Yesterday’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate contains what might best be described as the “manifesto” of the Park Ridge Ministerial Association on bringing a PADS homeless shelter to Park Ridge (“Ministerial Association reports on choice to move PADS to St. Paul’s,” June 12).
That the PRMA sees the need for such a public relations/propaganda effort suggests that the vocal opposition to its heavy-handed and arrogant decision is registering with at least some of that group, and maybe even its co-conspirator, PADS to HOPE, Inc. It may even suggest a concern by the PRMA about rumors of a backlash that could start showing up in the collection basket – or, perhaps more accurately, not showing up in the collection basket.
We encourage everyone to read that essay and give it some “critical thinking” not only to what it says but, more importantly, to what it doesn’t say. And just to get that ball rolling, here are a few of our “critical” questions and comments:
* The proposed St. Paul location is “[a] short walk from a public transportation hub, along a primarily commercial pathway.” If the Park Ridge shelter is supposed to serve the Park Ridge homeless, why exactly does it need to be near public transportation? Unless, of course, it is actually intended to serve a homeless contingent commuting into Park Ridge from elsewhere, as the PADS critics have been contending.
* The proposed St. Paul location will provide “[a]dequate space for 20 overnight guests.” Weren’t we being told only weeks ago that the Park Ridge PADS shelter was only going to house 10-15 homeless? Is this the first sign of the “bracket creep” that PADS critics have been warning about?
* PRMA members are pushing the PADS shelter in the face of community opposition because they are “people who have experienced God’s incredible compassion and undeserved love in [their] own lives.” Are they suggesting that they’re the only people in Park Ridge who have had that kind of religious experience? Can you say “holier than thou”?
* PRMA members are “motivated because [they] know that, as [they] follow the way of Jesus, [their] efforts make a real difference in the lives of those who suffer and are in need.”
Are they suggesting that those who oppose the homeless shelter or who are critics of PADS are not following “the way of Jesus”? And what about any atheists, agnostics or non-Christians in the community: should they be forced to accept “the way of Jesus” – and the homeless shelter that apparently comes with it – without any say in the decision or even the process?
* PRMA members are “motivated and determined because [they] look forward to joining with others – both inside and outside the churches – to be part of the solution to the region-wide problem of homelessness.” Once again, wasn’t this supposed to be addressing the Park Ridge homeless? The shelter isn’t even open yet and it has become a “region-wide” one? Isn’t it time the PRMA finally was upfront with us and told us exactly what kind of “solution” it intends to deliver to the people of Park Ridge? Because it’s sure starting to sound like PRMA’s “solution” will be nothing more than the typical one-night-stand flophouse that the PADS “chain” has been running for years.
* “The Park Ridge PADS initiative is, above all, a ministry of the churches in Park Ridge.” What kind of religious “ministry” is run by a secular, 501(c)(3) corporation that gets more than a third of its annual revenues from various governments and has no formal religious affiliation of any type?
* PRMA members “welcome a partnership with the city administration and the city as a whole as we together respond to the needs of people in and around our community.” What kind of “partner” tells its fellow “partner” (i.e., the “City administration”) that the latter’s zoning ordinances are inapplicable? And what kind of “partner” tells its fellow “partner” (i.e., “the city as a whole”) that the latter’s legitimate concerns and opinions don’t really matter?
* PRMA members “urge and invite the entire Park Ridge community to share [their] vision of the kind of people and city we can be.” Are we currently not the kind of people, or the kind of city, we should be – simply because we don’t have a PADS shelter? And if we don’t choose “to share [their] vision,” what justifies them shoving that “vision” down our throats?
* PRMA members “invite and urge our public officials to see this initiative as laying the groundwork for a healthy new era of cooperation in tackling the social problems that trouble our community.” Will the hallmark of that “healthy new era” be a group of un-elected clergy dictating to both the government and the citizenry what to do, and how to do it?
* PRMA members “invite and urge those who remain unconvinced or opposed to a PADS site in Park Ridge to join with [them] in civil and respectful conversation as [they] move forward” with their plans for the PADS site. By “civil and respectful conversation,” do they mean their telling us that they are going to put in a PADS shelter whether we like it or not? Does it mean their telling us that they don’t need to comply with the City’s zoning laws by going through the Special Use Permit process?
* PRMA’s “vision is that Park Ridge would be a community of vitality and caring, prosperity and compassion.” We’re pretty sure that most residents share that vision, but why is PRMA trying to make it seem as if putting in a PADS shelter to attract the homeless from other communities in this “region” is the only way of achieving it? And shouldn’t a big part of that “caring” and “compassion” be directed first and foremost to our current taxpaying residents who don’t want a PADS shelter here?
* PRMA members “realize that [they] haven’t always done the best job in providing timely information to the community” and they “apologize, and…promise to do a better job going forward.” That sounds a lot like the cynical and increasingly popular (unfortunately) philosophy of “we’d rather ask for forgiveness than for permission” that we get far too often from our politicians and government bureaucrats. Should it be any more acceptable coming from our clergy?
We conclude by noting yesterday’s Park Ridge Underground piece on this same topic, which sports a photo of St. Paul of the Cross pastor Fr. Carl Morello doctored to look like Napoleon. Morello is quoted as saying about opponents of the PADS shelter: “I will listen to them, but they won’t alter my decision to go forward with this.”
That sounds a lot like “hearing but not listening,” Padre. And if that’s your attitude, why waste their time?
44 comments so far
I have plenty to say on this issue, but for now I will leave you with this: PADS claims it is a NW suburban organization, and that it needs a Park Ridge site to fill in a “gap” in coverage between Des Plaines and Evanston.
Listen folks, I lived in Evanston for 13 years before moving to Park Ridge five years ago, primarily to get away from what PADS now intends to import into my adopted home town. The biggest folly of the PADS claim is that Evanston is NOT and never has been a northwest suburb. Not even close. I know. I got on a train once that I thought was going to Evanston and ended up in Arlington Heights. Different train, different part of the metropolitan area. Check the map if you don’t believe me. So PADS is not filling in a “gap” in the NW suburbs. They are using Park Ridge to EXTEND their zone beyond Des Plaines.
My message to PADS: let’s have an open and honest discussion about the shelter and resolve this through the special use permit process as the City’s laws require AND THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS. (See World Outreach Conference Center v. City of Chicago, No. 06 cv 2891 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2008)(Andersen, J.)). But quit feeding us obvious inaccuracies about geography.
Thanks for the questions and comments, Watchdog, although I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for any response from PRMA or PADS. Fr. Carl’s quote pretty much sums up the only attitude I’ve seen out of that bunch. So much for “cooperation.”
UH….question, has the city recieved an official proposal from SPC or PADS yet?
That is the problem Underdog. If someone proposes something, the proposal can be accepted or rejected. In this case, that acceptance or rejection (or acceptance with conditions) would come from the special use application process. However, certain Park Ridge elected officials do not believe St. Paul’s needs the City’s approval to open a shelter. Ipso facto, there is no need for a formal proposal. What is happening instead is behind-the-scenes maneuvering involving the church and those certain elected officials. That amounts to a terrible disservice to the community.
Alderman Dave:
I reach the same conclusion as most who post on this board. If their were a vote on this matter I would vote know. Having said that I am very frustrated by all the arguments that are used to back up that ultimate position. Help me out here because there obviously some things I do not understand.
Why is an open and honest discussion with PADS in order? Doesn’t that discussion have to take place with PRMA, St. Pauls and the city? I am not as involved in this as you are but didn’t PRMA invide PADS to make a proposal and then select them? Is it not PRMA and St. Pauls who has taken the position that they do not need a special use permit? Is it not the city who may or may not buckle under?
I am not here to defend PADS. I agree with some of the concerns that have been expressed here. But I also think that all this noise avoides the real issue. The real issue is who PADS attempts to service. They service THE HOMELESS. Not only the homeless who I think are worthy of being helped. Not only the homeless who I believe have a reasonable chance of being integrated back into the working community. They service all of them who are willing to follow the proceedures they have in place( yes, I know there are and will always be violations of these proceedures). It seems to me this is the main issue. The idea is that this will increase the number of homeless in Uptown, parks,increase crime, put children at risk etc. Either you want to take that risk or you don’t.
PADS could address all the other concerns but as long as their model of helping ALL the homeless remains the same the there will still be loud objections. Put in the form of a question, Is there any homeless shelter that services all the homeless, that you believe would be acceptable to be located in Park Ridge.
Anonymous on 06.13.08 12:53 pm:
I’d support what somebody said the other day, a Park Ridge homeless shelter for people who lived here before they were homeless. If every town took care of its own, there would be less of them traveling around to towns where they have no connections and less abilty to pull themselves out of homelessness.
You ask alot of questions, and I do not pretend to have all the answers. As I have said before, I do not believe PADS is a viable solution to the homeless problem because, as has been pointed out by others, PADS does not transition many people out of homelessness, they just shuttle them from one suburb to another. And now they want to make Park Ridge one of those shuttle stops. In fact, we do have social service agencies in Park Ridge and Maine Township which service the needs of the homeless and others who are not as fortunate as us. Perhaps the best solution is to give those agencies more resources. The money and volunteer time that are being proposed for a homeless shelter could be used there, hopefully with far better results than PADS has shown.
However, the issue I am addressing here is not really whether St. Paul’s should or should not open a shelter. The issue I am addressing is what process should be required before that decision is made. I firmly believe that the special use application process resulting in a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission is the ONLY fair and reasonable means for resolving this conflict.
I’ve been a practicing Catholic all my life but now I’m pretty much being told by my own pastor that if I don’t like what the PRMA is doing with the homeless shelter I’m not really a good Christian? Rubbish! Why Fr. Carl has involved himself in this charade and the PRMA is beyond me, but if I wanted my pastor playing politics I’d head down to St. Sabinas.
I believe we have the PADS people posing as PR residents here, not that we mind, just don’t think you are fooling anyone. If you want to ask a question just ask it and we’ll gladly give you our honest opinions.
Such as… as this has unfolded, many here have discovered that with this program there is administrative “support” that PADS provides, there is training that PADS provides, there are signed agreements with the city and PADS and there is funding requests that will come from PADS. So why on earth would there NOT be an open and honest discussion with the Community the City and PADS. In spite of what some believe, the church does not speak for the community at large, we are prefectly able to speak for ourselves. And if we wish to have a say or a question about a program that will be looking to run in our community, we should be provided that opportunity. If PADS is the program they claim to be, than an open and honest dicussion should really be no problem. However, I have doubts about ANY program who hides behind a church to fight the fight of the community, the “noise” if you will, and sits back and read the blogs and posts as one of us. Have a nice day!
Alderman:
I am 100% behind the special use permit and a public hearing. The entertainment value alone should be worth it! I just think that it is PRMA and the City who will or will not get that done. PADS has nothing to do with it. The issue is that they service the entire homeless community.
Also I have a different take on your “PADS does not transition many people out of homelessness” and therefore they are not viable comment. I do not think this is necessairly a reflection of PADS doing a bad job or being a bad program. I think this goes back to what I said above – who PADS attempts to service.
If you had a shelter that targeted only homeless who were employeed, but whose home had been forclosed, on you would have a much higher “transition percentage”.
PADS services all of them. You can find a varying percentages of the make up of the homeless community but I think we would all agree that alcohol and other additiction issues represent a significant percentage (25-30%??). Anyone who has a family member and or friend who has struggled with addiction issues (come on, I know you are out there) would know that the percentage who successfully put together any long term sobriety is estremely low. If you include this group as a part of your target you are going to completely screw your batting average. My experience with mental illness is less then with addiction issues but I would imagine the same issues would apply. Mental illness represents a significant portion of the homeless community and they are not easily transitioned out of homelessness.
So again, I would say that it is not an issue of PADS doing a bad job (they are far from perfect)or that if they made imporvements it would somehow be acceptable.
This it’s true that PADS is primarily shelter for the mentally ill and addicts, then this just keeps on getting better: We’re not going to be getting just the homeless from other towns, we’re going to be getting their impaired homeless. With that kind of “bonus,” why is PRMA stopping with just one shelter?
THank you, sir, may I have another?
Addressing “Anonymous” on 06.13.08 12:53 pm,
You asked, “Why is an open and honest discussion with PADS in order? Doesn’t that discussion have to take place with PRMA, St. Pauls and the city?”
My answers would be the same for any business that wishes to open in Park Ridge, especially if the accessory use of the property is something other than its original intended use; that business must be subject to review through the Zoning Board. Just as Christie’s Carousel of Learning was subject to review through the Zoning Board, even though it too is a secular business seeking to reopen in the Presbyterian Church.
Yes, Journeys from PADS serves the HOMELESS, and they do that as a secular business, which also receives a large part of its funding from government sources. Like it or not, they are a business. Like it or not, they use unpaid volunteers and church facilities donated to their business. Like it or not, they should be as subject to community oversight and business practrices as any other business, whether a “not-for-profit” agency or otherwise.
Yes again, the issue is very much the fact that the secular PADS business serves the HOMELESS; a population that by its very nature does, in fact, bring elevated risks to the community.
It is our City officials that MUST see to it those elevated risks brought to the community by that business are properly vetted, addressed, and managed.
Personally, I think PADS wants to avoid any public hearings because they do not want to have to answer the uncomfortable questions that have been posed about their business.
The PRMA members want to avoid public hearings for a different reason, not the least of which is not having to be subject to community oversight, when they so choose to make a claim of “religious expression”. That is why, on the one hand the PRMA and others said not a word about the City demanding that Christie’s Carousel of Learning meet the special use permit requirements, but are now seeking to make a claim of “religious expression” regarding PADS.
Both PADS and the PRMA are wrong.
You are not the only one frustrated by this process. There are those who find the Orwellian double-speak infuriating.
Anon at 144. Glad I got the discussion going. I am not sure if you are saying that PADS need not be involved in the special use application process. If that is what you are saying, I am afraid you are dead wrong. PADS is the organization that runs these shelters and has the primary responsibility for background checks, training and supervising volunteers and taking care of saftey issues. They absolutely need to be vetted by the public through the public hearing process. Their competency to take care of these important issues and the problems which PADS shelters are allegedly experiencing in other localities can and must be explored.
“If a pickpocket meets a holy man, he sees only his pockets.”
Hari Dass Baba
Alderman Dave, you cheated, you looked at my answer. (1:44 pm):~)
Thank you Alderman Dave. While at this point you may not be the only one thinking the way you do, thank you for coming out publicly in support of upholding the city’s zoning ordinances and looking to require the special use process for SPC and PADS.
On the other hand we know that the pathetic current 5th Ward Alderman Ryan has already come out against requiring the process be enforced for SPC and PADS and he did this via a letter the Mayor (proudly?) read at the City Council meeting where SPC stepped in to take the shelter at their church. How Alderman Ryan knew so immediately that the process need not be required is a topic for another day but suffice to say there are many in the Ward who are dismayed at his position and his conduct on this whole PADS matter among many other issues.
As for the Mayor… he is a Chicken Little, running around town all a twitter over the possibility that the city could be sued. And against that threat by SPC (and the Archdiocese?) he has completely folded. What a great leader we have… NOT.
Thanks again Alderman Dave… for doing your job… for representing not only your Ward but the City of Park Ridge so well… we can only hope that others will take notice of your example an follow suit.
Great minds think alike, Take.
Hey Future 5th Ward Alderman! You don’t have to wait for the future – the seat’s already vacant.
Alderman Dave,
Your interpretation of the law is just that an interpretation. I see it differently than you and yes, my opinion is also interpretation. You use a church needing special use to build in some northern suburb of Chicago, on currently unused land, as support in your position that PRMA shelter site will need one as well. The difference is there will be no construction or new structure built in PR in order to provide shelter and therefore the church in PR is simply providing another ministry within their already existing facility already zoned for religious purposes (which shelter is defined as). You claiming the agency needs to go through the special use process because they are a 501(c)3. However, the agency is not purchasing, constructing or renting space…it is simply helping a church and a group of volunteers carry out their ministry and they are helping by providing free administrative help to the church. Now, I too have to agree with a previous blogger who said the question really is…does PR want to serve the homeless in their community? Someone mentioned that there are already non-profits that could serve this population if PR just funded them more. Maybe we should ask Center of Concern or the Youth Campus or Maine Township or Maine Center if they would like to serve the street homeless population by providing shelter and supportive services and then go from there with that suggestion. They are not serving this population because it is not their mission to do so. They serve different populations and if they wanted to expand to address these chronic needs, I am certain they would have done so already. Homelessness is not easy, pretty or something I want to deal with on a daily basis. I want to educate my kids about this life situation but I don’t necessarily want them to be negatively impacted by it. I want to donate items to not-for-profits but I don’t necessarily want to volunteer serving the homeless. Everyone has a comfort level with this stuff and many people including myself are challenged with…do I want to risk doing these good things in my back yard? It is a hard question. I just wish we would stop twisting stuff around to win the fight and Alderman Dave I think you are doing people a disservice by continuing to do so.
Alpha:
We are in agreement on most things. As stated earlier, I am completely for the special use permit. I would love as a referendum the whole town could vote on.
What I was trying to say, apparently unsuccessfully, is that the whole issue as to whether a permit is required is between PRMA/ St. Pauls, and the city (with significiant and loud input from “we the people” letting out thoughts be known). It is PRMA/St. Pauls who has taken the position that no permit is required. It is up to the city to either require it or buckle.
You say PADS wants to avoid a public hearing. While this may be so (it would certainly be easier for them), but I have not read or seen PADS take a position on this issue either way – I may be wrong on this as is often the case. If the City decides that a permit and hearing are in order I am sure PADS will be happy to participate and answer questions. I am equally sure we will not like the answers.
Where we differ is that I find it hard to harbor any resentment towards PADS. I, like you, can find faults and areas for imporvement with the program. They are an imperfect program serving an imperfect community.
But I would submitt that they could address every issue that was within their control and as long their model was to service the entire homeless community, the “elevated risks to the community” would still be there. That to me is the real issue.
Alderman Dave et al:
We have to seperate issues here:
1. Is a permit and hearing required? The parties involved need to resolve this. Who is making the claim that no permit is required? That would be PRMA/St. Pauls. Who needs to decide? That would be the city.
2. If a permit is required then of course PADS would be subject to complete questions and a complete review of their proceedures as a part of deciding whether a permit would be given.
I was in no way saying that PADS does not need to be reviewed.
As we hopefully move toward requiring a special use permit, wouldn’t it be prudent to require that those voting disclose their religious affiliation? Aren’t conflicts of interest commonly revealed at City Council meetings?
Hello Sell Out, or should I say Ms. Beth Nabors…back again? You truly are a slow learner…
Anonymous on 06.13.08 2:55 pm, see above for contentions and position being taken by a Journeys/PADS representative.
Sell Out-read Judge Andersen’s opinion and then get back to me. I didn’t interpret the law, he did. Know the facts.
Am I missing out on the available spy where? Do we know that the above poster was in fact Beth Nabors? Did we trace it? Was she silly enough to Post from the PADS/Hope URL?? Jeannine, please accept my apologizes if you have infact traced the post back to Beth but, if not, can we stop accusing anyone who posts anything even slightly different then the general opinion of the blog to be “one of them”. People are against, and for that matter for, the PADS issue in varing degrees. People, even lawyers, have different opinions on case law. That does not mean they do not add something to the dialogue. Do I have to be against PADS to post here or do I have to be really, really, really against PADS. If we all had exactly the same opinion then we would be…well….cable news.
Well sell-out, You say Pads is providing free andministrative services to help the church further it’s ministry. Hmmmmm, with all that’s been said so far at various meetings, that’s not really how it’s been presented. Perhaps at a minimum, you are providing free volunteer training in exchange for free rent from the church along with the free labor “volunteers”.
You see it’s not Alderman Dave who is twisting things but in fact it is the PRMA and PADS who has twisted and changed their stories around at every turn. If this in part is why there is such a desire to require a special use from SPC and PADS and that special use means bringing questions about the actual fact twisting to light than by all means, let’s do it.
Also it is fact that legal opinions or interpritations are mearly that, then you should also know that more and more the courts are favoring local municipalities over issues pertaining to what constitutes a “minisry” and what would be considered a social service that requires outside assistance who collect fedral funding. Just because one screams “ministry” doesn’t make a ministry.
Also when the Clergy askes for forgivness,and begs for community support and City partenerships somehow the “it’s our ministry” loses it’s validity. It’s a social service agenda with a social service business attached and that my friend most certainly under our city code, is a recipe for a special use.
Anonymous on 06.13.08 3:34 pm:
Sell Out’s daytime internet address is from Palatine. Sell Out’s evening address is from Arlington Hts.
I stand by my visual trace routing.
Your apology is accepted.
oppppps!!! My face is red!!!
To Anonymous on 06.13.08 3:34 pm and all others who post on this site:
As we have written before, this site encourages free – and free-wheeling – debate on the issues, irrespective of viewpoint. The opinions of “one of them” and “one of us” are equally welcome.
Anonymous on 06.13.08 3:45 pm,
No need for you to be red-faced…you don’t appear to be the one posing as something you are not, a resident of Park Ridge.
Are we having fun or what?!?!
I am. I LOVE public discourse. It’s this behind the scenes stuff I cannot stand.
Oh Jeannie, I think you scared her away.
I guess if you want to draw out a snake you light the grass on fire.
Booya!
By the way, how do you think she came up with the name SELL-OUT? Some sort of “Freudian” issue?
Nope not scared away just went out for the night and nope not pretending to be someone other than myself. More than Beth Nabors may possibly have IP addresses from the communities you reference. Many wireless computers have IPs from towns other than where they are in use. Just for clarification, it depends if I am on my stationary computer or lap top that decides the IP address not day or night. I also did not ever state where I live I ststed where I worked. Now again, just because I do not agree with what seems like the majority on this blog does not mean I am somehow misrepresenting myself. If we want debate than great if we want simply to create a group of followers than keep slamming anyone who poses a different perspective.
A fraud is what you are…on all counts.
So we are trying to sell the coincidence factor are we? Uh…..ok….we buy it. You just keep selling out and we’ll continue to debate.
Funny…intellect tells you that…AH has over 80,000 residents, PR has over 30,000 residents, Journeys has over 3,000 volunteers and there are dozens of people who have been vocally for and vocally against the shelter (on PWD, in public meetings and on the PRU blog site). Then there are people in the community of AH, PR, and surrounding towns that are for or against serving the homeless in PADS Shelters who are less vocal but may jump on the blog now or then. The PR shelter debate has tons of people coming out of the wood work. Some who want dialog, some who just want to watch and listen, some who like to stir things up for the sake of doing so. This blog is created to stir up issues and give a forum for discussion. Those you are continuing to say are somehow spying on the discussions (Can someone actually spy on a public domain?) may or may not be doing so but this is a public domain – as put by the PWD themselves – so all are welcome. However, curious minds and conspiracy theorists did attempt to “spy” by working with the runners of the blog to try to uncover IP addresses to try to pinpoint computer location of those commenting on the site. Irony at its best. The blogs referenced provide for commenters to comment anonymously or announced. This allows for people to be open without fear of retaliation. So, are we wanting to hinder peoples ability to share their opinion by saying…hey, if we don’t like what you are saying lets find out who you are are call you out? Or, when we find out what town your IP address is coming from do we then assume who the commenter is? If debate is what is desired then the issue at hand is a shelter in PR. If debate is not desired then continue on…have a “sunny day“!
Again, you are a fraud…pretending to be something you are not.
You came to this forum attacking a representative of Park Ridge residents. Your phrasing was designed to give the impression that you too are a stake-holder in Park Ridge, but with a different point of view than what has been written and vocally expressed by Park Ridge residents opposed to your Journeys/PADS nonsense.
PWD can officially address anything it chooses to regarding your participation in and attempt to influence this public policy discussion.
I will continue to call you a fraud, because that is exactly what you are.
I believe what has been mentioned here is that we believe you to be someone other than who you represented yourself to be. “Spy” seems a little paranoid.
What blogs alike are designed to do is allow anyone and everyone who has a point of view, to share that point of view. When one enters a discussion or in this case a debate, do it without the facade of being something or someone that your not, to… how did you put it.. win the fight.
If Pads is what you represent and dialog, discussion, or debate is what you want then do it. My impression is that perhaps you may not be secure enough in your arguments or answers to any questions that anyone here might seek. That may even be the reason that your comments thus far have leaned toward Pads not being required to be part of the special use process, as that would put Pads in the open and honest public hearing process.
Jeannie Jeannie Jeannie, Pads is a stake-holder in P.R. With the 5 or so pads sites that have shut down they need to open a site in P.R as a source of funding from both H.U.D. and us.
Silly Girl!
oooOOOooohhh, well that changes everything…NOT!
pppppfffffttttt!
😉
Wonder why they shut down the other sites?
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>