Park Ridge Mayor Dave Schmidt’s message in the most recent edition of The Spokesman (“Budget problems persist,” August 2010) is a needed reminder that the City continues to face substantial financial problems that must be addressed on an immediate and ongoing basis instead of at year-end, when the money already has been spent and we’re staring at yet another multi-million dollar deficit.
Schmidt correctly points out that the chronically-mismanaged State of Illinois owes Park Ridge over $1 million in payments that the City Manager and the City Council counted on to help balance the 2010-11 budget. Whether and when that money ever hits the City treasury remains to be seen, which appears to be why Schmidt reiterated in The Spokesman his previously-disclosed plan to veto the Council’s expected donation of approximately $200,000 of City funds to a variety of private community groups who can’t or won’t do what it takes to raise the private contributions necessary to support themselves without handouts of tax dollars.
While Schmidt cites the current precarious financial circumstances as the principal reason for his opposition to throwing money at these community groups, we think donating public funds to private organizations is bad public policy at all times, especially without a quid pro quo arrangement by which those private groups contract with the City as vendors to actually sell their specialized services to the City.
We also note that City Council Policy Statement No. 6 permits City funding of these community groups solely in “limited circumstances” and prescribes certain criteria for the appropriation of public funds to benefit private entities:
3. When considering use of limited public funds for private non-governmental organizations the City
shall consider:
A. The community need for offered services(s)
B. The community benefit for such service(s)
C. Private financial support for the service(s)
D. Community volunteer support for the service(s)
Throughout the entire course of debate on community group funding, these four criteria were virtually ignored by the City Council. Instead, we got general ipse dixit pronouncements from the aldermen who favor these kinds of donations about what a great deal these groups provide for the City. And most of the organizations who appeared before the Council seeking funds provided no specifics about how many Park Ridge residents they serve, what the cost of those services for Park Ridge residents really is, and exactly what Park Ridge taxpayers are getting for their money.
To the contrary, from the limited hard data these organizations provide it appears that (for example) the Center of Concern provides the great majority of its services to non-Park Ridge residents, and that 15-20% of the Senior Center membership consists of non-Park Ridge residents. But during the City Council budget hearings, the Council asked no such questions and the community groups provided no such information beyond their standard warm-and-fuzzy sales pitches.
We hope the City Council finally wakes up to economic reality and demands an up-to-date accounting from City Mgr. Hock that shows exactly where the City’s finances are in relation to the 2010-11 budget before it even considers giving public funds to private groups. We also hope the Council demands a detailed accounting from each group about exactly what it does, for exactly whom it is done, the specific per-person cost of doing it, and why it can’t/won’t be done with private donations rather than by these groups sticking their snouts into the public funding trough.
The Mayor once again has sounded the financial alarm. Will the aldermen once again sleep through it?
32 comments so far
Mayor dipschmidt has sounded his “alarm” about the community groups so many times. Why so silent on other areas that could help save money?
Mayor transperency has figured out a way to save 200K –how about the other 1.5+ million that needs to be addressed. And of course he will pass the blame and point fingers at the council with out indicating in any responsible manner where other adjustments should be made.
Schmidt is a joke and unfortuantely a bad one at that and not many in town are laughing.
Anonymous on 08.09.10 9:29 am,
The reasons for Mayor DipSchmidt’s silence on other areas for saving money are probably because his think tank fraternity brothers couldn’t figure out what to tell him to suggest, and Mayor DipSchmidt and his think tank fraternity brothers couldn’t pass up the opportunity to play politics in an attempt to blame and point fingers at the Aldermen. Doing so primes the pump for any potential like-minded Aldermanic candidates in the next local election.
The City manager and others on City staff make convenient targets for Mayor DipSchmidt and his think tank fraternity brothers too.
Too bad nobody has clued Mayor DipSchmidt in. Ayn Rand wrote excellent philosophical fiction but no matter how hard Mayor DipSchmidt tries to apply it, reality has a way of up-ending the most carefully constructed of plots.
Such acrimony.
9:29:
With all due respect, I think you are discounting his amazing leadership skills in bringing the council and city employees together as a cohesive unit.
Ya have to admit the man works well with others!!!
9:29AM,
The Mayor is the only elected official that is trying to exercise some fiscal restraint. Why blame him for all of the problems? What about the aldermen? And the City Manager?
Rather than criticizing the Mayor, why don’t you post your suggestions for balancing the budget? I would love to see a constructive posting rather than just complaints.
Two-shay.
anon at 11:28.
We criticize because that is our duty as citizens. And as Mayor Dave chastised Alderman Ryan at a past meeting…(I paraphrase loosely) You chose to be in the big chair…(or words similar to that effect)
Well, Mayor Dave chose to be in the big chair with his gavel and now has to take his lumps. He calls vociferously for cuts that are a miniscule fraction of the budget and remains silent on all the rest of the budget.
Why should I offer anything—Mayor Dave ran for the office…let’s hear an idea other than his worn out bullshit about community groups. Let’s see him make some significant contribution to the debate rather than try to play political games. Peoples lives and livelihoods are at stake mister mayor. while you play politics and badmouth the city and groups that would do good for it, you cost the citizenry opportunities for betterment because of small minded and feeble political crap. And the pony that passes as the pubdog editors only have the one trick and that has been used over and over.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The mayor has suggested cuts to both the community groups and the O’Hare commission. That’s over $360,000 that the aldermen want to spend rather than cut, even though they don’t have one iota of hard data to show exactly what tangible benefits those expenditures would purchase for the residents of Park Ridge.
The simple reason these community groups put the arm on the aldermen is because its the easiest way to get cash – a lot easier than throwing successful fundraisers or writing successful grant applications. But the taxpayers, individually and collectively, have already decided – by not making private donations – that they don’t want to support these groups, or at least not in the style these groups expect.
If the aldermen weren’t just looking to be generous with other people’s money, they would require these community groups to submit proposals detailing the specific services and the “unit costs” of those services, which could then be purchased on a contract basis like the City does with other outside vendors. And if these community group weren’t just looking for easy cash from the taxpayers, they would be offering those kinds of proposals as a show of good faith.
Instead, the Council doesn’t even comply with its own community groups’ policy.
11:28:
You are right!!! That is one of the down sides of this particular blog – always criticizing the Mayor and defending the aldermen…….BAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: We would love to defend the aldermen, but they keep insisting on acting like the 7 Dwarfs (mostly Dopey) instead of The Magnificent 7.
12:06PM,
From your post: “Why should I offer anything”
I just don’t get it. Those who won’t offer anything constructive just want to criticize those who are actually doing the work.
I don’t know anything about the Pubdog editors, but at least they offer their ideas on how to solve the problems confronting our town. They’re not just complaining.
Amen 1:09. Why not focus on getting these aldermen replaced! They don’t get almost ANYTHING right! For example, the police station, the community groups, the funding of O’hare lobbyists, Pads, Napleton’s zoning, etc., etc., etc. I dont’ think anyone would argue that what Schmidt at least SAYS is a hell of a lot closer to how the average citizen feels in this town versus what at least 6 of the aldermen regularly DO. Nothing will change until those clowns get voted out of office so that’s where the people of this town need to focus their energies. The truth of the matter is that the ONLY power Schmidt has right now is in SAYING stuff… He can’t vote people, only the aldermen can, so vote them all out next year unless you’re happy with what they’re doing.
The mayor chose to run for office–he therefore is responsible to present his ideas. if they happen to stop at the 200k limit and don’t address the 1.5 million amounts he is so concerned with –then that is a problem. but He wanted to sit in the big chair –hence –the ” why should I offer anything” statement the previous poster alludes to.
I don’t think the elected mayor should sit on his hands and not address the entire issue and only focus on a miniscule aspect concerning the community groups.
it is feeble and any defense of him shares that feebleness.
Anonymous on 08.09.10 1:09 pm, “Those who won’t offer anything constructive just want to criticize those who are actually doing the work.”
That is precisely the way in which Mayor DipSchmidt has conducted himself throughout the budget process and his interactions with the council and City staff.
As the Editor noted to another comment above, “The mayor has suggested cuts to both the community groups and the O’Hare commission. That’s over $360,000” which are more than coincidentally the exact same and only suggestions offered by the Public Watchdog.
Yet the point being made in the criticisms of Mayor DipSchmidt are that he has refused to tackle the budget issues beyond “calls vociferously for cuts that are a miniscule fraction of the budget and [he] remains silent on all the rest of the budget.” The very same budget the Public Watchdog and Mayor DipSchmidt have repeatedly and with equal vociferousness have said remains under water by more than $1 million.
And both the Public Watchdog and Mayor DipSchmidt remained remarkably silent on the 30 minute fireworks “circus,” another non-essential expenditure during a critical budget period for the City, while the Public Watchdog has mercilessly attacked the 3 day “bread and circuses” offered by the TOPR as well as the charitable services offered by the Center of Concern, presumably because not every single cent given to CoC goes to a Park Ridge resident. Perhaps Mayor DipSchmidt and the Public Watchdog believe there are no other eyes watching the fireworks except those belonging to Park Ridge taxpayers?
Where is the hue and cry about Analise’s run? That organization closes off and uses Park Ridge streets the taxpayers of Park Ridge pay for, they collect money they then donate to the Make-A-Wish foundation which dares to fulfill the wishes of dying children who (gasp!) don’t live in Park Ridge!
In any case, Mayor DipSchmidt is receiving precisely the criticism he was told he would be receiving because he refused to roll up his sleeves and tackle the budget in a way which would have set him apart from the way the council chose to conduct itself. Mayor DipSchmidt passed the buck instead of providing “anything constructive” in the way of a complete treatment for how to balance the budget in keeping with his “fiscal vision,” what little there appears to be of it.
OK, roll tape. We have been over this before, again and again and again. The mayor vetoed the budget and told the aldermen they should look at imposing furlough days and additional cuts to the library budget, neither of which he could do by way of a line item veto. Those proposed cuts were in ADDITION to the O’Hare and community group expenditures which he said he would veto. He also told them to take a careful look at Hock’s projected sales tax and income tax revenues, because he said they don’t make sense. We are now reading that he was right. They didn’t make sense. So go ahead and continue dumping on the mayor if you must (and apparently you must), but save a couple loads of excrement for the people who are really at the core of the problem, Hock and the Council majority.
But why do I get the feeling that your one-track mind won’t accept that answer?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Speaking of one-track minds, while we recognize that these kinds of issues are pretty basic, we don’t think they are alimentary…or resolvable simply by process of elimination.
Doesn’t one eliminate through the alimentary?
Anonymous on 08.09.10 2:42 pm, “The mayor vetoed the budget and told the aldermen they should look at imposing furlough days and additional cuts to the library budget”
Weasel words.
Per Wikipedia, “Weasel words is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.
Origin, The expression weasel word derives from the egg-eating habits of weasels. An egg that a weasel has sucked will look intact to the casual observer, while actually being empty. Thus, words or claims that turn out to be empty upon analysis are known as “weasel words”.”
Suggesting the aldermen “look at imposing furlough days” is wholly lacking in “specific and meaningful” communication of how many furlough days, effecting how many City employees, in which departments and at what cost savings Mayor DipSchmidt believes could have been achieved without rendering the City services provided by those employees and departments completely impotent.
Suggesting the aldermen “look at additional cuts to the library budget” is also lacking “specific and meaningful” communication about the extent to which he believes the library budget should be cut, and which programs and/or expenditures should be eliminated since he said not all the library programs are essential. Mayor DipSchmidt offered nothing specific about the library budget to support his claims that while the library is an essential part of the fabric of our town not all its program offerings are essential.
How many furlough days for which employees in which City departments, and how much in library budget cuts, in ADDITION to the specifically suggested elimination of all community group contributions and the O’Hare expenditures, would have gotten the budget into a balanced condition, in keeping with Mayor DipSchmidt’s “fiscal vision?” Would those seemingly limited suggestions have achieved the balanced budget Mayor DipSchmidt seems to envision as being out of balance by as much as $1.5 million?
We’ll never know. The Mayor used weasel words instead of specifics when he admonished the aldermen for not doing a job he, himself, took great pains to also avoid doing. The aldermen suck, but so does Mayor DipSchmidt.
EDITOR’S NOTE: With the way you write, you should have your own blog. Oh, that’s right…you do, only you’re on summer hours.
Well, there you go Mr Editor…you just took away every crackpot’s argument. Now what will we do for fun?
Anonymous on 08.09.10 4:11 pm
Well Said!!!
In the spokesmen the may acknowldges a debate exists….yada….yada….but goes on to say that it is beside the point becuase we cannot afford it. hmmmmmmm……kind of leaves me with an empty feeling. Mr. Mayor, why not tell us where you stand on the debate?? Or is the strategy to let the blog beat on the community service groups to “gin up the base” while you appear to be more reasonable? If that is the case, I am not buying it!!
As far as I can tell, you and the author (s) of this blog are tied at the hip.
Actually you are wrong. The correct scenario would have been for the Council majority to agree that the revenue projections were a joke, that more cuts were needed, that community group contributions and the O’Hare money had to go, and that staff needed to come up with X number of dollars in additional cuts to have a real balanced budget.
Your main criticism appears to be that the mayor is at fault for not detailing what those specific cuts should be, I suppose right down to mandating that movie and game rentals at the Library be discontinued and that all City employees be forced to take 5 furlogh days.
Personally, I think those were matters which should have been submitted by the Council to Hock and Co. in the first instance for proposed solutions and then back to the Council for deliberation on the wisdom of those proposed solutions. That is how Park Ridge government is set up. It is not a monarchy. It is not even a strong executive form of government.
However, we never got to that point, because the Council refused to question Hock’s revenue projections and, therefroe, saw no need to even consider cuts. So, your diatribe is basically pointless.
08.09.10 2:10 pm:
Your comments are foolish.
I have never been to the city’s fireworks show and I couldn’t care less if they never had another one. But how does that compare to TOPR or the “charitable services”? Isn’t the fireworks run by the city? Isn’t TOPR and those charitable services run by private groups? That’s apples and oranges.
The same goes for Analise’s run. If that costs the city money, why shouldn’t its sponsors pay thhose costs to the city from whatever money they take in?
algernon:
You seem to know more than I do so please tell me, where exactly does all that money from parking and concessions at the fireworks show go? Does it go directly into the city coffers? What exactly are all the expoenses associated with the event, beyond the 20K we know about? Do those dollars come out of our taxes? Could those costs be paid by the money from concessions etc??? Gee you are right….it is really different!!!
“The same goes for Analise’s run. If that costs the city money, why shouldn’t its sponsors pay thhose costs to the city from whatever money they take in?”
Here is your answer. Because there is such a thing as right and wrong. Because you have a family who has taken an event that would probably destroy most of us and they have turned it inot something positive. Positive for them, positive for the community and positive for others in need.
I have no idea what the “cost” to the city is to close down that block around the park or for what ever police and public works support is required but I feel confident that it is not squat!!!
If you want to be so cold as to submit a bill feel free. How about you Mr. Mayor??? You want to go on the record with this one??? I get the feeling you are tap dancing around how you really feel about CoC. What about this one???
I’m Not Telling on 08.09.10 9:49 pm,
In short, your position is that City manager Hock should have done his job, but he did not. The City council should have done its job, but did not. Mayor DipSchmidt is to be excused from stepping up and into that void because it’s not his job, man.
I cannot view Mayor DipSchmidt’s refusal or inability to step into the void as excusable in any way.
Mayor DipSchmidt’s failure to step into the void created when (in your view and presumably the Mayor’s) the council and City manager Hock either were incapable or refused to do their jobs, has left this community without the necessary check and balance against the very same people he accused of failing to do their jobs. Instead of providing the residents and taxpayers of this community with anything of substance and the representation he, himself, alleges has been absent from others, Mayor DipSchmidt gave the residents and taxpayers of this community nothing but empty weasel words.
Algernon on 08.10.10 8:21 am,
I’ll type slowly so you may be better able to understand the issues at hand.
The comparison of the firworks “circus” to the TOPR “bread and circuses” in this discussion about the City budget is based upon Mayor DipSchmidt’s and the Public Watchdog’s contentions about what are and are not essential expenditures. Hint: neither are essential expenditures.
However, while the Public Watchdog has gone to great lengths to condemn some expenditures which are deemed non-essential, the Public Watchdog and Mayor DipSchmidt have remained silent about some other non-essential expenditures, the firworks being the most glaring example. One may be inclined to conclude one of the reasons for doing so was inspired by who is associated with the event, or maybe they simply didn’t think about it because of who is associated with the event.
Again to reiterate and clarify the issues for you, the comparison was and remains one of whether or not the expenditures were and are essential, not a comparison of who controls the respective events. However, you are free to continue to ignore the essential issues in order to support your preference for comparing apples and oranges where those associated with any given organization don’t meet with your approval.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You are misrepresenting the foundation of our objection to City expenditures to Taste Inc. and the community groups, which has consistenly been that public funds are being given away to private entities that are not legally accountable to the City or its taxpayers by contract or any other means.
Whether the “services” provided – or not provided, since nobody in City Hall is even keeping track of them, and the community groups sure aren’t providing any accountings – are “essential” or “non-essential” is only a secondary concern.
We have said it before and we will say it again: Let the City contract with all of these groups (including Taste Inc.) for specific services to be performed for residents/taxpayers of Park Ridge on a unit/cost basis, so that the taxpayers can see exactly what they are getting for their money. Unfortunately, it appears that these groups don’t want that… presumably because they know the current hand-out arrangement avoids scrutiny and gives them more money than the actual value of the services they actually perform.
“……public funds are being given away to private entities that are not legally accountable to the City or its taxpayers by contract or any other means…..” Are you telling me that the non-city related charitable group that handles concessions for the Fireworks show is not receiving a hand out??? You contend that the fireworks show is different becuase it is city run. OK…..show me the money. How much did they sell and did it goe to the city??
EDITOR’S NOTE: You must have missed our post of 08/29/08, in which we wrote:
“Meanwhile, Americaneagle’s private contribution to this event – along with the contributions of our tax dollars by the City, the Park District and School District 207 (through Maine East), and an $8,000 contribution (public/private?) from the Park Ridge Fine Arts Society – causes us to inquire once again about why the Park Ridge Kiwanis Clubs purportedly gets an “exclusive” food concession deal for the event, especially without any known contribution by them to the cost of the event?
“We reiterate that we’ve got nothing against the Kiwanis, but if the taxpayers continue to fund a substantial part of the fireworks show that enables the Kiwanis to fundraise on an “exclusive” basis, we think that, at the very least, the Kiwanis owes those same taxpayers answers to the following questions: (1) How did they get an “exclusive” deal? And (2) What kind of profit, if any, do they make off the show? We also think it would be a fine gesture for them to produce a financial report documenting the revenue and expenses they generate from this event.”
Whether the Kiwanis still runs those concessions, or whether they’ve been handed out to another organization, we hold to our view expressed two years ago.
Anon 11:58:
Just so I understand your concern with the non-essential expenditures, you appear to question the Mayor’s lack of objection to the fireworks show since it is partially underwritten by Americaneagle and specifically Mr. Svanascini. So then, I would assume that you would also object to the city’s involvement in the fireworks prior to two years ago, when the taxpayers themselves (rather than Mr. S) were contributing donations to fund the fireworks program…or are you just bent out of shape because Mr. S and the Mayor are friends and Mr. S is donating the fireworks to the city out of his own pocket (and somehow, that now creates a massive corruption-laden conspiracy that wasn’t there two years ago)?
This all sounds like a rerun of a rerun. It should be televised on MeToo.
PD,
Have I misread or misunderstood you? I read the editors comments and on two occasions you mentioned the City “contracting” with some of these organization, and I assume you mean more specifically the “social service” organizations, turning what is now “privately run” to Government run?
If I am correct and that is what you are suggesting……
My comment is this… ARE YOU FREAKING INSANE?!??!?
That is probably the single worst idea I have ever read on this blog, hands down!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Unless your name describes your attention span, Haphazard, you would know that we aren’t suggesting “turning what is now ‘privately run’ to Government run.” What we are suggesting is that, if these organizations provide services to Park Ridge residents that the City believes it has an obligation to provide and/or pay for (a/k/a, “essential services”), the City should enter into legally enforceable contracts with those organizations and pay them for those services actually rendered to Park Ridge residents – just like the City currently does with its other 3rd-party vendors of goods or services.
1:20:
I cannot speak for the poster who you address, but speaking for me, I object to neither the TOPR or the fireowrks show. I think they are both great. I think both involve volunteers and doners who care about the community. Is that clear???
What I do object to is someone who hammers TOPR(based on private organization or based on no control of funds or based on non-essential – you pick one!!!) and yet has no objection to the fireworks show. IF you are someone who is so completely anal about this (I am not) the same issues apply to fireworks as TOPR. Both cost the city money in the form of city services, both generate revenue, neither contribute that revenue toward city services. Neither have any transparancy related to reporting to the city. You say the city runs the fireworks show. OK…Can you (or the Mayor) tell me what was generated on concessions?? You can no more do that than tell me what was generated by TOPR. The concessions money was not given to the city any more than the money generated by TOPR. Every objection you have to TOPR applies to the fireworks show. Every one except those that are related to people rather than policy.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, every objection we have to TOPR (and those secretive money-makers running Taste Inc.) applies to the concessions (food and parking) at the fireworks. And as we pointed out earlier in this comment string, we have objected to those sweetheart deals, too.
Anon @ 120pm, All I can say is: Yes, man!
Anonymous on 08.10.10 1:20 pm,
In order for you to understand the concerns people have regarding Mayor DipSchmidt’s handling of the budget you would also have to understand the difference between the economic climate three years ago vs. today.
To illustrate, three years ago Park Ridge was not letting go of police officers and other personnel, public works staff, eliminating brush pick-up, or freezing employee salaries, to name just a few of the current economic conditions that exist in City government today vs. three years ago.
Three years ago, when Mayor DipSchmidt had only just become Alderman DipSchmidt, the City council had a balanced budget, a $6.2 million dollar surplus, and an almost $15 million dollar general fund balance.
Since that beginning, and on then Alderman and now Mayor DipSchmidt’s watch, the City council not only ran through every cent of that $6.2 million dollar surplus inside of one year, but also approved an unbalanced budget (two unbalanced budgets, if Mayor DipSchmidt is correct) and reduced the City’s unreserved general fund balance by more than $4 million dollars.
Mayor DipSchmidt has repeatedly, to borrow a phrase from the post title, “sounded the financial alarm” during the past year, but only during the past year, which may be said to be late but better than never. Additionally, Mayor DipSchmidt has made several statements about the City staff’s and City council’s responsibility to “look at” cuts and eliminate non-essential expenditures from the City budget during a time he, himself, has characterized as Park Ridge being at a critical finanical crossroad.
Mayor DipSchmidt has repeatedly issued his dire warnings about inflated revenue projections and irresponsible spending by the City, and did little if anything to fully tackle the budget problems other than to parrot the suggestions made by this blog, while he (and this blog) said absolutely nothing about cutting the non-essential expenses associated with the fireworks, unless of course Mayor DipSchmidt (and this blog) believes the 30 minute fireworks show is an essential expenditure; essential for whom would then become the question.
Mayor DipSchmidt has long insisted the City staff and the City council find ways to reduce the “fat” in the budget, while at the same time never once offering the possibility of cutting the City’s costs for the public entertainment and amenity of the fireworks.
Mayor DipSchmidt has been determined to stop any and all contributions to community groups, whether they are charitable or not, and he has bemoaned the layoffs of public safety personnel without making any concerted effort to mitigate those layoffs, and not once did he suggest the City staff and City council “look at” cutting expenses for any non-essential special events, whether they are 30 minutes, 3 hours, or 3 days in duration, despite every one of those events continuing to cost the taxpayers of Park Ridge and despite the contributions from Americaneagle (not Tony Svanascini, personally) for the fireworks.
Why not? At best, Mayor DipSchmidt’s and this blog’s treatment of these budget issues have been inconsistent.
Mayor DipSchmidt’s personal financial association and frienship with Tony Svanascini of Americaneagle is Mayor DipSchmidt’s cross to bear.
However, if you are interested in discussing issues of “conspiracy-laden corruption,” I am willing to do so.
If you were to read the following, “I’m dead serious though, I think we should do it, and if we’re not allowed to then isn’t a major discrimination case? Why is one private group with no standing (they’re not a charity or anything right?) allowed to get this incredible deal and we’re not? I mean think about it, they get a streets closed down for 3 days, free security, everything else…What would be wrong about us putting on an Oktoberfest of Park Ridge? Or a Labor Day Extravaganza of Park Ridge? Why should we limit this to only Taste, Inc.? The more I think about this, the more worked up I’m getting…”
and
“I would personally be happy to run it for a piece of the action. I’m sure others would too.”
What goes through your mind?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Dear PRU-dence: What goes through our mind is that all of these sweetheart deals that private groups like Taste Inc., the community groups, the fireworks concessionaires, etc. get from the City should end now. Period. If you are a private organization of any type and want a street or sidewalk closed off so that you can engage in a money-making activity (including you alleged not-for-profits and so-called charitable organizations), then you should pay for that privilege. If your money-making activities require extra police, fire, or other City services, you should pay for them. And you should be required to enter into formal contracts with the City (or the Park District, or the School Districts) that become matters of public record, and that disclose who your principals (officers, partners, members, closely-held shareholders, etc.) are.
And that goes for Dave Iglow and the Taste Inc. crew, the Rotarians, the Kiwanians, Tony Svanascini and Americaneagle, the Chamber of Commerce, and anybody and everybody else who has any designs on making a buck (of “profit” or “non-profit”) at the taxpayers’ expense.
Comprende?
huh
7:08:
That you are nuts?