Park Ridge Alderman James Allegretti and the consummate Park Ridge insider, prominent local attorney Jack Owens, are leading the charge for a billboard company that wants to put four 80-foot billboards on the west end of Park Ridge, along Interstate 294.
Whether that’s a good or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. In the case of Park Ridge City government, the “opinion” that matters historically has been that of the members of the City’s Planning & Zoning Commission (“P&Z”). But Allegretti and a majority of his Council chums are trying to change that. And “Mr. Insider” Owens is more than happy to help them.
Presumably, Owens is being well paid to change the City zoning ordinance for his client, billboard company Generation Group, Inc. And as Allegretti constantly reminds us, he is poorly-paid to represent the residents of Park Ridge’s 4th Ward.
But if Allegretti is going to keep on accepting his $100/month to sit in one of those nice chairs around the City Council horseshoe, we would expect him to be something more than a lackey for special interests like Generation Group.
Or was it just a coincidence that Generation Group, Inc. contacted Allegretti directly, rather than going to P&Z, when it made its initial pitch for a text amendment to the City’s zoning code so that its billboards would be allowed? And was it just a coincidence that Allegretti has led the charge to have the City be identified as the applicant – as Generation Group’s stooge surrogate – for the pro-billboard text amendment?
This week’s Herald-Advocate (“Zoning panel’s message: Don’t place your ad here,” Nov. 17), reports that P&Z commissioner Anita Rifkind criticized the “subterfuge by the City Council to take over the application for Generation,” only to be upbraided by Allegretti.
“It’s truly a pet peeve of mine that with virtually everything the City Council is asked to do, someone says we’re in somebody’s pocket — or potentially in somebody’s pocket — and somehow getting a campaign contribution from them,” Allegretti reportedly complained.
Gee, Jimbo, how would anybody ever get the idea that you would be questioned about your motives when acting as a public official?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that he contributed $300 [pdf] to Howard Frimark’s election campaign in March, 2005, but made no mention of that fact during his rather lengthy confirmation hearing as Frimark’s hand-picked aldermanic successor in June of that year – before Frimark’s campaign disclosure report made that contribution a matter of public record? Or could it have anything to do with the fact that he contributed $200 [pdf] more to Frimark’s campaign in July 2005, just a few weeks after he got his aldermanic seat?
Even at the paltry $100/mo aldermanic salary he whines about, Allegretti still made back that entire $500 contribution by the end of his first year in office. And by the time his appointed term was through in 2007, he had picked up more than enough to also fund that $1,500 he contributed [pdf] to Frimark’s recent, unsuccessful re-election campaign.
But if Allegretti really cares about dispelling the notion that he or anybody else on the Council is “in somebody’s pocket” on this issue, what he and his Council colleagues should do is immediately move for reconsideration of last Monday (Nov. 16) night’s Council vote by which they gave themselves final say over all P&Z decisions by “super-majority” vote. Instead, they should require a unanimous vote to over-ride any P&Z decision.
That way, the public can be assured that if the Council is trumping a P&Z decision, it’s only because every single alderman is willing to go on record as saying that the P&Z decision was wrong.
But we’re not going to hold our breath for that to happen. Allegretti and Owens have P&Z right where they want it: neutered.
34 comments so far
I know I’ve said this before, but this town is looking more and more like Chicago everyday.
Where are the billboards planning on being constructed?
It’s indicated in the article here, that they woudl be on the West Side of town near 294. Where would the billboards be placed?
As we understand it, they would all be on the Renaissance office complex property.
OK, that makes sense. Thank you.
Does this mean the Park District could erect a billboard at the most northwest corner of their Oakton property?
It wouldn’t be right up next to the expressway, but a 80 foot billboard can be read from a decent distance away.
A unanimous vote looks to be the only safe way to minimize the effect of city council politics in these decisions. Even a supermajority could be as little as 3 aldermen if only the minimum quorum of 4 show up to a meeting, or 4 if 5 show up.
Just listened to Alderman Allegretti… can someone please hand me a gun so I can shoot myself?
Holy crap!
Folks, calm down. There is no need to fear!! Remember we elected Mayor Dave Schmidt and he is a reasonable man. He understands who voted for him and what his campaign platform was. He is going to veto this thing, right? I offer as evidence his vote on the Frimark prosecution……..whoooops!!!!!!
The Frimark vote was bad, but aside from neutering any hope of ethical behavior it really wasn’t a big deal. This however is where the rubber hits the road. Allegretti may be everything everyone here says he is, but don’t forget he makes a very good living getting reasonable people to believe the most impossible of stories. Don’t be fooled. At the end of game Allegretti got exactly what he wanted. “Aim for the stars and you’ll land on the moon.” Mr. Mayor please pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
I’m not sure what happened to the man who showed up at my door last February talking of open and honest government. I hope you are still there. I desperately hope you do the right thing and veto this thing.
“reasonable people”? shirley, you jest.
there are no “reasonable people” on our city council that allegretti has to persuade. besides his fellow alderstrokes (b,c,d and r), all that’s left is wsol and sweeney: the former wants an expensive new hoosegow and to fight flooding with $400k of sump pumps and check valves, the latter can’t even figure out what side of the billboard issue he’s on.
Folks need to step back and carefully analyze the change in the ordinance before jumping to conclusions. If the mayor vetoes the ordinance change and the ordinance goes back to the old version, then a simple majority of the aldermen would be able to override the Planning and Zoning Commission on a Council-originated zoning change, such as the billboard proposal. If there is no veto, it would take 6 votes to override. Do the math…which is better?
One net result of the new ordinance is to do away with the incentive for applicants to go to an alderman for a zoning change as occurred with the billboards, because there would be no tactical advantage anymore. No matter where a zoning change originated, it would take a supermajority to override a gong from the Commission. That is an important improvement over the old ordinance.
Roarke:
Just because something might be better than bad does not make it “good.” After all the mismanagement we’ve had at city hall, why can’t we at least expect and demand “good” for a change?
If anything positive can come out of this Allegretti billboard mess, it might be that in his own slimy way he pointed out how the current system can be so easily subverted and corrupted by aldermen who, if they’re not actually in somebody’s pocket, sure look like it. And Bach springing his supermajority compromise on the council at the last minute makes the whole thing look all the more suspicious.
I agree with the Pub Dogs. If the council wants to disregard a recommendation by Planning & Zoning for any reason, it should be by unanimous vote. That way, there’s no doubt about it.
If this mayor has the integrity and leadership ability that he campaigned on, he will veto this bad amendment and propose a unanimous-vote requirement for any council over-ride. Then the aldermopes can show their true colors and the voters can have an even clearer picture of exactly how well, and how honestly, they are being represented.
Anon: 8:16
Bravo!
8:16 a.m.
I too thought Bach’s last minute proposal (it wasn’t on the city’s website prior to the meeting, so I’m assuming it was last minute) seemed contrived.
But it’s discouraging to hear the mayor say that Bach’s proposal “disrupted everybody’s thought process.” Jeez! Going from “simple majority” to “super-majority” is not that big a leap, fellas.
816 that is sheer nonsense. Think it through. If the mayor vetoes and tghen proposes a unanimous vote to override P and Z, who do you think has to approve that change? A majority of the aldermen. Will that happen? Not on your life. So you are left with the old version which actually encourages developers to circumvent the P and Z…AND GO RIGHT TO AN ALDERMAN.
Roarke,
Why can’t the Mayor veto the proposed change to the ordinance and in his veto message clearly state what he is looking for… on behalf of the integrity of P&Z and on behalf of the community?
Then, if he is overridden, everyone will know where everyone stands. Then comes the 2011 elections…
In the interim there may be some issues… billboards apparently might be one… but in the long run everyone will have to run on their record and stance on these “controvesial” issues.
Had the Mayor taken this line of action on the Frimark issue he’d have avoided the bashing he has taken… and he would have been true to his capmaign promises of honesty, integrity, transparecny, etc.
“8:16” here, Roarke:
No guts, no glory. I never thought this mayor was going to be a “half a loaf” guy, but that looks to be the case.
But where does it say that its going to take 6 votes to override Planning & Zoning, especially if only a quorum (4) shows up at the meeting?
Where did the number 6 votes come from? I watched the video from the meeting and heard alderman Carey asking Joe Baldi about 5 votes for super majority. Did I miss something?
That’s what happens when somebody (in this case, Bach) pulls an eleventh-hour surprise and the mayor and council reflexively leap at it like its the last life preserver on a sinking ship.
It sounds from the video like either they all agree that a supermajority is 5 votes, or they don’t know and don’t care so long as it covers everybody’s ass.
And no discussion at all about whether the supermajority is tied to a quorum, which could make it as little as 3 votes if only 4 show up at a meeting.
The City Council (and its committees, boards and commissions, etc.) operates according to Roberts Rule of Order.
If my reading of Robert’s is correct, a super-majority is considered to be a two-thirds vote and, most importantly, such a vote is calculated based upon “the basis of present voting members.”
If all 7 aldermen are present for a vote, a two-thirds/super-majority would be 5.
Since the mayor does not have a vote (except to break a tie) on the issue of planning and zoning approvals/denials (and the issue doesn’t appear to be addressed in the 3P manual), I have no idea where Roarke came up with the six count.
Perhaps 6 votes would be a “super-duper” majority!!
At this point it looks like the number “6” for votes needed to over-ride a P&Z decision is pure fiction.
But we invite Roarke, the mayor, the aldermen, city mgr., or anybody else with ACCURATE information about the super-majority to please furnish it ASAP.
Mayor, please respond as to whether you’ll veto this thing or not.
I tend to agree with Roark,
The wheels were set in motion 2 years ago by our City Atty to allow CC to overturn a denial by a simple majority. Do you honestly think that we could now turn back time ansd say, oooh we don’t like that, let’s go back to the way it was and take a new found power away from CC? Get serious that I assure you will never happen.
Requiring a 2/3 majority across the board is sadly the best we could hope for.
Recheck the 3p manual I think there may be something to the 6 votes.
1:39 pm:
You and Roarke don’t realize that your beggar’s minds guarantee that all we’ll get from city government is crumbs. You two would be great coatholders for Richie Daley and his gang.
So what if something was screwed up 2 years ago? If it’s wrong, change it. Don’t just wring your hands and whine about how it’s the best we could get. Grow a spine.
And were you in attendence at any of these meetings offering up any of the suggetions you seem to be cheerleading for on this blog? Did you openly lend your support for a veto, or a unanimous vote? Did you question or comment on the change to the ordinance from 2 years ago, and suggest that we should amend that back to it’s original form?
I hear a lot of after the fact commentary. It’s always easier to find fault when things are done, I would say that if you thought you could have asked better question, made stonger arguments, or somehow been more convincing, where the hell were you and why didn’t you try?
Anonymous on 11.19.09 1:39 pm,
Alrighty, I re-checked my copy of the 3P manual, Appendix B, “Statutory Requirements For Council Votes And Actions Excerpted From the Illinois Compiled Statutes”
A two-thirds vote of the corporate authorities (including the mayor) is required in the following instances:
***9 instances are listed, all with very specific and narrow subjects, none of which have anything to do with overrides of planning and zoning denails.
A three-frouths vote of the corporate authorities is required to:
1, Lease or convey any city property in excess of two years
2, To accept the high bid or any other bid determined to bin the best interest of the City, etc.
3, To dispose of City-owned personal property…
4, To raise the amount of levy above that provided for in State law for the improvement of streets and bridges
A three-fourths vote of the aldermen is required:
1, To pass an ordinance to vacate a street or alley
Anonymous on 11.19.09 1:39 pm,
Maybe you’ve seen a different 3P manual? Or, you’ve received different information about vote calculations?
Again, Robert’s Rules governs the Council and the calculation of votes, and specifically states votes are calculated on “the basis of present voting members.”
As an aside, I think it would be loverly if the City web site published the 3P manual because it is billed as the “Handbook for Elected Officials/Questions and Answers for the Informed Elected Official/City Council Policy Statement Manual”
…and can I get an “Amen!” for MuniCode viewer? Searching the current PDF files can be painful!
2:49 pm.
When Schmidt campaigned for mayor, and Wsol for alderman two years ago, neither one of them told me during their campaigns that I was going to have to go to every meeting to hold their hand and tell them what to do so they wouldn’t screw it up. I don’t recall any other candidates saying that, either.
If these jokers can’t do the job right – whether because they don’t have any sense of public policy, or what’s best for the community as a whole and long-term, or whether they just don’t give a damn about anybody but themselves and their egos – then they shouldn’t have run in the first place. Or they should quit now and give somebody else a chance.
It’s also not “after the fact” because the mayor still has veto power, not that he’ll have the cojones to use it now that Bach has handed him this half-baked supermajority compromise even though nobody seems to know what the supermajority number is.
? 2:49,
…heh…if you think “after the fact” commentary is bad…you should see what happens with commentary BEFORE the fact!
It’s brutal.
Bean,
…I’m sure it is…
? 2:49 pm
I missed Monday night’s meeting, but watched the entire thing on video on Park Ridge Underground and it was pathetic. But Allegretti gives hope to any “D” student who ever aspired to law school.
I love Allegretti….
“But Allegretti told commission members before their vote to think of the financial benefit to the entire city.”
I wonder how much money we can make with 4:00 AM liquor licenses, massage parlors or even (dare we think) full ticket whore houses?
Roarke,
See comment >Anonymous on 11.19.09 9:50 am> Just because something might be better than bad does not make it “good.” After all the mismanagement we’ve had at city hall, why can’t we at least expect and demand “good” for a change?
you must watch the video that is on the mayor’s website of last night’s COW. Ald Allegretti got beaten up about changing the Ethics Code.
There isn’t any video from the COW last night on the mayor’s website. Do you have some website for the mayor that isn’t open to the whole public?
Pru doesn’t have anything either and the video link Pru has looks like the good parts are still being formatted.
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>