Why go through a referendum if we can’t afford the project?

Wouldn’t a simple no vote suffice by the Aldermen?

EDITOR’S NOTE: We believe the City CAN “afford it” – and more – IF it wants to raise taxes by double digits to service the $100 million-plus in additional bonded debt that would have to be issued. THAT’s why an ADVISORY referendum might help give the Council a truer sense of taxpayer sentiment than it can get solely by listening to 70+ people who would benefit from these expenditures, or by walking around and haphazardly talking to people about what they think.

Thank you for writing this important article.

While I believe it would set a terrible precedent, I think that the only way the city taxpayers should fund Mayfield Estates is with a Special Assessment. The reason why it’s bad precedent is because that was the annexation agreement as you mentioned. Many streets do not have curbs or sidewalks, because that is the agreement that was made under original development plans. In other words CHEAPER at buy-in.

Special assessments happen in many suburban areas. But, I do think the city should help them out by splitting the cost.

Add a $200 monthly special assessment for 20 years for the 23 houses ($1,104,000). That would almost split the cost. The homeowners can’t complain because this will raise their property value. I heard from at least 5 “real estate experts” who testified Monday Night saying their property value has gone down, so this will then make it skyrocket, correct?

Taxpayers would then be gifting each homeowner approximately $55,000 in improvements. Wow, that hurts to even write.

Without some sort of cost sharing agreement, the city taxpayers shouldn’t bail them out No pun intended.

I would have to read the exact wording of the referendum, but it seems to me like a referendum would only be an exercise in CYA.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Letting thousands of taxpayers express their opinion in the voting booth is CYA? Interesting.

Do you think that mindlessly doing what 70+ self-interested people demand, or (in the case of surveys) what a few hundred folks suggest in responses to a variety of loaded questions, is the epitome of democracy and/or the republican form of government?

These projects are not going to happen at 100 million dollars. You know it, I know it, they know it. Hell, I think even the 70 people probably knows it. As I have previously stated, anyone with common sense could have stood in the street with water above their knees and/or driven around town after the floods 10 years ago knew this was going to be 100’s of millions of dollars and the people of PR do not have the stomach to spend that kind of money.

So the referendum gives those elected officials who have yammered on about infrastructure and flooding “CYA” for not doing anything either.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Wrong, first and foremost because 10 years ago NOBODY had any idea how bad the problem was. And NOBODY back then cared, which is why no task force was formed and no consultants hired.

But we don’t need a $100 million referendum. We had a $22 million referendum for the New Emerson in 1997, an $18 million referendum for a new Library in 2002, a multi-million dollar referendum for D-64 funding in 2007, an $18 million referendum for a new cop shop in 2009, and various referenda for lesser amounts in between. So we could have a $19 million referendum for the Mayfield Estates and Northwest Park projects combined.

And if “the people of PR do not have the stomach to spend that kind of money,” then maybe that money shouldn’t be spent. Gee, what a novel concept – the taxpayers getting to say on what they want their money spent!

From a theoretical perspective, if the City was making comprehensive and equitable improvements community wide, then having all taxpayers/users pay for the improvements makes sense.

In these cases, that is not what is happening. Specific areas are receiving an extraordinary benefit compared to others. When the properties were annexed and/or any public improvements were made by the original developer – those were the improvements. The City’s only obligation is to maintain those improvements (replace sidewalks, resurface streets, etc.) One could argue that the City should have required certain improvements before annexation including stormwater improvements…but assume the City did require those improvements and the residents said no and the annexation didn’t take place. Those residents would be in the same situation barking up the tree of Cook County.

If these improvements are made, they will ultimately be an additional benefit/utility that others do not have. The general tax base should not pay for that. The SSA is the appropriate way to go.

Now that’s the theory….now let’s see what happens in practice.

Nice theory but then the answer is that there will never be any sewer or drainage improvements unless there is a plan to do the entire city. Forget about annexation. As an example, if improvements are done to the country club area for flooding but not to an area that floods by centennial park (or pick another area) then the first area is getting an “extraordinary benefit”. By that theory we would never make any improvements because we could never afford to do them all in one plan or anywhere near in a similar timeframe.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Your theory presumes that all areas are the same, with the same problems and the same needs. That’s false, as has been demonstrated by the findings of the Flood Control Task Force and the Burke study which identified and prioritized certain areas of town as needing flood control.

Obviously the only solutions are to abandon mayfield estates or raze all structures and turn it into open space. The area is obviously not suitable for living due to its flood prone nature. It will be cheaper than $100,000,000 to buy everybody out and just make it one big nature preserve.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since it would cost well more than $100,000 per house for the City to acquire each of those Mayfield Estates homes to demoliish them, that idea is a non-starter.

I don’t think the voters would support a $100K referendum for only those 3 areas, but that doesn’t mean a referendum shouldn’t be held to see. Your idea of teh SSAs makes the most sense, because the City can justify paying something to keep the streets passable and the homeowners should pay the rest because theyre property will appreciate.

Your update suggestion makes a lot of sense. That means it has no chance of getting passed by the city council if the residents in those affected areas object.

Nice suggestion. I suppose when the City repaves Devon Avenue we should setup a toll booth to pay for that. Let the users pay right?

Alderman Milissis will never allow this to happen. He already has the votes to push this through, and will get the Aldermen and Mayor to fall in line.

Nice try Watchdog. Too little too late.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And why would you “suppose” something like that, which has no precedent of any type in Park Ridge?

Funny, but we weren’t able to count those votes last Monday night – unless you equate “moving the process ahead” with “final approval.”

The fat lady hasn’t even arrived at the concert hall, so she’s no even close to singing.

Hey, that’s not the “indignant” ! Are there two of us???

Here’s what I see:
Ya’s
1. Schubert will go along with what Millissis says. Seems all to happy to blow the budget over this pork project.
2. Smitty will go along with it as he already said he will as long as he gets what he wants
3. Millissis- More than happy to have the taxpayers chip in $100,000 each for his own home and his 22 neighbors. Which far outweighs Frimarks giveaway to Napleton.
4. Sweeney- He likes spending on “public safety” and he may be scared of the thought unsupervised children floating around Park Ridge during a heavy rain.

Maloney- No idea. I haven’t seen him for or against this project.

No’s
1. Mazzuca
2. Knight

So to me, the Mayor will have to veto it, or be on record for letting the most fiscally irresponsible pork project in Park Ridge since the TIF happen.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We generally don’t have the time, or want to take the time, to verify the identity of anonymous commentators – including those commenting through non-verifiable nommes de blog – so infringement can occur.

You may be right, in which case Mayor Schmidt also would not appear to have the votes to sustain a veto should he issue one.

To the imposter Indignant, equating paving a street to a pork project of $100k per home is insane. Also, pick your own moniker.
But, so was the letter in the Park Ridge Herald Advocate advocating for Mayfield.

This issue is going to divide the city, because there if it gets out that all of us are subsidizing 22 or 23 people at $100k per home, there will be an uproar. That is, if people pay attention.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve always had issues that “divide the City” – but usually they tend to divide along more nebulous lines, like “user” v. “non-user.” Here, there’s a clearer boundary based on geographical lines. We hope the aldermen realize this and also realize that these projects do appear to convey windfall benefits on certain people for conditions that have not been shown to have been actually caused by the City.

Another very myopic, single threaded view on the situation. Everyone associates the city of Des Plaines with chronic flooding from the river and now Park Ridge is getting the same reputation which affects the home values of all residents and not just the residents in the affected area. The City did cause this situation by chronically neglecting the very infrastructure that they are charged with maintaining as most of the flooding in this area occurs overland from city property. I work with younger people who are just starting families and I advise on not moving to Park Ridge because of this very issue and with a City Council that refuses to make decisions and a Mayor who vetoes everything but has yet to come up with a single original proposal himself. Living in this area, I am tired of sand-bagging my house to protect against the streets flooding every time there is a possibility of rain. Most residents can’t sleep at night during any kind of rain storm. I have done everything I can to protect my house from street flooding and spared no expense now it’s time for the city to do the same.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Where’s your PROOF that the City “chronically neglected” the infrastructure in the Second Ward any more than in other wards – because unless it discriminated against the Second Ward in infrastructure maintenance and repairs, then Second Ward (or Northwest Park, or West of Country Club) residents have no greater claim on City-funded remediation than any other part of town.

I have had water running down my driveway for way too long, right into my house.

I have been told by my Alderman that this will pass 5-2 and is veto-proof.

Looks like the City is finally stepping up and doing the right thing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Gee, sounds like there’s no need to have any more discussions because it’s a done deal.

But if by “the right thing” you mean another form of an unjustified entitlement/welfare, you’re absolutely right.

1:28 why did you buy a house where there was no sewer system in place?

Why did the area YOU chose to invest in, say NO to the city when they were annexed to paying for appropriate sewers?

Should every single homeowner now expect that the city will go back and retrofit every home to match every other single home?

Should everyone expect and demand “Even 100-Year flood protection?”

“……….because unless it discriminated against the Second Ward in infrastructure maintenance and repairs, then Second Ward (or Northwest Park, or West of Country Club) residents have no greater claim on City-funded remediation than any other part of town”.

My god you are so incredibly inconsistent (the perfect lawyer and/or politician). You change your position based on what the argument is.

When people on this very blog pointed out that people would be paying for flood control that would not have a positive affect on their neighborhood you talked about infrastructure and a benefit to the community as a whole.

With the above quote you have now taken the exact same position that you used to argue against.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Find us the “quote” – cite to the post – and we’ll respond, because we currently have no idea to what actual post or Editor’s Note you are referring.

I certainly hope that “moving the process ahead” only means further discussion. That will give the mayor and the city council the opportunity to inform the taxpaying voters who don’t own one of the 22 or 23 homes in Mayfield Estates a chance to attend a city council meeting-or contact their alderman-to strongly object to this kind of irresponsible spending. Hopefully there will be some kind of information in the Spokesman about the cost of this project that benefits very very few people-if there has not already been one.

And I would think home buyers are a bit smarter than 12:46 pm makes them out to be. Not all areas of PR flood and if someone is about to buy what is likely their biggest asset-they will do more research beyond what a real estate agent has to say.

Stating that failing to install street sewers in the Mayfield Estates will negative affect the property values of all of the houses in PR seems a stretch-where’s your documentation to support this claim?

Most taxpayers understand paying higher property taxes for smart investments. These flood control projects don’t seem to fit that criteria because they benefit such a small number of people and come with a limited guarantee of success. We get higher taxes with no increase in services.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Some percentage of the cost of flood control in these areas will arguably benefit the entire community; e.g., reducing floodwates that make streets impassable for emergency vehicles. But it appears that a majority of the benefit will go to the individual homeowners. Hence, our suggestion of the SSA’s with the City picking up the “relief-sewer” portion of the cost.

2:16: I live on Habberton a block from NW Park. Pretty sure they had sewers there when I moved in. The City however chooses to store water in the street however, that is why my Alderman is driving this change. Real leadership from at least one member of the Council. The only one who cares to save Park Ridge.

EDITOR’S NOTE: So you are accusing the City of having removed or covered up street sewers that were in place? Seriously?

The only time we recall anybody from the City claiming that the City “chooses to store water in the street” is as opposed to having it back up into basements, and we recall there being even more to the explanation than just that.

My proof that the city neglected the infrastructure comes from speaking to city employees who have worked for Park Ridge for over 20 years. Also, when they replaced the sewers on Glenview after the 2011 100 year flood, a city employee stated that the city had scoped the sewer and knew that it was collapsed. I don’t need any more PROOF than that. I have spent my money on a flood control system and completely replacing and regrading my driveway to try to stem the street water from flooding my house. The city is culpable for this issue and must be held responsible for fixing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Beautiful! An anonymous commentator quoting anonymous “city employees” about neglected infrastructure – something we repeatedly have asserted in various posts over the past several years. Too bad that’s irrelevent, because general neglect of infrastructure is not the same as neglected infrastructure in the 2nd Ward v. the other wards.

So our elected officials and the Mayor hire a consultant to analyze the flood issue. The Mayor convenes a flood task force. You (and he) trumpet this as progress.

So this now boils down to the top targets provided by the task force, right?? But now you (and I assume soon the Mayor) go after these areas as people looking for OPM. Well guess what?? I did not pick those areas. Almost everyone in PR did not pick those areas. It was the people hired and the method put in place by the Mayor and the council that came up with these targets.

So……if you, the Mayor and the elected officials do not want to fund work on Mayfield (for example), that is fine with me. Give us a reason, have a vote, check it off the list and move on.

So what about the rest of the city?? There are neighborhoods all over town that are not like Mayfield…..they have sewers and still they flood regularly. Streets and basements.

If the council wants to come up with a reason to say no to Mayfield or some other area, document the reason, have a vote and move on to the next area.

There are plenty of areas in town that need attention. OF course I am sure there will be a reason that these areas are simply looking for OPM.

EDITOR’S NOTE: OPM comes into play when the homeowners in these affected areas want the taxpayers of the rest of the City to fund ALL of the costs of the flood remediation AND the cost of that remdiation is so substantial; i.e., $100,000 per home in Mayfield Estates.

We in Mayfield Estates have been paying the same taxes as the rest of Park Ridge for almost 50 years. When we were first annexed in 1967 the decision was made not to have storm sewers installed. The city had to honor that agreement for five years. After that the articles of annexation held no more sway. This was confirmed by the city attorney during the last meeting. Since that time there was flooding in 1987 due to river overflow, and the city took measures to prevent that from happening again. Since 2008 there have been several floods. Conditions have changed and the COMPLETE LACK of any infrastructure implemented by the city to remove rain water obviously does not work. The work and maintenance that has not been done to the non existent system in place would certainly have cost more than $2.3 million over the decades that this has gone on. I also do not think it is unreasonable to ask the city to fund this project since we have been paying for services that we do not get for decades (ie storm water removal in the rest of the city). Furthermore, the tax money from my neighborhood has gone toward the $5,000,000 in flood projects that have already been approved and are underway.

It is fine that you think we shouldn’t have any flood relief that is paid for by the city but have the decency to use less inflammatory language. The “victims”, as you call them, are people that tried to use their best judgement when moving where they did, and most of them have been here far longer than 2008. Saying that we are asking for a bailout, handout, or welfare is extremely condescending and distorts the issue at hand by painting the people of these neighborhoods as reckless idiots and people that don’t deserve any assistance. We aren’t investment banks that have taken huge risks, nor are we lazy poor people that don’t want to work. We deserve ANY system, like those supplied by the city to the rest of the city.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In 1967, YOU and/or YOUR predecessor(s) in interest told the City you/they didn’t want street sewers installed; and thereafter the folks in Mayfield Estates NEVER proposed any deal by which they and the City could share costs for such an installation. You folks basically sat on your hands…until you extended them, palms up.

Saying that you are asking for a “bailout, handout, or welfare” is just extremely accurate – as we are aware of no other neighborhood in town where the residents got anywhere near the $100,000 per home in flood relief, sewer improvements, etc. that the folks in Mayfield Estates are demanding.

Park Ridge is a city and paying for a basic infostructure to a community such as Mayfield Estates is as a minimum of what should be required. There are tax dollars collected from Mayfield Estates that are and were used to protect the areas that are not flooding today.

EDITOR’S NOTE: EVERYBODY’S taxes have been spent all over town, but we can find no evidence that ANYBODY else has received anything close to $100,000 per home of benefits from one single project; and maybe not even cumulatively, compared to other parts of town.

Fine!! So vote and move on. People wrote on this blog expressing frustration that their neighborhoods did not make the cut. I believe your comment was they had better contact their alderman and “you snooze you loose” or something to that effect.

Again, it was the councils and the Mayors consultants, task force and method that selected these areas…not the citizens of PR.

So vote on Mayfield. If the council/Mayor vote no that means other areas that did not make the cut will now have a chance.

By the way, funny how all this time was spent on Mayfield as one of the best bang for the buck flood control projects when all that you state seems so obvious. I mean the lack of sewer and flooding situation out there is not news.

Here is a post from the Mayor on this blog from 6-23-10…….”Was passing through and saw this post and the comments. Wanted to remind my friends at the ‘Dog that I brought up the flood relief referendum plan a year or more ago. The only thing we had been waiting on was the Task Force’s recommendations so the Council could begin the process of figuring out the price tag we would present to the voters in the referendum.

I am glad Alderman Bach is ready to support going forward with my suggested referendum but, as you pointed out, much further discussion about the appropriate dollar figure is in order, especially in light of the City’s still-tenuous financial condition”.

So that means the Mayor had a referendum idea on the radar 4 1/2 years ago. We have gone through all this consultant and task force dance and now it looks like one of the top choices (Mayfield) should never have been on the list. Even better than that, 4 1/2 years after the Mayor says he brought up the referendum idea, you are calling for a referendum…….Wonderful!!!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, it was The People’s consultants – albeit recommended by City Staff and hired by the Council and the Mayor – who provided the report that contained the information about the previoulsly unknown priorities were and what the costs were. Had the Mayor and the Council suspected Mayfield Estates, for example, would cost $100K per home BEFORE the consultant provided the report, our guess is that the report may never have been commissioned.

To hear people from Mayfield Estates describe it, “the lack of sewer and flooding situation out there” seems to have come as a total shock.

Nobody has said Mayfield Estates “should never have been on the list” or that Mayfield Estates shouldn’t get flood relief. Now that we finally know that it’s $2.3 million/$100,000 per home, however, the question is does the City pay it all, does it pay none, or does it pay some portion and the residents pay the rest.

Having areas of park ridge that don’t flood is evidence that tax dollars have been spent, possibly in excess to 100,00 per household to have that area protected. Everyone needs this protection

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is one of the stupidest comments to this post. Check that: it IS the stupidest.

Looking at the Northwest Park area. Maybe that project is too big. It seems by the complaints at the last cow that this problem area is isolated and smaller than the marked area for repair. Someone should go door to door and actually see who has problems there and how exactly are they flooding. Some people who don’t have standing water outside think their seeping foundation and window well leaks will be fixed by this. Maybe they can shave a few blocks off this area. Another thing I thought I read that the consulting firm is not even certain that these repairs will even work (maybe that was the CC fix) Also if the park is turned into a retention area, how long will that water sit there for a 10 yr/100 yr flood? Imagine the bugs? I would think living next to a retention pond/park would not be that promising for increasing property values either.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Burke says the Mayfield Estates and Northwest Park projects will provide 100-year flood relief: the Country Club project provides only 10-year relief.

As we understand it, the Park would get additional drainage so that it would not retain water for more than 48 hours under most circumstances.

The residents of Mayfield Estates rejected sewers in 1967 because they didn’t want to pay for them, and nothing has changed since then. I don’t live in those areas but I can support the city paying something toward flood control in thsoe areas. Not just 100%. The cost of relief sewers sounds about right.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Indeed they did, but something HAS changed: those fine folks want $100,000 apiece from their fellow taxpayers because they and/or their predecessor owners didn’t want to pay the money to install street sewers 47 years ago. And we wouldn’t be surprised if a public policy-lightweight majority of aldermen gave it to them.

Get educated people with the facts which you are not going to get on a blog. Attend city council meeting to find out facts. kARMA folks.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We agree with you that people SHOULD attend Council meetings, and school board meetings, and park board meetings. Especially the taxpayers who usually get sold down the river because they don’t show up and beef about all the spending they oppose.

But please let our readers know exactly what “facts” thay are not getting here that they need to understand this post.

This is all garbage. That meeting was a sham and the guy that ran it clearly had an agenda he wanted to advance. I sat there and watched him push his ideas to the detriment of everyone who was there.

EDITOR’S NOTE: How was the meeting (the 1/13/13 meeting?) a “sham”? What “guy that ran it” are you referring to, and what “agenda” was he trying to “advance”?

I don’t want to pay for stuff I need, either.

I think it’s shameful/heartless to characterize the neighbors of Mayfield Estates as “Freeloaders”. As stated by Burke Engineering and city engineers, this is the most severe flooding situation in PR. The water surrounds our homes, enters under the doors and up through the concrete slabs of many of the ranch-style homes. It floods our first floor living rooms, kitchens, and bedrooms causing evacuation for weeks/months at a time. In the November 11th, public works committee meeting, the rep for Christopher Burke engineering characterized the neighborhood as “an anomaly” for Park Ridge with “no storm sewer system”.

Seven other flooding projects have been completed over the course of two years without being contested by alderman or residents. I understand that it’s the job of each alderman to uphold the needs of their ward, but they must also recognize that every tax dollar spent within a community will not necessary benefit the members of their ward.

Putting this in another context may help reinforce my thoughts… Let’s say one of our schools was subject to the same chronic flooding as Mayfield Estates, with 6-12” inches of rain water in all main floor classrooms. Let’s say these flooding events were occurring every 18 months and the school would close for 1-2 months after each storm for repairs. Do you think it’s equally appropriate for school board members who have kids in other schools to vote against a resolution simply because their own kids wouldn’t benefit? Do you think the school’s parents should pay a special assessment because of what you characterize as a potential “windfall” opportunity? (The fix adds value to the school. As a result property values rise due to a stronger desire to live within its boundaries).

Let’s say a massive sink hole the size of a football field opened up in the middle of your street. Should we blame residents for not conducting a geological study before buying their house? Should alderman vote on whether or not to fix it? I can assure you that nobody will benefit but those who live on the block; and until it’s fixed, property values on that block will tank.

This just isn’t how a city council should operate. An overarching concern for public safety must take priority.

You asked for proof on neglected infrastructure; take a ride down Mayfield and Elliott. Count the number of homes (many upstream) where the gullies have been filled in and culverts were destroyed by builders during the housing boom. This is all on city property! We’ve pushed the city to restore these and it was recommended as part of the initial plan proposed in the 2009 flood plan. No action has been taken.

The neighbors of Mayfield estates aren’t land speculators. We didn’t move here to earn a buck. We moved here because we wanted to belong to the PR community. We were ignorant to the flooding issue (you called us “idiots’ – fine); some were misled, some bought before 2008. None of us imagined a need for a boat and pier. Most would gladly move. We’re contributing more than our fair share to a sewer tax yet “there is no storm sewer system” here. Rather than continually reaching back to point fingers, let’s focus on the opportunity to eradicate the problem.

Through the good work of city engineers and collaboration with the MWRD, this opportunity has been served on a silver platter. We need community support and leadership within city council to push this through

Onward and dry,
Dennis Sladky

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Sladky:

The truth is neither “shameless” or “heartless.” But you and your neighbors will remain “freeloaders” until such time as they offer to meaningfully contribute their own money to help solve a problem that was and is of their own, and their predecessor homeowners, own making, starting in 1967 and continuing to the present.

Those “seven other flooding projects [that] have been completed over the course of two years without being contested by alderman or residents” all involved the installation of relief sewers, at what we understand to be a cost-per-home of far less than the $100K per home you and your neighbors are looking for from their fellow taxpayers across the City, many of whom suffer their own flooding problems. But if you and your neighbors are willing to pay the difference between the cost of relief sewers and the $100K per home that the Burke project has identified as the cost of your flood remediation, just say so and we can “eradicate the problem” right now.

Comparing your homes to our schools is ridiculous, because all improvements to those schools are PUBLIC property, while all but a small pecentage of the flood remediation to your and your neighbors’ homes will be of purely private benefit. And comparing your well-known flooding problems to a newly-created sink hole is too ludicrous for discussion.

You can raise a hundred issues, but it all boils down to you and/or your predecssors refusing to pay the cost of installing storm sewers back in 1967 and ever since. Now you’ve adopted an entitlement mentality because you think you can “smell the meat a-cookin'” down at City Hall and believe the City Council will solve all your problems by means of the OPM they shake out of your fellow taxpayers, at no cost to yourselves.

But if it’s “community support and leadership within the city council” you need, go to referendum and earn that support through a measurable vote from the people you want to pay to enhance your property values.

We have no idea why the residents of Mayfield estates opted out of sewers in 1967. And why do we care? Today’s residents have nothing to with it. Lets address the here and now.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana)

You don’t care because your freeloaders looking for handouts from your fellow taxpayers. But if you want to “address the here and now,” agree to pay the difference between the cost of relief sewers and the $100K/home the Burke project for Mayfield Estates will cost, or whatever the cost per home will be for the Northwest Park project.

My comments to the recent Watchdog post on flood releif in Park Ridge are set out between “**** and ****” following watchdog’s original remarks.

We wonder whether 7th Ward Ald. Marty Maloney knew what was in store for him and his fellow aldermen when he arrived at 505 Butler Place last Monday night, with the Public Works Committee he chairs scheduled to take up the flood control projects proposed by the City’s flood consultant for three neighborhoods on the City’s northwest end. ****No one wonders this, the issue is hot and if he didn’t, he would not be doing his job. He knew. Anyone paying attention knows.****
Whether he did or didn’t know, Maloney masterfully handled the often heated marathon session attended by over 70 flood-impacted residents. And he was able to deftly forge a consensus to move ahead with further consideration of the Mayfield Estates and Northwest Park 100-year flood control projects. ****Yes, the matter was put over.****
That’s ”further consideration,” as in “we’re going to continue to evaluate it.” Not: “It’s definitely going to happen.”
The Mayfield Estates project has an estimated cost of $2.3 million, while the Northwest Park project carries a tab of $16.6 million – but only if the Park Ridge Park District agrees to let the City use Northwest Park for a temporary floodwater detention area. And from what we hear, that cooperation is nowhere near the lock some people would like it to be, although that’s an issue for another time. ****Yes, the only thing certain is death and taxes.****
Left behind Monday night was the “Country Club” flood control project for the area extending west from the Park Ridge Country Club’s Greenwood Avenue boundary. Although that project could benefit the largest number of households among the three projects under consideration, it also could add as much as $80 million to the bill while only providing that area with protection against 10-year floods. ****That project deserves further analysis moving forward for the reasons stated.****
For those of you who are still wondering what all this 10-year, 100-year stuff means, it’s that in any given year there is a 1 in 10, of 1 in 100, chance of such a flood occurring – not that such floods are expected only every 10 or 100 years. Another mystery solved. ****That is no mystery.****
We empathize with the residents of these affected areas, and especially the residents in Mayfield Estates. ****We doubt this seriously, in fact, it simply is not true but a pseudo- moralistic platitude as a rhetorical device to set up the expressions of your true feelings about certain Park Ridge citizens whom you insult and mock with the smug and stilted certitude achieved by those politicking in anonymity. ****Most of their problems ****(Park Ridge problems are not “their problems” but “all of our problems,” as citizens of Park Ridge, that is a basic principle from which the “Public Watchdog” too readily and too often runs seems to run astray)**** are caused by overland flooding resulting from the lack of storm sewers in the streets – a deficiency that has existed since the installation of such sewers was rejected by Mayfield Estates residents in 1967, when that area was annexed by the City. ****I procured all of the City’s records on the annexation under a Freedom of Information Act request and there never was “sewer installation plan.” Had there been an actual plan it probably would have been accepted. It is worse than irresponsible to adopt the misguided logic of a few that the problems of the Park Ridge citizens residing in Mayfield are somehow their own fault because there was an offer on the table but they rejected it; it is reckless. You have misconstrued the document and draw conclusions from your misunderstanding which forms a faulty basis for conclusions upon which you then encourage others to embrace. **** We’ve seen that overland flooding up close and personal, and the helpless feelings it generates truly can be devastating. ****This is a Park Ridge community issue. You got that one right this time.****
But the question of whether the substantial costs required to solve flooding problems in those three affected areas should be imposed on all the City’s taxpayers has significant economic and public policy implications. ****You make these basic health and safety issues appear to be suspect due to policy “implications.” **** And those implications need to be addressed with the cold light of reason and logic, not the heat of raw emotion on display Monday night by residents who demanded that the Council approve flood remediation plans NOW – and costs be damned! ****There were a couple of citizens at the hearing expressing from their hearts their personal agony this is true, but that does not make the engineering plans and project solutions less “cold-light” or “logical.” I guess you derive some of your popularity by raising ire over municipal spending, and that’s fine, but do not attempt to cloak yourself in the mantle of some fair or all-knowing reporter, in the end, you express an agenda you believe, not one “The Public” believes. Bolsheviks were pretty great at your craft, too. The point is, style it as you will, you are just a voice, and will never be the voice on matters of public interest—try as you might. Somebody has to be the Watchdog’s watchdog. ****
Many of Monday night’s speakers stated, in one form or other, that money should be no object in dealing with these problems. ****Since this is your signature issue as many self-styled “watchdog” blogs embrace it was taken with the grain of salt it deserves. ****We can understand such sentiments coming from folks who likely have already done the math and realize that if the whole City is on the hook for the multi-millions of dollars it will cost to provide all this flood protection to just these two or three limited areas, the beneficiaries of that largesse are likely to reap several dollars in property value increases for every dollar they pay in increased taxes. ****The implication here is insulting as you unfairly undermine the legitimate interests of health, safety and well-being in our community and write those issues off as being, in actuality, the scheming malfeasance of erstwhile money grubbing so and so’s as only, you, the master of knowledge of such “insider facts” can purvey.**** And they don’t seem to give a rat’s derriere that such major financial commitments will leave the City with millions more in annual debt service payments that hogtie future Councils in dealing with future City-wide needs. **** Now again, here, your supposed deep-meaning summation is really just crafted to infer that if anyone disagrees with your assessment of moving ahead with the flood remediation projects brought to light based upon solid professional analysis, they are just thoughtless, selfish wild-eyed spenders looking to harm everyone and make life difficult for our future politicians. This is an unfair characterization of those in our community who view flood protection as a critical foundation for the long-term vibrancy and economic security of our community. And, again, you glom all the plans into one fuzzy and scary concept in order to bolster your cause to make rational flood relief solutions appear to be some monstrous threat to the City and its taxpayers. It is not.****
Most of Monday night’s speakers portrayed themselves and their neighbors as helpless victims of some sort of City misconduct or neglect. **** I was at this meeting and did not observe what you conclude. Those who have suffered inordinately often find such a forum a place to speak cathartically and we all know this is likely to occur going in to such meeting.**** But nobody seemed ready, willing and able to articulate exactly what the City did – or didn’t do but should have done – that has caused any of these flooding problems, or that justifies imposing multi-million dollar burdens on all the City’s taxpayers. ****Here your argument misleads by premising that the flood relief plans should only proceed if the City has done something wrong, and because no one proved this, the City has no duty to move forward on such plan; that there is “no justification” proven for burdensome expenses to all the City’s taxpayers. First, anyone with an ounce of initiative or common sense knows there are serious flood problems throughout our community. They also know that if and when the flood problems are resolved the quality of life and well-being of all Park Ridge citizens will increase. If we have to fix the problems one step at a time that should not be used as a device to create animosity between various areas of the same community. That is simply implementation of long term planning providing solutions to all of Park Ridge. As such it should not be willy-nilly torn apart to create discord among fellow citizens. To do so is simply shortsighted and irascible.**** This is the For example, nobody has demonstrated, or even credibly alleged, whether and how the City ignored its own Zoning Code, Building Code, or any other codes so as to cause or exacerbate this flooding. ****Codes are modified and change over time. This argument is another red-herring, thrown out to get attention but ultimately does not pass the smell test.**** Similarly, nobody has demonstrated, or even credibly alleged, whether and how the City has neglected the infrastructure in those areas – at least not in ways it has not done with other areas of town. ****So, if all the City’s infrastructure is a wreck at least things seem fair to you? You have missed the point widely. This is not a let’s criticize our City government issue, it is about making a better Park Ridge for all of our citizens. Each bar that is raised for a part raises the bar for the whole. This concept is not complicated. With all your well intentions to be au current and a snappy turner of tough-guy phrases, you have lost what is most important. The betterment of Park Ridge is a betterment to all who reside here.****
That would appear to lead to a couple of hard and inconvenient truths: If you built or purchased a home in Mayfield Estates since at least September 2008 without a MAJOR discount because of that area’s well-known flooding problems, you’re either reckless or an outright idiot who doesn’t deserve to get bailed out by the rest of the City’s taxpayers. ****This paragraph is so biased and prejudicial you have launched yourself into the stratospheric ridiculousness and reveal yourself as less the thoughtful protector of the “the Public” than the likely hand-maiden of some malicious special interest group. The deterioration into branding Mayfield area residents as reckless or idiots is below you watchdog. Those comments resemble a watchdog already suffering from hydrophobia. Indeed, that affliction is apropos on two levels. One, for viciously and wildly attacking the character of the good people of Mayfield and another on the seemingly pathological resistance to effectuating flood relief in Park Ridge. Were you this vociferous against the good people of the other areas of Park Ridge when the other projects were recently undertaken and completed? No. You were not. You have traded on your credibility to promote the agenda of a couple of power brokers this time. You owe the good people of Mayfield an apology. ****
And if you DID get a major discount for building or purchasing a home in that area in the hope that City-funded flood relief would provide a windfall increase in your property value, you’re a speculator who doesn’t deserve to turn a profit at the expense of your fellow taxpayers. **** So, as if the prior libelesque exaggerations and insinuations were not enough, you have seen fit to go on to pummel the character of your fellow citizens even further, painting them as scurrilous and greedy profiteers simply on the basis of their street addresses. Seriously? Watchdog, you have lost your way. ****
Advocates of these flood control projects have advanced all sorts of doomsday scenarios – running the gamut from small children and pets being swept away in the rushing floodwaters ****[If you need exaggerations to make your point it would be better not to try to make such a foolish point at all. All you accomplish in your misplaced mockery is to insult and diminish, without cause, the integrity of those who posed their sincere and valid health and safety issues facing their community—and yes, it is true the area about which one more elderly speaker raised at the meeting was indeed impassible to emergency vehicles.]**** or the elderly dying when ambulances can’t get them to Lutheran General due to impassable streets, to homeowners in these affected areas simply abandoning their homes for whatever price they can get, thereby letting “less desirable” (wink wink, nod nod) residents purchase them and colonize those areas. **** From your own words of imputation above, for example, one wonders how you could conclude that the supposed “new residents” of Mayfield could in anyway be “less desirable” than the ones already living there. People don’t generally abandon their homes without good cause. The argument you’ve offered in the manner you have put forth, and the point suggested from it, is obnoxious and fool hearty.****
Because virtually anything is “possible,” such possibilities – however farfetched – can’t be totally dismissed. But mere possibilities can’t be allowed to act as guns to the heads of either the Council or the rest of the community, extorting OPM (“Other People’s Money”) for the benefit of the few. ****We know you would not exaggerate in a million years watchdog and making snappy acronyms does not excuse the weakness of your reasoning or grandstanding here.****
While the Mayfield Estates project is “only” $2.3 million, that comes out to roughly $100,000 per affected home – or, put another way, a $100,000 handout by the City’s other taxpayers to each of those 23 affected homeowners. If that sounds a little pricey to you, join the club. ****There is no club. Expenses for the remediation of matters of such import have their costs and benefits. These expenses should be amortized over the life of the effectiveness of the solutions and not thrown about in manners meant to mislead and polarize. Yes, the plans go from smaller expense to larger expense relatively speaking but bashing one area’s solution mercilessly over and over encourages ill-will among the communities’ citizens for no good reason but to attempt to manipulate opinion underhandedly. Park Ridge can afford to act on the two lesser expensive projects and more consideration is warranted for the most expensive at this time. There is, I believe, general consensus on this.**** And because it very well may sound a little pricey to a majority of the City’s other taxpayers, shouldn’t they have the right to say so, or not – by means of an advisory referendum in November’s general election, or in the April 2015 local election – before the Council commits to these projects? ****Many such flood remediation projects have been undertaken and completed without such vote to no ill effect to the citizens of Park Ridge. It is now fully clear that your animosity against the remaining areas reaching out for proper civil engineering relief is driven by personal agenda not logic; especially against the Mayfield project which you know full-well requires immediate approval if the once in a lifetime historic hook up to the Big Tunnel Project on Dempster is going to become reality. Shame on you this time, Watchdog, for your fuzzy thinking and sophomoric rhetoric used deceptively under the auspices of tax payer welfare.****
We think so, and for one very good reason: the only time in the past three decades that the City or any other local governmental body has committed such major funding or bonded debt to any project or related group of projects without at least an advisory referendum was when the City Council gave us the Uptown TIF development. And just look at how well THAT has worked out, financially, for the City! Here you have blundered into an amateurish fallacy that the people of Park Ridge are too intelligent to fall for. ****This again demonstrates the extent to which you are willing to deceive to get an agenda you prefer. The TIF district development has no logical relevance to the health and safety issue brought to communities by flood relief yet you glom the two issues together to form an illusion of similarity. This is the old “assassination by association” technique used by weak-minded manipulators trying to pull the wool over the eyes of some constituency or another. It was a fool’s argument in ancient times and remains a fool’s argument today.****
If these projects are such a great deal for the entire community – as their proponents loudly insist at every opportunity – then it shouldn’t be all that hard for those same proponents to make a convincing case to a majority of voters that a “yes” vote for City-funded flood control in those three affected areas is a solid investment, directly or indirectly, for the entire community. ****First divide and then conquer. You are pulling out all the stops in your zealous efforts to make cloudy what is clear. Park Ridge requires flood relief. The City is capable of solving the matters and given the costly studies procured to advise them on the matter they are likely to do so for one or maybe two of the less costly ones.**** And if they can’t make such a case and the voters say “no” to such a grand funding plan, the City Council can still choose to provide some less-costly relief to those affected areas – such as through the creation of Special Service Areas (“SSA”s) where the affected property owners take on a significant portion of the funding with the help of some reasonable City subsidy. ****I doubt very seriously if this is an idea you conceived watchdog, because it sounds suspiciously like the plan of a few others who have pulled you into their ill-founded agenda. ****
After all, if “money’s no object” for the City’s taxpayers, why should it be an object for the homeowners who are getting all the benefits? ****No one has ever said “money is no object” but you in your effort to misrepresent fact. ****
Make no mistake about it: a referendum and/or the creation of SSAs may not be a perfect solution. But based on what we know right now about the cost and effectiveness of these three proposed projects, it appears to be the fairest and most reasonable solution for all involved. **** Wrong. This conclusion does not follow even from your own hopelessly biased and prejudicial premises.****
Except, perhaps, to those who’ve already developed a “jones” for OPM. ****This snipe is just mean-spirited and unnecessary “other” bashing.****
UPDATE (01.20.14) We ran into one of our readers yesterday morning who suggested what sounds to us like an eminently fair application of the SSA approach: why not tie the City’s contribution to the cost of flood remediation in Mayfield Estates, the Northwest Park area, and elsewhere to the cost of installing relief sewers in those areas? ****Oh, the credibility of mystery reader is even more important than even your highly developed bias on the subject? How surprising. Had the person told you it is a no-brainer for the community to hook up to deep tunnel on Dempster so make sure to get that approved and design plans ready for this spring, you wouldn’t have hesitated to print that additional insight, right?****
The precedent for this idea is that the City historically has attempted to upgrade its basic sewer system by adding relief sewers to handle storm water (even though those relief sewers usually were the first casualty whenever expenditures needed to be cut) and has not specially charged the principal beneficiaries for those relief sewers. That’s a public policy decision that past Councils have made and reaffirmed over the years, as recently as the installation of several million dollars of relief sewers in various areas of town as part of the Burke flood remediation plan, which was done without imposing SSA’s on those residents. **** Now that is a precedent set.****
Unless and until the self-styled “victims” ****[Watchdog, why adopt this haughty style of communicating and putdowns? It is beneath you.] **** flooding – be it in Mayfield Estates, the Northwest Park area, west of the Country Club, or anywhere else – can present compelling evidence that the City somehow CAUSED the flooding in their area ****(This is a fallacy. No one need prove causation of detriment by the City, you are mixing up municipal public health and well-being responsibilities with a garden variety car accident case.)****, the City should not pay what amounts to damages or reparations to the residents of those areas. ****This is not even a clever closing. No one is seeking reparations. To infer that they are is simply again an ill-founded rhetorical device used to deceive by making an argument sound so ridiculous that obviously only an idiot could think differently than you. **** The cost of installing relief sewers, on the other hand, can legitimately be viewed as nothing more than implementing the sewer improvement/enhancement program that long has been in effect. ****That’s what all your tirades against the good citizens of Park Ridge amounts to in the end, just a request for some, (and excuse the unintended pun), some watered-down sewer-pipe-fix-it plan? Really? Were all the putdowns and character assignations and twisted fallacies of logic worth the effort?****
While we would hope that the Council will consider this kind of SSA funding for flood remediation projects such as the ones currently on the table and others to come, from what we’ve already heard from the residents of these flood-afflicted areas and their advocates, we aren’t optimistic that they will be satisfied with such a plan. ****That is an understatement. I don’t know who you embrace as the “we” in your closing remarks here but here again the Bolsheviks must have made a lasting impression upon you. **** The more those folks howl about how their being required to pay anything for flood relief is unfair, however, the more they will reveal themselves to be just another group of freeloaders looking to feed at the public trough.
****First no one has “howled” about anything. Apparently you simply could not resist a last parting harangue against of the good citizens of Park Ridge who think differently than you. We happen to also find it in bad taste that you degrade us further by mixing your metaphors, leading us to believe we were wolves-a-howling just to tell us we are freeloading pigs. ****
****I personally and sincerely request that use your considerable energy and ability in a more constructive and less flippant, mean-spirited, name-calling, fallaciously premised argumentative manner. The respect for what you do will grow dramatically. As well it should under an exercise of higher principled debate.****

Scott A. Berndtson

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Berndtson:

We appreciated the critique and really would enjoy a point-by-point debate of them. But for brevity’s sake we’ll cut to the chase and simply ask: Are you willing to pay ANYTHING for the flood relief you seek? If so, how much or what percentage? If not, why not?

Thanks, I hoped you might.

How about we pay as much as the other residents (maybe you?)paid for the recently completed projects– but not a dime more. Oh wait, that’s right, they didn’t pay anything. There is another precedent for you.

You sure do love to hate certain parts of the community. This is not good. I think you must know that. It was appropriate that I read your words on Martin Luther King Day. It reminded me what it actaully feels like to be judged as a less valuable subclass of person, to be glommed in with crooks, greedy pigs and idiots and generally prejudiced against, not for the color of my skin, or religion, or age but solely for the content of the address plate above my garage door. This whole approach by the Watchdog is an obvious attempt to skew the issues and impose a certain agenda under the supposed guise of “tax dollar vigilance” but through the method of discriminatory name-calling? If you had better arguments you wouldn’t have to resort to argument replete with the shameful putdowns and other nonsense that stir up animosities. You are better than that– I am trying hard to believe anyway.

In the big picture scheme of things hooking up to the Dempster Pipe is a cheap and permanent solution to a neglected area of the community. You must realize, don’t you, that precedent for Park Ridge large tunnel hook up will never be a bad thing in the years to come and can only be a very good thing. You can see that right? Think past the influences that have obviously grabbed hold of you (or are you all writing this together?). Remember Park Ridge annexed Mayfield Estates not otherwise. As the City attorney pointed out clearly to all, the area is as much Park Ridge as anywhere else. The second class citizen nonsense and pettiness is shameful and down right disgusting. Please have the courage not to promote prejudice with the power of your words. Be the bigger person Watchdog. Do the soul search. You’ll see that I am correct.

Two points come to mind and then I’ll leave it for now: 1) Never get into fights with bloggers who buy their words by the barrel, and 2) never argue with a fool because pretty soon no one can tell who’s who. I’m afraid the latter admonition demands that I must respectfully announce my exit from this fray which is no doubt destined to become a point-counterpoint exchange where Editors of the blog necessarily take full advantage of their full advantage.

Scott A. Berndtson

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Berndtson:

Freeloaders never disappoint, as you’ve proved once again with your expected offer to pay nothing. But stay shameless, and with a little luck the Council will spinelessly give each of you folks the $100,000 of OPM you’re looking for.

Fascinating blog postings. I would like to chat with the editor over a cup of coffee in Beautiful downtown Park Ridge; My treat. I can provide you the ground zero experience of living in Mayfield Estates since 1993. Please respond via email and we can set up the coffee meeting and discuss the pro/cons of your Mayfield posting. Thank you

EDITOR’S NOTE: Will do.

Br. Berndtson:

Wow you wrote some long posts to be read at 5:19AM!!

Not that it will make you feel better, but please be advised that you (Mayfield) are not the first to be labeled “freeloaders” by the editor or this blog in PR. You now join certain senior citizens and library patrons (he throws label around while being on the library board) in town to wear this moniker to name a few.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s true – we tend to label anybody who demands more than what they appear to legally deserve from local govenment as “freeloaders.” And in this case, as with the greedy Senior Center seniors, that appears to be the case.

You guessed right, Watchdog. Mr. Berndtson clearly does not want to pay anything to reduce the $100,000 donation he expects from his fellow taxpayers. His 6:32 read like one of those new age psychobabble articles.

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s really a pretty easy guess because you can recognize them even at a distance by their hands extended with the open palms up.

…..and greedy library patrons too. Right PD??

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have no idea, because so long as the Library management would rather close the Library on summer Sundays and cut other hours rather than charge a mere $1 per computer log-on for each of the 43,954 computer log-ons over the past 8 months, or charge a mere $1 for each of the 21,518 program attendances over that same 8-month period, we’ll never know.

OK come on PD….of course you have an idea!! You have referred to various library patrons as “freeloaders” before on multiple occasions on this very blog.

EDITOR’S NOTE: C’mon, anon, cite us to the chapter and verse to which you are referring and we’ll answer. We promise.

Give me a break. You know exactly who I mean when I say “he” ran that meeting unfairly and to advance your agenda. Maloney. He ran an unfair meeting and it is clear he is fronting for you. That much is transparent. Thankfully there are a few independent Aldermen like Ald. Milissis.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Please explain exactly HOW Ald. Maloney “ran that meeting unfaily”? Could it be how he let EVERYBODY who wanted to speak about the flooding issue address the Council, in some cases multiple times even when they were merely repeating what others – or they themselves – already had said? Or was it the way he let Ald. Milissis repeat his impassioned pleas for these taxpayer giveaways without any time restrictions, also multiple times?

Editor: if mayfield estates can’t pay $100k per house, and the city won’t pay for it, The only solution is to abandon it. Really. I’m serious. No one has presented any other solution.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Get real – that’s just stupid talk. NOBODY’S going to “abandon” their homes simply because of the flooding problem. The only people who might “abandon” their homes are the ones who overpaid and over-leveraged themselves during the RE bubble and will try to use “flooding” as an excuse for their own stupidity or mistake.

As we’ve said, if all the folks – including Ald. Milissis – believe that spending $100K per home up there is good for the ENTIRE COMMUNITY, then the matter should go to referendum and they can take their shot to convince the ENTIRE COMMUNITY of that point. Or they and the City can cooperatively work toward an SSA arrangment like we’ve suggested where the City agrees to pay some amount (the cost of installing relief sewers?) and the homeowners pick up the rest of the cost, over time, with an additional property tax payment.

“Get real – that’s just stupid talk.”

It’s not stupid. The neighborhood has serious and problematic overland flooding (which sewers may not even resolve), and a contingent of the population complains that park ridge doesn’t have enough open or green space. So, have a referendum – and when it passes, declare eminent domain over the neighborhood; buy the houses on the cheap (because what is a home in a known flood plain really worth??) and turn it into a park. Now that’s a park idea I could get behind. IN the long run it may even be cheaper than the other crazy and expensive solutions given to abate the flooding.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Assume the average Mayfield Estates home has a value of $500K. $500K time 23 homes equals $11.5 million. So are you suggesting that the City pay $11.5 million to buy up the Mayfield Estates homes rather than pay the $2.3 million Burke estimates the cost of giving Mayfield Estates 100-year flood protection? Or that the City pay $11.5 million instead of around $1 million in cost-sharing for a Special Service Area?

Are you stoned, or just stupid?