Frimark valued comity above all else on the city council. I recall him personally complaining that when he and the other aldermen would go out for a drink after a meeting, Schmidt would never join them. Straight line from there to Ryles’ statement above, no doubt scripted by Frimark, about “total lack of teamwork”. If “good man” is code for a pliable, controllable neophyte, then “teamwork” is code for go-along-get-along — just vote yes to more corporate welfare.

What Frimark and the other spendthrifts don’t realize is that we are in different times. The economy in general, not to mention burdens like the Uptown TIF, mean that we have to decrease spending in every way possible. And that doesn’t even take into account the continuing mess in Springfield.

On the federal front, the Alternative MInimum Tax will affect millions more household this year, many of which are exactly the kind of households we have in Park Ridge.

Property taxes go up by “only” 2.15% for the city, 3%+ for the schools and who knows what for the Park District. Illinois income tax up 66%. More money for Uncle Sam. Not a good environment for “Let’s Make A Deal.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Knowing Frimark and his reputation for creative truth-telling, we have to question whether there ever was any such invitation. But the kind of “comity” to which you refer predominated for years under the Homeowners Party, especially AFTER Marty Butler left it in the hands of Ron Wietecha and several others; and social activities and a sycophantic go-along-to-get-invited culture substituted for independence and original thought on policy and issues.

That’s when aldermanic candidates got chosen from variety show casts and quasi-private ward “caucuses” with the assurance that they would likely be running unopposed – but if anyone dared challenge them, the Homeowners’ war chest would be avaiable to preserve the HO hegemony.

If the Council would sustain Schmidt’s veto of Phase I of the cop shop “update,” the City’s levy increase could drop down to almost zero. But it appears that not even three aldermen are willing to join Schmidt’s call to make the PRPD (and Chief K’s Task Force) come up with a way to use that 6,000+ square feet of existing City building space rather than stroke their edifice complexes with a new building on Courtland.

This is the best possible news for the Schmidt camp. Up until now many were predicting this race could come down to the wire. If I were Schmidt I wouldn’t even buy signs, but rather spend the money on a re-election celebration party.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Were Schmidt to follow your advice, he would be doing a great disservice to the taxpayers and voters of Park Ridge who deserve the robust debate on City policy and issues that only a highly-contested race can provide.

This is one of your cleverest assessments yet, with bonus points for wit. Especially loved the “we worked really hard on this” rationale for assent to wasteful and dumb allocations. The public should insist that the old Public Works building on Busse be used for evidence storage, etc. and that any cop shop plans actually focus on mold abatement, sequestered areas for vics vs. perps, and whatever other actual necessities earlier pitches included but this latest plan doesn’t.

EDITOR’S NOTE: With over 6,000 square feet of available building space already lying fallow, there’s something wrong when it’s up to the “public” to “insist” on specific elements of fiscally-responsible government because both our bureaucrats AND our elected officials insist on taking the easy, spendthrift way out.

You have written in earlier posts about a Homeowners Party successor that has thousands of dollars of the Homeowners Party campaign funds. Do you think that successor will support Ryles against Schmidt?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The $15,000 left from the Homeowners campaign fund was bequeathed to the “Citizens for Non-Partisan Local Elections,” which we understand to be managed by former First Ward Homeowners’ alderman John English since that party was organized in 2009. Whether any of that money ends up in Ryles’ campaign fund remains to be seen.

PW, wasn’t there also some money from Taste of Park Ridge that, allowed by their change in status from 501(c)(3) to some political designation, could also go to Ryles or some other candidate?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Taste Inc.’s change from a “for profit” corporation (despite its representations to the contrary for four years, Taste Inc. never was a 501(c)(3) entity) to a 501(c)(6) would, as we understand it, permit it to engage in political activity by, among other things, drawing on its approx. $100,000 bank account to campaign and/or “lobby” for or against candidates for public office or the positions they advocate.

I do believe that Mel Thillens has been heard to state that TOPR money would not be used for political purposes. I think we know he is a ‘Dog reader and infrequent commentor… Mel, what say you?

EDITOR’S NOTE: We believe Mr. Thillens also was the chief Tastee spokesman who assured the City – in connection with the written contract containing the same assurance – that it would provide, “within ninety days of the Event,” Taste Inc.’s ‘financial records that follow standard accounting practices, including but not limited to actual expense by category and final gross/net revenue totals by category.” To the best of our knowledge, however, it’s now 138 DAYS AFTER THE EVENT and mo such report has been provided. If that’s true, it would appear to reflect badly on Mr. Thillens’ credibility.

TOPR will not spend any money on any campaign for any candidate. We use that money to run the Taste.

The Taste gave their financial reports to the City Manager Shawn Hamilton in September. The only reason it took that long was we were waitng on sponsorship receivables.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you for that information, Mr. Thillens. It appears we made an erroneous assumption on this point. That being said, however, we note for the record that: (a) there appears to be no mention of that report anywhere on the City’s website, including in any of the Council meeting minutes or meeting materials; (b) there appears to be no mention of that report anywhere on the Taste Inc. website; and (c) there appears to be no mention of that report anywhere else in the mass media.

Frankly, for an organization as adept at self-promotion as Taste Inc., we are amazed that this report seems to have escaped everybody’s attention for over two months, especially given all the controversy surrounding the RFP and the contract between the City and Taste Inc. If you wish to submit a copy of that report to us, however, we can assure you that we WILL publish it.

It’s been an open secret since Frimark’s peeps took over the ailing Taste and made it a roaring success (hey, props where due) that monies from the beer tent were going to support Dudych and other Republican politicians locally. It is unlikely that anything has changed.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We heartily concur with the “roaring success” prop, but we have seen no hard evidence to support that “open secret.”

If Mr. Thillens does come here to comment, I would rather he first defend how he could, as a park board member and as a member of the out side group to try and drum up support for getting the new land, the fact that he wants to spend a huge amount of cash on a pool comples AND raise taxes to get more land. I would like him to defend when we are cutting to the bone on the other side of the house to defend this spending as a good idea.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s stay on point here. Besides, we intend to give Mr. Thillens and his fellow Park Board members all the opportunities they could ever want to comment on their arrogance in jamming an inferior $7.1 million cost, $6.3 million bonded debt Centennial Pool complex down the taxpayers’ throats based on some ginned-up survey without the decency of giving the taxpayers an advisory referendum vote.

Anon at 7:08 am-if you have not already done so please contact all the PRPD board members(there emails are at prparks.org) and tell them your concerns about putting in a waterpark at Centennial when the people of PR have voted 4 times no on this project. The PRPD board is set to vote on the new expensive waterpark at the Dec. 6 meeting so come one and all to tell them “NO” to this costly ill-conceived plan that will do nothing to increase the value of your property but will increase your taxes. (Sorry to go off point.)

EDITOR’S NOTE We forgive you, especially because of how this Park Board and Staff are making a mockery of this process and insulting the taxpaying voters with the arrogant insistence that they know what’s best for us; and that the majority of Park Ridge residents actually want this new pool complex.

Anon 7:08, you read my mind. PW, looking forward to that forum but so far all I see is a park board bent on doing what they want with as little review as possible.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t disagree with you. This is, by far, the single most arrogant (and at the same time cowardly) Park Board since the one that pushed through our half-baked community center without a referendum back in the early ’90s – and for roughly the same cost, not adjusted for inflation.

Half-baked — or, as the sane would put it — modestly scaled — projects are what Park Ridge can afford and will support. Why blame the elected officials who make them happen? There is nothing arrogant about the Park Board exercising its authority to allocate resources to needed improvements, renovations, etc. of which the Centennial replacement/upgrade is but one. Moreover, statistically viable surveys taxpayers responded to were very much part of the upgrade decision; as well,public meetings have been held and will be held on the Centennial project. There are projects and expenditures such as the Youth Campus deal that do require voters to make the decision directly. Perhaps you made all the right calls and all of the residents liked all of your decisions when you were on the Park Board, but it’s “arrogant” and “cowardly” to excoriate elected officials for doing their jobs. I’d say “let’s see you do better,” but oops, too late for that, n’est-ce pas?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Actually, “half-baked” is far too kind for such an uninspiring, third-rate plan at such a top-shelf price, which the taxpayers will be paying off over the next 15 years.

Unfortunately, this arrogant yet gutless Park Board is doing its best to avoid actually finding out – through an indisputable referendum vote of 8,000 or so taxpayer/voters – “what Park Ridge can afford and will support,” preferring instead to hide behind pathetic “statistically viable surveys” with a measly 682 responses that would barely represent one precinct’s referendum turnout.

Meanwhile, these meetings are nothing more than charades or kabukis intended by the shameless Park Board members to create a semblance of transparent and accountable governance when, in fact, the deal has already been cooked; and the taxpayer be damned.

Well I’d ask for forgiveness like everyone else for going off topic but it appears thats where the majority want to go any way. I commend the Park Board and Park District staff for the vision and courage to do the right thing. Bottom line is if there are any residents who are against the Centennial project they should save themselves the aggregation of even going to the 12/6 meeting, because the project is moving forwards with their support or not. The board has spoken and will not change their plans because of a few vocal NIMBYs. Sorry folks but that’s just reality. If there are residents who are that frustrated with the project and/or the process, get up off the couch and run for the park board, instead of pontificating. Otherwise take your medicine on this one!

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Vision” and “courage” are two things so totally missing from this blind, arrogant and cowardly Park Board and Staff on this project.

The pool is a pedestrian design that won’t even include some of the features people wanted most – if one is to believe the kinked-up “survey” of an alleged whopping 682 residents. And by not submitting this project to an advisory referendum, the Board and Staff are telling the taxpayers, effectively, to go to hell.

Should the Park Board and Staff persist in this course of conduct, we are confident the taxpayers will return the favor on the Youth Campus referendum in April. Which would once again demonstrate that payback truly is a b*tch.

5:49-the voting taxpaying citizens have told the PRPD board on four previous occasions that this town does not need or want a water park at the Centennial location. Now the PRPD board is doing an end around on the matter and building this waterpark anyway at a cost of $7.1 million dollars for the first 2 phases of a three phase project. This water park costs 50 percent more to build than replacing the current pools.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In fairness, each time that voting taxpayers said “no,” the pools weren’t at the point which even suspicious folks like us believe they are now. But that doesn’t excuse the cowardly arrogance – or the arrogant cowardice, if you prefer – of this Park Board and Staff, who after telling the voting taxpayers to go to hell now will be cozying up to those same folks come April when they want $16 million for their Youth Campus project.

This website is clearly one dedicated to the Mayor Schmidt. That is fine, but wish you’d be clearer instead of trying to con your readers.
2nd, It’s not a water park at all. IT’S A SLIDE. Park Ridge is in trouble financially due to the small vocal of voters who want no business or improvements in what was used to be a very well taken care of town. Please wake up…the rest of the town is.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, this website started years before Schmidt even became an alderman, and it is dedicated to certain principles and policies of local government – many/most of which the Mayor appears to share.

The new Centennial Pool project is a white elephant, a third-rate facility at a first-rate price that will be a financial burden on this community for the next 15 years. To the extent Park Ridge is “in trouble financially,” it’s because of boneheaded decisions by Other People’s Money spendthrifts and quasi-freeloaders who think they will get more out of certain things than they will pay for them.

But if you really think “the rest of the town” wants this Centennial white elephant, then join our call for an advisory referendum and see. We’ve got a crisp new $1 bill says this current plan wouldn’t even get 45% of the votes cast, but we’re willing to risk $1 on being wrong.

I am trying to follow your logic to the end. I know you want a referendum on the pool project, and that you believe the referendum for the proposed project will fail. So do you just not believe there should be outdoor pools? Or do you want a different project that you believe would pass referendum. If so, there is a process for anyone to put a referendum on the ballot. Go for it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a public policy matter – whether the taxpayers want to spend that kind of money and incur that kind of debt for this particular pool project – not a “logic” problem.

But since you want to make it into one, try this: (1) The PRRPD Board and Staff claims it knows the residents want to spend $7.1 million (and go $6.3 million into debt) on this particular Centennial Pool project, so the Board and Staff must believe what the residents want is important; and (2) they spent money on a “survey” of 682 respondents, which would tend to confirm that they believe what the residents want is important. So if what the residents want is so important, why would the Board not put this pool project to an advisory referendum to find out, by countable votes, what 8,000+ voting residents (the recently typical turnout) want?

At the risk of returning to the original topic, do you know whether Ryles sought out Frimark for advice and support or whether Frimark sought out Ryles as Frimark’s anti-Schmidt candidate? I find it kind of strange because the only things involving Frimark and city government since Schmdit defeated him are some kind of ethical problem with Frimark trying to get insurance business from the Uptown complex, his complaint about this blog’s editor’s appointment to the library board, this blog’s use of the city flag, and now his support of Ryles.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have not heard from either Frimark or Ryles and would be hesitant to guess what provoked that alliance, save for Frimark’s crate-load of sour grapes re losing to Schmidt and resultant dislike of all things Schmidt, including his appointment of this blog’s editor to the Library Board.

Dear “Not the No’s” and regarding this comment you made: “Park Ridge is in trouble financially due to the small vocal of voters who want no business or improvements.”

Well, it was a small group of voters, less than 700, who voted to increase everyone’s property taxes via more money for District 64. And it’s a small group on the Park Board with $7 million burning a hole in their pockets.

Why not a large group of voters? Put it to referendum; if the town is “waking up” as you claim, then this should be a done deal.

Last point, about your claim that Park Ridge “used to be a very well taken care of town.” Do you pine for another Uptown? As I recall we invested a lot of money and we’re still investing it now, every single day, as the TIF scheme collapsed.

Park Ridge is in trouble financially because the city council, the school districts — and now, it seems, the park district board — are addicted to OPM. Other People’s Money.

By the way, has anyone else written the members of the park district board and also not gotten ANY responses?

Referendums in situations like this aren’t helpful. We elect representatives. People are very likely to say “no” to any increase or “investment”. Why do you and many advocate Park Ridge to continue to not invest in itself?

The pool issue is clear: Replace the pools with a modernized version for a little over $7 Million, or replace exact structures for a little over $5 Million (with included ancillary updates).

It’s really a no-brainer.

Plus, NOTE if anyone calls it a “water park” you can dismiss their opinion, because it’s a circulated false term by the vocal people who live across the street.

I have no pick in the Mayors race, but automatically implying Ryles is a Frimark puppet taints your site…unless you have specific knowledge.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Referendums in situations like this definitely “aren’t helpful” to folks like yourself – and to our arrogant cowards on the Park Board – who clearly want an amenity that “[p]eople are very likely to say ‘no’ to” because it’s not an “investment” in any sense of that word.

We would have had more respect for a pool plan that, even if more expensive, would be indoor/outdoor, tied to the Community Center, and usable at least 6-months or more a year. But you’re right about this plan being a “no brainer,” just not in the way you obviously intended the term.

As for Ryles and Frimark (or Frimark and Ryles), they are what they are.

Explain “tied” to the community center. In what design? What examples from other communities do you see? I see Niles, Des Plaines, Mt Prospect and Arlington Heights with excellent pools. I would be fine with spending more money on the pools to make it better as well. I want investment in our town done right. Too often when govt is involved it’s done on the cheap or with too many concessions to a very few and results in crap.

Beyond pools, even our actual parks need huge upgrades. For example, baseball fields are better than Chicago Parks, but worse than most suburbs now.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This Centennial Pool plan is already being done “on the cheap” and will result in a third-rate aquatics facility, just like the “on the cheap” Community Center resulted in an undersized third-rate fitness facility.

For an example of how a new Centennial Pool facility could be “tied” to the Community Center, check out the indoor/outdoor aquatic facilities at:
http://www.berndorf-baederbau.com/SITES/Englisch/kommunale_schwimmbaeder/hallen_freibad.php?n=kom&p1_id=27&e1_id=107.

So, the Mayor appointed PW to the Library Board? Ok, now we’re learning about objectivity in this blog. Ok, I’m learning more about the political teams every paragraph. It’s much easier at least when everyone knows who on who’s team.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ll take your “objectivity” suspicions seriously the first time you find this blog endorsing any action by this mayor that is contrary to the principles and policies consistently espoused here.

Had you been paying attention to this blog (e.g., https://publicwatchdog.org/archives/2011/07/21/frimark-all-bluster-no-bite/) and/or to the newspapers back in the summer of 2011, you would have learned that the appointment of the editor/publisher of this blog to the Library Board was recommended, like all other mayoral appointments, by the Mayor’s Advisory Board, and approved by a 6-1 vote of the Council.

This community voted for a tax increase to add to the budget of District 64, so I don’t think you can say “referendums aren’t helpful” and “People are very likely to say ‘no’ to any increase or ‘investment’.”

On the other hand, pools seem to fail in referenda. I don’t know why; maybe it’s because the public uses pools less than the cost would justify.

In this case, anyway, public finances are in bad shape. The park district board should look for less expensive ways to maintain their assets.

They also want the Youth Campus land. If voters approve that, then the park district board will need every penny they can find.

5th Ward Taxpayer- You are on to something. The public has no idea how much a pool (s) should cost. That’s why we elect a board, who in a professionally way understands costs, reviews other communities, and gets prices. No way do I, nor 99.9% of Park Ridge know the difference between $7 Million or $10 Million in what can be done. That’s why we have to trust a board to help us and respond to them with our thoughts.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What a great argument for the nanny-state – or, in this case, the nanny-Park District: “It’s too difficult for your simple-minded taxpayers to understand – trust us, and give us your money.”

What’s wrong with us “respond[ing] to them with our thoughts” AND our referendum votes – other than, of course, the fact that the arrogant cowards at the Park District don’t want any objective proof that the voting taxpayers might not want to spend this much money and undertake this much debt for a third-rate, 3-month aquatic facility?

Dear Dr. No:

If you believe in “Set-it-and-forget-it” government, you must really like living in Illinois right now.

Responsible citizens vote, and then pay attention to what’s going on.

That’s all I’m doing.

Sincerely,

5WT

EDITOR’S NOTE: And you’re doing it pretty darn well, FWT.

5WT- You’re response completely missed the point. Of course, we should all pay attention, contribute our ideas and participate. I don’t agree with the use of referendums in cases like this. If this blog is this critical of the plan, then please use examples, not just say it’s “3rd rate”….please say what it is 3rd rate to and why. I think unfortunately, this blog owner is part of the contingent of Park Ridge that only understands what he/she and her neighbors use and not the larger community.

At least you haven’t called it a “water park” like the across the street coalition to not have to look at a slide as they “stroll” in the park.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No’s, we challenge you to find any post in this blog that demonstrates this blog’s objection to this project, or any project or expense, is based on personal, family or neighbor use v. that of “the larger community.” To the contrary, we have consistently opposed that kind of “special interest” wheeling and dealing, which is one of the reasons we want this project to go to a community-wide advisory referendum.

But if you want to point the finger at some of “the contingent of Park Ridge that only understands what he/she and her neighbors use and not the larger community,” you can start with the Park Board members who are trying to push this third-rate project – judged by all the much better facilities to which people are willing to travel and for which people are willing to pay bigger dollars – primarily because they can get it under the non-referendum bonding cap.

Please explain 3rd rate project. Calling names doesn’t make something true.

Also, what “wheeling and dealing” are you insinuating? Why do you believe the parks board want this program done?
Can city council do anything about it?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Start with the new plan’s 6-lane lap pool that should be 8-lane by every measure, including the consensus of a number of Chicago area park district aquatics supervisors whom the PRRPD consulted. Follow with the “lazy river” that the PRRPD’s questionable survey suggests even more people want than want water slides, but which the PRRPD has deferred to some uncertain future “Phase II.” What about a “wave” pool? Or any of those other water features that draw people to other facilities, despite a much higher admission fee.

In the case of the new Centennial Pools, the “wheeling and dealing” is being done by a small group of “lap swimmers” who couldn’t care less that Oakton Pool was losing $90,000 a year so long as they could swim laps in an Olympic-sized pool for $5 a visit, or much less if they bought a pool pass; and by the Park Board and Staff, who just want to put something new there without a referendum in April that the fear will distract from their much bigger referendum for the Youth Campus project.

“Why do you believe the parks board want (sic) this program done?” — No’s 12.04.12 1:54 pm

Answer: Because park district board president Biagi has spammed residents’ mailboxes pleading for support. That’s why.

5th Ward- Again, you try to be clever, instead of answering a question. I understand that he is FOR renovation…but what is his reason for backing it? It seems this board is very paranoid…without any facts.

Editor- Do you think the neighbors would be any less angry with a “Wave” (or what they will call it “Water Park”) pool? How much does a Wave pool cost?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Our concern isn’t just about the neighbors, it’s more about the entire community – otherwise we’d be arguing for a referendum where only the neighbors could vote. If the Park District Board and Staff had done their jobs, you wouldn’t have to be asking us about the cost of a “wave” pool – it would have been part of the due diligence, even if the decision was to exclude it.

Dear No’s: I can’t help it if you can’t write a clear interrogative sentence, even lacking simple agreement of subject and verb. Your question made it sound like you were questioning whether the park district board was actively supporting the $7 million plan. It seems you were really asking what is their rationale for supporting it.

I can’t speak for them, but it would seem from news reports, this blog and its comments section that the rationale is “the pool is in disrepair” and rather than just repair or replace, they also want to expand it as an “investment” in Park Ridge.

EDITOR’S NOTE: FWT, your second paragraph is basically correct: there are sufficient problems with the current pools that they cannot be counted on to remain operational; and instead of replacing them with what is currently there, the PRRPD intends to create a different and more expansive aquatic facility.

The “investment,” however, is a misnomer because: (a) no private enterprise or other governmental body would pay even its cost value to acquire the facility, once build; (b) if anyone wanted just the land the facility will be sitting on, the price of the land would need to be discounted by the cost of removing the facility; and (c) the PRRPD has yet to provide any business plan showing that the facility will produce an operational “profit” (or “surplus”). Consequently, this facility will not be an “investment” under any common and reasonable meaning of that term.

(Not sure if last post went through)…but to the 5th Ward Taxpayer—this is a blog, that I’m writing on from my phone, not an English paper. Settle down. You constant hyperbolic comments change the subject. Someone who attacks people, instead of debating the subject displays the emptiness in their character.

I give the blog owner credit for posting news and his thoughts…hopefully this can be a place of ideas and comments and not ornery people who just call names and shout out paranoid thoughts.

BTW – that indoor/outdoor design posted above is interesting.

Oh for 5th taxpayer (sorry, BTW isn’t correct grammar, is it?).

Sorry to offend you, No’s. I was merely responding to your accusation that I was trying to be “clever”. 100% of my comments have addressed issues, not attacked people. If I am attacked, however, as you did to me, I will most definitely respond.