Two items in this week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate, although seemingly unrelated, demonstrate why too many Park Ridge residents seem to be so blithely ignorant of what their City government is doing.
The first is an article titled “Despite cuts, Park Ridge City Council passes budget with $6.1 million deficit” (April 23, 2014), which reported the vote taken at this past Monday night’s Council meeting.
That headline is almost accurate, which is a good thing. And the article that follows almost accurately points out, in the third paragraph, that the $6.1 million deficit (actually, $6.0507 million, rounded upward to the nearest $100,000th) is the product of 61.7 million (actually, $61.6737 million) of projected revenue and $67.7 million (actually, $67.7245 million) of projected expenses.
But a reader needs to make it down to the tenth paragraph before beginning to be informed that the deficit is being created not from ordinary operations – the day-to-day business of keeping the City running – but from what amount to capital projects with long-term benefit, such as the $2.1 million deficit in the “Sewer Construction Fund” created by expenditures for sewer construction and improvement projects.
Such deficits, although sounding bad, can reflect the simple reality that expenditures for such capital projects tend to involve boxcar numbers that regularly exceed the amount collected for such projects in that same year. Often money is accumulated in a particular fund over several years, during which time that fund might post annual surpluses. But in the specific year in which, say, $3 million is spent for capital improvements, and only $1 million in taxes may have been collected for that fund, it appears that the City is deficit spending by $2 million – which it is, but only in an apples-to-oranges sort of way.
But as we pointed out in our last post, that’s not really explained in the budget summary provided by the City’s Finance Director. And it’s not explained in the H-A article. So the average reader is left with the literally accurate but functionally ignorant misimpression that the City is planning to overspend its income by $6.1 million in the coming fiscal year.
The taxpayers are owed a solid, clearly-understandable OFFICIAL City explanation of why the Council just passed a new budget with a $6.1 million deficit. And they are owed that explanation by the Finance Director; by the City Manager, who is responsible for overseeing the Finance Director’s work; and by the Mayor and the City Council, who are responsible for making sure that the other two well-paid guys do their jobs properly.
And that explanation is already OVERDUE, because the Council already has approved the budget and misimpressions have already been created.
The second dose of ignorance is provided by a letter to the editor from prolific letter writer Jack Spatafora.
Titled “Park Ridge lucky to be where it is” (April 23, 2014), Spatafora’s letter attributes whatever success Park Ridge is experiencing – “today’s happy constellation of new supermarkets, food specialty shops, upscale restaurants, and pedigree school faculties” – primarily to its “being in the right location at the right time,” rather than to the efforts of “our hard-working City Council.”
We previously called out Mr. Spatafora on his ignorance of local government matters in our 08.14.09 post. Since then (as best as we can tell) he has stayed within his happy-talk “those-were-the-days” wheelhouse and left the business of local government to the folks who do it, and to those who actually care enough to pay attention to and inform themselves about it.
Too bad he couldn’t have left well enough alone, because the existing level of public ignorance about local government needs no enhancements.
We may not agree with the views and decisions of some of our current and former elected City officials, or with their philosophies of government and local public policy, but Spatafora’s dismissal of them and their efforts as virtually irrelevant to whatever good things may currently be happening in Park Ridge demeans both those officials and their efforts. And perhaps even worse, it could be viewed as effectively excusing the lazy and boneheaded efforts of mayors and councils past.
For example, we actually agree with Spatafora’s “right location at the right time” characterization for Whole Foods (assuming that’s one of those “new supermarkets” Spatafora places in his “happy constellation”). But without the hard line taken by Mayor Schmidt and the previous Council – Alds. Sweeney (1st), DiPietro (2nd), Smith (3rd), Raspanti (4th), Knight (5th) and Maloney (7th), with then-ald. Tom Bernick (6th) MIA – against the demand by developer Lance Chody for tax revenue sharing, the City would be out $2 million of sales tax revenue.
Similarly, only by the aggressive and sometimes-painful efforts by Schmidt, the previous council and the current Council to cut expenses and reduce deficits, while keeping annual property tax increases at less than 4%, has Park Ridge been able to keep itself a place “where people want to be.” That most certainly would not be the case had the City chosen, instead, to maintain its former spending habits by 10% annual tax increases, an extra 1-2% local sales tax and gasoline tax, and/or even higher licensing, parking and permit fees.
Park Ridge had the same location during the 1990s when the City – under then-mayor Ron Wietecha and a bunch of bobble-head rubber-stamp Homeowners Party aldermen – stagnated. That led to last decade’s “don’t-just-stand-there-do-something” boondoggle of the Uptown TIF and the $20 million-plus faux-“investment” handout to Uptown developer PRC that has jackpotted City finances ever since.
After almost two decades (1990 – 2008) of City government done wrong, we’re finally starting to see some of the positive effects of City government done right. But those are the product of plenty of hard work and sound decision-making by our elected City officials.
Not simple geography or serendipity.
To read or post comments, click on title.
25 comments so far
As a longtime resident of Park Ridge I completely agree with everything in this post. For years I could not understand City finances, in part because they were not available to the average resident. Since Schmidt became mayor that has changed with the meeting materials posted on the City’s website.
But more can be done to make the information clearer in summary form rather than pages and pages of spreadsheets.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes it can, and yes it should be. But unless the Mayor and/or the Council demand it from City Mgr. Hamilton, who then demands it from Finance Director Oliven, it ain’t gonna happen – because bureaucrats, even highly-paid high-ranking ones, rarely do more than what is demanded from them.
I agree on the public ignorance…it’s what got our lousy Mayor elected a second time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Dear Abby:
We know sour grapes when we hear them. We’ll assume that in last year’s mayoral election you were supporting the candidate who got 348 votes LESS than then-incumbent mayor Howard Frimark got against “our lousy Mayor” in 2009, while that same “lousy Mayor” got 712 MORE votes than he got in 2009. So maybe it’s time you considered the possibility that you don’t really represent the majority of Park Ridge voters – as you’ve made clear from your comments to our 04.04.14. post made on 04.05.14 @ 9:20 pm; and on 04.07.14 @ 2:23 pm, 6:41 pm, and 7:23 pm.
We’re guessing you’re actually unhappy that Schmidt and the current Council seem to be slowly getting us out of the deep economic hole that past City administrations dug for us, while still maintaining essential City services.
If that. Passive-aggressive is a lifestyle. And since it’s not overtly defiant, a pretty successful lifestyle.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you, Dr. Phil/Phyllis.
The public ignorance is not helped by the journalistic ignorance. Major aspects of local stories are either way misinterpreted or completely missed. As an example, see this article from the Journal & Topics: http://www.journal-topics.com/news/article_60dab908-cb20-11e3-8649-0017a43b2370.html It’s about the library, but that’s not why I’m suggesting you read it — we’ve beat that subject to death here on Public Watchdog — it’s property taxes in general.
The reporter gets completely wrong the method by which local governments collect tax revenue from property owners. In sympathy, most residents probably assume the same thing as the reporter assumed: Property values determine what a homeowner pays, and whatever amount all homeowners pay determines the budgets for Crook County, the City of Park Ridge, School Districts 64 and 207 and the Park District.
Actually, folks, it’s the other way around. All those taxing bodies set a budget, and the Cook County tax collection machinery goes and gets it from all homeowners, regardless of whether property values have increased or decreased.
Now, if your property’s assessed value increases more than most of your neighbors’, your tax burden goes way up. If your property’s assessed value holds steady or even goes down, you will stay pay the same or more because the taxing bodies are all setting budget increases of 2-3% per year.
I pay for public services because we all need them. My viewpoint isn’t so much “small government” as “limited government” — and across Illinois, there seems to be no such thing. No limits. Just keep increasing budgets every year and keep on squeezing the taxpayers. How? Keep ’em uninformed.
There’s only one antidote, folks. Get involved. Ask your elected officials what’s going on. Show up at some meetings. Comment on a blog, comment on the local press websites, write letters to the editor. Otherwise, when your property tax bill arrives, and it’s higher than the year before — you really have no basis to complain.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Amen, FWT.
Two posts, so not to be all over the place.
First:
Article states : “The taxpayers are owed a solid, clearly-understandable OFFICIAL City explanation of why the Council just passed a new budget with a $6.1 million deficit.”
Is this a Nancy Pelosi, “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill” kind of excuse by the city council/mayor?
Throughout budget workshops and other council meetings, was the city council blindsided? We have MBA educated professionals on the Council, so you are saying they are confused?
Lastly, the CM and ultimately the Finance Director have jobs that can be taken away by the mayor/council. So any product of their achievement/failure is directly on our elected officials.
EDITOR’S NOTE: What about “The taxpayers are owed…” don’t you understand?
We are not suggesting that the Mayor and the Council don’t know what they voted for, nor are we saying they do. But unless the information is presented in a way that’s understandable TO THE TAXPAYERS, the TAXPAYERS have no good way of determining whether their representatives have gotten it right or have “screwed the pooch” (per “The Right Stuff”).
No, the only employee the Council can fire (as we understand it) is the CM. But, yes, if our elected officials accept ineptitude, obfuscation, deception and “aggravated mopery with intent to gawk” (per Mike Royko) from City Staff, then THEY should be held accountable for the sins of those Staff members.
FWT:
Your last paragraph is a wonderful sentament, but in PR??? Are you kidding me??
I may as well hope one of my daughters old fairy princess books is true. I mean you did see the voter participation figures from the recent election, right??
You expect people to show up at meetings when an overwhelming majority of PR is unwilling to take 10min out one. (or rarely two) day a year to vote?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We suspect FWT might have a different response to your comment, but our response is simple: Do you want to throw in the towel on 225 years of our Constitutionally-mandated republican form of government because too many Park Ridge “citizens” are too damn ignorant, too damn stupid, too damn lazy, or too damn apathetic to exercise their rights and discharge their obligations as citizens?
Because we don’t.
And not throwing in the towel in response to ignorance, stupidity, laziness and apathy is the single most important reason why this blog was created in December 2004, and why it has been been maintained ever since.
Post 2, which is still related to the above, since there is a “placeholder” in the budget for flood spending. There is also seemingly consensus by the city council to spend HISTORICAL amounts of money on a couple areas to lessen flooding.
I am FULLY expecting a complete takedown of this city council and mayor if they don’t go to referendum for the historical flood spending that is going to be spent. Is it strange that ONLY Alderman Smith is the one who agrees with the editor on SSA’s?
Every “referendum” pool article or comment can be deleted if you are not consistent and take this council to task for not have the guts to bring flood.
There have been over 100 comments on virtually $60,000 of spending to go to a library referendum. But, to spend us into debt for 20 stinkin years without a referendum is OK?????? Jeez, I am absolutely confused as to what is going on.
Hey, where’s Paine? I fully also expect Paine to tear down Mayor Schmidt for seeking loans from the Illinois EPA. Because, why should a “plumber from Peoria” guarantee a loan for a country club resident.
Here’s me knowing that hypocrisy will prevail by the pro-council commenters.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re not sure we understand what you mean by “spend HISTORICAL amounts of money on a couple areas to lessen flooding.” Nor do we understand what you are “absolutely confused” about. Nor do we necessarily agree that “ONLY Alderman Smith…agrees with the editor on SSA’s [sic]” – although we do tend to re-visit any opinion of ours with which Ald. Smith agrees.
But we do believe that this Mayor and this City Council will raise serious questions about their competence and their grasp of public policy if they appropriate funds and/or undertake debt for actual flood control above and beyond the historical standard; e.g., relief sewers.
And, pray tell, What exactly is wrong with Park Ridge “seeking loans from the Illinois EPA”; and how is “a plumber from Peoria” GUARANTEEING an IEPA loan?
But, hey, here’s a revelation for you: if you’ve got a beef with the IEPA loan program, take it up with State Sen. Dan Kotowski ([email protected]) or State Sen. John Mulroe ([email protected]) or State Rep. Marty Moylan ([email protected]) because THEY – not Schmidt or the Council – are the folks who can propose legislation to curtail or eliminate those loans.
Out of almost 38,000 people who live in Park Ridge, only around 9,500 people voted in the 2013 Mayoral election. So, no I do not represent the majority-the majority stayed home!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Dear Abby: Nice try, in a clueless (or illiterate) kind of way.
Try to stay with us on this: After we recited the respective vote totals for Schmidt and his last two opponents, we wrote: “So maybe it’s time you considered the possibility that you don’t really represent the majority of Park Ridge voters….” Not “Park Ridge registered voters” but “voters”; i.e., the 9,019 who actually cast ballots in 2013, or the 8,655 who actually cast ballots in 2009.
Dear anon at 9:59 a.m.,
The publisher’s answer was good enough for me.
Dare to dream. You are way too cynical.
Kind regards,
5th Ward Taxpayer
CW,
Why would I “tear down” the Mayor when from what I can tell the application for the IEPA $233K grant was submitted by Mountcastle on behalf of the park district? Is there some other loan I don’t know about, submitted by Schmidt? But to answer the larger question, I voted “NO” on that referendum and completely oppose the joke of a “park” they are going to attempt to build and operate on that site, so it follows that my opposition includes ALL costs to taxpayers, including the $750K IDNR grant and the IEPA one if they get it. I might have voted yes had the referendum offered a choice to buy the land at a reasonable price ($3-5 million) to leave as is. In that case I would have to consider any grants that were approved for that aquisition on their own merits.
It’s not that I am 100% against state grants, but when one of the wealthiest towns (in the top 5% by per capita) treats these things like free toy money to spend on stupid projects, I find it offensive. The recent $841K state grant for sidewalk renovations not only cost the residents an additional $570K, but actually lowered the attractiveness of that stretch of Prospect in my opinion. I liked it better when their were actual trees lining the street instead of little saplings. I know trees are considered somewhat of a joke whenever I bring them up, but they are the ONLY feature of this town that still differentiates it from a complete joke of a town like “The Glen”, save for maybe our cool vertical street-name posts. Oh, and the $59K mental health grant that either police chief Kaminski or Shawn Hamilton botched the approval process for seems about as important for the town’s functioning as a grant related to nuclear/biological/chemical weapons training for the PR police department.
Finally, regarding your point about flooding, the last I read Ald. Millisis was the only one really pushing for it as a justifiable expense to take on. I would be shocked if saner minds like Knight were suddely onboard with the idea, because he certainly wasn’t back in January:
“Fifth Ward Ald. Dan Knight said he isn’t trying to stop any of the projects, but can’t approve them until he knows their costs and how the city will pay for them.
City officials should already have provided estimates for 20- or 30-year bonds, he added.
“I think a lot of what you said was disingenuous,” Knight told Milissis.”
(Source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-14/news/ct-park-ridge-committee-of-whole-nnw-tl-0116-2-20140114_1_flood-control-northwest-park-flood-control-projects )
EDITOR’S NOTE: What we believe CW is referring to is the possibility that the City might finance flood control through loans available from/through the IEPA.
5WT,
My optimistic hope is that the same people who take the time to vote would increasingly be the ones to spend however many hours it takes to read through the endless PDFs of budgets, expense charts, real world data, etc. The end result would be that over time we may not be living by the choices of the absolute majority, but we are living by the choices of the educated majority.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Paine, the key to this is that it shouldn’t take “hours…to read through the endless PDFs” etc. Staff should be putting it into summaries, narratives, bullet-points, etc. that the average citizen can read and digest in 15-30 min, MAX. All the charts, graphs, etc. should be available should the citizen want to drill down or verify (and the summaries, narratives, etc. should be footnoted to facilitate such verification), but its the summaries, etc. where the rubber meets the road.
And Oliven’s budget summary Memorandum, presumably approved by Hamilton, fails miserably in that respect.
There are over 26,000 registered voters in Park Ridge 1/3 voted…again…the MAJORITY stayed home. And if the election were today..your guy would lose.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Dear Abby:
Please re-read the Editor’s Note. Move your lips if you have to, or consider reading it out loud if you won’t be disturbing anyone.
The subject of that Note was the 62.06% majority of votes actually cast for Mayor Schmidt by “Park Ridge voters” – because the roughly 17,000 registered voters who didn’t vote in April 2013 don’t represent anything other than ignorance, stupidity, laziness and/or apathy.
And if wishes were horses, you’d be riding a donkey.
Abigail Pinckey wrote: “Out of almost 38,000 people who live in Park Ridge, only around 9,500 people voted in the 2013 Mayoral election. So, no I do not represent the majority-the majority stayed home!”
The editor responded: “EDITOR’S NOTE: Dear Abby: Nice try, in a clueless (or illiterate) kind of way.
Try to stay with us on this: After we recited the respective vote totals for Schmidt and his last two opponents, we wrote: “So maybe it’s time you considered the possibility that you don’t really represent the majority of Park Ridge voters….” Not “Park Ridge registered voters” but “voters”; i.e., the 9,019 who actually cast ballots in 2013, or the 8,655 who actually cast ballots in 2009.”
Well that’s a fascinating response Mr. Trizna. First of all, where is the illiterate part of Abby’s comment? Or for that matter clueless. It seems a pretty good point. When discussing the count of voters who voted for mayoral candidates (which you brought up, by the way), she found an approximate number for the population, and the numbers of votes for each candidate. So even taking into account that there are 26,000 registered voters (yes, I’m using the term “registered”) in Park Ridge, it would seem that there were still a good number of people who chose to stay home rather than vote for either candidate.
Now I know you like to insinuate your high level of intelligence by questioning the intelligence of people who disagree with you, but really? You were unable to answer that comment without such an over the top opening salvo. Again, that says more about you then the person your throwing digital darts at.
To the question of lousy mayor, come on now, we all know that many politicians can win an election but turn out to be a crummy public official. I think Dave Schmidt has adequately proven his credentials as a lousy mayor.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ms. Enright:
When either you or Dear Abby find any Constitutional provision, statute, or ordinance that mandates the decision of elections by votes not cast by those ignorant, stupid, lazy and/or apathetic “citizens” who can’t be bothered by even the most minimal of civic duties, do not hesitate to enlighten PW’s readers.
I’m happy to allow Dear Abby’s comments, and yours, to speak for themselves regarding your respective knowledge and intelligence on these issues. Frankly, that’s why I’m delighted you keep commenting.
By the way, I never commented on your post from 4-14-14. Besides, I’m not sure how I could posted as you state below (unless I time traveled). Think twice about calling someone else illiterate.
“So maybe it’s time you considered the possibility that you don’t really represent the majority of Park Ridge voters – as you’ve made clear from your comments to our 04.14.14. post made on 04.05.14 @ 9:20 pm; and on 04.07.14 @ 2:23 pm, 6:41 pm, and 7:23 pm.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ouch!
Guess that typographical (04.14.14 instead of 04.04.14, which has now been corrected) is proof positive of this editor’s illiteracy. Well played.
Bottom line – the mayor and the council need to demand more from the GM and his underlings and associates. Since I know the mayor reads here, and at least some of the aldermen, heads up guys, the lack of transparency and clarity on this issue is unacceptable.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We agree. But if you want “the mayor…and at least some of the aldermen” to really know how you feel, you can show up this Monday night at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. and tell them so.
If PubDog collected a nickel for every typo readers have submitted, he’d be able to help out with the sewer project. To the reader who would have paid $3 million to leave the Youth Campus property “as is,” why? Abandoned buildings attract vandalism and are unsafe for curious kids. A park requires planning and a certain amount of installation and a lot of upkeep. Unless you want it to be an overgrown haven for drug dealers? Your idea of retail revenue, perhaps? I didn’t vote for the referendum either, but leaving the property untended would be the definition of wasteful. And what’s with all the “joke” references to Park Ridge trees? Granted, ComEd does a jaggedy job of trimming around wires, but the only trees that are taken down and replaced with “saplings” are diseased and/or dead trees that are contaminating other trees and are a potential danger to the public; or if completely unavoidable, for needed public improvements. Park Ridge is a designated “Tree City USA” and everybody from Mayor Dave on down are committed to keeping it that way. You have heard of Dutch Elm disease? That took the cathedral elms that used to make Prospect from the Country Club to South Park so lovely in our youth. And now we have the Emerald Ash borer taking out more stately old trees on our parkways. Arborists say maples may be in danger next. So with Earth Day in mind, let’s be a little more responsive to reality, eh?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Hmmmmmm…you didn’t vote for the Youth Campus Park BUT you sure sound like you’re defending it.
We’re all for trees. Think how many the taxpayers could have purchased with the $8 million the Park District spent (most of it borrowed) the Park District committed to the Centennial water park without asking the taxpayers whether that’s the way they wanted that much of their money spent.
I remember the Marty Butler era, where Marty and his Homeowners Party had a vision for Park Ridge that most residents bought into. Wietecha, Marous and Frimark either had no vision or couldn’t get buy-in from most residents but they buried the city in debt.
Schmidt and the Council have done a good job of coping with the mess those other guys left behind, and one result of that is how a leaner meaner city government looks to have become slightly more attractive to business. The idea that a community our size has options like Jewel, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and Mariano’s is impressive, especially when only Trader Joe’s was given any kind of taxpayer subsidy through the Uptown TIF. Now if only we could get at least one more big revenue raiser, like another car dealership or something substantial in that underused Mr. K’s property on Higgins, or the old Tom Noe-Napleton property across Greenwood from the Jewel.
EDITOR’S NOTE: From your mouth to God’s ear re those two properties.
6:17,
I happen to like the trees in this town more than waterslides, paddle tennis, “improved crosswalks”, etc. so the “joke” to me is that people keep cutting down healthy, mature trees as they pretend to “improve” the town (ie: Centennial Park, Prospect Uptown, and soon to happen at the YC park).
There’s not much point in more what-ifs about the YC park, but between selling the land to a developer and doing a $20M+ build-out, there could have clearly been a third option that cost the town less and was more in line with the OPL groups faux-emotional pleas to “honor the legacy of the Youth Campus” and “save the last bit of green space in town”. Let’s see how much green space is left once this is built: http://goo.gl/cCQCMB
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Park Board wasn’t about to gamble on passing the Youth Campus Park referendum on just a “preserve green space/no more mega-mansions” campaign, so they loaded it up with as many “special interest” features as they could fit that would appeal to other constituencies and get their buy-in – kind of like a local equivalent of an omnibus appropriations bills in Congress. But at least they had the decency to go to referendum, unlike with the Centennial water park, so we aren’t going to criticize the perfectly legal referendum process.
Ignorance about government is the biggest problem this country has, but I find it disappointing that it is so rampant here in Park Ridge.
I read both local papers and the Tribune, and it seems from talking to friends and neighbors that I know far more about what is going on than they do, so they must not be reading anything. But what I learn from this blog about the topics it features is 5-10 times what I learn from the newspapers. Even when I do not agree with you opinion, the information you provide and the thoughts you provoke are well worth the read.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you. We do our best with the tools we have.
Oh my god this is funny!! Now you are giving the credit for WF, Mariano’s and Trader Joe’s?!?!?! Good lord TJ has been there a hell of a long time and the budget was (and is) still a mess back then). By the way that space is essentially apart of the development.
So on the one hand we laud them with praise for doing nothing related WF. We throw that out there as a reason that we do not need a new position (that Mayor Dave apparently still supports by the way). We laugh at the task force…..”hahahhaah, see, WF came here and we did not need anything special”. We celebrate doing nothing!!!
But now 10:00AM states…”Schmidt and the Council have done a good job of coping with the mess those other guys left behind, and one result of that is how a leaner meaner city government looks to have become slightly more attractive to business”……hysterical!!!
Look, I am glad that that our elected officials have been focusing more on the budget and spending. However, to make the connection you made in your post is simply, well….it’s a joke. That is why TJ came here?? This council was not even here when TJ came here. I am not even sure how long the Mayor was in office when TJ came here. Was he even elected yet??
EDITOR’S NOTE: We assume the quote to which you are referring is: “The idea that a community our size has options like Jewel, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and Mariano’s is impressive, especially when only Trader Joe’s was given any kind of taxpayer subsidy through the Uptown TIF.” We don’t read that, nor do we think it can reasonably be read, as “giving the credit for WF, Mariano’s and Trader Joe’s” to anybody in particular – other than perhaps to the former mayor(s) and council(s) that effectively subsidized TJs through the Uptown TIF boondoggle.
Not surprisingly, you’re dead-bang wrong about Mayor Schmidt and the pre-May 2013 council “doing nothing related to WF.” They said “no” to the WF developer’s demand for $2 million of sales tax revenue sharing, for which they were royally barbecued by many of the retail geniuses on the Economic Development Task Force whose strategy for attracting retail to Park Ridge apparently is bribery – to the tune of $2 million, in WF’s case.
Want to know what I think is funny? Those commentators who preface their comments with how funny a post or some other comment is.
As I think PW has written on more than one occasion, the things that are “funny” about local government are the ones you laugh about in order to keep from crying.
I don’t think this mayor and this council are perfect, or close to it. But as someone who moved to Park Ridge in 2000, the current administration is a damn sight better than anything that came before it. And it looks like it is going in the right direction.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yeah, that amuses us, too.
As you so often insist, one doesn’t have to have been in favor of the Youth Campus acquisition to concede the public’s decision. Or are you the only one who gets to stop whining after the call is made? And as painful as it is to those living alone in laptopville, there are a lot of young families in Park Ridge who want a post-1950s pool, a few shops, and various other bells and whistles. There are also a few geezers who understand that not being entirely shopworn, outdated and penurious will help keep discretionary dollars in Park Ridge rather than sending them to nearby suburbs. You don’t have to buy this argument. It will happen sooner or later, with or without your consent, or mine.
EDITOR’S NOTE: So tell us why those “young families in Park Ridge who want a post-1950s pool, a few shops, and various other bells and whistles” are entitled to get their hearts’ desires at everybody else’s expense, without referendum?
I find it hard to believe that everyone wants a type of pool that’s being built for Centennial PK.
If that’s the case (quoting what one of my uncles said) We’re spoiled.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Actually, we think the water park they are building is a cheesy, second-rate version of what was originally planned, but it’s all they could get for $8 million. And $8 million is about all they could spend without going to referendum. And since there was no way this director and Park Board were going to go to referendum on a water park, a cheesy second-rate water park is what we’re getting – and what we’ll be paying off for the next 15 years or so.
Kind of like our second-rate community center that was too small the day it opened its doors but, once again, was designed and built to avoid going to referendum.
See a pattern?
Now I do since you’ve pointed it out.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s why we’re here.
Or, one might more reasonably, not to mention charitably (oops! Dirty word!) opine that the Community Center and the Centennial Pool 2.0 were planned at a “second-rate” size, hold the cheese, because it’s what Park Ridge could afford. You’d prefer that the perfect be the successful enemy of the good, but not all of us agree. Good enough is sometimes good enough. If it were up to you and yours, there’d be none of the above. Nor a whole bunch of other amenities, either.
EDITOR’S NOTE: A majority of voters last April thought we could afford a $13 million-plus Youth Campus Park, so what makes you think that wouldn’t have voted for a $10 million or $12 million water park? You know, the one with the “lazy river” the Park District originally included as central to the design, and the feature the greatest number of respondents to the Park District’s survey said they wanted.
When it comes to big expense and/or big debt and/or doing something that will have a signficant, long-term impact on the community, we and ours always favor referendums because the best way to find out what people – and are willing to pay for – is by letting them vote on it. Unless, of course, you’re one of those bureaucrats who think they can justify a bigger salary if they spend more money and expand their empire; or elected officials who believe the people voted for them are geniuses who reverted to idiots immediately after the election and are not qualified vote on referendum questions.
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>