Well written and well said. I agree with you on this 100%

……and this apathy and complete lack of focus get us in a position where our infrastructure cannot even handle rain (how bout dis 100 year storm???).

Wonder how those flood control infrastructure inprovements are holding up.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You mean the few that already have been done, or all the others that can only be done in small increments because of the TIF debt service payments, the cost to maintain and repair other neglected infrastructure, and the continually escalating expense of across-the-board, non merit-based employee compensation increases?

Frances and Grace, one of the first projects completed, completely underwater today.

EDITOR’S NOTE: From the lead story on Chicago Tribune on-line at this moment:

“Flooding spawned by as much as 5 inches of rain closed parts of the Edens, Eisenhower and Kennedy expressways this morning as a second wave of thunderstorms moves through the Chicago area.”

What has happened on Frances and Grace, however, should cause the City Council to re-evaluate the effectiveness and cost-benefit equation for more of the planned flood control.

Unfortunately, any re-visiting of the flood control plan will almost certainly bring the freeloaders out of the woodwork again, demanding that the City’s taxpayers subsidize the freeloaders’ installation of “private flood control” devices, like overhead sewers, check valves, etc.

This isn’t your average run-of-the-mill rain.

I’m not defending the infrastructure, nor the reasons PW cites as to why the City is in this position, but just observing that this is not an everyday rain.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Very true. But even if it’s only an “every second or third year rain,” the current flood control plan that involves borrowing and spending jillions of dollars more on a flood control program that might not do what the community as a whole expects it to do – assuming THAT’S been figured out and a consensus achieved – may need to be reconsidered.

I’m so tired of the flooding comments! The Des Plaines river is overflowing, we’ve gotten a lot of rain, every community seems to be flooding – why is this the fault of whoever is our mayor? Yes, we need to make improvements where we can, but how about accepting the fact that our sewer systems can handle only so much water and the river overflowing into the streets makes it that much more challenging? It’s not just Park Ridge flooding – it’s everywhere!

EDITOR’S NOTE: We haven’t read any comments blaming the mayor for this flooding, so let’s not address that before it actually happens. In 10, 9, 8, 7…

Regarding the flood control projects.

The City Council, the engineers, Public Works, pretty much everyone involved said, upfront, that in the event of a historic (my term, I think they used 100 year or something) storm, the improvements would not stop the flooding.

The City does not have anywhere near the money, or ability to completely stop flooding in an event like this one (or 2007, 2008, etc.).

That was stated pretty clearly during the fallout from the last go-around.

And something else you can start the countdown clock for: the hue and cry for public dollars to be allocated to private flood control systems.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That may be an issue that needs to be re-visited given the cost and the questionable benefits.

We don’t see this Council doing anything as foolish as giving public dollars to freeloaders.

9:35:

It is not a matter of blame. I for one do not blame Mayor Schmidt. I have said in prior threads on this topic that this is a $100,000,000+ problem and to think that the city can afford to or is willing to pay to fix it is crazy.

That said, I do want to hold tha Mayor responsible for what he said in his campaigns. It his first run for Mayor he said…..

“For example, our inadequate storm sewer system has caused many residents to lose thousands, and even tens of thousands, of dollars of possessions, including such irreplaceable things as family photos and mementoes. It also has increased the cost of their insurance and caused them a lot of time, effort and drudgery related to clean-up and repairs. Meanwhile, potholes in streets cause damage to our vehicles; and lack of tree trimming around power lines has been blamed for countless power outages.

I will support accelerating the program for building relief sewers and modernizing and repairing our existing sewer lines in an effort to prevent potential catastrophic flooding problems in the future. I will also ask the Public Works Department to investigate using a new type of porous asphalt which allows water to percolate through the pavement instead of pooling or creating run-off and contributing to flooding. And I will take an aggressive approach with Commonwealth Edison to come up with actual solutions to the problem of chronic power outages”.

As PD points out ony a very few of those mapped out projects have even been done (accelerated??). Another poster points out that one that has been done did not work today.

In the recent election the Mayor gave as one of his promises kept….”Dave Schmidt also initiated desperately-needed flood control projects, yet kept the City’s property tax increases to a bare minimum – only a 2.15% increase this year, which is the lowest levy increase in a decade”.

So the bottom line is of course I do not blame Mayor Schmidt for past or present flooding. What I will do is hold him responsible for what he has said on the issue. He used this issue as a reason to elect and re-elect him. I think it is only fair that we take an honest hard look at how the city has done in this area under the Mayors leadership.

When I first moved to PR about 10 years ago we had a very big storm comparable to this one. We had a bout 4 feet of sewer water in our basement. We bought a flood control system and have been dry (thank god!!) ever since. But if I look in my neighborhood today I do not believe we are better off in anyway based on something that our government has done related to infrastructure of the issue of flooding. Any house that now does not flood is a result of a flood control system installed at the cost of the homeowner. I think that applies to virtually every area in PR.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, Mayor Schmidt and the current City Council initiated flood control projects; and yes, the 2.15% levy increase was the lowest increase in a decade or more. So your point is…?

Agree with your sentiments. In regards to national politics/elections I feel utterly helpless and with local politics I feel slightly less helpless.

One thing you didn’t bring up, which you brought up in your last post, was a possible cross-contamination, so to speak, of our non-partisan elections by partisanship, as evidenced by Jan Schakowsky’s endorsement of Ryles.

I’ve been thinking about that. It seems that the national political affiliations of people in PR largely didn’t correlate with who (or what, in the case of the referendum) people supported in this local election (one other exception being the apparent endorsement of D64 candidates Paterno and Sieb by Susan Sweeney and the PR Republican Women). For example, I saw Ryles signs on lawns that had Romney signs on them in November and I know many Obama supporters who voted for Schmidt.

In any case, I agree that it’s much easier to have a voice here in PR than on the national scene. It’s not necessarily easier to actually be heard, however. At east that’s been my experience so far.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We are unaware of the PR Republican Women organization endorsing anyone.

Far as I’m concerned, if you don’t vote you have no right to complain about anything. Nada. Zip.

3:56, I’m pretty much there with you. I used to think it’s our right as Americans to bitch no matter what, but I’m coming to a realization that this country asks so little from us in the way of citizenship that, when we can’t even haul ourselves to vote once or twice a year, we really do suck – as PW pointed out in this post.

I’d be very interested in exactly WHO it was that didn’t vote. Is it the kids under 25/30, who have been the recipients of all this community service and Constitution instruction but may not actually grasp the essence of what it actually means in real life? Is it the 30s and 40s people who are so consumed in their careers and their young kids? Or is it the vaunted seniors who supposedly always vote but who must have stayed away from the polls in pretty large numbers (or else they were the only voters, because there’s about 7,000 of them and only 9,000 or so people voted.

I was taught that voting is like going to Church on Sundays, something you must do. As I got older, Church became less frequent but voting was never missed. It’s sad to see that so many people don’t seem to feel the same way about voting, especially for people that they may see around town on a regular basis.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In this editor’s house growing up, voting was a civics “sacrament” that was not to be missed under any circumstances.

What makes it even more pathetic is those of us who live in PR are asked to do less than most related to the act of voting. We have a significant early voting and many voting locations.

We do not have lines 3-4-5 hours long. In fact I have never waited more than a few munites for someone to finish at a machine and most times there is no waiting at all. I wonder how many PR residents would have voted if we had to face some of the lines we saw in other parts of the country (florida comes to mind).

I fall into the 40’s with career and kids catagory. We all have busy lives but it is not as if voting is every week or month or even every year. If someone cannot find 30 minutes to drive to a polling place, vote and drive home or back to work, it means they simply do not care.

When I moved into Park Ridge over 15 yrs ago I was aware that it is in a Flood Plain, I was required to have flood insurance because of it, so it is certain every potential homeowner coming into Park Ridge is forewarned before signing their contracts that they will be living in a Flood Plain. It’s very similar to residents being shocked on low flying airplanes when it is common knowledge there is a major airport some 5-7 miles away from you. During my tenure here, I have flooded twice. I got tired of it, purchased a $10K flood control system, I haven’t flooded since, my belongings are safe. The belongings I mention are mine, not Park Ridge’s. I’m pretty sure there will be a wrath of people in upcoming City Council meetings demand the city pay for their Flood Control systems, or somehow get subsidized for what they want to install. Hogwash. Purchase your own like a good many of your neighbors have already done to protect your own belongings.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly, A9.

If there was a cost-effective way to alleviate flooding from both the basements and the streets of Park Ridge, that might be a worthwhile expenditure of tax dollars. But after re-reading (okay, re-skimming) the Flood Control and consultants’ reports, we think the Council should re-visit this issue – especially in light of what was reported by at least one commentator yesterday (which should be verified by the City for accuracy) about an area of the City that already has it’s flood control system installed.

Committing tens of millions of dollars of debt/bond financing to a flood control system that may not be effective against the kinds of storms we seem to be getting more regularly may not be the wisest way to go. BUT…no matter what the decision on community-wide flood control, not one penny of property tax should go toward subsidizing private flood control systems in resident’s homes.

Giving breaks to people to put in “back-flow” preventers is a perfect example of awful government policy. It doesn’t fix the larger problem, just moves it. If one house puts that in, guess what? The water just goes to the neighbor. It’s the responsibility of the homeowner and his/her insurance co. to take care of this themselves in this regard.
That being said, we should scrutinize plan we were sold by our city government/public works. I think residents strongly favor a comprehensive sewer plan that’s EFFECTIVE. Were we just sold a very expensive plan that doesn’t do a damn thing? In driving around the neighborhoods yesterday, it wasn’t pretty. There were hundreds of thousands of dollars probably lost by residents (and/or insurance companies) yesterday.

One of the comments I most dislike above is comparing flooding to O’hare. Park Ridge controls its sewers completely. We are not Des Plaines. No one moves to Park Ridge to be close to flooding.

We have to weigh how much residents want to invest and after yesterday if we are even investing our money the right way. Let’s not just be content with borrowing millions on sewer projects if it’s not even helping the problem. Every taxpayer should keep an eye out if any council members actually question the millions that we are borrowing for this project which didn’t seem to help yesterday. The mayor just vetoed a 75,000 (over three years) expenditure for a public works contract, is anyone looking out million dollar expenditures?

EDITOR’S NOTE: EVERY expense needs to be scrutinized. And EVERY taxpayer should be paying attention to how their alderman is addressing this issue.

“Dave Schmidt also initiated desperately-needed flood control projects……”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Perhaps you just weren’t paying attention during the many months that the City’s Flood Task Force – made up of a number of Park Ridge residents who ARE engineers and who have many years of experience dealing with water issues – studied the City’s sewer system and made their recommendations about how to deal with the flooding issue. And maybe you also weren’t paying attention when the City’s professional flood engineering consultants studied the problem and, working with the Flood Task Force, made its recommendations.

Maybe you just weren’t paying attention to the public hearings and Council meetings where flooding and the proposed solutions were discussed over a number of months.

Notwithstanding your inattention or simple ignorance, the performance of the flood control already implemented should cause our City officials to re-visit this issue to determine whether the proposed projects will be cost-effective.

Not everyone can afford a flood control system that costs $10,000. And putting one in likely means you are sending water into your neighbors basement. But agreed that no taxpayer money should subsidize this investment.

As 8:16 points out, the flooding of this area is well known. So why are people surprised by it? And why would any politician promise to install systems using taxpayer money that they say will prevent the flooding. And why would any resident believe this can be accomplished. Yes we need to make sure the sewers and drainage system are up to date and have a schedule to replace the oldest soonest to fail first. The city also must enforce the building codes that prohibit builders and homeowners from changing the height and grade of their lot. This the city has failed to do effectively. But beyond that spending taxpayer money on a cure all flooding system for the whole town does not seem like money well spent.

We have had several 100 year floods since the first one I can remember back in the fall of 1986. This may be the new norm. Given that, why do builders and home buyers build houses with basements that have 10 foot ceilings and are so far below grade. Why does the city allow this when this is a flood plain and flood prone area. Seems you are just asking for flooding problems.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Did you attend any of the many Council meetings and public hearings about flooding and the flood control projects to voice your concerns and/or objections?

The Republican Women of Park Ridge do not endorse or support non-partisan candidates. Our individual members are free to act as they wish.

After helping my parents clean up many wet basements over the years, I researched the issue extensively, when it came time for me to buy a house. After speaking with numerous plumbers and flood control specialists, I learned that Park Ridge has two big problems when it comes to their sewer system. One is well known and the other is rarely discussed. The first one is that this town has sewer lines with way too small of a diameter. One plumber laughed and said the only way to solve the problem is to dig up every line and at least double the size. The other problem, though, is that Chicago does whatever necessary to keep O’Hare operating during these huge storms and that often results in closing up certain sewer lines in order to let O’Hare’s lines drain out.
When you look at those two big problems facing the city ,it is my opinion that not one more dollar should be spent on “flood control”.
Much like O’Hare noise – it is a waste of taxpayer dollars because a) it only helps some of the residents (who don’t have their own flood control systems) and b) it is throwing pennies at a multi million dollar project.
Also, not to jump on the pile here, but I agree that we should never subsidize individual homeowner flood control systems. If you can afford a $300,000+++ house in this town, you can afford a $4,000 one way valve or even a $10,000 overhead sewer system. I bet you see a lot of people with flooded basements that have a Lexus or new SUV in their driveway. If they don’t want to budget properly, that shouldn’t make it the city’s problem to subsidize their poor choices.

I wonder if all those people who voted for the new park on the PRYC properety still want it after last Wednessday Night’s storm?

Wonder if area around Dempster & Greenwood got it bad again. Didn’t get a chance to look in the papers but I know that’s been a bad spot for years.

I moved here a year ago and while I am usually a consistent voter, I failed to register in time this year to vote for Schmidt, but I’m very pleased to see he won.

As far as flooding goes, basements flood, deal with it. My basement flooded and 12″ of water is annoying but 72 hours later its almost back to normal.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s generally our viewpoint. Nevertheless, we advocated for the City’s making a serious effort to determine whether there might be a reasonable solution to the problem at a reaonable cost. And we were heartened by the findings of the City’s Flood Control Task Force and the report of Burke Engineering.

But based on the likelihood that storms like last week’s are becoming more frequent, and on the reports of the perceived ineffectiveness of the flood control remediation already implementented, we’re not so sure the prescribed remediations will be cost-effective solutions.

“If you can afford a $300,000+++ house in this town, you can afford a $4,000 one way valve or even a $10,000 overhead sewer system. I bet you see a lot of people with flooded basements that have a Lexus or new SUV in their driveway. If they don’t want to budget properly, that shouldn’t make it the city’s problem to subsidize their poor choices.”

My thought exactly. After flooding in our last house, we installed a costly flood control system. When we moved here we did the same thing to avoid another flood, knowing how awful it is. We don’t have more than one car or any flat screen TVs but we did have a dry basement after the storm.

“I wonder if all those people who voted for the new park on the PRYC properety still want it after last Wednessday Night’s storm?”

Why would the storm change anyone’s minds? I’m not sure what the park district could have done or could do to prevent flooding…

Miketouhy- Um….keeping open space would be a positive versus developing land and putting further stress on our current sewer system.

Anon- 839am- Completely disagree with your point about not doing anything. If small pipes are the problem, that should be clearly identified and proved to the taxpayers. Then, I think a referendum would be a great way to let the citizens make an informed decision. Worst, if that is true, then the investments we are making in lining is a waste of money. It will be interesting if city council has the guts to questions its own multi-million dollar sewer project.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Youth Campus Park project really was only partially about “keeping open space” – because the current “open space” could have been kept for less than $7 million, or $6 million less than the $13.2 million in bonds the Park District will issue to turn the current “open space” into the proposed recreational facility.

Hopefully, the City Council will have the guts to re-visit its flood control plans given the results of this latest storm before committing tens of millions of dollars of bonded debt to efforts that may not really fix the problem.

The public probably will not be happy with acres of hardscape parking mandated for development of the Youth Campus Park — but they’ll be even more upset if the planned revenue-generating facilites aren’t built and they find out they’re just paying for the Country Club set’s new front lawn, which was the genesis of this project.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As we see it, the “genesis” of this project was: (a) the District bureaucrats’ desire for more acreage and facilities, because that creates the appearance of more work and responsibility which leads to more compensation for them; (b) more bragging rights for the bureaucrats at conferences and convenstions; and (c) more resume enhancements to improve chances for the next job.

We’re also starting to hear that, now that the “bait” has been taken by the voters, the “switch” to features other than, and/or less than, the Youth Campus Park plan that was advertised pre-election, is in process. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen, but it might be worth paying attention to because we’re pretty confident that the “revenue-generating” numbers were about as solid as quicksand.

You are two funny!! I write a post about the “plan” and about how it was pretty clear it was inadequate from the get go (to anyone with common sense).

For my trouble I receive they typical lecture about all of the engineers on the task force and consultants……how dare I question them?? Apparently I was not paying attention to all these engineers etc.

First of all I was paying attention and voiced my opinion clearly to my Alderman and at this blog and to members of the flood task force.

But best of all, you next go on to do the same thing I di….question the engineers and task force (and Mayor). In your last sentence and on other posts you talk about revisiting the plan. If you are so damn sure about all the consultants and task force why do you want to revisit the plan?? Based on one storm with most of the suggestions not even in place…..you want to revisit it!!

The only difference between our positions is I wanted them to revisit the plan before they even started implementing it. You want them to revisit it after one storm.

Do you think the position of all those engineers and consultants is going to be different compared to what it was last time??

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since you don’t identify yourself, there is no way for us to confirm that you’ve ever said or done anything at all about the flood control plan. That’s the problem with anonymity: you can’t prove you said or did what you now say you said and did.

We aren’t questioning the engineers and the Task Force so much as we’re questioning the Council’s decision to commit to a plan whose initial parts seem to have been ineffective in the face of the very first big storm since their completion – assuming that the accounts we’ve been receiving are accurate. And when the cost of the project is as great as this cost is projected to be, the Council should be checking and revisiting the plan’s cost-effectiveness every step of the way.

PD- true costs should be measured. Will there be a budget transfer to cover all the extra garbage that Arc will be picking up this week? Driving around today and seeing the huge amounts of flood garbage was eye-opening.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Does the City get charged for “extra garbage”?

We didn’t scour the four corners of Park Ridge but, frankly, we were surprised to see as little “flood garbage” city-wide as we saw. But that’s all anecdotal, so we’re not claiming to be right on this issue.

You are not questioning the task force or the engineers, right??

You are quesitoning the plan developed by the task force and the engineers and the implementation of said plan. You are questioning if it is cost effective. You are questioning if it will even work based on one storm. You are qeustioning if it will be effective……..but you are not questioning the engineers…..of course not.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Back in our 07.26.11 post, we discussed the Task Force’s and Burke Engineering’s reports and recommendations, noting that “[w]hether [the estimated $17.38 million-plus of flood control work is] an expense the people of this community are willing to undertake remainst to be seen.”

It’s not up to Burke or the Task Force members to provide the answer to that question, but up to our elected representatives on the Council.

And, yes, we are questioning it based on one storm – because if it wasn’t effective for the first storm, somebody needs to provide a pretty darn good explanation of why we should expect it to be more effective for subsequent ones.

Put it this way, it’s pretty clear which blocks had sewer failures, and there were many.. Too bad the total lost dollars by residents will not be quantified as a whole. Is it $2 million? $10 million? It’s hard to frame a discussion without real cost impact.

Yes, I’m not sure, does the city get charged for extra garbage this week? Notice was put out on the Park Ridge website that arc will pick up all flood related garbage this week. I would assume they charge the city, but no idea how much.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Is it even $200,000? Whatever that cost of water-damaged property is, however, should effectively be IRRELEVANT to the City’s decision on whether to go full speed ahead with flood control plans. Because it’s pretty clear that each individual homeowner can, by the expenditure of varying degrees of his/her own private money, implement their own form of flood control to minimize, if not eliminate, future flooding problems.

One problem of widespread private remediation is that taking all of those basements out of our informal network of private detention areas drives most of that water into the streets, turning Park Ridge into Venice…without the tourism or the gondolas.

oh well….at least it will be interesting to see how the Mayor backs out of this one.

1. Vote for me…flood control has been ignored.

2. Vote for me again. I implemented a (desperately needed) flood control plan.

3. The plan was bad and we should not spend the money.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Facts just aren’t your strong suit, are they?

Fact No. 1: Flood control – along with reasonable sewer inspection, maintenance and repair – was neglected by every mayor from Wietecha through Frimark. Schmidt said he would address it.

Fact No. 2: Schmidt did address it by appointing the Flood Control Task Force and engaging Burke Engineering to come up with a plan for flood control – which they did.

Fact No. 3: The City Council, with Schmidt’s encouragement, began implementing that plan which was never expected to make all of Park Ridge completely watertight.

Fact No. 4: Because the first big storm since the initial implementation may have revealed some flaws in the plan that either weren’t originally anticipated or which were underestimated, it may be time to re-visit the plan from a perspective of cost-effectiveness in light of those flaws.

Fact No. 5: The alternative to re-visiting it is to continue full steam ahead with a multi-million dollar plan that may be faultier or less cost-effective than initially understood, which might well be both stupid and irresponsible.

We don’t think we can make that any more simple and linear than that.

Correct. If everyone had backflow preventers then the water would potentially flow out of the sewers and through streets then into basement windows. Last week, there were a few houses where water from the streets went through basement windows in Park Ridge.

PD- We disagree on the math. A flooded basement could cost a homeowner between 5k and 20k easily. When you are talking removal and replacement of furniture, walls, furnaces, hot water tanks, floors…and even mold remediation, that 10k figure comes real fast. So were there 100 homes with sewer back-up? I have no idea. But, that number should be known by the council.

Damaged property is completely relevant. Residents need to weigh the risk of floods versus the investment in up to date sewers (if even available). Of course the concern would be, can we trust someone to present a plan that would actually work?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The cost of damaged property is only relevant to the individual homeowner. And if an individual homeowner has just incurred $20K worth of property damage, then he/she would need to be a certifiable moron (Or imbecile? Or idiot?) to blithely replace furniture, walls, furnaces, etc. without first installing whatever flood control devices – overhead sewers, back-fill valves, glass block basement windows, etc. – might be necessary to keep the water out.

“As we see it, the “genesis” of this project was: (a) the District bureaucrats’ desire for more acreage and facilities, because that creates the appearance of more work and responsibility which leads to more compensation for them; (b) more bragging rights for the bureaucrats at conferences and convenstions; and (c) more resume enhancements to improve chances for the next job.”

This has got to be the most cynical take on the YC acquisition I have heard to date. And “the country club set” wanting “a new front lawn” isn’t far behind.

Why is it so hard to fathom that a group of people recognized the wisdom of preserving our last parcel of open space? Their individual motivations may have differed slightly but for the most part I saw a generally altruistic group of people who care about the quality of life here and wanted to help enhance that. I was happy to see that the voters agreed.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A “cynical take” on a cynical process perpetrated by cynical bureaucrats who cynically denied the taxpayers a vote on their $7.1 million Centennial Pool boondoggle.

If the Youth Campus Park really means so much to the “quality of life here,” that seems a whole lot more of an indictment than an endorsement. But if a park there really is so important ot the “quality of life here,” why didn’t the Park District acquire the land by eminent domain years ago? Did the Youth Campus contribute more to the “quality of life here” than a park?

5:57:

Merriam- Webster says the following about Altruism.

1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Is Altruism really the word you want to use?? The referendum was about selfless regard for others?? Excuse me but it is going to be our kids and families who are going to be running around that park.

So we cut funding for community groups (meals on wheels and CoC), after all government should not be involved in these things, and spend a boat load more on a park for us to play in and we credit ourselves with being altruistic…..interesting trick!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Apples and watermelons again. The taxpayers/voters VOTED for their public Park District to “spend a boat load more on a park”; they were never given a vote by past Councils on whether any of their tax dollars should go to private community groups. And given how much whining those organizations have done since their public funding was cut off, we’re guessing the taxpayers have not given those private corporations as whole lot of the taxpayers’ own private money.

That being said, you’re right that “altruism” is the wrong term for the Youth Campus Park. Now, if the Youth Campus organization GAVE the park to the Park District, THAT would be “altruism.”

“…And given how much whining those organizations have done since their public funding was cut off, we’re guessing the taxpayers have not given those private corporations as whole lot of the taxpayers’ own private money”.

That only strengthens my point. There was very little push back on the cuts to meals on wheels. The Mayor who was front and center on the issue was just reelected and you speculate that people are not contributing.

So let’s all have fun in the park…but at least let’s be honest and not call it altruistic.

Turns out PR is perfectly aligned with the US congress.

PR has no problem cutting meals on wheels but god forbid we don’t have “enough” park land or green space.

Today congress showed they have no problem with cuts to meals on wheels but god forbid you delay their flights home for thier week off, or the flights of frequent business travelers.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Don’t insult our Mayor and Council by comparing them to Congress. Save that comparison for the Park Board.