* Anon 09/07/10 @ 4:10 p.m.
In the past year we have attended both “R” and “D” events. So what? What’s the official “R” or “D” position on any local issue?

When people attend candidate type functions it means they support a particular candidate. If they attend both types of candidate functions it means they support candidates and are independent minded. People who attend party fundraisers are party supporters. You should admit you are one of the local Republicans who supports the local party and take your lumps for supporting the party that gave us Howard Frimark for mayor and reduced the number of aldermen. You should take your lumps for supporting the party that has dominated the city and spent all the money you cry about them spending too much of.

Is that you again, PRU-dence, going off-topic just to vent your partisan spleen?

If you need someone to blame for Frimark and his cut-the-Council adventure, the easy target is the 7,688 voters who voted for it. But you also might try looking in the mirror and at your fellow “D”-partisan alderdwarfs who started out by bungling their attempt at playing mindless hardball politics with Frimark, then got intimidated by a few purple ribbons, and finally just slunk off without the gumption even to try to retain their seats on the new 7-man Council (except for 6th Ward then-Ald.Rex Parker, who got crushed by Tom Carey).

Now run back home to your own blog.

PW you can think I am whoever you want but you are wrong. I responded here because you closed comments before I could respond to your obfuscations. People who attend party fundraisers are party supporters. You should admit you are one of the local Republicans who supports the local party and take your lumps for supporting the party that gave us Howard Frimark for mayor and reduced the number of aldermen. You should take your lumps for supporting the party that has dominated the city and spent all the money you cry about them spending too much of. If you are not a Republican and the information I was told about you attending the party fundraiser is wrong then I can apologize. You still haven’t denied that you are a Republican and your hiding behind claims of being non-partisan when Republicans are criticized here. If you aren’t yourself a Republican what were you doing at the party fundraiser?

EDITOR’S NOTE:  As we’ve said before (try moving your lips this time while reading, and it might actually sink in): There are no “R” or “D” issues in Park Ridge government.  So while your “R”/”D” obsession might entertain you, it’s irrelevant.  As for your beef about Frimark’s council cutting, self-proclaimed “D”s Anderson, Cox, Crampton, Markech, Parker, Radermacher and Wynn Ryan combined with self-proclaimed “R”s Jones and Wsol to hand “R” Frimark that bleeping-golden opportunity to cut the Council in half; and 7,688 Park Ridge voters – presumably “R”s and “D”s – helped him do it.  Get over it.

As for our political affiliation, just consider us more of a Republican than you can handle and more of a Democrat than you could hope to be. 

From today’s Chapman column in the Tribune:

“The pleasure of living beyond your means can only go on so long before the party comes to a bitter end. With a big city budget deficit and a future of diminishing help from the state and federal governments, Daley is leaving before the truly painful decisions have to be made.”

Sounds like Park Ridge if you replace “Frimark was thrown out” for “Daley is leaving”

Wrong again, Pub-dog. But if it makes you feel better to presume there is only one source of criticism of the Mayor, as well as yourself, that is your right. Carry on.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Easy for you (whoever you are) to say, but how can we know for sure?

PW if you aren’t willing to admit you are a Republican why did you attend the party fundraiser?

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Freedom of association – it’s actually guaranteed by the First Amendment.  Imagine that!

PW you freely chose to associate with the local Republican party in support of their party. For what purpose would you choose to associate with those people in support of their party if you are not a Republican?

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Prurient interest?

I counted 52 different people on the Center of Concern’s Boerd of Directors and its Advisory Board. If each of them donated $1000, or an extra $1000, problem almost solved. Or they could get 55 residents to contribute $100. Problem solved. But its easier to ask the city clowncil for it, so that’s what they do. And it works.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Actually, you would need 550 residents contributing $100.  But 550 out of 37,000 doesn’t sound like the most formidable task if “the community” truly supports CofC to the degree the CofC shills say it does.  But why bust your butt trying to get 550 people to contribute $100 when the Council will hand it to you for the asking?

Wrong, PubPup: There are partisan issues. “We’re all in this together” is a D value. “We’re each in this alone, which is fine for those of us who can hack it” is an R value.
To quote another long-dead white guy: “What does it profit a man if he gain the world but lose his own soul?” — J. H. Christ
[Libelous material deleted]

EDITOR’S NOTE:  You say “[t]here are partisan issues” but instead of identifying any you start talking about partisan “value[s].” Frankly, we don’t care whether you buy your snake oil from Mike Steele or from Tim Kaine – it’s still placebo/quackary at best; and at worst, poison.  Good luck with that Hobson’s choice, as well as with your closet racism by referring to Jesus as “white.” 

OK, I’m double-dipping today; so sue me. (Ooops, just kidding!) You and the teabaggers both are missing the basic fact that “the Council” is just another word for “the people the citizens have willingly entrusted to make buying decisions for them.” The Council is not a single monolith with no connection to the public interest. Recognizing the effort it would divert from core tasks to seek $100 from 550 people, the public earlier opted to spread that sum in much, much smaller individual increments across 37,000 people. If we the people don’t want our tax dollars to go to helping the elderly not starve to death or other wildly indulgent hobbies such as this, we can a)tell our reps to stop funding such charities in sufficient number to get their attention, and if they don’t do what we want, we can b) vote them out.
That’s how it works here in the U.S. of A. There is no big, bad boogie-man government. There’s only us, awake or asleep at the switch, telling them what we want done or not telling them.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  If these private organizations truly were supported by “the people,” they wouldn’t be coming to the City for these handouts because they’d be getting enough direct private contributions.  But judging from their pathetic fundraising results, it would appear that either their “services” suck or their publicists/fundraisers suck.     

Mr. Mayor:

Still waiting for you to present the bill for services provided to Anelise’s run. After all, “the limited financial resourses available to us should only be used to fund essential city services….” Why no comment on this TERRIBLE waste of tax dollars, hmmmmmm??

Mr. Mayor:

I see from the Park Ridge new extra fancy wiz bang web site that we have an event taking place in a few months that I think you need to address. Under Seasonal Events & Information it says the following….”Winterfest, annual Holiday Open House in Uptown and South Park, with the arrival of Santa, the Friday after Thanksgiving”. Now I realize that people seem to like that event. By then all the lights will have been put up by volunteers. Ironically some of the lead volunteers in this endevor ar actually those evil TOPR guys in disguise, but I digress. You get to pose with Santa and light the tree….great photo op!!!

But, alas, there is also a down side. we have an entire street shut down. We have extra trafic control and crossing guards. There is extra clean up the next morning. All these things cost EXTRA money. I am wondering how this all fits in with your montra…..”the limited financial resourses available to us should only be used to fund essential city services….”

To the city council and all you nanny-staters who support these giveaways of our taxes:

How much is enough? Instead of $190,000, why not $290,000, or $390,000, or $990,000?

4:26, you support helping the elderly not starve to death, but how do you know that $7,000 to Meals on Wheels is enough to make sure that doesn’t happen? How do you know that if the city gave MOW nothing, anybody would “starve” because of it? How do you know that $55,000 to Center of Concern guarantees that everybody has whatever services that place provides?

You don’t, and neither does the city council because it didn’t ask those questions when it budgeted or approved these funds, or when it cut the amount of funding some random percentage from what they paid out to these organizations last year.

There is no rhyme or reason to any of this, which is why I agree with this post and the mayor. And I’m tired of watching this group of nitwit aldermen give away our money to organizations we don’t want to give it to.

Bach and Allegretti, you guys say you aren’t running again, so why don’t you leave now. You too, Ryan. I’d rather be represented by an empty chair than the empty head that’s been there for the last 3 years.

6:46:

Just want to that it is very “ballsy” of you to say “organizations we don’t want to give it to”. Is that what we have come to in this city?? The we is now represented by anonymous poster on a blog rather than an offricial that (like it or not) was elected.

If you want to represent the we I suggest yourun for Alderman.

6:46pm… I think you said it well until as 7:08am noted you stated: “…we don’t want to give it to.”
7:08am is right; speak for yourself Kimosabe.

And 7:08am cetraily “we” are no more represented by this anonymous blooger than “we” are any other anonymous blogger OR BLOG MODERATOR. Get serious.

6:46:

The other thing I think you need to remember is that the Mayor voted for budgets that contained the money for these community groups multiple times while the city was not making budget. It was not just the Aldermen. Seems the Mayor has had an AMAZING transformation. He has “seen the light” – as they say. Very, very interesting!!!

PW you hide behind a cloak of claiming to be non partisan when people here give criticism of Republicans. My point is that you are a Republican because I was told you went to the party fundraiser. I was told also you have an agenda for why you were there. I think it is because you are a Republican working for the local Republican party.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  That must be it!  We are “working for the local Republican party,” which is why this site consistently has barbecued well-known Republican Howard P. Frimark, well-known Republican aldermen Jim Allegretti and Don Bach, et al.

Are you suggesting that those fellows must be Democrats because they support running deficits year after year, they want to grow government to take on tasks that are not within the role of government as set out in the Constitution and City policies, they don’t even follow their own procedures and policies, they love to cut insider deals, and they waste the taxpayers’ money without conscience or accountability? 

PW you are crazy. I don’t own or operate any blogs. I comment anonymously like every other person here. I guess if they agree with you you don’t entertain possibilities for who they are or call them names. What a coward. You are a sick mofo who admits to getting sexually aroused by associating with Republicans. Sick sick sick.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Opinions vary.  But you must be confusing us with PRU, because we generally publish all comments we receive – as you could see by looking at the ones that have been published just to this post alone.  Perhaps its just that folks like you tend to spend all your time over at PRU rather than here.  Tsk tsk tsk. 

PW you say you publish all comments but you admit you didn’t publish my comments because you think I am the former alderwoman. That is crazy. I don’t know who runs the PRU site but if the former alderwoman does then she must be a Republican too but a more reasonable one. Maybe I should start a blog for the Democrats.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  No, we didn’t publish certain of your comments because they were off-topic, frivolous and/or just plain stupid.  We simply speculated as to your identity. 

As for starting you own blog, don’t take this the wrong way but people like you tend not to have that much industriousness or focus: you tend to content yourselves with leeching off other people’s efforts, like you are doing here.  Now we suggest you scurry on over to PRU and waste some of Ms. Markech’s time. 

Anonymous on 09.10.10 6:46 am,

The reverse could be said about your argument and position. How do you know, without bothering to have your elected officials more vigorously investigate your concerns, whether or not harm could come to your fellow residents in need if the City’s small contributions to human needs services are cut?

As others have asked, what happens to those people? Do you care? Or, are you simply willing to risk real harm to real people because of some austere philosophy of government you seem to hold? If real harm is proven after it occurs, then what will you be prepared to do? If all public contributions to all private human needs agencies are cut and those agencies fail to raise the private dollars you demand they must, what then? Have you bothered to ask yourself what should happen if you are correct and the public doesn’t give a flying hoot in hell about providing even one thin dime of assistance to the needy? Are you willing to step over beggars in the street? Do you suggest that is the path a civil and caring society should take?

The exceedingly modest contributions the City makes to our privately run human needs service agencies helps to prevent the sorts of scenarios one sees daily in places like Calcutta, or even downtown Chicago. The cost of directly providing for human needs services on the part of the City would increase ten-fold if the course of action you are demanding is followed. Unless, of course, your bottom line answer is you don’t care what could happen to those people. The unrestricted grants the City gives allow certain agencies to operate and administer programs funded by highly restricted grants from other sources. Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish.

Anonymous 11:33 am

Nice trick asking for those of us who don’t want taxes used for these private groups like this to prove the negative. And intellectually dishonest, too.

Meals on wheels, Maine Mental Health, Center of Concern, and the rest of them don’t provide any specific information to the Council on what they do, for who they do it, and what it costs. And those goofs on the council don’t so much as ask.

For all I/you/we know, 80-90-100% of the money those groups are getting from the city goes to other communities, or to people who want it more than “need” it. Right now, based on what all of us “know,” there is no “real harm to real people” in Park Ridge. But if you want to spend Park Ridge taxes on Des Plaines residents, just say so.

If those agencies want public funds, why don’t they do what the mayor has suggested and prove what exactly they are doing for each dollar we give them? That wouldn’t increase the cost to the taxpayers one whit, it would just require accountability from the charities.

And if “the public doesn’t give a flying hoot in hell about providing even one thin dime of assistance to the needy,” then why should their representatives on the city council?

Calcutta? Put down the crack pipe.

While I doubt Park Ridge will end up with the poverty issues of Calcutta anytime soon, I think there is something to be said for spending a little government money to promote and extend the efforts of these charities. I do think there should be better analysis of each charity with the 4 contingencies of our city donation in mind.

But sometimes a little to charity beats a lot in public welfare spending and all the bureaucracy that goes with public efforts.

Anon @ 3:15 PM:

Giving away $190,000 of public funds to these organizations is already “public welfare spending.” There’s just no control over, or accountability for, what we’re getting for our money.

But exactly what would be “all the bureaucracy” that you’re concerned about if the City simply entered into contracts with these same groups that required them to provide X amount of service for Y amount of dollars they get? The City contracts out services to outside vendors all the time, and nobody has complained about any additional bureaucracy resulting from that.

Anonymous on 09.10.10 2:54 pm,

Your understanding of what was said is lacking. You and others were not being asked to prove a negative. It was merely pointed out that your position and argument could be reversed and that without demanding to have your elected officials more vigorously investigate your concerns, harm could come to your fellow residents in need.

You stated, “For all I/you/we know, 80-90-100% of the money those groups are getting from the city goes to other communities, or to people who want it more than “need” it.”

By your own admission, you do not know the information necessary to determine if Park Ridge residents in need are receiving services. Also by your own admission, you are unaware of how the human needs service agencies operate and screen their clients to determine eligibility.

Presumably, your concerns are based upon the desire for accountability. Yet, instead of demanding the information as you could by attending an open meeting, or asking the Mayor to demand the information which he has definitely not asked for, you and the Mayor have determined these funds should be cut.

If the general public doesn’t give a flying hoot in hell then isn’t it the responsibility of elected officials, who are presumed to represent everyone not just the majority, to care? If you advocate that the only responsibility of elected officials is to carry out the will of the majority then I would be forced to conclude you prefer a political system which guarantees the whims of tyranny over a representative democracy.

Perhaps Calcutta was the wrong example to offer. Your sense of how government should function seems more suited to Somalia. Here’s a travel promotion you may enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

And as if on comedic cue, the following just arrived in my mailbox.

***************************************
Fwd: FW: FEMA disaster assistanceFriday, September 10, 2010 4:55 PM
From: “Dave Schmidt”
To: [email protected]
Message contains attachments 1 File (36KB)
Press Release Disaster Assistance 9-10-10.pdf

Attached is information about disaster assistance from the federal government arising out of the July 2010 storms. If you suffered any
damage from the storm, please check out the link to see if you can obtain some reimbursement for your losses. Good luck.
*************************

It would appear the Mayor is promoting government assistance for those who may have suffered a loss, despite his claims that government should only spend taxpayer money on the most basic essential services.

According to your logic, Anonymous on 09.10.10 2:54 pm, and the logic of the Mayor, those who have suffered a loss should rely on charity without any form of government/taxpayer support.