Listening to the recent debates about amending the Park Ridge sign code to permit electronic message boards (“EMB”s), the chorus of a well-known R.E.M. song kept running through our mind: “It’s the end of the world as we know it.”
To hear the anti-EMB folks tell it, EMBs are the devil’s tool that will turn quaint Park Ridge into a vulgar Rosemont, increase traffic accidents by distracted drivers, otherwise cause various forms of lesser mischief that erode the “character” of Park Ridge, and may even cause the heartbreak of psoriasis. The pro-EMB folks, on the other hand, suggest that prohibitions and even significant restrictions on EMBs put local businesses at some form of competitive disadvantage and reinforce the perception of Park Ridge as “unfriendly to business.”
We like the “character” of Park Ridge, and we get the sense we’re not alone in that. But what exactly is the “character” of Park Ridge, and how will EMBs ruin it? And if Park Ridge is so “unfriendly” to business, explain Whole Foods and Mariano’s both opening stores here within a six month stretch?
The City’s Sign Task Force had recommended that EMBs be permitted, albeit with a number of restrictions. That recommendation, however, was over-ruled by the City’s Planning & Zoning Commission at its September 24, 2013 meeting. At a special meeting on November 19, 2013, and at another one this past Tuesday (12.03.13) night, the City Council entertained public debate on whether EMBs should be banned completely, per the P&Z recommendation.
As best as we can tell from Tuesday’s meeting, EMBs won’t be coming to Park Ridge anytime soon for a very practical reason: there appears to be no good way to permit EMBs with limitations that satisfactorily balances the competing rights and interests of the pro- and anti- factions without subjecting the City to an increased risk of litigation.
City Attorney Everette M. “Buzz” Hill, Jr., in a memorandum, identified a number of legal issues that appear to be irreconcilable – in light of the competing interests and agendas – other than by either a blanket permission or a blanket prohibition. Many of Hill’s observations echo those articulated by the executive director of the Illinois Sign Association in his letter of August 15, 2013.
Frankly, while we don’t have any strong desire to see EMBs in Park Ridge, we believe that EMBs can be permitted in ways that would be constitutional and yet not be the end of Park Ridge’s “character” as we know it. Just like allowing and even liberalizing alcohol sales, or eliminating City subsidies to private community groups, haven’t been the end of that “character,” either, despite dire warnings from opponents of those two decisions that they would. We agree with Alds. Milissis and Knight that EMBs are a significant-enough and growing issue that the City must find ways to accommodate them if at all possible.
That leads us to the real point of this post: what appears to be a lack of efficient management of the time and resources of the City’s committees, commissions and task forces – and, ultimately, of the Council itself.
As best as we can tell, neither the Sign Task Force nor P&Z had the benefit of the analysis and opinions contained in Hill’s memorandum; and the Sign Task Force did not have the Illinois Sign Association’s letter. That would have put both those bodies at a significant disadvantage in undertaking their tasks relative to EMBs. It also causes us to wonder whether both bodies’ efforts and outcomes re the EMBs would have been different – or at least less time-consuming – had they had those legal opinions and insights from the beginning.
The members of the Sign Task force and P&Z – like the members of all other City citizens’ committees, commissions and task forces – are volunteers who perform valuable services to the community without compensation. Similarly, the mayor and the aldermen provide an extraordinary amount of service and undertake substantial responsibility for nominal compensation.
But when a significant portion of the time and effort devoted to a particular task – in this case, to EMBs – by these officials may have been wasted because they lacked significant information that could have been obtained at the beginning of the process rather than at the later stages, we have to wonder why it wasn’t.
For this committee-commission-task force process to work, everybody has to operate at a high level. It should be City staff’s responsibility to procure and provide those volunteers with the kinds of legal opinions, industry insights, and reasonable foundation of relevant data sufficient to inform those volunteers about the matters they will be addressing. Otherwise we end up with the classic GIGO situation.
And the Council ends up having to re-invent the wheel.
To read or post comments, click on title.
32 comments so far
Among all the problems Park Ridge (and other communities) has with getting people to “shop local,” I think signage is the least significant issue. (Except, somewhat ironically, for the Dunkin Donuts on Greenwood and Touhy, who was not even allowed to put a simple logo on the sign that already exists, for goodness sake.)
It sounds like the process was painful and inefficient, which is too bad. But if anyone thinks those signs will actually help merchants or other organizations put more money in their coffers then I’ve got a bridge to sell them.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s part of a merchant’s job to figure out what will make him/her/it a profit. If they think it’s EMBs, or the McRib, we don’t care whether they’re right or wrong – so long as they aren’t expecting the taxpayers to subsidize them and they don’t adversely impact the community.
We think the first part of that caveat has been covered, but the second part seems to be all about the eye of the beholder.
the NIMBYs and the NOTEs (Not Over There, Either) have won again. Is the Maine South advertising sign — that takes outside ads, by the way — going to be taken down from the football field? Why should Maine South get a revenue-producing eyecatcher and not Maine East?
Why can’t the Park District and the churches use the safer-to-use, less labor-intensive electronic signs to share their event and service info? And why do we have to suffer the embarrassment of the 1/2 dead white sign where Dunkin’ Donuts is at the major intersection of Touhy and Greenwood? If I were Dunkin, I’d be a-suein’! Park Ridge is not historic Deerfield Village, but it will take the move of the vocal minority to the World Beyond Signs before reality is allowed to intrude. I’m a lifer who’s not young, but geeze. Charm does not require making these types of bad decisions.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Hopefully Alds. Milissis and Knight will gain some support for continuing to look at this issue and come up with workable solutions – which do not include something as goofy as limiting EMBs to properties of 2 acres or larger.
You mean cars won’t simultaneously start crashing on the road if they are distracted by this new discovery of lights and words?
You mean property value won’t plummet if Dunkin Donuts has their sign on?
You mean all the small businesses won’t immediately shutter because they would be at a “supposed” disadvantage?
But, we did learn that the goal that we should be striving for in Park Ridge is “Mayberry with Wi-Fi” as told to us by an Alderman.
Tuesday was quite a show by a couple of the Alderman.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Mayberry” isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but we’re pretty sure: it didn’t have an Uptown TIF (or even an “Uptown”); Helen Crump didn’t make $100K/year teaching; neither Andy nor Barney had a defined benefit pension that was constitutionally guaranteed; and Floyd’s barbershop didn’t share a building with a D’Agostino’s pizzeria.
What I find so ironic is that, in my experience, many (not all) of these folks who go on an on about Park Ridge’s “character” and want all of these regulations prohibiting all of these different supposed “atrocities” are the same ones who would drone on about “big government” interfering with their freedoms.
I know that it has been referenced here before but I will mention it again because it is the best example. The idea that Dunkin donuts is not only not allowed to put a sign in the already existing space on the pole, but they had one made and in place and had to take it down, is just absolutely crazy. What person or organization can provide a legitimate reason why they might find having a sign there offensive. I know people go overboard about PR not being business friendly, but why would we not let a business fill a space on an already existing sign??
EDITOR’S NOTE: While the Dunkin’ Donuts situation does seem insane on its face, our understanding is that the current pole sign is non-conforming; and, consequently, the City is well within its rights to refuse to permit modifications to it. Notwithstanding that fact, the owner – without City approval – put up the sign which subsequently was removed.
PD:
I am not talking about “within its rights”. Hell, there are a lot of really stupid things people and organizations do (me included) that are within their rights. I am just saying why would the city decide to do I?.
You have a new business that comes to the city. I realize it is not some swank resturant or a huge grocery store but we do want the DD to be successful, right? There is no cost to the city to allow the sign. It is only a benefit to a business in our community.
Beyond that, if the decision is made to not allow it, as it was, what are you left with?? An arguably even less attractive empty spot on a sign. Did they think that by denying the sign the landlord would put up a brand new fancy one?
I am hoping that by your using the word insane you agree.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, we don’t agree. If the City were to allow modifications to a non-conforming sign, that could be used as precedent by the owner of another non-conforming sign.
Anon 6:13 hit a bullseye. Park Ridge “character” is obviously whatever that individual perceives it is. Don’t you think that Park Ridge “character” really mean “keep others out”?
He/she is also right about the lack of substantive reasoning. Is the video posted from Tuesday? I think everyone should watch it just to see how strange and out there one of the alderman is.
Can we now compare the phrase “Park Ridge character” to “for the kids”?
Editor- It does seem this issue is absolutely baffling the city council.
I think some tweaking has to be done to the people that volunteer on the committees. Maybe if the council knows what they believe on an issue, they should just propose it, instead
of the dog and pony show, which then gets rebuffed?
Lastly, Mayberry had a hotel.
The “EMB” issue a pet issue by a few very loud people who are in the camps of a few elected officials. Anyone who reads the weekly local paper or this website knows who they are. They have the ears of the local officials and they speak out to them and at city council meetings. To their credit, they work their influence in a place like Park Ridge. Disagree with them fine, but the more important thing to do is to contact your local elected officials to counter-balance their antiquated beliefs that are harmful for the town.
They are on record for who they supported last election. Elections have consequences, and supporters got supported.
8:29, who do you mean by “a few very loud people” and whoich elected officials’ “camps are they in?
Ever since flood control was taken up in earnest a couple of years ago I have been following the Council a lot closer than ever before and can not find an detectable pattern of consistent favoritism that is clearly unrelated to tje officials overall policy positions.
PD:
Your the lawyer but if I am not mistaken the precedent would be allowing a business to put up a sign in a vacant space on a non-conforming sign. How on earth is that a dangerous precedent?
Someone already made the decision to “grandfather” in the part of the sign for the cleaner. I think this was the correct decision. All I am saying is if you have made the decision that you are not going to force the business or landlord to tear down the entire sign then grandfather in the whole sign.
Simply say that all new freestanding signs now have to meet these new requirements. A sign put up within the confines of an existing sign is no problem.
My god it is common sense. How does it make sense to grandfather in 50% of an existing structure??
EDITOR’S NOTE: We haven’t studied ANY aspects of the sign law, but we understand that the City Attorney – who has far more experience than this editor with ordinances of this type – recommended the City’s conduct re that non-conforming sign at Touhy and Greenwood.
This sign stuff is much ado about nothing. Should we allow EMBs? Sure we should. Will it help businesses substantially? No. Will it harm the character of Park Ridge? Not if the size is limited to something reasonable, like 18-20 square feet (e.g., 6’x3′, 5’x4′) and with a ceiling on brightness/lumens/Nits/whatever.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Actually, that sounds pretty much what we’ve been thinking.
If the existing ordinances were an issue then the council should have undertaken to change those ordinances in such a way that they would allow a sign to go in an empty space in a scenario such as this.
I am sorry but this is flat out stupid!! Just to be clear, I have no dog in this fight….I am a Starbucks addict.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The City’s sign ordinance was a matter of public record when the DD franchisee signed his lease with the property owner. If he didn’t nail down the sign issue before he signed his lease, then he and/or his lawyers screwed up and it’s their problem, not the City’s.
And if the sign means so much to him, let him put up a conforming sign – or push his landlord to put up a conforming sign. Once again, that’s not the City’s problem.
“Will it harm the character of Park Ridge? Not if the size is limited to something reasonable, like 18-20 square feet (e.g., 6?x3?, 5?x4?) and with a ceiling on brightness/lumens/Nits/whatever.”
Maybe if you’re talking one sign here or there. But put a bunch of those together and all you have is visual noise and light pollution. No won’t be Times Square or even Rosemont but it would sure have an adverse affect on the one thing PR’s got going for it — a quaint and charming aesthetic. Plenty of tother municipalities prohibit signs like that for that very reason.
And I agree that grandfathering in the whole sign instead of half the sign at Touhy and Greenwood is a no brainer. If I were the DD owner, I’d be steaming mad that such a simple solution has been made so terribly complex and ridiculous.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t care what “other municipalities” do, because many/most of them are as screwed up as Park Ridge used to be.
As we said in our note to the previous comment, if the DD owner didn’t lock up the sign issue before he signed his lease, he’s an idiot – or he’s got a malpractice claim against his lawyer. Or a breach of lease claim against his landlord. But in any event, it’s not the City’s job to protect business people from their own stupidity.
I do not disagree that the DD and or his owners should have addressed this upfront. That does not mean that the ordinance should not be changed.
This seems to be a situation that has arisen that no one considered so changes should be made to address this situation and potential cases in the future.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Nor does it mean that the ordinance SHOULD be changed just because a landlord won’t replace his ancient non-conforming sign, and his tenant apparently signed a lease that didn’t guaranty him the ability to place the “Dunkin Donuts” logo on that non-conforming sign.
Uhhhh…for all of you so “passionate” about sign issues, in case you’ve been living under a rock there have been about two years of meetings going on between the sign task force, P&Z and now the Council, all on the issue of signs.
In fact the City Council has held two hearings consuming about 6 hours over the last month and apparently will meet to continue the discussion on sign issues on January 7th.
Love the ‘Dog and the debates prompted here but if you really want to have some input you might do as the ‘Dog has previously advised. Show up at a Task Force, Committee or Council meeting and make your case there where after such matters are discussed some sort of action is typically taken one way or another.
Anyway, if setting this straight is such a “no-brainer” you might want to show up and explain why that’s the case.
DSOTB- It’s a forum, not sure how you don’t understand that. If you are a reader, you’ll see some pretty honest ideas debated here.
The default excuse of “show up” at a meeting is one that speaks to the either ineffectiveness or lack of responsibility elected officials expect to take. Is that kind of like your “let’s appoint a task force”?
One thing the editor takes pride in (and his readers appreciate) is the attention to the detail of local governance. In one of the last posts, he said something to the effect that the officials who screw up the small issues, are likely to screw up the big ones too!
It’s not about passion, it’s about correct policy and competence. An elected official has to lead by gathering info and making a fricken decision. If not, reach out to your constituents. This democracy thing isn’t new. If elected officials aren’t interested, then move along.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Oh, if only it were that easy. The republican form of government (per Federalist 10) is supposed to aggregate, filter and refine the public’s ideas and passions through our best citizens to achieve the highest public purpose. One need to look no further than the last 30 years of the Illinois General Assembly to know that ideal has not been realized here, other than in the most flagrant breach.
Even local elected offices seem to draw a real mixed bag: if an apt analogy is to mixed nuts, then the cannister for the past decade would be about 90% peanuts, 2% almonds, 2% pecans, 2% walnuts, 1.5% cashews, 1.5% pistachios and 1% macadamias.
So the average citizen showing up at meetings tends to be more of a requirement for good government than it should be under the Founders’ ideal.
Anon 816- I’d take a few lit signs over the perceived charm of land and stores for sale.
If you like higher taxes and vacant land then the city council is doing you a solid by continuing its hostility towards business. Vacant land = higher taxes for residents. That’s a fact.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Hostility towards business”? Interesting how Park Ridge, under the current mayor and City Council, has enticed a Whole Foods AND a Mariano’s with NO economic concessions – yet they get barbecued by a few odd folks for not letting an apparently negligent Dunkin Donuts owner do what he wants with his landlord’s non-conforming sign.
Mariano’s bought an existing business. Whole Foods is a win. Maybe hostile is wrong , maybe it’s inept or simply disinterested.
Lots of dollars sitting on the sideline for taxpayers while year long whole foods celebration continues.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, Mariano’s bought an existing LOCATION – while rejecting a lot of other existing Dominick’s locations. So are you saying Mariano’s decided to commit multi-millions of dollars to a “hostile to business” Park Ridge? Just like Whole Foods did? Wow, what dummies, eh?
“Lots of dollars sitting on the sideline”? Really? Whose dollars – all those retail establishments that Wietecha/Marous/Frimark and their Councils insisted would be falling all over each other scrambling to grab those uber-desirable locations in the Uptown complex and the reinvigorated surrounding area?
Or maybe you’re thinking about Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Costco or some other big-box discount retailers who might buy up and knock down a dozen acres of homes to put up a store here? Or maybe something more upscale, say a Jaguar or Bentley dealership? Or do you have something even more special in mind?
“Lots of dollars sitting on the sidelines”? Yeah, that’s rich.
10:18am, I get “it’s a fourm” and I am a regular reader here. What’s the point?
How is exhorting citizens who come here to the ‘Dog to gripe to show up at a meeting to gripe to the actual Task Force, Commission or Council members an excuse “that speaks to the either ineffectiveness or lack of responsibility elected officials expect to take”? That makes zero sense.
I don’t understand the point of your next two paragraphs. And the ending… “If elected officials aren’t interested, then move along.”, just doesn’t follow.
The Editor said it well. The day our system, Federal, State or local, is running so well that we can and do actually elect ONLY the best is the day citizens can sit back an not worry about what the hell their elected officials are up to. That day and that time in Illinois and Park Ridge is not today.
Hell, you only need to look as far as our 3rd Ward in Park Ridge where they needed to go through a write-in process to elect an Alderman.
If after that you don’t think there’s reason to show up at a meeting on occasion where frickin’ decisions are or aren’t made that’s your choice.
In my mind, if that’s the case, and then you want to take to this forum to air your gripes and think something will be done about them… well, I think you might have to re-think how really effective that is.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly! This blog is intended to serve as a community forum to discuss issues, but it’s no substitute for the public bodies where the decisions get made.
Barbecued??? Really?? Wow that’s dramatic!! So a few people have a dialogue about the DD sign issue (a natural off shoot of your original posts) and we are barbecuing the Mayor and the council.
The WF and Mariano’s addition has nothing to do with the DD sign. I am VERY glad WF is here and look forward to Mariano’s congratulate the council and Mayor for not giving away anything for them to come here.
But back to the DD sign. I think the reason people are harping on it (at least the reason I am) is it is just so completely odd/strange/screwy/wacky. I mean I do not agree with every rule but at least I can generally see what they are trying to accomplish.
I mean changing sign requirements on a go forward basis I get. I might not agree with the changes but I can see local government might want to make signs smaller etc.
Let’s say the rule was that all businesses had to tear down all non-conforming signs and put another one up that conforms. I might not agree with that but at least it is equally applied.
But to allow a sign to remain in place but to say one business can use it and the other can’t is crazy.
Your only defense has been that DD should have dealt with this up front (I agree) and the city is within it’s rights (I also agree) but you have not touched on the main questions. Does this rule make sense? What does it accomplish?
I know, I know….go to the meeting.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The only person who should care about not being able to put up a DD sign at Greenwood and Touhy is the owner of DD. And since he apparently wasn’t smart enough, or diligent enough, to make sure his lease ensured that he could add a DD sign to the one on the corner, that’s HIS problem.
We do agree that “to allow a sign to remain in place but to say one business can use it and the other can’t is crazy.” The solution, however, appears to be for the property owner to put up a new conforming sign. But if he doesn’t want to spend the money, once again, that’s HIS problem.
And if you want to see the rules changed so that the cheapskate (yes, we’re being judgmental) landlord or the negligent (ditto) DD owner gets an exemption from the current ordinance requirements…go to the meeting.
The terms “business friendly” or “business unfriendly” are difficult to define let alone apply with any worthwhile criteria. Something that may be friendly to one business or group of businesses may not be “friendly” to other businesses. For instance, would it have been “friendly” to Jewel or Trader Joe’s to give Whole Foods a tax subsidy which would have allowed it to unfairly compete with those stores? Would it be friendly to give a façade improvement payment to a business in Uptown but not in South Park or other shopping districts? Would it be “friendly” to allow major retailers to have electric message signs but not the mom and pop store down the block or the car wash across the street? No.
The only way to begin to objectively assess whether Park Ridge is “business friendly” is to look at the results. For all the gnashing of teeth about empty storefronts and vacant properties, the City’s retail sales tax revenues continue to climb upwards. Between 2009 and 2013, annual revenues went up 25% from $4 million to $5 million. I contend that could not possibly happen if we were as “unfriendly” as some believe us to be.
When it coms to “hostile to business” I’m beginning to wonder if the problem is not public officials making it hard for companies to locate here as much as it is the residents themselves not wanting to patronize local businesses for whatever reasons. For example, people aren’t exactly falling over themselves to get into the shiny new Whole Foods.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Whether people are or are not “falling over themselves” getting into Whole Foods is irrelevant, since the City gave no subsidy to Whole Foods. So what’s your point?
The owner of the building at Greenwood and Touhy really is a “cheapskate” (as PW points out), not wanting to replace that old ugly sign but charging high rents that chased out the beloved Johnny’s Place. I patronize that Dunkin Donuts, but you are right about the owner screwing up if he did not make sure he could put up a sign.
The “business-friendly” or “hostile to business” comments being linked with that as meaning public dollars to private companies is erroneous. That isn’t what is being talked about.
The “hostile to business” refers to the over-regulation that exists in Park Ridge. The EMB’s and sign language are good examples. How is making an existing business change a sign (which will cost THOUSANDS and waste their time) NOT hostile?
Can Park Ridge businesses compete fairly in the marketplace? Whole Foods says yes. Ron Santo’s, KFC (now sandlot after many places), South Prospect ave businesses, Pines (still for rent), Greenwood/NWHY vacant lands, and pretty much all of Devon avenue say Park Ridge is not a great place to do business.
Editor, you say re changing signs “The solution, however, appears to be for the property owner to put up a new conforming sign. But if he doesn’t want to spend the money, once again, that’s HIS problem.” I’m sorry, but if that was my business I’d sue the crap out of the city. If not legal, it’s downright unethical for the city to effect peoples livelihoods at their whim.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Not just Whole Foods but 2 Walgreen’s, Trader Joe’s, Chipotle, 2 Starbucks, Houlihan’s, Jewel, Hay Caramba, Hallmark, Perry’s, Boston Market, Living Seas, Five Guys, Panera, Oberweis, Maki Sushi, et al. say “Yes.”
If the “cheapskate” owner of the property at Greenwood and Touhy thought he had a winning case, he probably would “sue the crap out of the city.” But since he hasn’t, he probably doesn’t. And since he may have suckered a boneheaded Dunkin Donuts franchisee into signing a lease without locked-down signage rights, the owner/landlord apparently doesn’t care. Once again, that’s HIS problem.
Finallyt, the sign ordinance and amendments thereto were not done on a “whim” – and apparently you weren’t interested enough when that process was going on to speak up. So that’s YOUR problem.
“Between 2009 and 2013, annual revenues went up 25% from $4 million to $5 million.”
Why did revenues go up $1 Million dollars between that period? Has this been studied, or will that spoil a narrative?
EDITOR’S NOTE: What “narrative”?
“The only person who should care about not being able to put up a DD sign at Greenwood and Touhy is the owner of DD”.
At this point PD has yet to even explain the logic behind the decision on the DD sign. THey Mayor stopped by and he did not offer any defense. He actually completely ignored that part of the discussion.
But all is OK….not to worry. All you have to do is look at the above quote. If a PR citizen sees an ordinance that is completely stupid what they should do is decide if affects them. IF it doesn’t don’t even bring it up.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If there is no “logic” behind the City’s decision, then we would expect the landlord or the DD franchisee to either beef to the Council or the P&Z Commission at one of their public meetings, or sue the City. Or YOU could show up at one of those meetings as an interested, altruistic citizen who isn’t affected by the sign ordinance but just wants justice done.
But failing all that, the status quo should prevail.
Status Quo is high taxes and TIF excuses by elected officials on any issue in town.
But feel free to hide behind inaction and policy. There are citizens that show up and disagree with these policies
But some are “more equal” than others. Need names?
EDITOR’S NOTE: If your complaint is “high taxes,” then tell us what other services you would cut in order to further reduce the tax increases that have grown at a lower rate during the past five years than they did during the Frimark years and earlier?
And while you’re at it, tell us the names of “citizens that show up and disagree with these policies.”
11:50 p.m., what the heck are you talking about?
This city has taken major strides since Schmidt became mayor to straighten out years of stupidity, spending, borrowing and taxing. So you snipers can take your shots about citizens who are more equal than others, but good stuff for this town just keeps happening.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly, both things Schmidt and the Council deserve credit for and things that just happened.
No one said Frimark (obviously terrible) did a good job or any of his predecessors. It’s not the current Mayors fault that the roots of high regulation have been so deep for decades. But, he also hasn’t accomplished one thing to reverse that. If so, name the exact policy.
Why is everyone so defensive when you even bring up the discussion that Park Ridge is over regulated?
For people that are supposed free-market, they seem more than happy to hide behind old and new arcane regulation that cause high property taxes.
Don’t forget, property tax payers subsidize d64, d207 and the parks when there is vacant land and low valuation. So defend high regulation at your own peril.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We disagree with your “high regulation” theory. But just for grins, can you identify just three (3) forms of “high regulation” that you contend have a substantial adverse affect on Park Ridge?
Hey 925am… please explain:
“For people that are supposed free-market (what’s this mean and who you talkin’ ’bout?), they seem more than happy to hide behind old and new arcane regulation (exactly which ones?) that cause high property taxes (what regulation causes high property taxes?).
PW challenges you and justifiably. These kind of “drive by” comments are ridiculous.
Does “free market” mean no rules? Seriously… define free market.
Park Ridge, like any municipality, operates within the confines of a municipal code and a set of ordinances that spell out what can and can’t be done. And it’s a somewhat living flexible document.
Is it your point that any dumb ass business person, or resident for that matter, that moves into the City only to be “accosted” by the code that he or she should have familiarized themselves with, gets bailed out in the name of some free market definition you maintain? How does that make sense?
And how does any of they cause high property taxes? Instead of this dubious statement how about taking a look at the salaries and benefits we pay all of our employees and the crap ass Uptown TIF debt anchored around our necks by elected officials and staff long gone.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly. But you forgot the “Willis?”
1) the nonsensical and unequally-applied “no- electronic-signage- except- for- Maine- South- football” reulation.
2) the cruel and pointless “only- 3- dogs- per- household- with- no- grandfathering -for- existing- beloved- pet- #4 regulation that does nothing whatsoever to address the random dangerous individual dog problem.
3) the stacks of conflicting parking/no parking/parking on tuesdays/parking under a full moon signs all on one post that lurk like malevolent totem poles regulation.
That’s three to start. Hypens, anyone?
EDITOR’S NOTE:
(1) Agreed, except that we can’t think of anyplace in Park Ridge – save for Maine East – where an EMB can be positioned that far from any residences.
(2) Agreed, assuming people don’t mind living next to kennels.
(3) Insignificant.
OK, so how about Maine East?
And South Park?
And Oakton?
And…
Talk about inspecting the burlwood on the damn violin while Rome burns. And we laugh about Springfield’s lack of focus on what matters?
EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re going to have to write in more complete sentences for us to understand you.
But Springfield deserves to be laughed at, if only to avoid crying about just how inept the people down there are – when Madigan and his moronic minions aren’t doing their best crooked Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall impersonations.
This town is overly regulatory; and that stems from the fact that the old timers (or curmudgeonly old rich men) who run this town tried to distance themselves from the – heavens forbid – freewheeling Chicago …. with obscene set backs, and billboards, and electronic signs, and multifamily housing and – my goodness – bars that serve ALCOHOL!
Don’t worry, the city is slowly changing, and eventually the younger folks (nearly all of whom I meet are city transplants) recognize that change is good and inevitable. the old guard will retire soon enough to the nursing home and the new guard will allow – heaven forbid – electronic signs, and maybe, just maybe, a bar or two.
“What “narrative”?”
Uh, the economy has substantially improved for the upper middle and upper class i.e. park ridge residents!
“The top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago, according to an updated study by the prominent economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.” Google the quote for the link.
This is a wealthy town and the wealthy have money to burn since the recession nearly wiped out everyone in the 11th percentile and below.
EDITOR’S NOTE: There are no “old rich men” currently on the City Council, as best as we can tell.
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>