It will be very easy to “vote the bums out” for all the reasons stated in your post. Too bad Mel Thillens and Mary Wynn Ryan are not running for re-election as they should get thrown out as well.

The board of the PRPD is fiscally responsible to all the taxpayers of PR not just those that want a waterpark or those that want all of PR to buy them a bigger backyard and to cut their new grass.

The shamefull and illegal(?) and certainly unethically ways the PRPD staff with apparent board approval have used to push this ridiculous Youth Campus referendum make my blood pressure soar. They think that distributing information is not campaigning. Really? Attend a coffee talk to learn about the referendum-advertised on the PRPD website. PRPD meetings where you can bring in your tax bill and they will calculate how much more tax you will be paying for the next 20 years to give a few homeowners a bigger back yard. Stories planted in the paper to scare people into thinking the foster kids may be back if the referendum fails. More printed material in all the PRPD facilities and mailings than the PRPD-I could careless if it is the OPL-should be printing and sending. PRPD staff in lobbies of PRPD buildings and at the driving range campaigning for the referendum. The list goes on.

As you pointed out, the PRPD is spending $7,100,000 for a waterpark-with another $3,400,000 plus to come to complete the waterpark. They are taking $800,000 out of reserve to boot. Now they want to buy a $13,200,000!! park across from an existing park-not to mention 3 blocks or so from Niles-and put in paddle tennis, a splash pad and performing arts center? Another building to take care of when many of the current properties are in need of repair or upgrade-how about basic maintenance? All of this will likely not generate a net profit. And not much has been published to show a need for more space.

Where the hell is all of the money supposed to come from to pay for all of this? Oh yeah us the taxpayer because we have so much more to give.

The alternatives may not be any better but I simply cannot vote for three board members who IMO have so flippantly ignored their responsibilities to all the taxpayers of Park Ridge.

VOTE THE BUMS OUT AND VOTE NO!

EDITOR’S NOTE: You are reveling in your ignorance if you treat the PRRPD and OPL as interchangeable – although we agree with you that it looks like the PRRPD has certainly bent, if not broken, the law about using taxpayer money for political purposes. That might be something worth bringing to the State’s Attorney’s or Attorney General’s attention once the election is over.

I agree with your endorsements, as the incumbents Hunst, Biagi, and Brandt are a far better choice to keep the budgets in line and the services improving.

And speaking of budgets, Mountcastle, staff and the board have provided close to million dollar budget surpluses in each of the past several years, which should allow them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the Youth Campus operating budget.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Not so fast, Slick. NOBODY gets “the benefit of the doubt” when they want to saddle the taxpayers with multi-millions of dollars of debt for an amenity, and then try to support it by publishing as ridiculous an “Operating Budget” as Mountcastle, et al. have presented. That is basically telling the taxpayers: “We think you’re so stupid and superificial that you’ll buy anything we tell you, including all these made up numbers without any reasonable detail.”

And, sad to say, the folks at the PRRPD may be right.

Glad to see your endorsement of the top three candidates, Hunst, Biagi and Brandt. The fact that Brandt is already a longtime Senior Center member who strongly supports the Board’s efforts to clean up that sinkhole should reassure any seniors in town of these three fellows’ honorable intentions. It’s not, and never has been, “Park Dist. vs. ‘the seniors’ — or, as Larry Ryles disengenuously puts it, “the Seniors.” It’s a splinter group at the senior center vs. the rest of the seniors in town and everybody else as well.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s what we’ve been saying for years. Too bad Mountcastle and the Board mishandled the Grodsky matter AND the lawsuit, but that just makes the Seniors Inc.-apologist “The Bottom Three” even less attractive as alternatives to Biagi, Brandt and Hunst.

I don’t think the Park Board is crying about not being able to afford the Youth Campus property without a referendum, just making the observation for the public’s understanding that they won’t go ahead and buy it anyway. And it appears that the Board did indeed “make value judgements and prioritize their wishes…” when choosing to rebuild the popular but decrepit Centennial Pool instead of buying the Youth Campus and letting the City’s residents make do with Hinkley Pool. And if the public gets to vote up or down on the Youth Campus, the Park Board is hardly in a position to “recklessly indulge all of [their wishes]” Having wishes and indulging them, recklessly or prudently, are not the same thing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mountcastle and the Board did make a “value judgment” all right: they chose to jackpot the taxpayers by deciding – without an advisory referendum to legitimately gauge public support – to spend $6.3 million of the District’s non-referendum bonding power on a $7.1 million third-rate replacement for the admittedly “decrepit” Centennial Pool. By intentionally depriving themselves of that $6.3 million of non-referendum bonding power AND $800,000 of cash that COULD HAVE BEEN USED to buy the Youth Campus property, they figured that they could guilt/fear-monger/stampede the taxpayers into voting for what had been manufactured into the ONLY way the Youth Campus property could be purchased.

That’s typical Illinois-style government at its absolute worst.

It occurs to me this is the perfect example of the state of our politics and elected officials.

You can act in a way that demonstrates gross negligence and incompetence involving hundreds of thousands of dollars (SSI mess) and even millions (centennial pool and park land). You can act in a way that “has certainly bent, if not broken, the law about using taxpayer money for political purposes”………and still get an endorsement.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you don’t like it, start by blaming the empty-suit challengers for being so weak and one-issue oriented that we couldn’t even seriously consider them.

As for whether the “informational” publications that the District is lawfully allowed to distribute have crossed the line into impermissible politicking, that remains to be seen; and, perhaps, prosecuted.

But since you appear to be so offended by it and by our endorsements, can we count on you to identify yourself and file a complaint about it with the Ill. Atty. General’s office and the various (state and county) boards of elections?

All I was saying about “the benefit of the doubt” is that maybe you shouldn’t assue the numbers are made up, as their annual budget numbers seem to be very conservative and realistic.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And all we are saying, again, is that the “Operating Budget” is such a pile of dreck that it’s an insult to (and borderline fraud on) every taxpayer in the District, judged on its own merits and irrespective of everything else the District has done.

Where is Herbert Hoover when we need him?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Still dead. And your point is…?

Absolutely agree with Anonymous from 8:41 last night. Ms. Mountcastle and Mr. Thillens, and their interchangeable cronies among park district staff and OPL neighbors, have schemed to present this YC as an unmissable “opportunity”. And, as Anon. pointed out, happily let the current owners threaten the community in news articles saying “foster kids” will return. Also, we all got flyers in the mail last weekend that did everything but blatantly say “vote yes”. This isn’t even fully a park — it’s new office buildings for park district staff and lots of parking for their vehicles. There has also been lots of talk about how developers will build “40-50” houses on the 11.35 acres if we vote no. C’mon…the planning & zoning board would never allow that. Neither would the neightbors who think this will increase their property values. Oh, and those neighbors think there won’t be any bright lights to illuminate the parking lots and pathways at night. C’mon…of course there will.

OPL: Our People Lie.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, FWT, would you call it a Mountcastle/Thillens/Barton Production?

Not to belabor this (OK, let’s belabor this), but the Park Board obviously thought fixing and upgrading an existing facility, Centennial Pool, was a need-to and the Youth Campus was a nice-to, or they’d have done the opposite.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, the Park Board and Dir. Mountcastle wanted both, irrespective of what the taxpayers might want, even though that the taxpayers want could have been determined with certainty by an advisory referendum on Centennial along with the binding referendum on the Youth Campus.

But the Park Board and Mountcastle knew from past Centennial and other outdoor pool referenda that they would probably lose a Centennial Pool advisory referendum, in which case they would either have to drop that Centennial plan, or do it against the objectively-demonstrable wishes of the voters – which nobody on the Board had the courage or integrity to do. Hence, no referendum on Centennial.

But since the District only had enough non-referendum bonding power for one project, they blew that bonding power and $800,000 of cash on a stripped-down version of the new Centennial Pool, figuring that they could stampede the voters into approving the Youth Campus acquisition.

On Tuesday we will see whether their Illinois-style political scheme worked.

Anon at 7:04 am-I don’t believe your statement that the PRPD and Gayle Mountcastle have generated million dollar budget surpluses is accurate. Just because net assets on the statement of changes in net assets in the audited financial statements went up by over a $1,000,000 does not mean this was a profit from operations. During 2011 the PRPD issued $3,200,000 in non-referendum bonds and also saw an increase in the property taxes it collects from us. So it is misleading to say that the PRPD staff and board created million dollar surpluses from operations at the PRPD.

There were profits from recreational programs for the past 3 or 4 years-certainly not more than $1,000,000 a year. And what did the PRPD do with those surpluses? One could argue that they used some of the surpluses to create a reserve of $800,000 over the past 3 or 4 years so they could use that money to help fund a waterpark that they voted on in December when most of PR was not paying attention without having to go to referendum.

Ms. Mountcastle and the current board have not demonstrated much transparency or accountability to all of the taxpayers of PR. We deserve better and the current board’s handling of the senior center, the $10,5000,000 waterpark and the $13,200,000 park issues show us who they really are looking out for.

The PRPD and OPL is a marriage of convenience. They got together because they needed each other to get what they wanted. Come on PWD, a park designed not to actually be used and without lights? That was the Park Districts idea?

It would appear to the casual observer that Chicago resident Ms. Mountastle’s motivation is personal and she is using the stooges of OPL to help her build he career. If the referendum passes, she’ll update her resume touting her accomplishment and get out of here as fast as she can, leaving the PD and the Citizen with a stinking revenue draining $18M picnic grove. Why else would she be at the Driving Range last Saturday morning on her day off passing out free hotdogs and talking up the YC (which I think might be illegal for a PD employee to be doing).

Mel Thillens. After the Taste of PR fiasco, why would anyone trust the drivel he spews. He has been spouting off on other blogs about how there have already been 3 developers who have made bids on the YC and how he as personally seen plans with 50 houses there. Pay no attention to the fact that it would be impossible even with the most lenient zoning.

And speaking of zoning. Who here doesn’t think that the very same folks pushing for the PD to acquire the property will be back to fight against most of the lame-ass amenities proposed for the YC property? Some are already grumbling about possible noise from the performing arts area and paddle tennis. Does anyone even know anyone who plays paddle tennis?

OPL: Other People’s Loot

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, it’s going to referendum. If the voters either want it, or are stupid/ignorant enough to be suckered into it, welcome to democracy.

Of course lights will be added to the Youth Campus at some point. Only a characteristic lack of candor and integrity prevented the District from saying so, just like that same characteristic lack of candor and integrity has prevented them from telling the public that there’s not a snowball’s chance for a “lazy river” (the most wanted feature of the new Centennial Pool, by far, according to the District’s mojo survey) being built, unless the public throws up a major hue and cry sometime in the future.

Whether the Centennial Pool project and a successful Youth Campus referendum will be Mountcastle’s ticket to ride remains to be seen, but she’s got no ties except a paycheck to Park Ridge. And as we understand it, she was clever enough to conceal her free hot dog-campaigning for the Youth Campus by staging it as part of the opening weekend festivities at the driving range. What do you think she learns at all those parks & recreation conferences she attends?

Thillens is a salesman – nothing more, nothing less. Anybody who can’t see him coming is either blind or a fool.

Ace, it’s pretty amazing you have the stones to spout off about “courage” and “integrity” or lack of it on the Park Board when you sat by for eight years and let the Senior Center deficits and general disarray continue and increase without accountability. I’d love to see you exhibit half the courage and integrity of Messrs. Hunst, Biagi and Brandt. You had your chance and let it pass you by.
If your excuse for your past collusion is that the SC deficit is not as much money as the Centennial Pool project, or that the SC deficit was lower in your day, then you’re like the lovely who says “no” for $100 but “yes” for $1,000. Now that we know what your values are, let’s talk price. You are an absolutist (any deficit is bad no matter how small and no matter what the benefit) the rest of the time; why not now?

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor is not an “absolutist” on anything – as has been demonstrated repeatedly over the past 7 years. As best as this editor remembers, no deficit (or at least not one of any significance) was being shown for the Senior Center when he was on the Board; but, as he has said repeatedly, he will be accountable until the day he dies for what was done by the Park District on his watch (May 1997 through April 2005).

Now, exactly what “courage and integrity” did those gentlemen exhibit in denying the taxpayers a vote on the new Centennial Pool?

Ms. Mountcastle may not be perfect but are you seriously saying that Jim Lange, who did live in Park Ridge and therefore was even more timid about laying down the law and annoying anybody, was more able to make the hard calls? Not hardly, and you know it. If anything, Mountcastle’s not living here makes her more likely to be objective.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Jim Lange was a major improvement over his predecessor, Steve Meyer, and Jim cared deeply about the Park District. Unfortunately, Jim loved everybody and would do what he could to smooth over problems rather than take the bull by the horns. Hence, Oakton Pool was allowed to suck hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the taxpayers’ pockets; the sports affiliates were pretty much left to their own devices; and the Senior Center was basically venerated.

Mountcastle appears to have done some positive things re managing the District. But she’s no more “objective” than any other political bureaucrat.

Funny but very few people agree with you that Steve Meyer was a problem. Prior board members and employees found him to be quite professional. One hears that he even tried to take on the senior center third rail…yes, Mr. Lange is a lovely person. But not every lovely person belongs in a leadership or management slot. You’d be the first to agree that “caring deeply” is not definitive of skill and, while we’re on it, when you’re making what these executive directors make, all in, “caring deeply” is the least we should be able to expect.”Caring deeply” should be measured by results.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Steve Meyer was such a nightmare even his toadies on the Board voted to buy him early retirement through excess contributions to the retirement fund.

He mismanaged the “old” Hinkley Pool into such neglect and disrepair that it was actually closed for at least one season upon being deemed “unsafe,” and he cut so many corners with the design of the Community Center that years later, a representative of Bally Fitness said they wouldn’t manage the Community Center on a no-rent, no-fee basis because the design was so terrible and the facilities so inadequate.

But you’re right: “caring deeply” is no substitute for good management, as demonstrated by results.

“Pay no attention to the fact that it would be impossible even with the most lenient zoning.”

Seeing as how the Youth Campus land is currently set up for R2 zoning, which allows a minimum lot width of 50 feet, it is most certainly possible that a developer could shoehorn upwards of 45 houses into that space should the referendum not pass. See here for further info on the city’s zoning ordinances http://www.parkridge.us/assets/1/Documents/Section_7_Residential_Districts.pdf

Looks like anon at 10:36a.m. is the one kidding him/herself.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There are a number of other factors that would go into approval of that kind of development, however. And we seriously question whether “shoehorn”-ing 45 houses into that space would past muster on several levels.

Anon at 12:29. I’m quite familiar with the codes. First off, don’t forget that approx. 33% of the land will need to be reserved for public property, i.e. streets and parkways. There will also likely be a sizable chunk of flood water retention required (large grass sunken areas). If I’m correct, the zoning has not even been set for the property and IF the land was to be acquired by a developer, before any zoning is finalized it would have to be put up for public comment. And what are the chances the people in the ‘hood’ would just stand by and do nothing? Also, let’s be realistic, no developer is going to come in and pay that kind of cash for the land and then build the smallest houses possible (max size 40% lot coverage). They would be too expensive and there would be no market for them. You would be able to buy a bigger house on a bigger lot elsewhere in town. But maybe you should ask Mr. Thillens what he thinks.

As for Mountcastle, she has no personal stake in PR. It’s her job and our money is like Monopoly money to her. She took the money and ran once before and she’ll do it again. Especially when the first actual cost estimates start rolling in if the ref. passes.

Anon at 12:29-keep up the scare tactic rhetoric employed by PRPD board member Mel Thillens and the OPL folks by telling people that 45 houses will be shoe horned into the site. Let’s hope enough people see through this crap and the other half truths of the PRPD and the OPL and do the fiscally sensible thing and vote NO on the referendum.

And of course Ms. Mountcastle could care less about the residents of PR and the long-term debt she wants to create and leave for us to pay off. She lives in Chicago. We just pay her salary.

12:29:

I have asked this question of quite a few folks handing out OPL literature and have yet to get an answer. Maybe you can help.

I realize that the city and the PRPD are different entities with different budgets, but how do you justify a city that on the one hand is so concerned about taxes and spending that they seem to have little problem with cutting funding to community groups and yet wants us to raise our own taxes for a luxury like additional park land.

All due respect PD, I know what your answer is. I am really hoping that 12:29 answers.

EDITOR’S NOTE: How has “the city” indicated that it “wants us to raise our own taxes for a luxury like additional park land”?

Scare tactics? Slow down yourself with the over the top rhetoric.

I don’t even really have a dog in this fight, I’m just pointing out that “the city won’t let that happen” isn’t a realistic argument. The rest of that neighborhood surrounding the Youth Campus is already zoned R2, as is much of the rest of the city. http://www.parkridge.us/assets/1/Documents/Section_6_Zoning_Districts.pdf R2 zoning does permit lot sizes with a minimum 50 foot width, that is indisputably set out in the city zoning code, and that absolutely does lend itself to a (relatively) high density development of houses being built in that space. As to whether or not it would “past muster” are you suggesting that the city would or should step in and preemptively enact special zoning requirements specifically for the YC land in order to prevent a higher density of properties going into that space and beyond what is already permitted for every other parcel of land currently zoned as R2?

Because that sounds precisely like the sort of governmental overreaching that you otherwise seem to despise, Mr. Trisna.

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s “Trizna”…with a “z.”

The last similar single family housing development to go into Park Ridge was Brickton Place down on Canfield, which itself was constructed on the former Edison Park Home property – a facility very similar to the Youth Campus and involving similar acreage. And, as we recall, there were a number of zoning hoops that had to be jumped through – so we have no reason to doubt and Youth Campus development project would fare any better, or have an easier journey.

2:39-The only “over the top” rhetoric is coming from Ms. Mountcastle and the PRPD-the YC will generate a modest net income,the OPL-the YC is a treasure and we have to preserve the open space by developing 40% of it or a park at the YC will increase your property value, and Mel Thillens-the PRPD is not campaigning we are simply spending taxpayer money to “inform” the taxpayers and to do due diligence. All a load of crap.

@2:39 “…there were a number of zoning hoops that had to be jumped through – so we have no reason to doubt and Youth Campus development project would fare any better, or have an easier journey.”

So what if they had a rough journey jumping through hoops? The fact that Brickton Place exists, in all its densely developed glory, proves that a developer who is willing to tough it out would be able to do the same thing with the YC property.

I gladly voted YES.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t believe Brickton Place would be buildable under the since-rewritten Zoning Code.

Can’t say that we’re shocked by that revelation.

4:13-so you drank the kool-aid and are voting to increase your taxes for at least the next 20 years-most likely permanently-for NOTHING unless you live in “proximity” to the YC property. The PRPD and the OPL really like people like you.

PD:

By the city, I mean the community. I started my post by acknowledging the obvious separation between city govt and PRPD.

PRPD has put forth a referendum and a member of the park board is leading a group who is trying to sell me (us) on using tax dollars to buy this land. I would like to hear their thoughts on the community cutting funds to CoC and meals on wheels in the name of managing our terrible tax burden with little or no resistance, but now wanting to spend what is essentially 700% increase over what was cut by not funding these community groups.

I would like to hear if they (not you) see any conflict in that.

A part of their sales pitch is that it is only $74 bucks. I will admit up front that if the referendum passes the tax increase will not hurt my family budget in any way but there is no consistency about what the increases really mean.

On the city side the Mayor acts as of the funding of the community groups is the kings ransom and PRPD acts as if what is essentially 700% of that is a pittance.

The community groups equated to approximately $10.00 on a 10k tax bill. If some of the non human needs pieces were cut it would have been even less than that.

If you translate what PRPD is asking for into “city tax dollars” that is a 7% increase. Can you imagine if the Mayor or his opponent came out and said we need a 7% tax increase??

The Mayor is hailed as a hero for cutting 5% or so to keep the increase at 2.15% and yet the PRPD tells me that 7% is no big deal.

So to put it directly to a OPL person, is it right that the Park Ridge community cut funds to human needs community groups to save money but now may very well spend way more on what is essentially a luxury. Do you, OPL person, see this as an issue? How do you, OPL person, reconcile it because I am having a hard time.

PD, I know your position but, strange as it may seem, this is an issue for me. I have asked OPL people face to face and asked it here on a previous thread but I have never received an answer from them.

Cheers!

EDITOR’S NOTE: But what’s your point?

You effectively are setting the mayor against the Park Board, and community groups against the Youth Campus. At best, that’s apples and oranges; at worst, kumquats and cantaloupes. And then when you figure in that the City is home rule and the PRRPD is not, it’s probably more like pomegranates and musk oxen.

At least the voters have a chance to vote the Youth Campus up or down – something they never got to do for the decades that previous spendthrift mayors and spendthrift councils gave our tax money to the private “community group” corporations, no questions and no accountability asked.

Robert, good evening!

I want to thank you for clearing up a problem for me. I was completely wrong as to who was responsible for the Senior Center Fiasco and the Kemnitz Trust Disaster. I mistakenly thought blame for those two unfortunate failures lay evenly with O’Brien, Biagi and Wynn-Ryan!

Now, I’m relieved to read: “Biagi has been the leader of the Park Board for much of the past four years, irrespective of where around the Board table he has sat. That means, however, that the “buck” stops at his chair when it comes to the two gaffes we discussed above; and we hold him accountable for them.”

I’m also relieved to know Mary Wynn-Ryan and O’Brien were only sub-leaders. Could have fooled me!

Anyway, as usual, if nothing else, you’ve proven to be Rick’s good friend when he needs a good friend!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Kenneth:

You should know by now that I always calls ’em as I sees ’em.

Despite mistakes I believe Mr. Biagi made, I still consider him the single most capable Board member; and several cuts above his opposition. And despite some serious reservations I have about the way Ms. Mountcastle handled those same matters, I believe she has done a creditable job managing the District in all other respects.

Now when are you buying me that cup of coffee you owe me?

PD:

All true but the bottom line is the money all comes from the same pot…our tax dollars. We have to make choices about where OUR money is spent. I find it very hard to reconcile cutting money from human needs community groups to keep money in my pocket only to take it out again plus a lot more to buy a luxury.

Apparently I am in a very small, like microscopic, minority. Hell, I can’t even get someone from OPL to answer. Oh well.

Congratulations on that yes vote Anon@4:13. How’d that Kool-aid taste? If the referendum passes, your vote has helped secure a dim future for the rest of the park system after the revenue draining YC fails to cover it operating costs.

You have also hurt the chance that any other meaningful referendum that comes before the voters in the near future will pass. You know, for luxury items like upgrading the City sewer system so half the towns basements don’t flood or maybe improving the schools for those pesky ungrateful kids. But, enjoy your $18,000,000 walking path and picnic grove.

And by the way, the smallest allowable lot size allowed under the current zoning laws is several hundred square feet larger than it was when Brickton Place was built. The smallest lot possible at the YC, if it was to be zoned R2, will be bigger than many of the existing lots already in that neighborhood. And chances are the people across the street on prospect will push for that section to be zoned R1. So can we drop the Brickton Place argument?

@4:56, I do not see this as, you put it, NOTHING. I see this as, among other things, being a good steward of this planet by not advocating for development of every available inch of open space with more houses we don’t need. I see this as a chance to do something to enhance our community a little bit. You may not be willing or able to look beyond your own backyard but I am. I think PR will be better with the addition of this park.

I get what 5:08 is saying. I guess I see the difference as this. We have a rare opportunity to acquire park space. It’s a shame that the timing coincides with a time when our City coffers are less than flush and services have been cut (although how critical the Teen Center is remains highly doubtful to me). But as someone who has donated to charities and has helped with fundraising I believe those entities who have been de-funded could make up the shortfall with private donations and perhaps also with grants from the many private foundations that exist.

One day, hopefully sooner rather than later, the City may be in the position to contribute to these providers again. But we won’t have the chance to acquire more land for our parks because there isn’t any more.

EDITOR’S NOTE: One day, hopefully sooner rather than later, those “providers” will learn how to fundraise and persuade individual Park Ridge residents to contribute to them, so that never again will the City even consider contributing the funds it confiscates from its taxpayers.

6:26-unless you live in proximity to the YC property you are getting NOTHING. Your taxes will go up but your property value will not. Meanwhile all the taxpayers of PR will pay for a very small number of homes to get a bigger back yard and we will cut their grass.

As for preserving open space-40% of the property will be developed by the PRPD with a parking lot and buildings, paddle tennis(?), a splash pad if they keep their promise and put the amenities in that they have been campaigning for. If houses are built, there will be parkways and back yards and trees as well so every inch of the property will not be developed.

And I do care about more than my backyard-unlike the OPL and the PRPD who are campaigning and pushing the $18,000,000 all in picnic grove and parking lot and paddle tennis and splash pad. Is this really worth $18,000,000? I care about all the taxpayers of PR. As a previous poster notes the ability to raise money for many more important issues like sewers, school building improvements, covering teacher pensions, maybe equipment or facilities for the city’s police and fire will be completely compromised. And the PRPD will have put all its eggs in two baskets. A $10,500,000 waterpark and an $18,000,000 park. None of the other facilities like the Maine Park area (when was the last time the pond was dredged), the ice rink, the large open field at Oakton, etc etc will not be properly maintained or improved for quite some time because the PRPD won’t have the money.

Try to think beyond and see through the crap that the OPL and the PRPD are throwing at you.
VOTE NO!

6:35:

Thanks for the response to my post. However, I have to say it does not solve my issue of reconciling these two points.

“One day, hopefully sooner rather than later, the City may be in the position to contribute to these providers again”.

Essentially you are saying the city can’t afford it but maybe one day it will be position to afford it and I am sorry but that is crapola!! We are talking about $10.00 per year on a 10K house and that is for everything including the non human services. That is two Frappuccinos….for the entire year!! The city is in a position to do it now. All it would mean is going from a 2.15% increase to a 3.15% increase….10 bucks!! Or maybe with some surgical cutting it would be 3.00%…or 2.90%…who knows. No one even tried…just took out the chainsaw and cut everything.

Meanwhile this “rare opportunity” for this park land will cost 7 times that number…..for a luxury.

NUF said…have a good weekend!!

One last word. As much as the Editor and I disagree on this issue I do applaud his consistency. He doesn’t say “maybe some time later” or “I wish we could”. He says that a city should not be involved in funding these groups period, at all, ever.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Just to be clear, it is our position that the City should never DONATE tax money to these groups: that’s the province of the taxpayers.

However, if the City determines that it should be providing any of those services to its residents, and that it can procure those services from those community groups more cost-effectively than it could provide them from in-house City staffers or other third-party vendors, then the City should contract with those community groups for the services.

What’s the matter Mr. Trinzi. Are you afraid to post my comments about your endorsement of Rick Biagi, who is a liar. You lost every bit of respect that I had for you. You’re managing the news and you have no integrity.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have posted EVERY comment submitted about our endorsements. If yours wasn’t posted, it’s because you didn’t submit one.

And if you’re going to insult this editor by name, at least spell it right: it’s “TRIZNA.”

@7:34 just because I support the acquisition of the YC by the park district doesn’t mean I want other city services, or the schools, to deteriorate. But…news flash…all of these things cost money, and all of us should be willing to step up and pay our share if we want to see any improvements. You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.

There’s a reason why Wilmette, for example, exceeds our City in terms of quality of schools, parks, services. Their taxes are significantly higher. You get what you pay for.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Care to provide some examples of those “significantly higher” taxes?

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, “then just move to Wilmette”,because that’s the direction our taxes are heading. Many Park Ridgeians moved here to avoid the high taxes of the north shore. We’re not Wilmette and I don’t think many of us want to be Wilmette. But you seem to think that everyone in this town is just rolling in expendable income. Despite the public facade so many carefully cultivate, many people in this town are hurting financially. Yes, “all these things cost money”, but shouldn’t we be wise about where and how we spend our tax dollars and use it for necessities and not unnecessary luxuries? Especially if that luxury is only going to benefit an extremely small percent of the population?

The only reason this referendum has a chance of passing is because it was push to this Aprils local election instead of last Nov’s national when there is much higher turnout. We all know that to be the sad truth about voting. So the OPL people and the neighbors of the YC will flood the voting booth when there is a good chance that they may not have even voted. Yes, that’s what democracy is all about. But, will the people have truly spoken? I don’t think so.

EDITOR’S NOTE: While we do agree with you that the bigger the turnout, the better, “the people” truly speak EVERY time there’s an election – even if they do so by their apathetic silence.

I can’t believe that you have endorsed Rick Biagi and his cohorts for re-election, when they have lied about being responsible for initiating the lawsuit for the Betty Kemnitz bequest disaster. They have said this many times and it’s a big fat lie. Check it out on the “Butterly on Senior Issues” blog. The attorney’s billing records prove that they all lied. This ended up costing the taxpayers between $50,000 and $100,000 in legal fees and they gave up the claim for the monies in the end. Of course, they claim they only spent $35,000 but they didn’t include the other law firm that their attorney had to hire for help. More misinformation being spewed by the incumbent Park Board Commissioners.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you check the court file in Case No. 2012-CH-02032, you will find that the plaintiff in that suit was Teresa Grodsky, whose attorneys filed suit because it appears they realized the Park District had a legitimate claim to all the Kemnitz trust money bequeathed to the “Park Ridge Senior Center” which Grodsky had wrongfully handed over to her cronies at Park Ridge Senior Center, Inc. (“Seniors Inc.”) while she was still a salaried employee of the Park District. It is the wrongful conduct of Grodsky and the greedy geezers running Seniors Inc. that caused the litigation and the expenditure of public funds. And the settlement of the lawsuit saved the Park District over $300,000 that Seniors Inc. claimed it was owed in “clawback” funds.

So, PWD, who determines the actual wording of the referendum as it appears on the ballot? I found it strange and somewhat unsettling that there is no mention of taxes being raised, the 20 yr. time frame or that the final payout is well over the 13.2M noted.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that there could be a good portion of the voting public that doesn’t understand that the words”issue its bonds” means raising taxes and is taking money out of their pocket to pay for the park?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Park District determines it, and it is a borderline fraud on the voters because the proponents of the referendum don’t want voters to think about the cost, or the full cost when all the debt service is figured in.

7:39-Once again another Park Ridgian misquidedly and dangerously comparing PR to Wilmette. Let me know when we get a shore-and not on the banks of the Des Plaines River. Let me know when they move O’Hare so PR is not at the end of the runway of one of the busiest airports in the world.

Haven’t done any real research on this but I am going to bet that the tax base and the property values of homes in Wilmette are just a bit higher than in PR. That may explain why their taxes are higher. PR is not and will never be the North Shore so get over it. We cannot compete with many of these communities and we should not try because most people in PR cannot afford to pay those levels of taxes. As a result, we need to prioritize. An $18,000,000 PARK IS NOT A PRIORITY!

However, that does not mean we cannot have good schools and working up to date sewers etc. In fact, our teachers in D207 are paid more than the teachers in the New Trier system-on average about $15,000-$20,000 more. But that’s another post topic.

VOTE NO!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ironically, every dollar the Park District puts into “improvements” to that land – or any of its land – actually tends to REDUCE the market value of that land…because the so-called “improvements” would generally have to be removed for any non-parks and recreation use of that property.

7:39-I would also add that an $18,000,000 park 3 blocks from Niles is not an improvement for all of Park Ridge-really just one small section of one neighborhood. And since you can’t get blood or money from a turnip then we must prioritize. Voting for a park over basic up to date infrastructure or what reasonable amounts may be needed for the schools is not in the best interest of the vast majority in PR.

@9:58, I have no desire to live in Wilmette, which is why I chose to live in PR. Taxes are high enough and I feel like what we are getting is decent.

Not the best, but decent schools, parks, services, quality of life. I realized that to have more, I would need to pay more, in fact a good 25-30% more, for a comparable house there. Because I did compare a few years ago when we moved from Chicago. I was worried about high school and thought New Trier might be the answer.

It didn’t take me long to realize that what PR has to offer is adequate, with the added bonus of not being subjected to North Shore attitudes, and that’s fine with me.

2:02-Just another reason to vote the bums out! And the PRPD wants us to think that they and the OPL are actual separate entities. Legally maybe but certainly Mountcastle, Thillens and the OPL are all working together to F us over. Hopefully enough people will see through the deceit, the fraud, the lies and vote no. It is disgusting that this small government body who provides none essential services has become just another group of ethically challenged politicians.

I was extremely dissapointed by your endorsements of the candidates running for the park board. My purpose is not to “throw the bums” out, but rather to send a clear message to the park board that voter/taxpayer manipulation is not accepatble and the current practices are not fair to the taxpaying public. Your endorsement will only further empower a group of candidates who do not represent the taxpayers first (no public vote on Centennial and allowing park district employees to openly campaign for a public issue). I also question your reasons for the endorsements. You state that Biagi didn’t shrink from the “slings” of various blogs. What choice did have ? You commend Hunst for his analytical skills, yet he is very willing to plunge the park district into approximately $22 million in debt.

As voters we must send a clear message that the current boards practices are not acceptable. The new canidates may not be ideal, but we cannot allow this opportunity to change to pass.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Other than outright corruption, we view depriving taxpayers of a referendum on major, long-term “investments” involving long-term debt as perhaps the most serious sin a public official can commit. And by that standard, every one of the current Park Commissioners should be thrown out of office, including Commissioner Vile – the ostensible leader of The Bottom Three ticket.

But we don’t recall seeing or hearing Mr. Phillips or Ms. Bende raise any hue and cry while the Park Board and its Director were selling out the taxpayers by passing the new Centennial Pool project and multi-million dollar bond issue. And if you truly are concerned about all that debt – as we are – then you might want to ask Ms. Bende to explain her endorsement of the Youth Campus project.

And if you’re still reading at this point, we consider The Bottom Three’s position on the Senior Center debacle as an unqualified endorsement of the special interest greedy-geezer Seniors Inc., which has been a third-rail issue with us.

Biagi is also listed as a Youth Campus supporter in the article Thillens published in Park Ridge Patch. http://parkridge.patch.com/blog_posts/please-vote-yes-to-make-the-youth-campus-a-park

EDITOR’S NOTE: As are a lot of other people, FWT, including two of “The Bottom Three” candidates: incumbent Steven Vile and challenger Joan Bende.

The Bottom Three have stated their support, in their own written brochure, for the Youth Campus referendum and Centennial Pool project. But the only real reason any of them is running is payback for the Park District finally going balls to the wall and taking on that decades-long, third-rail problem: Senior Services, Inc. Their thrashing about in various other issues is an attempt to look like they actually do have a view on other things, but they are running, as Mr. Phillips has already said, to “return the Senior Center to the Senior Services, Inc.” because — get this — “they own it.”
It’s an old saying that senior citizens are the third rail in politics. Mr. Biagi did have a choice to man up or stand down when it came to this, as did Mrs. Ryan and the majority of the Board. But Biagi stood up, as did 5 of the other 6 Board members. And the 37,000 residents (including about 8,000 seniors) are the better for it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We concur. Too bad those same 6 Board members weren’t willing to go “balls to the wall” and give the 37,000 residents – or at least the approx. 24,000 registered voters – a chance to vote on the new Centennial Pool project. Instead, those Board members intentionally tied their own hands on the Youth Campus project by committing all of the District’s non-referendum bonding power (and $800,000 of additional cash) to the new pool, turning the Youth Campus project into a do-or-die referendum issue. That’s like jumping out of a plane and then hoping somebody will hand you a parachute on your way down.

I hope after the election, which ever way it goes, you get an audience with the Mayor and lay out your concept of having the community groups provide services on a more formal basis. It is an embarrassment that we have no funded human services in town, but Mr. Ryles’ idea of putting his arms around the community groups won’t fill the coffers. Mr. Schmidt, in fact, has advocated — and personally demonstrated — that individuals must step up and contribute. What is Mr. Ryles offering that’s different? I mean really offering/committing to advocate as the City’s leader, not just mumble reassuringly and obliquely about in Zumbafests. Maybe I’ve missed it but I have not heard him promise to fight to restore community group funding at the City level.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, it’s “an embarrassment” that for years/decades no City Council demanded, and no local human services organization offered, a detailed, dollars-per-unit-of-service contract for the millions of taxpayer dollars that were simply thrown at those private organizations without one lick of accountability.

You evidently didn’t read the “Butterly on Senior Issues” blog post, if you are continuing to defend the Park District. It displays the Park District’s attorney billing records that state he discussed with the Park District, a drafted letter to the Kemnitz trust attorney telling him to file suit. The records also state that he discussed with the Park District whether the trust attorney or the Park District should file the suit. Biagi told a room of approximately 60 seniors that they didn’t even know that their attorney had contacted the trust attorney and told him to file suit. That was an out right lie. Again, read the Butterly on Senior Issues blog. It’s all laid out there very clearly.

You state that the litigation saved the taxpayers $300,000 from the claw back issue. You neglected to state that the Park District’s actions in initiating the law suit cost the taxpayers close to $100,000 in unnecessary legal fees and then gave up the quest to get their hands on the money. Should I call the Park District greedy geezers, as you have done above when speaking of the seniors.

In 30 years, all bequests to the Senior Center went to Seniors Inc. and yet, all of sudden the Park District initiates a lawsuit for the Kemnitz bequest. Why would they do such a thing? Not as you state, because they had a legitimate claim to the money. The attorney’s billing records state that when the Park District learned that Seniors Inc. planned to open a different senior center when they received the Kemnitz bequest, they immediately told the trust attorney to file suit. Therefore, the reason they initiated action to file the suit was because they didn’t want the competition from another senior center, not because they thought they had a legitimate claim to the money.

And you think he should be re-elected. I’m baffled. But then I shouldn’t be. You’re friends with Biagi and yet you call the seniors cronies.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Official court records show the plaintiff as Grodsky, not the Park District. And if Grodsky’s attorneys didn’t think the Park District had a legitimate claim to the Kemnitz money and that Grodsky may have had personal liability to the Park District for having already given away around $200,000 of it to Seniors Inc. before the Park District made its request, they would have – and should have – told the Park District to pound sand and file its own suit. But they didn’t: they filed the suit on Grodsky’s behalf, and no amount of spinning and revisionist history will change that fact or the court records memorializing that fact.

The “greedy geezers” at Seniors Inc. thought that, with Grodsky’s help, they were going to pocket the whole Kemnitz $330,000, set up their own truly “private” club instead of just their semi-private club, and then sue the Park District for the $300,000+ “clawback” money. As it turned out, Seniors Inc. only got to pocket the Kemnitz cash, so by our calculation the taxpayers ended up at netting out at least $200,000 more than they would have had suit not been filed by Grodsky’s attorneys.

For 30 years the Park District unwisely abdicated its responsibility and control over the Senior Center to Seniors Inc. and a “rogue” employee, Grodsky, who despite drawing her generaous salary and benefits from the Park District’s taxpayers chose to give her loyalty to the private Seniors Inc. corporation. Ending that foolish and unaccountable situation – and saving the taxpayers at least $200,000 – were probably the only two positive things to come out of that debacle.

PWD-I would argue that if the seniors are a special interest group so also is the OPL who want all of PR to spend $18,000,000 so they can have a park in their neighborhood. Granted the park may be available to all but how many Park Ridgians will actually use it-considering that it is in an extreme end of town. So which special interest group should get the vote-the OPL who want $18,000,000 from the rest of us or the seniors?

EDITOR’S NOTE: At least the voters get to decide whether or not the Park District will spend $18,000,000 or whatever on the Youth Campus project. Those same taxpayers weren’t even given the chance to vote on the $7.1 million Centennial Pool project, or on the $150,000+/year subsidies given to Seniors Inc. to cover the annual operating deficits at the Senior Center.

Anon 7:34 (4/5) – I’ve made the same point before and you are exactly right re: Maine Park. It is a perfect example of the PD’s current inability to manage even one complex property. It was completely filthy and strewn with garbage around the campfire area, the pond covered in scum and surrounded by dead trees (like a post-apocalyptic scene out of “The Walking Dead” or “The Road”). The only thing missing was a rotting corpse in the bushes…

And these crooks want a new piece of land to mismanage? Yeah right! Let’s see them take care of the “toys” they already have.

I’m most appreciative of the endorsement from this Blog’s editor for my re-election bid. However, I am also cognizant of the criticism that is being aired, some justified and some not. Thus, I would like an opportunity to respond accordingly to three issues in particular.

Youth Campus

I’m having a hard time understanding how the Board’s initial interest in acquiring the Youth Campus property, negotiating a favorable contract with the owners, authorizing the preparation of preliminary build-out plans and voting to place the issue on the ballot for the voters to decide, is somehow State’s Evidence of why the incumbents should be tossed out on their ears. I’ll be the first to admit that I think the District (staff) did not do a proper job of providing actual support for the anticipated revenue and expenses for the Youth Campus. But is that a reason to not even put the question on the ballot? It seems like some of the posts are suggesting that the Board engaged in gross negligence by even considering acquiring the Youth Campus property in the first place and putting the question out to the voters for an up-or-down vote. Again, I think the future operational budget numbers being suggested are questionable, at best, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t ask the voters to opine. That is precisely what a binding referendum is for.

Centennial Pool

What was not mentioned in any of the posts is that I was in agreement with this Editor regarding the logic of an advisory referendum question being placed on the ballot in connection with the plans for the Centennial Pool project. In point of fact, I had a public debate (on this blog) with the Editor and many of the readers regarding a suitable question to be asked…one which would give the Board direction for the type and scope of aquatics project wanted by the citizens. Again, what has not been mentioned is the amount of work I did behind the scenes to try and convince other Commissioners that I was right on this and that we should consider such an advisory referendum. In the end, I knew I had absolutely no support from any other Commissioners on the notion of an advisory referendum question. Thus, did I make a mistake by not still calling for an up-or-down vote on the idea? Yes. While I appreciate the principal of the matter, I cannot see how my failure to bring to the table a motion (which would have died for lack of second) somehow is an indictment of my character and/or my success as a Commissioner.

Senior Center

I’m not going to rehash the rationale behind the Board’s decision to part ways with SSI or to seek a Court declaration on the Kemnitz bequest and the clawback provision of the prior agreement. I do, however, wish to respond to the accusation that I lied to the seniors when I told them that I was not part of the decision to prod Godsky’s attorney into filing suit against SSI and the Park District. As this editor is well aware, Attorneys are generally instructed by their client to reach a particular outcome but not necessarily told how to get there. The client, generally, does not weigh in on the various tactics/strategies used by the attorney to reach that decision. Ms. Roppel and others have accused me of conspiring with Attorney Hoffman to pressure Attorney Smith into filing suit on the Kemnitz matter. Ms. Roppel has cited billing entries from Mr. Hoffman as support for her specious allegation. However, nowhere in those entries does it reference any conversation with myself or anyone at the Park District by Attorney Hoffman regarding this matter, Moreover, I was not even Board President at the time and had very little involvement and/or knowledge about what was going on with the Kemnitz bequest…and I certainly wasn’t having litigation strategy sessions with Attorney Hoffman. If Ms. Roppel would talk to her dear friend Commissioner Vile for one minute, he could confirm how little the Board was involved in any of the litigation strategy decisions (at least until the very end, when we were specifically discussing settlement). If anyone was having direct conversations at that time with the Attorney, it would’ve been the Executive Director, who is the person with day-to-day contact with Mr. Hoffman on all legal matters germane to the District…not the Board. Again, not once did the Board authorize the filing of any suit (or the threatening of filing any suit) in connection with the Kemnitz matter. It simply did not happen and Ms. Roppel is wrong to suggest anything to the contrary.

Was this SSI/Godsky situation mishandled from day one? Absolutely. Were mistakes made by Mr. Hoffman, Ms. Mountcastle and members of the Board? Without a doubt. Am I upset with the final outcome of the entire dispute? Not at all. Indeed, operation of the Senior Center is back in the hands of the District and oversight of the operational budget is now squarely within the purview of a duly elected Board. Moreover, the Senior Center has a new director, is in ship-shape and is finally a welcoming environment for all seniors in town…not just those who pay lip service to the whims of SSI and the Senior Senate. To me, that is a huge victory for the taxpayers of Park Ridge.

Mr. Biagi-You are asking the taxpayers to approve acquiring an $18,000,000 open space that will be 40% developed with wants not needs in part because the PRPD has asserted that it will be financially self-sustaining outside of the cost of the debt. The debt service is the reason for the tax increase of an average of $72 per household for the next 20 years. Now you say the operating budget does not look to be too realistic? Where the hell were you on this when that budget first came out? It seems a bit late to be taking credit for questioning the legitimacy of that break-even budget so close to election day and when many people have already voted. If the YC does in fact lose money as a result of the annual operating costs-where will the money come from the cover those costs?

Also, why has PRPD board member Mel Thillens been working so closely with the OPL to pass the referendum for an $18,000,000 park? Why has Ms. Mountcastle and other PRPD employees been campaigning to pass the referendum? Why did the PRPD spend taxpayer money of printed campaign materials? Isn’t this outside of what is allowed by law? Is it because Thillens is not running for re-election and you, Vile, Brandt and Hunst are?

And you also know that investing $18,000,000 in one park on an extreme end of town will mean that the other facilities that PRPD is supposed to be maintaining will continue to be neglected as there simply will not be enough resources to take care of or improve them. Why put so much of our tax money and user fees in one basket? Don’t the facilities on other neighborhoods matter? Why has Maine Park and the pond been neglected? Why haven’t the locker rooms and the ice rink been improved? Why haven’t walking paths been put in in some of the larger parks? Why has nothing been put in on the open field at Oakton? Is it because of the money the PRPD has been putting in reserves so it could use it for a waterpark?

And if you cannot understand how you and the PRPD board failed to fulfill your fiduciary responsibility to all of the taxpayers of PR on the waterpark issue then there is not much more to say. Even if you were the only one to vote for a nonbinding referendum, as the President and a board member this is your basic obligation.

Then you send out an opinion statement to Park Ridge Patch and a blast email saying in essence that either PR taxpayers want outdoor water or we don’t. If PR wants outdoor water, then we must support the waterpark. If we don’t then the PRPD will just tear out the failing pools and there will be no pool at all. As if there are no other cheaper options. Remember that? Then dozens of people show up at the PRPD waterpark meeting held in December and cry about the prospect of no pool at Centennial.

Also, the PRPD purposely voted on the pool in December when you knew people were busy and not paying attention so less opposition. The PRPD also knew that PR had voted down a waterpark 3 times before. So the PRPD saves up operating net income for a number of years to save the $800,000 needed to supplement the just below referendum bonding amount of $6,300,000 so Phase I of the waterpark could be built for $7,100,000. A lack of honesty and transparency with the taxpayers you are supposed to be representing.

That’s why there are many people commenting on this site and are disgusted about what has transpired while you and the other board members running for re-election were supposed to be representing all of us and protecting the assets of the PRPD.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We think the Park Board members have fulfilled their duty to the taxpayers to identify this opportunity and put it to referendum so those taxpayers can vote on it. That being said, we hope that those of you who believe the Park District is improperly using tax dollars or paid staff time to campaign for this referendum will file complaints with the appropriate governmental bodies so that an investigation is commenced and the facts adduced.

All this back and forth over the current zoning designation of the YC should it be developed into housing is just flat out silly. Back in 2011, when Marc Elliot was attempting to get permission to build senior housing on a portion of the YC land, the Citty Council was already on the record as assuming that the land was already zoned R2. Which is why had such reservations about Elliot’s proposal. The minutes from that session can be found here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xhHSBJ1WVsQJ:www.parkridge.us/assets/1/Events/PZApprovedMinutes06142011.pdf+park+ridge+youth+campus+elliot+senior+housing&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShMNooJlLUbmaTbSLuKIocItTBlv2SwhT1UbqeOEM0sEzDE827vphHMVuCnBMYKFfszq2YbBPmGkkG8Cz78y-cUD6y1WYtDzxghf3gLkYZonzZnGjwHJHHQFa3IDbYhPB0m3EjB&sig=AHIEtbTD5EbQj_RJXfAZFUr44mDbU8D5ZA

Here is another article from the Trib Local about the R2 zoning of the YC land: http://triblocal.com/park-ridge/community/stories/2011/09/no-decision-on-elliotts-n-washington-ave-proposals/

But hey, I’m sure that none of this will stop folks here from holding on to their iron-clad certainty that residential development will of course involve re-zoning the YC land to R1.

There is just as good a chance that if a developer acquires the YC property that it could be split zoned. R1 along Prospect to keep up the facade of financial stability in PR and to match the houses across the street and then R2 for the rest.

But, speaking of the Elliott property. What are the odds that the PD doesn’t already have its eyes on that land if not already have an under the table agreement with Elliott to purchase it. Hello Mel Thillens, are you out there?! What is to stop the PD from using money from the bond referendum that was intended for the “proposed” amenities on the YC for that purpose. If the referendum passes, we are handing the PD a blank check and they are under no obligation to install any of the amenities they have been touting, only to purchase the property. I can already hear Gail Mountcastle… “it only makes sense to purchase the Elliott property now that it is available in order to connect the YC to NE Park”. Elliott will set the price, the PD will pay it and the YC will be even less usable that the plans for it now.

Mr. Biagi is correct. There are NO cheaper pool options that would do the basic job of keeping residents here instead of spending their money in Niles or Des Plaines. Even this blog editor, no slouch in the financial feretting-out department, acknowledged that early on. A cheaper pool would be a smaller, less functional, less safe and less inviting pool, which would not help with revenue generation.And that’s if you don’t even care about what residents enjoy and go elsewhere to find. Personally, I’d rather spend my money in Park Ridge.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t recall acknowledging anything of the sort.

Spending $7.1 million ($6.3 million of which is long-term bonded debt) on an outdoor aquatic facility that can only be used 3 months of the year, that actually reduces the fair market value of the land on which it sits, and that only depreciates with no possibility of appreciation, just so people don’t have to drive 10-15 minute to Niles or Des Plaines and can spend their money in Park Ridge, is nothing short of idiotic. And the folks who run the Park District know it too, which is why there was no way they would let the taxpayers vote on the Centennial project, even on a purely “advisory” basis.

12:18-just how much is this forgone revenue of the PRPD for the hoards of people the PRPD is asserting drive to Niles or Des Plaines for a different pool than the one at Centennial? What is the forgone revenue to the city of Park Ridge because Park Ridgians are spending their money in another town? That argument is just a smoke screen put up by the PRPD.

The fact is and Mr. Biagi stated this at the holiday season held waterpark meetings that the PRPD did not even price the cost of mere replacement of the Centennial pools. The PRPD has been hell bent on getting a waterpark since the mid-1990’s and PR residents have voted it down each time.

Conversely, how much will it cost the PRPD to operate the waterpark versus a conventional pool like the ones that are being replaced? Are more life guards required? Are the utility costs higher? How about the water costs? How about the cost of the bonds needed to build a $10,500,000 waterpark versus the cost of the bonds for replacement pools? What is the cost of the other properties the PRPD owns continuing to degrade because the PRPD has no real resources available to fix or upgrade those?

At a time when there are real needs in PR that will require taxpayer dollars-a waterpark and an $18,000,000 park don’t seem like good places to allocate limited resources.

1:56 – You are incorrect. We had the aquatics engineering firm (Stantec) price out the exact replica of what is currently at Centennial (two rectangular ADA compliant pools, side-by-side, no slide). The cost estimate we were given was around $5.6 to $5.8 Million. At the very first public hearing we did not have those numbers. We had them by the second (of four) public hearings.

2:45-I was at those meetings. The only reference to the cost to replace the pools in the same footprint that was given was a rough number of $4,000,000. Even the rep from Stantec said that a solid estimate for the cost to replace as is were not developed because that was not even considered as a real alternative by the PRPD. As Mary Wynn Ryan said in one of her memorable comparisons-would you replace a car you bought in the 1950’s with another one from the 1950’s.

The reality is that PRPD had no intention of putting in basic ADA compliant swimming pools. After all, 650 or so people said we want a waterpark with a slide and lazy river. So who are we the other 36,850 or so taxpayers to deny these 650 or so people what they want-even though it will indebt the PRPD for years to come. And can only be used for 3 months of the yars. And the one feature most desired the lazy river may never be built-especially if the YC is purchased.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Con artists call that the ol’ bait and switch: tell the rubes they’re getting a new pool with a lazy river, than cut the lazy river out of the deal (because it would put the price of the pool over the District’s non-referendum bonding limit) and tell the rubes it will be installed at some indeterminate later date.

I am simply amazed at the fervor and effort around the discussion regarding the PRPD – most of you I assume realize that the Park District could seize to exist or double in size and it wouldn’t dramatically impact anyone’s finances. The PRPD is not what is causing our economic woes. If people want a park that will be here forever – that’s great, if people want a great pool – that’s great – neither of these things is breaking the bank, impacting unemployement or precluding other government services.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, Slick, do you really intend to “seize” to exist (carpe existentia?), or are you just bumfuzzled by the English language?

The new Centennial Pool will coat taxpayers over $7.1 million. Is that walking around money for you?

But if “people” were given a chance to vote on that two-bit Centennial Pool complex, we’d have no beef – especially because it would have LOST.

6:19-Some people don’t take well to being lied to and treated with the level of disrespect shown to the taxpayers by the PRPD and the OPL. The PRPD’s campaigning on the YC and the handling of the pool has been filled with half truths and out right lies. Is this really how we deserve to be treated? If the PRPD which provides non essential services cannot deal opening and honestly with the taxpayers-both the board and its director-then this does not speak well of this community.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, Park Ridge taxpayers are used to being lied to by their bureaucrats and their elected stiff officials. Like “Col. Jessup” might say: They can’t handle the truth.

OMG. Anti-Centennial folks, you are missing a main point: This is a suburb, a nice, safe suburb, in which people used to — and might like to in future — send their kids to local attractions on foot or on bikes. Chauffeuring to other suburbs may be SOP for you but it’s not healthy for anybody. I walked to Centennial in its heyday, my kids walked there in its twilight years, and I am thrilled that the next few generations will have a revitalized, up-to-date Centennial pool to ramble over to on a summer day. As a senior who didnt’ much like the ladders, I’m looking forward to an all-ages Centennial, too. And yeah, the money for pool passes that Niles and DesPlaines get from our residents now, it would be cool to have that money here. And beyond it all, let’s try to remember that the Park District is the best value in town. It’s a bit over FOUR PERCENT (4%) of our property taxes, vs. over 30% for the City (still a deal) and over 70% for District 64 and 207. Just because it’s easier to flog the Park District than the school districts doesn’t mean you should. My sainted mother used to call that, “you’re mad at your wife so you kick the cat.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’d be willing to bet that all that “money for pool passes that Niles and DesPlaines get from our residents now” wouldn’t be enough to heat the water of the new Centennial pool, water park, aquatic facility, white elephant, etc.

In order to say that “the Park District is the best value in town,” you’d have to be able to show that at least a majority of residents/taxpayers “a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged.” (per Merriam-Webster). Simply saying that it only takes 4% of our property tax dollars doesn’t establish the “fair return” part of the definition.

Of course, since the Park District stiffed all the taxpayers by not asking them whether they wanted $7.1 million of their money spent on a new Centennial water whatever, we’ll never know how many taxpayers share your “value” judgment.

I was at the meetings also. The first cost to replace the existing pools as was quoted at $4 million. When the question came up again the cost jumped to $6 million. I felt that the PD realized the first quote was economically sound to taxpayers but the PD was not willing to present that as an option to the taxpayers. Also Stantec has no credibility. The PD should have gone out and gotten another quote from another consulting firm because why would Stantec bid against a $13 million ( phase 1 & 2) project (water park) vs. a $4 million replacement project.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Excellent point! No way in the world Stantec is going to give the District any kind of “best price” on a $4-5 million replacement pool when it’s angling for a $7 million- plus facility…as if Stantec cares about what’s most cost-effective for Park Ridge taxpayers.

And let’s not forget Stantec was also allowed to arrange for the “survey” that supposedly was the basis for the decision to go with this new Centennial pool/waterpark/aquifer facility, even though the most desirable feature according to the survey – the lazy river – has been left out to keep the facility UNDER the non-referendum debt limit. Any bets on whether it will ever get added?

Thank you, PWD, for calling the Centennial pool a pool. Because that’s what it is. It’s not a waterpark. They just want to add a slide to bring it up to par to just about every pool in the area. Anon @1:56 seems to think it’s going to be some sort of Wisconsin Dells style attraction and it simply is not.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We call it a “pool” because it’s quicker to type than “aquatic center,” or any other screwy name people might want to use for it.

What it really is, is an extended middle finger raised to Park Ridge taxpayers by a Park Board and Director who knew the taxpayers wouldn’t support it and, therefore, decided not to ask them.

Maybe that should be their “bumper sticker”….VOTE FOR THE EXTENDED MIDDLE FINGER!!!!

That is what you are doing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, if Vile, Bende and Phillips had voiced any objection to it, we might have had a choice to make. But Vile’s middle digit was fully extended; and neither Bende or Phillips have made a case for their own “birds” not being in full flight.

I don’t know how many people read the Butterly on Senior Issues blog but just have to mention the following. Rick Biagi stated that “nowhere in those entries does it reference any conversation with myself or anyone at the Park District by Attorney Hoffman regarding this matter”. The attorney’s entries state clearly that the letter directing the trust attorney to file suit was “discussed with client”. And the beat goes on.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Client” in that context is the Park District, since Hoffman does not represent individual board members or staff members personally. So “client” could have been Mountcastle. Or any individual Board member.

What we find interesting is that you use a Biagi quote but then you try to prove he lied by only paraphrasing the contents of Hoffman’s time entry…except for the “discussed with client” part. Why not quote Hoffman’s entire billing entry if it’s really that damaging?

10:59am –

At no time was I aware that Tom Hoffman was going to “threaten” Don Smith regarding the Kemnitz bequest. The billing statements from Hoffman do not confirm or even imply that anyone, including me, on the Board was consulted in that decision. As is the case 99.9% of the time, Hoffman does not consult with the Board (or many times even the Executive Director) before doing his job.

In my job as a trademark litigator, my clients don’t ask me to consult with them every time I plan to call opposing counsel about a matter – once they instruct me to carry out a particular directive, I’m left to handle it as I see fit. That is precisely how Tom Hoffman operates. He virtually never consults with the Board, nor should he need to…his direct, day-to-day point of contact with the District on all legal matters is the Executive Director.

That is how things operate whether you, or Helen Roppel or any of the other SSI folks chose to believe that. It’s much easier for you to throw around false statements and call me a liar hiding behind your cloak of anonymity. Man/Woman-up and put your name on your post the next time you want to call me a liar…or better yet, say it to my face if you are so convinced of your position.

Mr. Biagi:

The poster was quoting what was said by Butterly and information provided by Butterly at his blog. Rather than get your back up with this poster why not address the issue at it’s source…..Butterly?? He is the one who got the billing statements and “interpreted” them in his way and provide that information to the above poster and others.

By the way, the majority of the posts here are anonymous. Deal with it.

Well, guess the park board found out tonight that you can’t kick seniors around and not pay the price. The seniors took first and third place. They may be old but they’re not senile and above all, THEY VOTE.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Given that 2 of the incumbents (Biagi, the Seniors’ Public Enemy No.1, and Brandt) won re-election, the same number of challengers that won, to claim that the seniors are such a force to be reckoned with is brain-dead.

Or senile.

You’re brain dead, if you don’t think taking one half of the open seats isn’t significant. Remember two years ago when you said all those awful things about us, saying we couldn’t elect anyone. Guess you were wrong about that. And we’ll be around again in two years. If we elect two more candidates, we’ll have the majority on the board. We’re waiting and we aren’t going away. Maybe we’ll unseat Mary Wynn Ryan, who tells the newspapers that her daughter couldn’t use the bathroom at the Senior Center like it happened last week. We then found out it happened 12 years ago and she doesn’t even know if it was a person in authority with whom she spoke.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You won two of four seats, which is a draw. You lost your only incumbent, as did The Top Three, so that’s a draw, too.

And if The Top Three hadn’t totally flipped the bird to the taxpayers by not putting their foolish Centennial Pool project to referendum, we doubt anybody on “your” Seniors Inc. ticket would have won.

Take the Kemnitz money you stole from the taxpayers, set up your new little Seniors Inc. clubhous wherever you can find a place that will have you, and declare victory.

You just don’t get it do you? We only had one commissioner who listened to the senior community. We now have two commissioners who will represent all the taxpayers, including the senior community. They lost a commissioner who was on their side of the aisle, who openly talked about his opposition to SSI and the Senate. I’ve been told by several poll watchers that seniors were walking into the polls carrying our letter written on gold paper and also with our post card. But according to you, our efforts had nothing to do with the election of our two candidates. Everyone said we didn’t have a chance of gaining one seat, much less two. Guess they were all wrong.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We get math: 2 of the Top Three won, 1 lost; 2 of the Bottom Three won, 1 lost. And each of the 2 losers was an incumbent – including Seniors Inc. “spy” Steven Vile.

Rick, Rick, Rick; I’m so disappointed!

Wasn’t it you who wrote in your email to me on January 25, 2012:

“I have no problem with you posting my comments on your blog. However, as I stated in my earlier message, I will not engage in a back-and-forth dialogue on your blog where people are able to launch baseless and often false allegations against me or others under the cloak of anonymity.”

Yet today you’re publishing your own Facebook page and writing on Trizna’s site.

Now to my point!

You wrote:

“That is how things operate whether you, or Helen Roppel or any of the other SSI folks chose to believe that. It’s much easier for you to throw around false statements and call me a liar hiding behind your cloak of anonymity. Man/Woman-up and put your name on your post the next time you want to call me a liar…or better yet, say it to my face if you are so convinced of your position.”

I have a question. What’s with this complaint?

Your side writes anonymously on Butterly on Senior Issues regularly. Many of those anonymous comments are goofy at best and sometimes damn insensitive. Several comments over these past two years, were so insensitive, so profane, I refused to publish them. Yet, I still think more can be gained by their being allowed. You see, sometimes, the use of anonymity is the only way for someone you might know, to tell you something you really need to hear.

We’re big boys Rick! We knew these jobs were dangerous when we took them!

If you weren’t prepared to accept anonymity and all that that brings, you should have refrained from writing on Trizna’s blog. I would have included “as well as mine”, except mine is still too uncomfortable for you to communicate on.

So Rick, if you can’t handle criticism in the blogosphere, or being called a liar here, there or at public Board meetings, you should resign and get out of politics!

One more thing: this statement: “…you want to call me a liar…or better yet, say it to my face…” is what little darlings do on the playground. Rick, you don’t want people thinking of you a “little darling”; do you?

The public square is not a courtroom where you can walk a thin line between the TRUE and the NOT-SO-TRUE. Most constituents expect the PLAIN TRUTH, without equivocation. The sooner you learn that, the fewer arrows you’ll have to take, and the better politician you’ll be.

Congratulations!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ken:

What are you talking about when you claim Rick BIagi is “writing on Trizna’s site”…or is that just a sham excuse for expanding your rants against him to this site from your own?

If you really are a “big boy,” stop whining about anonymous comments from Biagi’s “side” when you happily publish similarly anonymous comments from your greedy geezer cronies, as goofy or goofier and insenstive than the ones you’re whining about.

Also, what “dangerous” job have YOU undertaken that’s on par with Biagi’s running and winning – twice – for election to the Park Board and already having served four years in that job? The fact that real voters chose Mr. Biagi to represent them – twice – makes your call for him to “resign and get out of politics” uber-lame, especially after you and Team Geezer spent the last couple of years ripping him six ways from Sunday and vowing retribution at the voting booth.

If you think the “public square” produces more “PLAIN TRUTH” than a courtroom, 200+ years of American jurisprudence (and another 800 years of English jurisprudence) would suggest that you’re sliding into delusion. Most of that mass of “facts” you keep dredging up as purported ironclad proof of real and imagined wrongdoing by Biagi and the PRRPD concerning Grodsky, SSI and the Kemnitz Trust wouldn’t even be admitted into evidence in a courtroom to prove the stuff you claim it proves.

Hey, maybe Team Geezer will have better luck dumping O’Brien, Wynn-Ryan and Thillens in two years, assuming they run again.

But we’re not betting on it.

Nobody ever denied that seniors vote. They’re the only ones who have that much time on their hands. Everybody else in town is scrambling 24/7 to provide in this pension-free, health-care-free, post-1970s world of which the SSI crew appear blissfully unaware. The younger set didn’t make it to the polls. That’s the only “fact” you really have to work with. What’s sad and even a bit repellent is that the Entitle-Mints Club apparently knew seniors would be so gullible and easy to manipulate. Mr. Brandt, a Senior Center member who vehemently repudiates the SSI stance, is apparently even more remarkable than he seems in that he can think for himself and doesn’t start salivating the minute somebody rings the “Senior” bell. And he won his seat again. Gives one hope for the other taxpayer-friendly candidates in 2015.

EDITOR’S NOTE: When you can vote for 2 weeks BEFORE election day, as well as for 13 hours ON election day, there can be no legitimate excuse for not voting. And if the “younger set didn’t make it to the polls,” it makes one wonder just a bit about the effectiveness of the civics that’s allegedly being taught in our schools.