the kinds of things the city can’t get quite right. And I’m not saying the city should spend excessive amounts on lights, or even any at all. But you’d think someone could secure a grant or raise decent funds to make it happen.

If you’ve ever been to the Lincoln Park Zoo lights fest during the holidays, which is sponsored by ComEd and free to the public, you’d see that a decent display does need some professional help to look good. Heck we could light up our city with just a few casts offs from the zoo display.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “You’d think someone could secure a grant or raise decent funds to make it happen”? How about YOU getting off your sorry duff and start raising more funds!

I’m pretty sure it was $40k when the city cut the line item from the budget in 2009. Since then the cost of the lights themselves has gone way up due to the price of copper, and the lights for that many trees can cost around $7000 themselves. Just letting you know that $10,000 won’t cut it.

Maybe we can get Rosemont to add our streets to whatever they spend for lighting. They probably wouldn’t notice the slight uptick in what must be a mid six figure expense for them.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We can’t remember what the holiday light budget was, but $40,000 seems pretty darn high. But maybe some Rosemont resident will rent you his/her house for the holidays so you can bask in the glow of its holiday lighting.

Where is the Chamber and the Uptown merchants? Just off the top of my head I can think of 25 Uptown retail businesses and restaurants south of Touhy who will be the main beneficiaries of the lighting and who already have the benefit of the volunteers lighting. At $500 each, that is $12,500.

You can rent a bucket lift truck for less than $500 a day. That leaves $12,000 for more lights. To your point, the Chamber and the merchants should step up so that residents with low self-esteem can feel better about themselves with more lights in Uptown.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sounds about right to us.

But why should the uptown retailers spend any money when they can ask the Boy Scouts to “illuminate the dark spots”? Haven’t you heard that PR doesn’t do enough to “support” the retailers? Especially since the “Uptown Redevelopment” (aka Expensive TIF debt) didn’t help as planned.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have heard that, starting back in 2000-2006 when the City went $40 million or so into bonded debt for the Uptown redevelopment project – which was going to turn Uptown into a “vibrant” shopping and dining mecca that would “jump-start” Uptown retail. That was $6 million of red ink ago.

Then it gave away a few hundred thousand dollars to subsidize building facade improvements in order to make Uptown buildings more attractive. That hasn’t produced one dime of identifiable cause-and-effect ROI.

Now the City is providing (with a state/federal subsidy/grant) new Prospect and Summit streetscaping.

Maybe if the City just agrees to outright cash subsidies to local merchants and property owners it might lose that “unfriendly” label.

6:27:

You are right. After all most of those smaller local merchants must simply be rolling cash what with 6 weeks of almost zero parking on Prospect and customers having to walk over lovely wood bridges to get to their stores.

Good lord has it ever dawned on you that in bad weeks some of those smaller uptown businesses may not even make 500.00 profit??….that’s bad weeks, not bad days!!! Have you noticed all the stores that have closed over the last 5 years?? On one hand you talk about 500 for businesses (as an aside, if you are looking for businesses to contribute, how abut Burke Engineering? They have a boatload of our money in their pockets) as if it is no big deal but god forbid it comes out of our tax dollars. Take your $12,500 and divide it up by tax payers and it is less than $2.00….PER YEAR!!!!!!

The lights are for ALL the city of PR, period. If there are costs the city decides to incur to put up lights I am happy to have my tax dollars go toward the project.

Meanwhile, I am proud of those who volunteer to put the lights. I was recruited early on when I was a member of Indian Scouts and we had a ball putting up those lights, meeting new people and making memories. Of course all I had to do was show up when asked. The people who started this tradition, organized it and carry it on put in a hell of a lot of time which includes getting businesses to donate time and materials.

By the way PD, your reply to 5:54AM will have me laughing all day. You essentially tell the poster that if they do not like it they should do “get off their sorry duff” and do something. Meanwhile what did you do? You told someone else to pay for it.

Of all the issues just in PR, not to even mention the state or the nation, this is what ya’ll find to get all worked up about?? The light these fathers, mothers and KIDS are “embarrassing”…boohoo!!!

Oh well, at least you have something to bitch about for the holidays.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t know what local business make in a week, nor do we care – and we assume they don’t care what the editor of this blog makes in a week. But if those retailers want to avoid the vagaries of running a retail business and lock in a guaranteed salary for a 40-hour week with a guaranteed defined-benefit pension by the time they’re 60, they should take a government job.

We’re fine with Burke Engineering paying for the lights, even though we fail to see how holiday lights on Prospect are going to make their offices in Rosemont more attractive to Burke’s customers. But in case you missed it, Chief, the City already HAS DECIDED not to incur the expense of holiday lights – although if you showed up at a meeting and offered your $2 “PER YEAR” there’s always a chance the Council might change its mind.

Since we aren’t the ones beefing about the lights, telling a beefer to do something to fix what they’re beefing about shouldn’t really seem all that funny. But if our remark is enough to keep you “laughing all day,” that should at least keep you off http://www.dotfart.com/funny_fart_jokes.php for the rest of the day. (Your employer can thank us later.)

Or, maybe they could/should be more “friendly” to the taxpayers.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “They” who? The merchants? Burke Engineering? The City?

It is pretty clear that I know that the council and Mayor defunded the lights.

1. I use the word “if”.

2. I followed that by saying I am proud of the volunteers who put up the lights.

3. I stated that I had participate in putting up the lights in the past.

4. I referenced people complaining about the lights that the volunteers put up.

So no Chief, (or is it skippy) I did not “miss it”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, Chief, but your explanation of what you said confirms the error of what you originally said.

Your sentence that triggered our “miss it” response was: “If there are costs the city decides to incur to put up lights I am happy to have my tax dollars go toward the project” – which suggested you missed the fact that the Council already made that decision. But since you seem to like the vertical format, consider:

1. “If” indicates a future possibility, not a past occurrence;

2. “are” indicates present (or, in certain usages, future), not past;

3. the city “decides” also indicates present (or, in certain usages, future), not past; and

4. “to put up” completes the present/future tense of the statement.

So, yes, your statement suggested that you did miss the Council’s action. But seriously, show up at next Monday’s Council meeting and offer your $2 “PER YEAR” and we’re pretty sure the Council won’t be able to resist the power of your logic.

re: “they should be more friendly” – I meant the city and the “taxing” bodies.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We agree, but only one local taxing body has made serious strides over each of the past few years to be that way: the City. And its hands are tied significantly by the $1 million/year Uptown TIF debt service.

I realize that I wasn’t clear, so – I was “knocking” Sheila Duda asking the Boy Scouts to “illuminate” with their time and lanterns for HER benefit, or for any private business owners benefit. And I was equally unclear in further referring to Uptown shop owners wanting the city to help fund (through taxpayer dollars) facade renovations for their PRIVATE businesses – which thank god, went nowhere.
As far as the Uptown merchants on Prospect losing business because of the “renovations” (which I’m not disputing that they did), I can’t say for sure because I don’t know for sure, but I would hazard a guess that alot of them were all for the TIF project (and it’s promises of making them lots of money), and part of that project was the Prospect/Summit street/sidewalk work. There was never going to be a “convenient” time for such work, a time that wouldn’t affect their business. And just like the past “completed work” on The Project didn’t pan out for making them more money, I doubt this part will either. We pay, they pay – we all pay. For little, if not nothing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Much clearer, thank you.

From what we’ve seen over the years, local government loses EVERY “negotiation” it enters into with private businesses – other than when it simply says “no,” like it did to the multi-million dollar Napleton tax revenue sharing deal and the $400,000 site clean-up deal pushed by then-mayor Frimark; and like it did to the multi-million dollar Whole Foods tax revenue sharing deal sought by that property’s developer.

Interesting discusion. Couple points:

1) Regarding the bucket lift issue: …it’s not the equipment rental, availablility, etc, etc…it’s the liability and insurance costs. NOBODY should be on those lifts who is not trained and insured. I would bet the City, whom is ultimately responsible with this work doen on public property, doesn’t want them doing that either. So, in some regards, it is best for the City to hire a licensed and bonded company to do that work.

2) Christopher Burke is an engineering firm doing SIGNFICANT business for the City. THAT is why they donated the lights (as well they should).

EDITOR’S NOTE: Re 1. we do not believe the City would be “ultimately responsible” for injuries of this type – which is why we recall that the City had no beef about WOW (or some other company with such trucks) providing such trucks and staff a year or two ago.

Re 2., we’re not aware that Burke “donated the lights” but, if they did, they should have for the reasons noted.

funny how you are incensed that the park dist did not go to referendum unnecessarily for the centennial pool project but are quick to decry and discourage your reader’s desire to have a referendum on holiday lights in the City budget. And don’t say it’s because the dollar value of these two projects is so unequal; you’ve always said it’s the principal, not the money. Could it be that you are human and that you don’t want anything to go to referendum that might possibly pass?
Being a downtown silk stocking law firm employee/partner, you have no clue what teensie margins the retailers are operating on.I thought garnering more retail sales tax revenue3s was a value you held; do you really think ambience counts for nada when Main Street competes with the cheaper, high-volume mall stores? And no, the Chamber can’t just pay for it: The Chamber gets a relative pittance for what it provides because they can’t hose the small fry and they don’t dare alienate the big dogs. You scorn those who want to spend OPM — but you’re no better, always prescribing OPD (Other People’s Donations) to fund what has traditionally been a civic expense. And you make the opposition’s case when you correctly observe that “local government (actually, goverment at ALL levels; parens mine) lose EVERY negotiation it enters into with private businesses.” All the more reason to have the work done by City staff.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Referendums should not be wasted on trifles but reserved for substantial matters like: (a) major cash expenditures; (b) expenditures that involve substantial long-term debt; and (c) projects that will cause a substantial change to the character, use or appearance of the land on which the project is situated, or adjacent land. A $40,000 referendum is just silly and demeans the referendum process.

If local retailers need “ambience” to compete, then they should spend their own funds to purchase it – and not expect the taxpayers to provide not only their income but also their ambience. Or are you one of those “privatize profits but socialize costs” kind of people?

If the Chamber “can’t hose the small fry” and won’t “alienate the big dogs,” what does it do besides barely exist and claim to be important?

All sorts of things were “traditionally…a civic expense” [“civic” = “taxpayers”] when the City was run by people who taxed, borrowed and spent OPM like drunken sailors while neglecting infrastructure (especially sewers) to the point where it might take $50 million just to bring the existing sewers to the condition and size they need to be. That doesn’t leave a whole lot to either pay City staff or outside vendors to decorate the Uptown commercial district. Hence, our praise of the Holiday Lights Coalition volunteers and our sparring with critics of their work or the City’s frugality.

Finally, nobody wears silk stockings at this editor’s law firm.

It seems to me that the same personality that had delusions of the six-corners TIF development making Park Ridge a bit more like Rosemont, now can’t handle the fact that it was a complete failure and the town has no budget to light it up to Rosemont standards for the holidays. Debts have to be paid people, and you can’t always just say “Oh, but it’s only $2 per year per household” or “It’s only $17 per $10,000 of property taxes…” Come on!

We should all be thanking the volunteers for any lights we get and hope they are around during the summers as well, when the PR park district no longer has any budget to pick up trash in the parks or skim off the pond scum at Maine Park (not that it’s ever done the latter).

If you want something to be proud of in this town, be proud of the volunteers who don’t complain that they need more taxes from the residents to do what they do, or even better yet, be proud of the officials who actually are willing to make hard and unpopular financial decisions (like saying no to Whole Foods tax sharing or putting the TIF debt as a priority over non-essential community groups or holiday lighting) so that this town will be in better financial shape in 10 or 20 years.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Author!

Just one more thing in the city that is just MEH. As said, thanks to the volunteers who have to step up for us since the council isn’t.

The TIF excuse is getting old, at some point the elected officials are going to have to do something about it besides complain.

Also, the lights aren’t all about shopping. It’s about the community.

I see the commenters above can add local business to their “most hated” in Park Ridge. Add that to water slides and cops working in clean air.

EDITOR’S NOTE: By the time the TIF debt gets paid off – without ever even turning a profit, much less the windfall predicted by the delusional folks at City Hall a decade ago – the TIF excuse will be even older; and many of us will be ancient. Or dead.

It’s always about “the community” (or “the kids,” or “the seniors”) whenever there’s no factual or logical reason for what somebody wants to do, or not do.

Show up at City Hall this coming Monday night (7:00 p.m.), go up to the podium and demand that the Council raise the tax levy an extra 10 or 15% this year just so the TIF can be paid off sooner and we can have more holiday lights. And feel free to use the whole “community”/”kids”/”seniors” trifecta.

4:58
If no one else will say this to you, I will. Stating that the ENORMOUS, STAGGERING (emphasis mine) TIF debt is becoming an “old excuse” makes you sound like an idiot!

I have a suggestion. Why don’t the “only $2/yr” proponents take up a collection and buy and hang lights on the store front windows and awnings in town? Then they could have their lights and be charitable too.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That would be like expecting Warren Buffett to start making good on his tax policy views by voluntarily sending in a check to the IRS for…oh, say…$1 billion as his “fair share” payment rather than wait until Congress actually raises taxes on people like himself and makes him pay the $1 billion.

Anon 11:13

What do you mean by PR looking so dark?

“It seems to me that the same personality that had delusions of the six-corners TIF development making Park Ridge a bit more like Rosemont, now can’t handle the fact that it was a complete failure and the town has no budget to light it up to Rosemont standards for the holidays.”

Please. You can’t really believe that anyone (public officials and private citizens alike) ever wanted and/or expected Park Ridge to be a bit more like Rosemont. The Uptown development was pretty critical in modernizing us without changing our essential character. I don’t think asking the city to continue a long tradition of providing a modest light display during the holidays is all that egregious. And I think it could be done within PWD’s modest estimate. I just got a postcard from some company that will light up your home for around $1,400 (!). Multiply that by 10 and it seems we’d look pretty good and no volunteers risk their lives in a bucket lift.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Uptown development, although attractive, was a FRAUD on the taxpayers perpetrated by a handful of public officials who knew (or should have known) better, aided by another handful or two of dumb/foolish public officials. It could have, and should have, been done completely with private money, except for the cost of the reservoir – and it now looks like it will end up costing the City tens of millions rather than producing tens of millions.

Continuing a “long tradition” of spending taxpayer money for the principal benefit of private merchants is no virtue. And neither is fear mongering about volunteers risking their lives in a bucket lift.

@7:10 I’m not anon 11:13 but I’ll chime in on the “dark” comment. Have you ever walked a decent distance at night? People who are walk for fitness don’t wear headlamps and reflective vests for no reason, which is what I wished a jogger had worn recently when he darted in front of my car and I swerved to avoid him just in the nick of time.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Are you suggesting we light up the entire town?

3:46, I imagine that with the large influx of chain restaurants into uptown PR in the last few years (and the very recent opening of Whole Foods) sales tax revenue might be going up for the city, while margins for some small, independent retailers might be getting even teensier. In the end it will be up to them to find ways to differentiate their product or service so that it still has enough value keep consumers coming back and making them a profit. “Shop local” benefits everyone in town, whereas specifically shopping local independents can sometimes be hit or miss depending on the dedication of the owners. But it is that dedication to their businesses that should make or break them, not taxpayer subsidies.

As an interesting side-note, has anyone noticed the many references to the Pickwick and other PR history at the new Whole Foods? It’s the first time I’ve seen a big box put a lot of effort into fitting themselves into a small town’s enviroment in that specific of a way. As a free market guy, I see this as a push to get the independents moving again.

4:58, The “clean air” excuse the cops used to rob taxpayers is getting really old, even amongst the force, considering they seem to have forgotten about it. Maybe now that their dream bicycle chateau has been completed at the south end of the parking lot, they will remember how bad they have it.

Some Googling (as you call it) turned up the following information. $47,000 for holiday lights was cut from the 2009-10 budget in the face of a $2 million deficit, with Mayor Schmidt saying he personally liked the lights but “you have to make a choice: Do you string Christmas lights, or do you cut a policeman or a fireman from the payroll?”

I couldn’t agree more with the mayor. And I must point out that the original decision was made by aldermen whom PW called Frimark’s “alderpuppets” hostile to Schmidt, yet has been continued by the current Council with aldermen more friendly to the mayor. That’s a pretty clear sign that its the right decision.

Finally, a comment to a Patch story by the Chamber’s Gail Haller dated October 25, 2013 at 04:10 PM states that the City’s public works department has made a bucket truck and staff available “as in previous years.” So why aren’t the tops of the taller trees decorated, or the big trees on the Touhy side of the Library, decorated?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for the info.

6:47:

Not sure exactly what trees you are talking about but in the HA article (5th paragraph) Brian Wiebe, Superintendent for Public Works Department stated that “his department does not have a truck that would adequately reach the tall heights of the trees, and, if such a lift were available, volunteers would not be allowed on it for liability reasons”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We checked out the Patch article to which 6:47 refers and the comment by Ms. Haller is accurate – and it talks about a Public Works bucket truck “and staff.”

It would appear either the HA, Wiebe or Haller is/are wrong.

@7:31. I’m not suggesting we light up the town. The last thing we need is more light pollution. I’m just pointing out that it’s dark at night. I don’t have a problem with that other than sometimes it’s hard to see when walking and it can be dangerous when people aren’t vigilant.

EDITOR’S NOTE: So your comment wasn’t addressed to the holiday lights?

No one is saying the TIF isn’t a big problem, but it has become an issue that our elected officials love complaining about, but not do anything about.

As far as going at 7pm on Monday to talk, that’s a BS attack. There was an election in April where Aldermen Millissis, Mazzuca, and Shubert were elected, along with the mayor. They were asked about the TIF many times and had some answers back then. Strange how once election season is over, the answers aren’t so easy. But hey, why worry about millions when there are thousands to cut while spiking the football.

And yes, Park Ridge is too dark. And, the street signs are awful. Little things we all notice everyday who actually spend time in our city unlike most of our elected officials.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A “BS attack” is anonymously ripping on elected officials without any specifics criticisms and without any suggested solutions, then whining about being called out to man/woman up and take your beefs about their handling of the TIF – and about the lighting and street signs – to City Hall this coming Monday night.

If you were paying attention for the past decade you would have realized how ill-conceived the TIF itself was, how ill-conceived the City’s financial commitments/subsidies to its developers were, how irresponsibly the TIF debt was issued, and how its poor performance was ignored/covered up by past administrations. And if you were paying attention for just the past several months, you would know all the impediments to doing anything at this time to improve that situation.

By the way, what happened to the lights in South Park on Devon?

You know, Park Ridge does exist outside of the 1st ward.

EDITOR’S NOTE: By the way, you know Uptown is in the 5th Ward, right?

@9:10. Yes I was addressing a comment that asked what another commenter (A) meant by Park Ridge being “dark.” The commenter who first mentioned “dark” (B) said something to the effect that the lights are kinda nice when the rest of the year the town is pretty dark. I was agreeing with B that it is dark — in a literal way vs. a sinister way, which is what I’m guessing A was trying to clarify. Capice?

11:15

Most suburbs don’t have the type of lighting that Chicago has.

“Continuing a ‘long tradition’ of spending taxpayer money for the principal benefit of private merchants” is exactly what made this country great, and still does, as any one-percenter can tell you. But leaving that aside,you really do need to get a life. You are sounding WAAAAAY to curmudgeonly for a relatively young boomer. You may not keep Christmas in your heart or anyplace else, but please remember that taxes are how the public expresses its priorities. There is nothing nefarious about that.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’ve got the kind of twisted and perverted sense of “what made this country great” that would qualify you for a seat in the Illinois General Assembly, if not Congress. The same goes for your “taxes are how the public expresses its priorities.” If that makes us sound “curmugeonly,” we’ll wear that mantle proudly.

The cabbies call it “Dark Ridge,” and not for demographic reasons. Despite the obvious dangers of pitch-dark neighborhoods, only the beat cops will admit that it makes a difference. The brass contend that they have big flashlights so there’s no problem. Of course, they’re not on the scene with their big flashlights unless and until something goes horribly wrong. There’s a law that says you have to have your house number near the front door where it’s visible, but no requirement about making it visible after dark, which hits around 4 p.m. in the winter, BTW. Aldermen in past admins have tried without success to have Public Safety recommend an ordinance requiring all residences to have at least a small porch light on during the night, but the libertarians made sure it didn’t even get out of committee for the Council to vote on.
Cabbies aren’t allowed to carry flashlights because it made some biddy nervous, so now you can have frightened cab drivers creeping around your neighborhood, trying to find your house number. Light pollution is a ridiculous concern when the night sky is salmon pink due to Chicago’s proximity. But more lights to create that Thomas Kincaide, friendly small town feeling? Nah. The only time it’s comfortable to walk around the City at night is when the holiday lights are up on these otherwise dark houses, and there’s enough snow that the twinklers are reflected.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What “[a]ldermen in past admins” tried to turn Park Ridge into Kincaide-ville, and what libertarians” tried to prevent that and leave the mean streets of Park Ridge darkened and at the mercy of the gangs?