I remember prior to Milissis being elected he was promising his 2nd ward a fix for the flooding. He was passing out his phone# outside the polls telling voters to call him when they flood. I get that it is his ward, but to literally promise a fix for his would be constituents if elected? I think his phone has been ringing…..

EDITOR’S NOTE: If those are the promises he made, then his phone should be ringing. And he should be advocating for his constituents to whom he made those promises.

You seem starey-eyed for Dave Schmidt. Are you on his payroll?

EDITOR’S NOTE: He has no “payroll.” What do you think this is, Maine Township/Provenzano-ville government?

Bulldog, go the meeting and state your nasty opinions there so we can see the ugly wizard behind the curtain. These anonymous remarks confirm how week you are. Go Nick M. Nick m for Mayor! He has enough people behind him,,, You never know. First thing will be to out you.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor has never been “in” so there’s nobody and nothing to “out.” But if there were, he already was “outed” by the clown prince of pernicious propaganda, the one and only Howard P. Frimark.

But if you think his position on this issue qualifies Ald. Milissis – whom we endorsed and whom we have agreed with on many other issues – for mayor, then you should test that premise by calling for a referendum on the flood remediation program and see whether the alderman can flex enough political muscle to pass it.

Fat chance that.

For years we have argued for the City’s undertaking a plan for remediating both the sewer back-up and the overland flooding that plagues much/most of our community. One reason we supported then-ald. Dave Schmidt in his mayoral campaign against then-mayor Howard Frimark in 2009 was Schmidt’s promise to meaningfully address this problem while Frimark fiddled with the Uptown TIF, the façade improvement program, and other giveaways of our public tax dollars to private entities.
And Schmidt has done just that. LET’S NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS BIG DOG. I HAVE EDUCATED YOU ABOUT USING WILEY BUT UNFOUNDED TACTICS OF CUTTING ACROSS LOGIC TO WIN SOME AGENDA OR ANOTHER OF YOURS; BUT YET YOU COTINUE. THEREFORE, IT IS FAIR TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU ARE A MANIPULATOR AND A HUCKSTER OF YOUR DESIRES OF THE DAY AND NOT A PROTECTOR OF THE PUBLIC AS A BONE FIDE WATCHDOG. YOU SIR ARE A FRAUD IN THIS AND A FEW OTHER RESPECTS RELATED TO LOGIC AND HENCE TRUTH SPEAKING. (I’M NOT WRITING IN CAPS TO YELL BUT JUST TO DIFFERENTIATE TEXT STYLE SO READERS WOULD KNOW WHAT YOU’VE WRITTEN AND WHAT I’VE WRITTEN EASILY ENOUGH.) REMEMBER, WHEN ARGUING WITH FOOLS PRETTY SOON NO ONE CAN TELL WHO’S WHO. 😉
He created the City’s Flood Control Task Force, which expended substantial effort in collecting data and providing a lot of valuable input from both an expert’s and resident’s perspective. And Schmidt spearheaded the City Council’s hiring of Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. to provide a comprehensive analysis of Park Ridge flooding problems. YES, NOW IMPLEMENT IT WHEN IT AND WHERE IT MAKES SENSE.
Unfortunately, kind of like the saying about how God answers all prayers but sometimes the answer is “no,” the Burke study and follow-up analysis produced a number of remediation projects – but with some major sticker-shock: $2.3 million for flood relief to just 23 homes [YOU ARE A MENDACIOUS ONE BIG DOG AND YOUR MISTATEMENTS ARE CLEARLY INTENDED TO CREATE NEGATIVE RESPONSES. BUT HERE AGAIN, YOUR FACTS ARE UNTRUTHS. I COUNTED AT LEAST 90 HOMES IN MAYFIELD JUST YESTERDAY. YOUR CREDABILITY IS HEADING TOWARDS AN ALL TIME LOW. YOU DON’T WANT TO JUST BE A CHARACATURE OF A WATCH DOG DO YOU? in the Mayfield Estates neighborhood in the 2nd Ward, near Maine East; and another $16.6 million for the Northwest Park neighborhood, also in the 2nd Ward. I’M ADDRESSING MAYFIELD HERE NOT THE OTHER PROJECTS. I DON’T HAVE TIME TO ADDRESS ALL THE MISSTATEMENTS YOU’VE MADE SO I’LL CONCENTRATE ON MAYFIELD.
That’s basically $19 million and counting – because we all know how the costs of these kinds of projects tend to grow like Topsy – to provide flood relief to only two neighborhoods, leaving the rest of the City standing at the altar, ankle-to-knee deep in groundwater and/or sewage back-up. Throw in the third main flood relief target area west of the Park Ridge Country Club, at another $80 million, and we’re looking at $100 million of long-term bonded debt that still leaves most of the City to fend for itself. NO CITY CAN FIX EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME. YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED SUCH PROJECTS ALWAYS COME IN SUCCESSIONS.
In our January 17 post, we suggested that the fairest way to undertake the staggering costs of these projects – which, if successful, could add tens of thousands of dollars to the value of those homes in the remediated neighborhoods – would be by a combination of City funds and a special assessment for the benefitted homes through the creation of Special Service Areas (“SSA”s). Alternatively, we suggested a City-wide referendum. THIS IS YOUR “FINAL SOLUTION?” MAKE THE “ANSCESTORS OF IDIOTS” PAY? YOU ARE CRUEL TYRANT BIG DOG. I GUESS YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT ON THE SCHEDULE TO GET SOME RELEIF. OR HAVE YOU ALREADY RECEIVED IT WITHOUT PAYING? HEY, UNDER YOUR LOGIC THAT WOULD MAKE YOU THE “FREELOADER,” BUT WE IN MAYFIELD DO NOT SET OUT TO WIN OUR ARGUMENTS BY DIRECTLY ATTACKING THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORS. WE PREFER GRACE AND DIGNITY AND REASON. CALL US OLD FASHIONED THAT WAY.
Since then, the City has begun to look into both of those options, as can be seen from the SSA Memorandum and the Referendum Memorandum for tomorrow’s meeting. These two options apparently have infuriated the folks in those neighborhoods who have been working for months to portray themselves as “victims” (of whom, precisely?) in the hopes of guilting our City officials into mortgaging the City’s future primarily for these victims’ private economic benefit. WE ARE NOT INFURIATED, GENERALLY, BUT WE DO BELIEVE IN THE FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT OF RESIDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY. AND THE FACT IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD HAS HAD EXPENSES FOR BASIC HEALTH-SAFTEY FOISTED ON THEM LIKE YOU ARE PROPOSING TO DO TO MAYFIELD. NO ONE LIKES TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. WE’VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION.
Leading the charge for what amounts to a major Second Ward windfall is Ald. Nick Milissis (2nd), who has done an excellent job OF DOING HIS JOB WITH CLASS AND DIGNITY AND NOT LOWERING HIMSELF TO THE BASE CONDESCENDING NONSENSE SHAMELESSLY SHOVELED BY THE BIG DOG ON THE MAYFIELD SOLUTION of firing up his “base” with e-mails and Facebook posts like his most recent one from Wednesday:
WE ARE SECOND WARD CITIZENS NOT SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. (THOSE ARE THE ALDERMAN’S CAPS BUT I DO AGREE.)
Reading the packet for the Special Council Meeting to take place this Saturday March 8, 2014 it is apparent from the material included that some of our elected officials want to treat the residents of the Second Ward as if though they are a lower class subgroup of this city. The staff has been directed to produce memos that introduce concepts such as Special Service Areas and Advisory Referenda. NEVER I repeat NEVER has an area in the city been subject to this proposed discrimination and derogatory treatment. The City has never put a flood relief project to referendum nor has it ever passed on the costs directly to the victims of the flooding. Yet this is exactly what some aldermen will propose this Saturday. Instead of pitting areas of the city and residents against each other the council should be treating these projects as what they are; a continuation and a piece of an overall flood management plan for the entire city of Park Ridge. Let’s stop with the diversions and let’s assume our responsibility as a city for the health and safety of our citizens.
Frankly, we like the idea of aldermen advocating vigorously for their constituents. And we also like the idea of other aldermen and citizens – like ourselves YOU ARE SPECIAL CLASS OF CITIZEN BIG DOG, I’LL GIVE YOU THAT, BUT NOT A REPRESENTATIVE ONE BY ANY STRETCH– vigorously challenging that advocacy, especially when it smacks of private greed and class and/or regional warfare.
So we will take this opportunity to remind Ald. Milissis that NEVER (NOT MY CAPS HERE), we repeat NEVER (DITTO), has such a limited area of the City demanded the kind of expenditures and long-term bonded indebtedness Milissis is demanding for his constituents – other than the Uptown TIF. THE MAYOR SET OUT TO HAVE THE FLOODING ISSUES ANALYZED AND RESOLVED–BRAVO. THE ANALYSIS IS IN AND THE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED. NOW HE NEEDS THE COURAGE TO WALK THE WALK. YOU DID NOT COMPLAIN AS THE OTHER PROJECTS WERE BEING IMPLEMENTED. BUT YOU DO, AND LET’S BE HONEST, SHOW AN INORDINATE AND UNWARRNATED DISDAIN FOR YOUR GOOD NEIGHBORS IN MAYFIELD. TALK ABOUT “FIRING UP” FOLKS. NOBODY TRIES AS HARD AS YOU. JUST WISH YOU WERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY, LAW AND MORALITY ON THIS ONE.
How’s that one working for us, Alderman? NOW THERE IS AN “US?” WE THOUGHT IT WAS JUST YOU AND YOUR GANG AGAINST ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY ELSE WHO SUPPORTS MAYFIELD.
And NEVER, we repeat NEVER, has the City committed the kind of expenditures and long-term bonded indebtedness Milissis is demanding for his constituents – other than the aforementioned Uptown TIF. NO WONDER THE CITY FLOODS SO BADLY. IT’S ABOUT TIME.
Let’s be painfully honest, Alderman: what you are tele-marketing as a mere “continuation and a piece of an overall flood management plan for the entire city of Park Ridge” will basically hogtie and hamstring the City in addressing other pieces of overall flood management for the rest of the City’s neighborhoods and residents for the foreseeable future. THIS IS UNSUPPORTED NONSENSE AND YOU KNOW IT. What you’re proposing is nothing less than making sure your constituents win the race to empty what’s left in the public trough. YOUR ANALYSIS IS SKEWED TO CONCLUDE WHAT YOU PROMOTE. THE CITY’S ANALYSIS HAS BEEN EXHAUSTIVE AS TO MAYFIELD AND IT IS AFFORDABLE. IT IS THE MOST AFFORDABLE 100 YEAR FLOOD SOLUTION YOU’LL FIND PROPOSED. GIVE IT A REST, PLEASE. THE DEMPSTER HOOK-UP ONLY COMES AROUND AGAIN—OH, THAT’S RIGHT…NEVER.
And let’s be even more painfully honest, Alderman: You don’t want a referendum because you know you can’t sell such a fundamentally dishonest, unfair and profligate initiative to the rest of this community. THAT IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS A BALD-FACED LIE. A REFERENDUM IS THE INCORRECT DEVICE FOR THE MAYFIELD PROJECT AND YOU KNOW IT, DON’T YOU? And you don’t want SSA’s because many/most(?) of your most vocal constituents are shameless freeloaders NOW, WE’VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE BIG DOG. YOU HAVE A SHORT MEMORY. ARGUMENTS ATTACKING THE FUNDEMANTAL CHARACTER OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE DIFFERNTLY THAT YOU IS THE LOWEST FORM OF LOGIC AND YOU STEPPED IN IT AGAIN. who are counting on there being enough spineless aldermen HERE AGAIN, CASE IN POINT. to cave in to these demands and pay the entire cost – totaling as much as $100,000 per household – of their flood control. FAKE NUMBERS. USED TO MISLEAD. ONE OF YOUR FAVORITE TECHNIQUES. LIKE NEGATIVE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING. YOU DON’T MIND IF IT IS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE –SO LONG AS YOUR VIEWS WIN OUT.
.As we’ve seen with the financially disastrous Uptown TIF, once the bonds are issued and the money is spent, there’s no do-over. Once that debt service commitment is made, everything else must take a backseat to it – including the City’s ability to maintain its current level of services and to react to future challenges – unless the City jacks up its taxes substantially or watches its bond rating plummet.
Meanwhile, those residents directly reaping the benefit of all that debt and debt service can watch their property values rise dramatically as their homes lose the “we flood” designation YOU WOULD HATE THAT IF IT WERE YOUR HOME, WE SUPPOSE, RIGHT? THAT IS RHETORICAL BIG DOG. YOU WOULD ASK TO HAVE THE SEWER LINE MISS YOUR HOUSE. THAT’S THE KIND OF SWELL GUY YOU ARE. THAT IS SARCASM. I APOLOGIZE. SERIOUSLY. I APOLOGIZE. And when those new taxes get too high and/or our bond rating drops, they can pack up and sell their properties – and pocket the enhanced profits provided by their fellow taxpayers’ financing. HEADLINE: “CITY TAKES INITIATIVE TO PROTECT RESIDENTS THROUGH A LONGTERM COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY AGAINST RAVAGING FLOODS.” SURE, I CAN REALLY SEE THAT HURTING PARK RIDGE’S REPUTATION IN THE WORLD. SHEESH.
Do you really want to talk about “pitting areas of the city and residents against each other,” Alderman? YOU DON’T TALK ABOUT IT BIG DOG. YOU DO IT, OVER AND OVER AGAIN. PLEASE ARGUE FROM FACTS AND STOP THE NONSENSE LOGIC USED TO MANIPULATE THE WEAKMINDED. MY EXPERIENCE OF PARK RIDGE RESIDENTS IS THAT THEY ARE ANYTHING BUT WEAKMINDED. WORK ON THE HIGH ROAD BIG DOG. THE AIR IS CLEANER UP HERE. FREE YOUR MIND FROM ILL EFFECTS CAUSED BY THE BLACK MOLD OF POOR REASONING. (THAT IS A METAPHOR OF SORTS.) INTRODUCE YOURSELF NEXT TIME YOU GET THE CHANCE. I’M ALWAYS HAPPY TO HELP YOU BACK TO THE MAINSTREAM OF HUMANITY. 🙂

SCOTT

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you, Scott, you have proved to be a lovely, lovely witness to the mindset that is driving this money-grab.

Let’s face reality. The areas in park ridge that flood frequently are practically uninhabitable. No one wants to buy there and few want to stay given the flood problems. Let the city issue a bond to buy the nearly worthless flood zone property at eminent domain prices and then the areas into flood relief/park areas for everyone else in town. It’s like killing two birds with one stone. Flood relief and more public parks. On the cheap too! I’m totally serious.

,Anon 2:37 you’re a liar. Not a comment but a factual statement. I never promise something I know I can’t single handedly deliver. I’m not the only person voting on that council so I never would make that promise. What I said was the then council had a plan in place for us (see Burke study and prioritization of 10 projects) and I will do everything in my power to advocate that the proposed solutions be funded and completed. That is what I am doing right now. You’re also a liar about me handing out my number and telling people to call me if they flood. I would never underestimate or insult the voters of this ward by treating them like mindless simpletons who would think they could just call me and I would solve their basement flooding that day. My campaign materials had my number on there because I want residents to be able to reach me for any reason and because I take what I do seriously.
PW in the spirit of lent and upcoming Easter, I forgive you 🙂 I was honored to receive your endorsement and you know that I believe in fiscal responsibility, not spending OPM and in having government accountable to its tax paying citizens. However, I have to respectfully disagree and differentiate this from all the other fights you have fought on here over the years.
Contrary to your assertions these two projects (I only speak of the two that are up for a vote tomorrow) ARE smack in the middle of a city-wide flood mitigation plan. One that our Mayor and the previous council wisely voted on. Seven projects came before these two, two more are slated to follow these and this council should identify the next ten that should be completed to help the entire city. You and some aldermen choose to treat these differently merely based on the price tag. These are expensive projects but not prohibitive or detrimental to the city or any future projects the way you seek to portray them. The City’s Finance Director sent out a memo earlier this evening that for the first time provides hard figures on what these projects would mean to each resident around town and they, unfortunately for you, discredit your inflated figures. Let’s talk facts. The Mayfield project would translate to a $17 annual increase on the fixed sewer fee for every house in PR. The Northwest Park project would be in the $80 neighborhood. Both would mean $8 a month per house. Seriously? You want to tell the entire north side of the City to stay under water for $8 a month? Will $8 a month prevent any future projects from happening or bankrupt the city? Let’s stop diverting the focus and face reality. The city has the responsibility to help its citizens with infrastructure that protects their lives and property. Regardless of which part of the city they are in they are part of the city. If you don’t want to pay through your taxes for improvements at the other end of town then you shouldn’t be living in a city but in a compound in Wyoming drinking well water and siting on your porch with a shotgun yelling at people to get off your property. My taxes paid for seven other flood relief projects in different parts of town and I didn’t even think of complaining because I understand the concept of living in a city. Your main argument hinges on the price tag which given Oliven’s memo I think has fizzled. In the end if these projects get voted down there is absolutely no alternative or solution that you or some aldermen offer to these people. So you will continue to allow properties to be lost because you thought $8 a month was a money grab? Will you face the people the next time the water is coming through their front door and the ambulance can’t get down their street and call them freeloading money grabbers? I love you Dog but you’re way off the mark on this one.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Alderman: We appreciate your comments, but
“price tag” is a legitimate differentiating factor, whether it be between hamburger and steak, Chevy and Mercedes, or Oakton and Harvard.

If you really believe these are “expensive projects but not prohibitive or detrimental to the city or any future projects,” then provide a business plan the demonstrates how these can be done without substantially impacting the City’s ability to meet future obligations.

We’ve never argued that $17 charged to every house in Park Ridge is fair or reasonable, or unfair or unreasonable – we’ve argued that the people on whom you want to impose that $17 deserve a vote on it. Why are you and your constituents afraid of that vote, Alderman? Why are you and your constituents afraid of a vote on that $80 extra per household for the Northwest Park remediation. We are willing to let the voters decide – why aren’t you?

Pub dog I am of the opinion that a referendum is inappropriate for this matter. I am borrowing the below from a resident’s email sent to the entire council. “Referenda should be used for projects/processes that the entire community can take part in:

Examples:

Should we build a youth campus?
Should we create a metropolitan Wi-Fi network?
Should we impose term limits on elected officials?”

Nothing prevents the scores of outraged PR citizens that you are painting in your posts from placing a referendum on this November’s ballot. They have every right to do so and if they can organize and gather enough signatures they should. Residents in Winnetka have done just that with the same issue. if enough PR residents believe this to be the outrage you claim then it shouldn’t be a problem. The city has no business abdicating its responsibilities on something so basic as infrastructure to the voters at large and initiating the referendum in this case. Have we done a referendum before for the flood projects that have been completed and which benefited an equally small number of citizens as the ones proposed for Mayfield and Northwest Park? No. Should we do referenda for every other project to follow? Absolutely not. That is my opinion and that is why I believe a referendum only for these two projects now is discriminatory, patently unfair and inconsistent with what the city has done in the past.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have always taken the position that where a project significantly impacts the character of its location or the community as a whole (e.g., Uptown TIF, new Centennial water park) or involves a substantial expense and/or debt, it should go to referendum – even if only an advisory referendum – to gauge public support.

We would argue that the latter standard applies here, even though we can see how some might also argue for the former.

The bottom line, literally and figuratively, is that these two flood control projects – Mayfield Estates and Northwest Park, taken together – will impose a substantial, long-term economic burden on a City economy which, thanks to the incompetence of former officials, is already strained in making its current and reasonably foreseeable future obligations. Another $20 million of bonded debt without taxpayer support or a financial investment by the affected residents would appear to be irresponsible.

I have lived in Park Ridge since 2007 and have seen for myself (as you write, Watchdog) that whenever somebody wants something expensive that they know a majority of the residents don’t, they find excuses not to go to referendum. JUst since I have been here, there was the police station that the city council did not want to go to referendum but citizens pushed, Centennial water park that park district did not want to go and citizens did not push. And you, Watchdog, have written of ealier ones for Library and other parks and pools and Uptown TIF. I have flooding and am not in these areas and would like to vote on all flooding projects so that people like me know there will be money and bonds when it is our turn. Thank you.

To clarify, Anon 12:11 was me. I forgot to sign.

Having spent thousands of dollars of my own money for flood mitigation in my home (with limited success) in the Northwest Park area, I am disgusted by your characterization of me as a “victim” and “shameless freeloader.” Next time it rains hard, come stand with me on the corner of Dee Road and Birch Street, and help me help my neighbors pump water from their houses. Water that is there only because the City built a neighborhood without adequate storm drainage. Then call me a “freeloader” in front of my face and in front of my flooded neighbors.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Pretty tough talk from somebody who doesn’t want to sign his/her name.

But back to the point at hand: “the City” has never built any neighborhood, so your basic premise is false. Come back when you have one that’s true.

6:49:

You want money left over for your turn?? what do you want to bet that what ever is causing your flooding is:

A. Millions to fix.

B. Only affects a very small number of PR residents.

C. Probably both.

It is the same argument that is being made about these two projects. How does it feel to be a “shameless freeloader??”

EDITOR’S NOTE: 6:49 can speak for him/herself, but the distinction we see between him/her and you is his/her willingness to go to referendum not only on your flood project but on ALL flood projects – including his/her own. That makes him/her neither shameless nor a freeloader.

PD:

If 6:49’s flood control project ever goes to a vote, you (or someone else) will use the same argument you are using against Mayfield. The poster will, of course want the project to go forward but the reality is it will cost big bucks and will only help a small percentage of PR residents. Which means that for simply wanting to have infrastructure in their neighborhood than keeps their house from flooding they are…..a shameless freeloader!!!

If a resident wants the city to spend the money to fix THEIR problem, by definition it is in THEIR…..not yours or mine or 95+% of the rest of PR.

The numbers might vary. In some cases it will be less money and/or more people being helped. But the reality is that each one of these issues costs big bucks and only helps a few people.

If you look at the projects that already went forward, why was there no vote?? You seem to applaud the fact that the poster wants votes on EVERY project. Beyond that, what did these projects cost and who exactly did they help. As far as I have heard (I will be happy to be wrong) there is a question as to iv some of these projects have even worked. So it would seem a dollars versus people helped analysis on these projects would suck.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There was no vote on the projects that already went forward because they were relief sewer projects of the type the City has been doing for years, without refernda – at only a fraction of the cost of the Mayfield Estates, Northwest Park or West-of-Greenwood projects.

And, yes, We DO applaud anyone who wants a referendum on these kinds of expenditures, because that’s what the community deserves.

It seems to me that the alderman and people who want to push these projects through do not trust the their fellow taxpayers to support it, so they are trying to end-run those taxpayers. As you pointed out often, PW, that’s the same tactic that worked so well for the park district in avoiding a referendum vote for the water park.

Sounds like a theme to me.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The theme is: “We trust the taxpayers, but only so long as we think they will vote the way we want them to.”

I laughed out loud at your clever reference to the “lovely, lovely witness” from my fave movie. As I read the screed that prompted your reply, I was wondering what in heaven’s name you’d come up with. Shouldn’t have worried. You brought it, as usual.
But I must agree with Milissis on one point. There are far too many folks here who, if they had a Whole Foods and a decent school system, would indeed be happier in Wyomington with a shotgun on the porch. These folks would not vote for anything that helped their neighbors across town if it cost them, even $17 or $17 + $80 a year or whatever. The Youth Campus park referendum passed because there was a perfect storm of big money interests and great marketing skills. It’s unlikely that another, less sexy (in advertising terms) project would get the go-ahead via referendum, but that doesn’t mean infrastructure for a given area is a wrong use of public funds. Infrastructure is basic, man. I like the idea of an SSA but it could not reasonably be a 50/50 split. That would only work in the Country Club area that supported the Youth Campus park so successfully. Not in Mayfield. I also like the idea of eminent domain and turning the area into a park/flood plain, but the law requires homeowners to be compensated at fair market value, so even with the flooding that would cost the City a pretty penny. We need to address the problem sooner than later because if, as the Alderman says, there’s a wrongful death suit over an ambulance that can’t get to a house, it will cost us a nice percentage of the flood remediation fee, don’t you think, even if the problem is declared an act of God. I’m at the far other end of town with flooding problems of my own, but nothing on the Biblical scale of Mayfield. So I can see both sides. I hope against hope all stop the name-calling and just realize that frantic people are on one side and frightened people are on the other, and all deserve empathy. Self-interest is a natural trait, and the same self-interest that impels Mayfield/Milissis to freak out is impelling the other side to resist getting the bill. There are no villains here.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Are you suggesting that just because there may be “far too many folks here who…would not vote for anything that helped their neighbors across town if it cost them, even $17 or $17 + $80 a year or whatever,” those folks are too stupid or too unenlightened to deserve a vote on major expenses and major debt? That’s the kind of attitude the Park Board displayed in foisting an $8 million water park on those same taxpayers – without a referendum.

Living within one’s means is also basic, man! And if you don’t believe it, you haven’t been paying attention to how our formerly great state of Illinois has slid into the toilet under the governance of politicians who can’t seem to understand that basic rule. There’s no reason why the SSA COULDN’T be “a 50/50 split” – but it won’t be seriously discussed so long as the freeloaders think they can browbeat and intimidate enough weak-willed aldermen into giving them a freebie.

Those freeloaders might not be “villains,” but they’re a lot closer to it than the voters whom those freeloaders want to deprive of the right to vote on these matters.

Perhaps it’s too soon to say this, but let’s applaud Mayor Dave for holding ComEd’s feet to the fire last year over all the outages. We had much worse weather this year but I don’t think the problem was nearly as bad. Now watch, I’ll lose power before I hit “submit.”

I know even in ward 2 there are people upset at each others problems. The residents on Birch and the surrounding streets argue it is poor infrastructure that leads to their situations and point the finger at the Mayfield people who have built large homes with 10 ft basements when everything over there to begin with was originally built without basements on slabs due to the water. That whole area looks low to begin with.
I kinda agree a lot of these people brought problems on by themselves. I have talked to some and they say they have multiple pumps running 24/7. I also don’t think the upgrades will help these people that have literally dug themselves into a hole.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As we’ve written before, anybody who moved into that area after September 2008 was either being stupid or bargain-hunting – neither of which deserve to be rewarded with millions of dollars of debt to be paid for by the rest of the City’s taxpayers, unless those taxpayers vote for it.

So it appears this Saturdays meeting was all about complaining. In fairness to Mayor Dave, next Saturday morning let’s have a meeting for all the people in PR who have had their flooding issue resolved under his tenure.

After all prior to Mayor Dave, “our inadequate storm sewer system has caused many residents to lose thousands, and even tens of thousands, of dollars of possessions, including such irreplaceable things as family photos and mementoes. It also has increased the cost of their insurance and caused them a lot of time, effort and drudgery related to clean-up and repairs”–Mayor Dave

So all those residents who, based on something the city has done, no longer face these issues should give the Mayor a big thank you!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Why? That would be nothing but a distraction from the problem at hand – which is figuring out how many of the current flood control projects to do, and the fairest and best way to pay for them.

This discussion caused me to do a Google search and I could find nothing but the Uptown TIF project that involved so much money and so much debt that didn’t go to referendum, whether it be the city, park district, d-64 or d-207. So I conclude that Watchdog and the commentators who have said the alderman and Second Ward people who don’t want to go to referendum really are afraid of the results are right.

In my yout’ the homes in the Manor and similar areas did NOT have basements, so perhaps you have a point if mondo basements are being flooded in a flood plain. I thought the beef was more that water was filling the streets so that they were truly impassible (and impossible) and that water was coming into first floor rooms.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The beef is whatever will get them as much flood control and remediation as possible without them paying for it.

Distraction??? It would take under a minute and you could hold it in a closet.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And your point is what exactly?

That for the first time in at least 20 years a mayor and city council actually addressed the flooding problem? That they commissioned studies by a volunteer task force and by highly-paid consultants to come up with a comprehensive plan? That they found out, for the first time, just how much it will cost – but with no guarantees it will work? That given the City’s major financial problems Schmidt and this Council inherited from Frimark, Marous and Wietecha, and their rubber stamp councils, Schmidt and this Council aren’t jumping to mortgage the City’s future without the most careful study and deliberation?

Or did you have something else in mind?

I am currently spending $10,000 at my home on north Aldine for flood control. I am taking matters into my own hands to protect my property. Why should I now spend a dime more on city remedies that are too little too late? Forget that! Everyone should worry about their own property and those that don’t can just figure it out! And if you can’t afford the 10k to flood proof your property than I suggest you move to a less flood prone city. But don’t even think about asking me for any more money for flood control. Your not getting it from me!