Only two of the four City aldermanic races are contested: incumbent Alds. Dan Knight (5th Ward) and Marty Maloney (7th Ward) are running unopposed, although we heartily endorse their re-elections and trust they will continue the solid efforts that characterized their first terms…and even take them up a notch to compensate for the loss of Mayor Dave Schmidt’s leadership.
In the First Ward relative newcomer Andrea Cline is facing off with longtime resident John Moran to fill the seat being vacated by Ald. Joe Sweeney, while business consultant Bob Wilkening is running against teacher Rick Van Roeyen in what we believe to be the first contested race the moribund Third Ward has seen in perhaps two decades.
All four of them are personable folks who seem sincere when proclaiming their interest in improving the community. But personality and sincerity should never be enough when it comes to the public trust inherent in the offices they seek. And it’s even less satisfactory when those offices require dealing with problems that have built up through two decades (1990-2009) of neglect and mismanagement by their equally personable and seemingly sincere predecessors.
We’ll start with the Third Ward race by noting that it’s basically one hand clapping – with that hand belonging to Wilkening. If Van Roeyen’s campaign were a military jet, most radar screens couldn’t even “ping” it.
Van Roeyen’s website states that, “[i]f elected, [he] would create a form…that would be used to poll the 3rd Ward to gain insight into the true will of the citizens [he] would be representing.” That sounds a whole lot like finger-to-the-wind politics of the worst kind: reliance on subjective surveys and questionnaires instead of objectively verifiable referendum votes. And if Van Roeyen really wanted constituent input, he should have created and circulated such a form as soon as he filed his nominating petitions months ago.
Wilkening, on the other hand, appears to have one principle focus: flooding. As he said in his candidate profile in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Q&A: Park Ridge’s 3rd Ward Candidates,” March 24) in response to the question of why he was running: “Because Park Ridge is now facing serious challenges as it struggles to deal with an aging and undersized sewer system.” And his website bears that out.
Combine that with his belief that “the City Council and staff spend far too much time talking about subjects that they should find ways to resolve more rapidly,” however, and it might not be too much of a stretch to wonder whether he will adopt a “ready, fire, aim” approach to flood control – especially since his endorsement of long-term debt to pay for it is not accompanied by an endorsement of referendum(s) to measure public support and to legitimize whatever multi-million dollar projects and/or programs might be undertaken.
Notwithstanding these concerns, however, Wilkening is running the far more active campaign and gets our endorsement.
Our toughest endorsement decision this election cycle, by far, is the First Ward aldermanic race. That’s why we have waited and watched this race play out on almost a daily basis over the past several weeks as the candidates’ positions have continued to evolve from the vanilla-vs.-vanilla match-up of a mere six or eight weeks ago.
That battle seems to have effectively morphed into a contest between flooding (Cline) v. money (Moran).
Cline brings technical expertise as a “Stormwater Management Professional” (per her website) for the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission. We’d venture a guess that she has forgotten more about stormwater management than Moran and the seven guys currently sitting around The Horseshoe, cumulatively, have ever known. She and her supporters – especially in the flood-impacted areas of Park Ridge both within and without the First Ward – tout that expertise and experience as her principal qualification.
If Park Ridge’s flooding problem were just a collection of technical engineering challenges, Cline’s specialized knowledge might very well make her the better choice. But like so many of Park Ridge’s problems, flooding is far more a money problem than a technical engineering one.
Christopher B. Burke Engineering (“Burke”), for whom Cline once worked, has already come up with several alternatives for the three most significant problem areas. Per Burke’s 2013 plan, 100-year flood protection for 23 Mayfield Estates properties would cost $3.3 million, or $143,000 per property. The 418 properties in the Northwest Park area could get 100-year protection for $16.6 million, or approximately $40,000 per property. But the 680 properties in the Country Club area would get only 10-year protection at a cost of $48.7 million, or approximately $72,000 per property.
That’s around $70 million, not counting debt service, to protect roughly 1,100 out of over 14,000 Park Ridge households – with no guarantees that those projects will actually solve those three problems, or not exacerbate flooding problems elsewhere in the City.
And once that $70 million of bonded debt is locked in, how long should the other 13,000 households have to hang fire on their own flooding while the City pays off that $70 million?
Cline claims to have obtained in excess of $2.5 million of grants, and she suggests we can pay for these projects with federal, state and county grants, as well as low-interest loans. But she hasn’t even begun to spell out with any specificity what kind of grants she’s talking about (e.g., would they be matching grants requiring the City’s taxpayers to cough up an equal amount of funding?), their availability, the criteria for getting them, and how soon they might be forthcoming. Meanwhile, the City already has applied for $27 million of such grants, but we have yet to hear the jingle-jangle of grant-generated OPM pouring into the City treasury.
So Cline’s funding plans, such as they are, sound a little too much like politician-style pie-in-the-sky.
Moran, on the other hand, has been talking on his website about “cost-sharing” funding arrangements, while also suggesting at campaign stops and on social media that SSAs (Special Service Areas) and referendums could play a role in the kind of bonded debt that would be needed if those grant windfalls don’t arrive – and maybe even if they do. Given the financial condition of our state and Crook County, we believe Moran’s approach is the far more practical and realistic one.
And it’s also the more courageous one, as evidenced by the barbecuing he is getting from the folks in those three affected areas who would derive the most direct and substantial economic benefit, through increased property values, if the City were to mortgage its future – Uptown TIF-style – to undertake those projects, especially if it did so without a referendum.
Dealing with our City-wide flooding problem is going to be a painful, frustrating and very expensive proposition. It will demand a unified purpose and an iron-clad City-wide commitment, the likes of which most of us have not seen in our lifetimes. Appeasing special interests or down-playing the substantial long-term costs to the City’s taxpayers is not the way to build the support needed.
That’s why we believe John Moran to be the better choice for 1st Ward alderman.
To read or post comments, click on title.
18 comments so far
I was wondering is John’s father still living in Park Ridge?
He too was an alderman here and it be nice to know his thoughts on his son running.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And that would matter how….?
Running an “active” campaign and an agreement that a City-wide flooding problem, to use your term, should rest entirely on the backs of individual victims — that’s all it takes to earn your endorsement? Why didn’t you say so?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Active beats passive.
And when you buy a house at a discount because it’s in an area without storm sewers (Mayfield Estates) that chronically floods, you’re no “victim” – other than of your own poor judgment and/or greed.
Ward 1 is rough — don’t even mention Clines husband and his development deals last year in PR (cough cough “a fee in lieu of”) You will be attacked by her minions…..
EDITOR’S NOTE: It is what it is, nothing more or less.
The flood at all costs zombies led by Millisis and (now Cline) are terrible for Park Ridge. They want to infect any and all decisions based on their poor purchase of their house.
They really remind me the rantings by Gene Spanos.
Single issue candidates are almost always terrible for taxpayers.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We believe Ald. Milissis is a fine alderman, although we obviously disagree on how to address the flooding issues.
Thought I’d ask!
No need to be cocky.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No need to have asked.
You are so caught up in your ideal world that you can’t rationalize the facts.
1. $70 MM is false. Cline never suggested spending 70MM and of the 70 MM implied 50 MM was for a project that was voted down and she agreed with the councils decision to vote it down. Looks like your were drinking John’s kool-aid. Andrea’s position is that before you go spend a bunch of money on random projects that you develop criteria and goals, make a comprehensive plan with community input and implement a strategy. Aka don’t go blow a lot of money only to find out you’re not getting the desired outcome. John doesn’t know the first thing about flooding and if as you indicated flooding is a big problem that needs to be dealt with why would you give the keys to a child?
2. John’s position is not brave. Perception is the first ward doesn’t flood. He’s been against doing anything because he feels it’s what will garner him the most amount of votes. Andrea is the one who has been running on issues that Park Ridge needs to deal with while john hasn’t run on a single issue (look at the his website you link to). John finally took up an issue, made up a story, and sent out letters to scare people into voting for him. How’s the kool-aid taste? You call that leadership. Ha.
3. Cost Sharing say what. John has purposed residents put liens on people’s houses to pay for the cities sewer system. The same city that approved the developments in the first place. I’m all for taking responsibilities for oneself but since you don’t know the first thing about infrastructure neither does the typical new home buyer. One should expect that city has done it’s job to ensure adequate infrastructure is in place to meet the demands of what was approved.
EDITOR’S NOTE: 1. No, $70 Million is the LOWEST responsible number that’s been attached to flood remediation for those three areas. And we hate Kool-Aid.
2. We didn’t call it “leadership,” we called it “courage.” Pay attention.
3. He also has talked about referendums, something none of the flood zombies want to hear because they don’t think they can win one of those. But if you believe that the City under Wietecha, Marous and Frimark did “it’s job to ensure adequat infrastructure,” you didn’t live here then, you were in a coma, or you’re an idiot.
And “facts” NEVER need to be “rationalized.”
There’s flooding all over this city. And not everyone flooding bought their house at a discount. Many have lived in them for years.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Then they were asleep at the wheel while all the development that contributed to the flooding problem was going on.
The project that Burke suggested for the area west of the Country Club was voted down by the Council on January 12, 2015, so the $70 million number misrepresents by $48 million what is undecided before the Council (http://www.parkridge.us/assets/1/Events/1%2012%2015.pdf). Let me repeat, there is not $70 million of flood relief projects undecided before the Council. I am on record of supporting this difficult decision.
What I’ve been saying again and again is that we need to develop a comprehensive, fair, economical flood mitigation plan for the City of Park Ridge. Currently, we have two projects on the table and a current alderman that directed staff to find the next twelve flood projects. That is not good use of taxpayer money. If we continue down this path, we could be undertaking flood mitigation projects forever.
I claim to have obtained in excess of $3.5 million in grants from such funding sources as the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity’s 2008 Ike Disaster Relief Fund (of which Cook County communities were eligible for funding), Illinois EPA’s Section 319 grants (which Park Ridge is not eligible), and other private and local sources. Park Ridge should look into the Chi-Cal River Fund, MWRD funds, and every other rock under the sun, which I know Mayor Schmidt tried to. Yes, most grants, except for disaster relief, are cost sharing. But that would cut the City’s portion in half.
But first we need a plan. With goals. And criteria. Because at this point, we haven’t even determined what we want to achieve.
There are many more challenges before the City than flooding. As I have said from the beginning, the first challenge, and through the lens that infrastructure improvements must be examined, is our financial situation. The Uptown TIF has been refinanced, the City has undertaken the parcel by parcel evaluation of the TIF area. The way to solve the TIF problem is to grow development in the TIF District. To that end, we need to work collaboratively with other agencies (Park and School Districts, Chamber of Commerce, MWRD, etc.) for the benefit of the taxpayer and we need to grow revenue in Park Ridge. We need to continue to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Task Force.
Andrea Cline
EDITOR’S NOTE: Andrea:
We didn’t say that there were $70 million of flood projects currently “before the Council” – what we said is that the lowest identified cost to address flooding in those three priority areas has been $70 million, and that would provide only 10-year protection for west-of-Greenwood (“WOG”).
If you believe that WOG should be off the table and excluded from further discussion, you should say so – because we’re sure not hearing that from the WOG folks, or from Candidate Wilkening (3rd Ward) who will likely be representing part of that area in another month.
Park Ridge has been trying to “grow development” – which we understand you to mean “commercial” as opposed to residential – and “revenue” for the past 20 years. But the only three significant NEW commercial developments during that time have been Whole Foods, Mariano’s and Uptown – the first two done successfully WITHOUT any significant City involvement or money, while the City-managed Uptown is a multi-million dollar money pit.
There’s a lesson to be learned from that. But judging from its report, that lesson was pretty much lost on the Economic Development Task Force.
You make me laugh, questioning why a reader thinks John’s father’s tenure matters. It’s the single reason you endorsed him over Ms. Cline, whom you called a “newcomer.” They’re both “newcomers” to Park Ridge politics. Only one is a “lifer” as a resident, or, as you call the kids in this town, “freeloader.” Tenure as a resident means even less than tenure as a teacher in terms of what one can make happen. Or do you make an exception for John because….oh, never mind. Next?
EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor has never even met John’s father or remembers anything about his tenure on the Council.
Tenure as a resident can mean as much or as little as that resident makes of it. Some folks have lived here for decades – but with their heads planted firmly in their keesters so they are clueless about what has happened and what is happening. But the same can be said about some newcomers who think that all they have to do is pay their taxes and they can then turn off their brains and just expect everything for free.
Fortunately for 1st Ward voters, neither Cline nor Moran fit either of those descriptions – which is more than we can say for you.
Still laughing?
Yes. Laughing while swimming, using clean facilities, listening to the laughter of little children and elderly political pundits, thanks.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That doesn’t surprise us.
From Facebook, he has been crying foul from day 1, it’s funny he is the one misinforming people. “William Cline – That 70MM is bs. 50 MM was voted down and Cline is on record agreeing with the councils vote. You are uninformed as is public watch dog. John is using misinformation to garner votes not surprising given his campaign tactics thus far. ”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Not quite sure what point this gibberish is supposed to be making.
The capacity for being surprised requires an open mind. But thanks for all you do anyhoo. Seriously.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We always keep an open mind, just not a vaccuous one.
Ald. Milissis appears to be calling you out on Park Ridge Citizens Online (without actually naming PW), saying that:
“the $70 million dollar figure that is being used by one candidate and his supporters is pure fiction in the sense that the council is not considering anything of the sort. The majority of that inflated number is from a proposal which the council turned down. However, some chose to use it because it serves their agenda and has shock value. That is an irresponsible and dishonest way to deal with citizens and voters.”
I’ve always trusted your facts and figures because you always are able to back them up. So is Milissis blowing smoke, or did you miss something on this flood number?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ald. Milissis, like candidate Cline, is being too cute by half: while the City Council did, in fact, turn down the $48.7 million Burke plan for 10-year protection for the 680 properties in the WOG/Country Club area, it has not removed the WOG area from the priority list or set any ceiling for how much the City will spend for WOG flood relief.
And, not surprisingly, neither Ald. Milissis nor candidate Cline are (1) talking about any specific less-expensive fix for the WOG area, as even the $48.7 million fix is only for 10-year flooding; or (b) telling those WOG folks that they are S.O.L.
That’s because both of them are playing what we’ll call “Frimark Politics”: tell each side whatever will make them happy without actually making a firm commitment to do anything. That way, the WOG folks can still believe that their uber-expensive flood fix is still alive while, at the same time, those folks who are not flood-obsessed can think that Milissis and Cline are going to take a fiscally conservative approach.
We believe both of them are better than that, but it’s pretty easy for inexperienced candidates/officials to fall into the say-whatever-it-takes-to-get-elected trap, figuring they can dance out of it once they get elected. Springfield’s full of folks like that.
You have it so together, why don’t you run for mayor, alderman, school board commissioner, park district commissioner? You have your finger on the pulse, the historical backgrounds and a keen sense of what needs to be accomplished for the City and residents. You communicate very well and your logic is good. Why then are you not running for any type of position? We can read your blogs all day long but that might not be enough. I’d vote for you. Would you ever consider running for an elected office?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We have no idea what having it “so together” means, but this editor seriously doubts he would qualify regardless.
This editor was elected and re-elected to the Park Board, serving from 1997 to 2005. Since 2011 he has served as an appointee on the Library Board. And both before his Park Board service and since, he was worked to elect other people to public office.
At this point in time he believes he can best serve this community by shining a spotlight on all four branches of our local government through this blog.
And this community would be better served by more qualified people getting involved.
@ 12:39 — That was William Clines post on Facebook, yes it was all gibberish.
Pub dog you should know me better than that by now. Frimark politics? really? I pride myself in telling citizens how things are. That’s why I don’t include the figure for the WOG area project that was voted diwn. Will there be another solution for WOG? I hope so. How much will it cost? What will it entail? I have no idea and until I do I will consider that project a non-starter. The council wouldn’t even vote for another RFP to have another firm look at this area so how can anyone even consider this project as viable much less attach any price to it? The election is over now and John has won but I stand by what I said. The figure was used irresponsibly and arbitrarily (not by you because you have explained your logic in reaching that conclusion) in order to sway public opinion.
EDITOR’S NOTE: How can you expect us to “know” you, with any real certainty, if you don’t sign your name?
You CAN’T discuss flood remediation in those three priority areas – with any intellectual honesty, that is – unless you include the WOG area. And when you do, you MUST acknowledge that the most current cost is Burke’s $48.7 million, irrespective of whether or not the Council rejected it, unless you have a number that’s equally or more legitimate than that Burke number.
But if you (whoever you are) think WOG is “a non-starter,” then say so! Because it’s crystal clear that those WOG folks still believe their project is (or should be) at the top of the list along with Mayfield Estates and Northwest Park.
Otherwise, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, apparently for political purposes.
Sorry Pub Dog. It was me at end of a long day and I forgot to sign my name and as you know I always sign my name.
As far as this council is concerned the Burke solution for WOG is a non-starter. It will be up to this council to decide whether they want to make a solution for that area a priority once more. It really isn’t that complicated.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ll cut you some slack, alderman, because you always DO sign your name.
We know you have a constituency to serve, you have always advocated vigorously for it, and we respect you for that. We ask only that you – and all your fellow aldermen – never lose sight of Lincoln’s warning that “[a] house divided against itself cannot stand.”
So long as resources are limited, robbing Peter to pay Paul is almost certain to lead to divisiveness and resentment. And mortgaging the City’s future – as we’ve so painfully learned with the Uptown TIF – should never be done without a referendum vote to legitimize both the process and the decision.
I wouldn’t be advocating for the solutions I am if I thought they were akin to the TIF. Going out to bond for a capital project like this is completely different from a TIF. I deal with the fall out of the TIF daily as a member of this council and a taxpayer. However, the city must go on and provide basic services and protections for its citizens, otherwise it stops serving its purpose. Dismissing me as an advocate solely for the 2nd Ward and “my constituency” doesn’t make the problem of the citywide flooding go away. We will all have to deal with it. I just advocate that it’s better to do it sooner rather than later. Despite all of the above I still love you Pub Dog for the forum you provide and for what you do for our city and community on a personal level. I look forward to working these tough issues out with the newly formed council.
EDITOR’S NOTE: In case there may have been any misunderstanding, Alderman, we were not “dismissing” you as an advocate of the 2nd Ward – we were applauding you for it.
Our reference to the Uptown TIF wasn’t intended to compare that project to flood remediation projects: we were simply pointing out that the kind of tough, expensive solutions to flooding that will burden the entire community with multi-millions of long-term debt deserve the measurable legitimacy and broad-based community support that only a referendum can provide.
As we’ve said many times before in a variety of differnt ways, any public official who claims that he/she “knows what a majority of the taxpayers/voters want” and doesn’t “need no stinking referendum” to prove it, displays his/her unworthiness of the public trust that office confers.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>