Just saw this. How fast a year goes by. What a great mayor and even greater guy. I hope our city government stays his course.

I moved to Park Ridge just in time to vote for Mayor Dave in 2009, and I am proud to have supported his re-election in 2013. His common-sense approach to government, especially finances, puts the current presidential candidates of both parties to shame, as did his demeanor.

It makes me sad to think about his being gone, but I do smile when I think how fortunate we were to have had him if only for that short time.

Respectfully many of us don’t agree here Bob with your slobbering love affair towards this city council. Yes….it was sad to see Mayor Dave go before his time. Yet….when you use words like integrity while comparing the current city council….I don’t agree. Keep propping them up Bob. The country club republicans continue to amaze us all. Just how many bottles of red can be heard rattling at garbage pick up day…..Talk about ego !

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ah, sniping at others’ “integrity” without enough integrity of your own to even identify yourself – and then throwing in a little class warfare on the side.

And how ironic that one of those previous councils that neglected the City’s infrastructure and buried us in the disastrous Uptown TIF debt the current Council is still digging out from under, had at least four (of 14) Country Club members – Crampton, Frimark, Disher and Marous – while this one has only one: Shubert.

I agree they are “THE most transparent and accountable local governmental body (like being the best hockey player in Peru) but they are far from perfect.

I would be curious to hear your HITA rating for the way the handling of the recent Talcott/developer issue.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We believe the Planning & Zoning Commission AND the City Council were out and out wrong on 400 Talcott.

But as we understand it, virtually all of that decision-making occurred in OPEN session, including certain aldermanic remarks about dragging out the process through appeal contrary to the City attorneys’ opinions – which the developer’s attorneys correctly seized upon to make the City drop the appeal.

That’s exactly what HITA’s all about.

5:49, are you saying the Country Club members and red wine drinkers should not be able to hold local office? Wow.

Excuse me but the final decision occurred in closed session, correct? Also, while I guess a definition of integrity and honesty is subjective. If you look at the Mayors tap dancing quotes in the paper (gee I thought the about stalling I hardly find that fitting what I would call honesty or integrity.

So the majority voted against the city attny price was good) and the alderman’s comments opinion in an attempt to drag out the process to financially penalize a small business person and voted to finally give up behind closed doors based on a discussion we never had a chance to hear…..but that is what HITA’s all about!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re not about to “excuse” someone who anonymously makes erroneous comments.

Error No. 1: The “final decision”” did NOT occur in closed session, although it was preceded by a closed session at which we suspect the City Attorney told the Council in no uncertain terms that the City very well could be penalized if it pursued the appeal.

Error No. 2: Someone like John O’Flaherty, who can afford to pursue the development of a four-story, 22-unit residential buildings at 400 Talcott while also building the multi-unit project at 20-30 S. Fairview and projects elsewhere in the Chicago area, is NOT EVEN CLOSE to “a small business person.”

If you’re going to be somebody’s lackey, at least get your facts straight – and have the H.I.T.A. to sign your name.

Thank you for pointing out to 1:44 pm that they misunderstand the meaning of “small business person” and that the developer of 400 Talcott and the 18 properties at 20-30 S. Fairview which have an asking price of $559,900 fails to qualify as one. It is a lame attempt to garner sympathy for a developer who deserves none-particularly after he chose to sue those who spoke out against his development at 400 Talcott.

5:04:

I stand by what I said about the developer being a small businessman. That does not mean I am comparing him to the owner of a store in Uptown but rather that I am comparing him to other developers/construction people.

In other words, this guy is not a Magellan Development who probably has their own general council and god knows how many lawyers on staff. If the Talcott issue came up for them it would not even be a blip. If they lost they would simply write it off.

The developer in this case had to borrow money to buy that property and he took that risk based on the zoning rules that were in place. Unlike large developers, the interest and property taxes on that property was real money to this guy. If a delay was not a big deal to this guy why did the alderman (at least one admitted it) try to delay as a tactic?

As for sympathy….well just call me a softie but I do have sympathy for business people who follow the rules end up as a target for local government. All the evidence is there. They were going to try and screw this guy even though he followed all the rules…..but why would we have sympathy for that??

What I find so funny is that from I have read here over the years I would think the majority who come here would go on about “too many regulations” and “too much government involvement”. Apparently that only applies to things you agree with or benefit you. If you disagree you love nothing more than government improperly interfering on your behalf.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We had no opinion on 400 Talcott other than (a) the Zoning Code was screwed up for permitting it, and (b) the City – P&Z and the Council – screwed up for rejecting it. And those are the points we made in our posts of 10.02.14, 11.15.14, 12.22.15 and 02.09.16.

Maybe O’Flaherty isn’t Donald Trump, but he’s far from a small business man – which should have been obvious from his hiring of prominent land use attorney Ronald Cope of the 700+ attorney international law firm of Nixon Peabody.

So whose lackey are you?

HITA is Mayor Dave’s legacy, as is the fiscal responsibility that HITA encourages. I have to believe that if Dave Schmidt, either as mayor or alderman, was around back in 2001-2005, we would not be saddled with that Uptown TIF debt that was pushed through without publicly-available meeting materials and televised/videotaped meetings, leaving only Betty Henneman’s sanitized meeting minutes from which to try and figure out what happened.

7:43 pm-your sympathy should be directed at the neighbors who are going to have to live with this development and the unwanted negatives it will bring. This developer cares nothing about these people or this neighborhood and cares only about lining his own pockets at other peoples expense.

EDITOR’S NOTE: True enough, but if the developer complies with the Code requirements then he can’t be faulted. If the Code requirements are bad, blame the folks on the Zoning Re-Write Task Force who wrote them, or the former city council that approved them a decade or so ago.

“This developer cares nothing about these people or this neighborhood and cares only about lining his own pockets at other peoples expense”.

This quote is a perfect example of why there are code requirements in the first place. No matter what someone puts on a given property someone is going to cry about it…..too big…too small…..doesn’t fit the area….wrong color.

The developer followed the code….period. If I decide I want to build a new house in PR and I go through the design process and follow the code and the rules(size appearance etc) to T, should my project be denied just because the neighbors don’t like the design or the color of the brick??

So you make the guy who followed all the rules the villain. As PD pointed out, what about the folks who wrote and approved the zoning code?? How about the people who live in the neighborhood? Should they not have guessed that the empty gas station would eventually be developed property? Did they attempt to lobby their alderman or the council for a change in the code??

By the way 1:36, I too “line my pockets”….it is called making a living, working, having a job. Isn’t that something we celebrate here in PR??

This terrible evil man saw a gas station that had sat empty (or was used to park limo’s) for god know how many years. To be blunt is was a freakin’ eyesore!! He did some research, invested some time and money, developed some plans and thought he could develop that property, legaly and within the guidelines or the code, and make a profit….put food on the table….maybe help to pay for his kids education….college…..maybe a vacation.

What on earth did you want him to do?? “well I know this is all completely legal buy maybe I should knock on every door in the neighborhood just to make sure it is OK with them?”

9:22 – why stop with putting food on the table, helping pay for his kids’ education, or taking a vacation? He might have used his profits to buy a Bugatti Veyron, start a hedge fund, donate to Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign, or open a P.A.D.S. shelter.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Bugatti Veyron v. PADS shelter might be a tough decision.

Lining your pockets at someone else’s expense is not “making a living”. Making a living involves a livelihood where there are two willing parties where both can claim they received some form of benefit.

The people in the area around 400 Talcott are likely not willing parties in this matter as evidenced by the fact they spoke up against the development at city meetings. The developer then sued them because they expressed their disgust with the proposed development in this location.

These neighbors will likely see their property values drop, increased traffic and noise and perhaps even flooding. Maybe some of them will think a multi story mixed use facility is also an eyesore. Certainly not a win for many of the neighbors.

And please spare us the line of “he is trying to make a profit…put food on the table…pay for his kids education…college.” This developer stands to gross over $10,000,000 on the properties at 20-30 S. Fairview alone. If he can’t figure out how to make a profit, put food on the table, and save for college he has no business being in business.

EDITOR’S NOTE: So it’s “two willing parties…[receiving] some form of benefit” that you’re looking for? Fair enough.

How about the develper and the City – the developer getting his millions and the City getting extra tax and permit revenue PLUS compliance with its Zoning Code? Or the developer and each purchaser of one of the developer’s condo units?

$10 million gross profit on 20-30 Fairview?
WhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAt?

18 units are going for what?, less than $500k each?
The guy paid what?, something less than $2 million for the property?
Then he sorta had to build the 18 units and the 3 commercial spots, right?

So… show your calculation for how in the world the guy is going to make a $10,000,000 profit.

Seriously…that’s ridiculous.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We thought so, too, but we decided to stick with the takes-two-to-tango issue.

12:46:

Thank you!! 10 mil is crazy but it shows the mind set of this person. The developer is the enemy ,period,even if they follow the letter of the law.

This is the same person who accused me of a “lame attempt to garner sympathy”. They are making a lame attempt of making this developer into a filthy rich multi millionaire.

But to be clear, it doesn’t make any difference if he is worth 5 billion. The project is legal and within code.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly!

“The developer then sued them because they expressed their disgust with the proposed development in this location”.

By the way. The only reason the developer sued is because the city denied his project even though it was completely legal and within code. The developer sued because he now owned a property and was liable for all associated expenses, like property taxes, and could not move forward with his project. The neighbors were named as a part of that law suit.

If the city had not incorrectly denied the project the law suit would never have taken place. If the attorney advised naming the neighbors I would have done the same thing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: It looks to us like the City – both P&Z and the Council – pandered to the neighbors instead of enforcing the Code as written, however screwed up the Code provision(s) may have been. That was just bad government which, fortunately, the Council realized before it got any further down the wrong path.

Hopefully both the P&Z folks and the Council learned a valuable lesson. From the sounnd of things, however, the neighbors have not.

Wasn’t for code amended so that someone like the 400 Talcott can’t do what he did. South Park is zoned for commercial space on ground floor and dwelling units above the ground floor. It was never intended and never written in the code that ground floor should have residential uses. Look at the rest of South Park. Commercial space ground floor and apartment upstairs. This developer pulled a fast one and the court went for it (don’t trial courts get things wrong too based on the number of appeal decisions that have reversed trial court decisions?). No way should have a 95% residential building be allowed in sigh park which always has been intended to house commercial building to foster the written intent of the B-1 district.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The barn door was closed only after the horse ran off. So, no, this developer did NOT “pull a fast one”: he complied with the then-existing Code provisions.

“This developer pulled a fast one and the court went for it (don’t trial courts get things wrong too based on the number of appeal decisions that have reversed trial court decisions?)”.

So 6:09, you argument is that every “expert” or attorney with experience in this area as well as a judge were all completely wrong, and that you (and the neighbors who complained) in fact know the real answer??

Keep in mind that those saying the city was wrong and the developers plans were legal included OUR lawyers….the lawyers that are paid to represent the city with our tax dollars. So I guess they all got together to “pull a fast one”.

Delusional: adjective: maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness.

I’d like to know why the property sat vacant for so long?

Same with the Higgins Ave property at Prospect.

The bank at Talcott & Prospect was an exercise place and was vacant for more than 10 years before the bank went in.

Also why is Village Green have empty?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Taliban?

5:35:

Gee you have a good point. I mean it’s a great location for a frozen yogurt shop!! Better still…how about a nail salon!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Su-shi. Su-shi.

9:32am
Every lawyer said developer was right? Several lawyer/residents said otherwise. And you are banking on the opinion of the city lawyers that were terminated by park ridge city council? The new attorneys were stuck with what the terminated city attorney’s left in their wake.
The footprint of this new building is all residential parking with a tiny 1400 sq ft store front. Read the b-1 definition and tell me how residential parking on ground floor fits?
I read the briefs the terminated city attorneys filed and it left much to be desired no wonder the new attorneys didn’t want to touch that appeal of that woefully inadequate trial court record.

And attorneys getting something wrong?! Heaven knows that never happens?! In each lawsuit there are half the attorneys that end up getting it “wrong” and a judge agreeing with one side -then on appeal sometimes a panel of judges/lawyers sometimes disagree with those that purportedly got it right at the trial court level …then …stick with me..sometimes a further appeal goes up to a larger panel of judges/lawyers and those “experts” sometimes disagree with the trial decision and or the intermediate appeal court decision.
So …yes …the terminated lawyers got it wrong by allowing the majority of the ground floor of a b-1 building to be residential parking (subject to the lesser density b-1 parking requirements) and they didn’t give the full picture to the judge who got it wrong as a result and the new city attorneys said we can’t add anything new to the record already submitted so since don’t make us appeal.