The Napleton $2 Million Secret.  According to the Park Ridge Journal’s Dwight Esau, the Park Ridge City Council is making sure the tax incentive deal it’s handing to Napleton Cadillac is “done right.” (“Still Hammering Out Napleton Deal,” Jan. 9)  If you enjoy government giveaways of your tax dollars to one of Mayor Frimark’s political contributors [pdf], or relied solely on Esau’s reporting, you might even fall for that propaganda.  That’s because nowhere in his story does Esau mention that the “deal” embodied in the recently drafted “Sales Tax Rebate Agreement”[pdf] can give Napleton as much as $2 Million in sales tax rebates over 15 years – in addition to the $400,000 of “Environmental Reimbursement” by the City for demolition and environmental clean up costs of the former Cadillac site at the corner of Northwest Hwy. and Meacham so that Napleton can sell a “clean” site to Park Ridge Corporation, LLC (“PRC”) for the construction of more multi-family (as in “higher density”) residential units. 

Frankly, we don’t believe for a minute that Napleton would pack up and leave if it doesn’t get this $2.4 Million windfall.  It’s already open for business at the old Tom Noe site, and the local identity and goodwill it has established in Park Ridge over the years has got to be worth more than that.  But we can’t really blame Napleton and PRC for asking for, and accepting, the sweetheart deal City Mgr. Tim Schuenke, Mayor Frimark and his Alderpuppets seem willing to toss their way.

So is this deal truly being “done right”?  Absolutely…if you’re Napleton and PRC.

Shrinking Violet?  When she was sporting her purple ribbons and railing about those evil new “Democrat” aldermen back in 2005, nobody would have accused C.U.R.B.B.’s Judy Barclay of treating any of the local politicians who displeased her with kid gloves.  So we were surprised that her letter, published in yesterday’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Citizens predicted traffic problems,” Jan. 10)[pdf] warning of the dangers of Uptown’s residential density creeping into the neighborhoods surrounding Uptown, failed to name the “elected and appointed officials…with the dubious distinction of having voted for all the [zoning] exceptions on all of the developments.”  That sure doesn’t help in the never-ending battle to hold our officials accountable for their actions.

We applaud Ms. Barclay’s stand on increased density and share her concerns.  But isn’t her failure to name names the same kind of political pussyfooting that not only seems to have rendered C.U.R.R.B. pretty much an ineffective paper tiger in curtailing the higher-density condo developments, but also failed to inspire the voters of the 5th Ward in her campaign for alderman last April against condo-hugging, density-loving Robert Ryan? 

Which One Is It?  As the City Council continues to hide out in closed session meetings while interviewing several prominent and expensive Chicago law firms to decide which one we will enrich for investigating the Park Ridge Police Department (before or after Chief Caudill is forced out the door by the mayor?), the City’s Community Information Coordinator (“Hey City Hall, how about some truth in advertising by calling it ‘Chief In-House Propagandist’?”) is reporting that residents “are responding pretty favorably to the police department” in a survey that has been sent out since September (“Public Safety Board To Examine Police Survey,” Park Ridge Journal, Jan. 9). 

So…is it the survey that’s the waste of money, or is the investigation going to be an even bigger waste of money?

The Carousel Goes Round And Round.  We here at Public Watchdog are huge fans of citizen involvement in local government, including the writing of letters to the editor.  So we applaud Park Ridge resident Timothy Janes for writing a letter printed in yesterday’s Herald-Advocate (“Weigh the choices on possible lawsuits,” Jan. 10)[pdf], in which he appears to argue in favor of the City permits needed at the new site of Christie’s Carousel of Learning (Park Ridge Presbyterian Church) based on which of the parties to the dispute – Christie’s owners and customers, or the neighbors opposed to the relocation – stands to recover the most money in whichever lawsuit might be filed.

Frankly, Mr. Janes, we don’t have a dog (pun intended) in this fight.  But basing government policy decisions on who might collect more damages if they file and win a lawsuit against the City seems pretty wrongheaded.  And although we’re not municipal lawyers, we understand that something called governmental immunity would likely prevent the City from paying any damages at all for good-faith exercises of its legislative discretion.   

But our suspicious minds cause us to wonder why, after 25 years, St. Mary’s Episcopal Church gave Christie’s the boot.  We also wonder if there is any truth to the rumor that this dispute really boils down to money – the money Christie’s is saving by relocating to another church rather than a higher-rent commercial property, and the money its customers are saving through lower tuition.