Penn & Teller are known for their outrageous blending of comedy and magic, that often skewers the genre of traditional magic and debunks all manner of nonsense peddlers - they call that nonsense "bullshit".
Let's give a big warm welcome to Park Ridge's version of Penn & Teller: Aldermen Schmidt and Wsol!
At last night's city council meeting, a motion was made to again defer the matter of Norwood's Park Ridge 2004 LLC PUD.
Aldermen Schmidt (1st ward) and Wsol (7th ward) skewered what Norwood's Park Ridge 2004 LLC and Presbyterian Homes tried to offer the council as covenants to ensure that the Executive Office Plaza (EOP) development meet the "senior housing" promises made to the Park Ridge community in exchange for Norwood's requested density variance and R-5 zoning designation.
Ald. Schmidt noted that the new ordinance covenants as written introduced the entirely new legal ideas of Federal regulations on senior housing, and an "out-clause" for Presbyterian Homes into the discussion, and that the council had never debated these issues. He took care to also note that the ordinance covenants as written would allow Norwood to reduce the number of senior housing units from 50 to 40.
Ald. Wsol then took note of the fact that the ordinance as written did not seem to require that Norwood's Park Ridge 2004 LLC pay for the balance of the estimated $2million cost for the water retention improvements to the site; only that the "applicant will participate" in the cost of the project. Neri builders, who is developing townhouses (without variances to the zoning code) on another portion of EOP, has agreed to a cost-share of between $300k - $400k. Ald. Wsol wants a guaranty that the balance of the estimated cost will be the responsibility of Norwood Builders, and that the city will not have to "incur indebtedness" for this part of the project, since the city has not budgeted anything toward the water retention improvements.
Ald. Wsol went on to "echo Ald. Schmidt's senior housing concerns" saying it seemed possible that within a time frame of 18 months, there could be "zero senior housing units" in the development under the ordinance covenants as written.
Both Alderman Schmidt and Wsol appear to have been able to debunk the magical effect of the illusion of senior housing amenities on hell-bent council members willing to accept anything as fact in their eternal quest to aid and abet developers who come to Park Ridge. Neither Ald. Schmidt or Wsol went so far as to call the senior housing convenants "bullshit", but if they had, we'd agree with them.
City attorney, Buzz Hill, commented that the language of the ordinance should be clarified, and that any diminished services to seniors would have to be by the consent of the city council to an application made by Norwood. Gee! What are the odds of that happening?
For his part, Ald. Robert Ryan (5th ward) said he didn't have any problems with the covenants as written and that he believed Norwood's Park Ridge 2004 LLC had "come back [to the council] in the spirit" of what had been asked of them. Okay. We guess he felt he had to say something!
Finally, the city council voted 5 to 2 to once again defer consideration of the project, with Aldermen Schmidt (1st ward), DiPietro (2nd ward), Bach (3rd ward), Carey (6th ward), and Wsol (7th ward) voting "yes" to defer, and Aldermen Allegretti (4th ward) and Ryan (5th ward) voting "no".
A city council demanding an "iron-clad" agreement that a developer deliver what they have promised to the people of Park Ridge. It's a miracle!
October 16, 2007
A Real Miracle!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Which one's Penn and which one's Teller?
We hereby grant to you, artistic license - assign as you see fit.
Did anyone catch Howard's prompting of Mr. Ryan? What an idiot!!! I am happy for Mr. Ryan to be "In the Spirit" with the covenant. For the rest of us with a brain, I am happy for Alderman Wsol and Alderman Schmidt who obviously took their time to give the covenant due dilligence.
Does anyone have any more information about the underpass plans that were brought up by Joan Sanders?
We heard that Ms. Sandrick (we thought that is who was credited) did a fabulous job of asking some excellent questions on the topic. We also heard she made an excellent crack about the city's habit of hiring consultants for everything.
We don't believe there are any actual plans at this time. Just a twinkle in somebody's speculative eye.
I wonder how Mr. Zuegel is feeling now about his senior housing? Will he be the sole resident? It is very apparent that this offer by Norwood/Presbytarian is absolutely a sham. To continue to champion for a cause that will obviously have no place in the eop development is useless. And those that continue to do so Mr. Ryan, Mr. Allegretti, and Mr. DiPietro we now question your motives.
The R5 Zoning was allowed based on the community getting senior housing. They want eight extra units based on senior housing and when asked to prove true and permanent senior housing they haven't. No one last night brought up the fact that the full time nurse was also not in the covenant.
Without senior services it is not senior housing.
Although we appreciate the strong resolve of those few who are firm about holding them to their agreement. How many chances are we going to give them to get it right?
The Senior Housing being given in this condo development is not real Senior Housing. It looks like nothing but a money deal to me. Norwood Builders is using the idea of Senior Housing to get the City Council to let them make more money from extra units and Presbyterian Homes is using the lable of Senior Housing to get in there and sell care contracts to a limited number of condo residents.
Hey everybody, give a shout out to Norwood Builders who's reading here now, and has been for some some time now.
Don't be shy Norwoodkins, leave a comment! ;-)
Of course it's a money deal for Norwood and Park Ridge 2004 LLC members like Bruce Almighty, Park Ridge ex-pat John Chipmunk, and the Chody Real Estate empire). Presby Homes is simply a willing accomplice that is legally committing itself to nothing.
That's why this "senior housing" is a sham, despite what the likes of Robert Ryan, Dave Kemerer, and Herbie and Zoog keep insisting.
Shame on Buzz for getting involved with Norwood on the wording in the covenant. I am not an attorney, but I would think it would be a conflict of interest for the city attorney to write a covenant (give the wording) full of loopholes for the developer.
Who is paying Buzz anyway? Shouldn't he have been the one to find the problems with the contract. He should be looking out for the best interest of the city, not NORWOOD!!
Maybe we should bring in a consultant to review the convenant before it is voted on!
Anyone know about Norwood and Mr. Adriani being sued over building problems in Des Plaines?
I have relatives who have told me that their buillding association is putting together a lawsuit due to flooding in the condo, after the rains of late August through now.
Just wondering what else is going on in the life of Norwood Builders...
We agree. To a point.
We'd like to defend, very halfheartedly, the concept that the city attorney takes his cues from elected officials and staff. That means the city attorney is attempting to craft agreements (not just this one) that accommodate all interests, and at the same time trying to protect the taxpayer's interests.
For municipal attorneys, it's a balancing act - there is the law to uphold first and foremost, but there is also the politics to consider; as in who gets to hire and fire you, and what that hire-you/fire-you authority wants you to do to protect their preferred position.
Anybody interested in shredding that idea, feel free. We won't put up a fight. We aren't saying it's right - we are just saying it is. We feel the old saying "reality bites" fits.
I guess I need some clarification on who the client is for our "CITY attorney." It would seem to me that it is the CITY. Last night Mr. Hill was asked if the ordinance as drafted could be interpreted to allow only 40 senior units. This is a key question for the city, which has stated a strong preference for senior units on this site, and so has a perfect right to know what the minumum amount of such units would be if they approve the proposed development. Mr. Hill was rather evasive on this point, perhaps because he drafted the very language that was being questioned. But I felt personally frustrated by his seeming unwillingness to give straight answers when that is what was called for-- and was possible. I think the problem is that he probably shouldn't have drafted the very language that is designed to protect the developer. The developer's attorneys should draft it and he should review it with an eye to protecting the interests of the CITY. What is the interest of the city in this case? It's not that complicated. This city wants a guarantee that the 50-unit building will be utilized by those who are 55 and older. Maybe I am oversimplifying. I am willing to stand corrected.
5th Ward Ald. Ryan - who should have been most concerned about flabby, imprecise language in the ordinance because it impacts his ward the most - voted for it, as did 4th Ward Ald. Allegretti. And City Mge. Schuenke sure didn't express any reservations about that language. So maybe Atty. Hill's loophole-ridden draft ordinance was more intentional than negligent.
To Anonymous @ 3:13,
We don't read anything in your post that merits correction as to how things should be done.
I have been reading about this Norwood development on this blog and in the paper. I think I read somebody here say that the Norwood owners do not live in Park Ridge and that the Neri builders do. I am struck by a difference between these developments and the builders. Neri is building a development that is following the new zoning law and I do not remember hearing anything about how they had a long back and fro with our City Council on that development and they are also going to give money to pay for a part of the water retention thing that I read about here. So what did Neri get for agreeing to give money to the City? I think that is a difference in showing how someone who lives in a community gives back to the community and is invested in their community. I do not get that feeling from Norwood for their project.
I am new to this issue but for what it's worth, Norwood's headquarters are in Park Ridge. They have office space in the building I work in. So, i think the neri/norwood comparison doesn';t really work here.
We just double checked to make sure we didn't have bad information. Neri Companies (nericompanies.com) is also located in Park Ridge, for what it's worth.
Neri is also a resident of our town and has raised his children here. They attended public schools in Park Ridge. That is the difference!
I have an idea!! Since living here and raising children here is somehow the only proof one can demonstrate that they care about this community, we ought to impose a residency requirement on developers!!! That way, we know for damn sure that they would never, ever do anything to harm our community. Park Ridge developers... GOOD. Park Ridge developers who decide to locate a business here, but not move here... BAD!!
Maybe...but have you thought of the possibility that some folks might just be more careful about what they do in a place they call home?
For some folks, money isn't their main motivation...for some folks it is.
Sure do hope at least you dream in color...
Beaner.. I do dream in color and I dream in sarcasm at times too. You should try it.
As I must presume you to be the demonstrative example of doing so...I'll just say "no, thank you" to your suggestion.
Guido Neri has been held up many times at city council and planning and zoning meetings to prove that a developer can come to the city with economically viable proposals that also meet the city's zoning requirements. And Mr. Neri met the OLD, more stringent requirements. He never tried to get more than he was entitled to. Norwood, on the other hand has never once in the past two years come to the city with a proposal that even remotely came close to falling within the zoning limits. Even when there was no senior housing component, they were asking for the sky when it came to density. They have always wanted and expected to get a density exception.
We saw in the last elections that money was thrown around.
We also saw the Dems come out and support THEIR candidate(s).
Now we see the fruits.....of that all bare the truth - they want ( those in control ) to run this town and manage their way - wrong!!!
And they call themselves - volunteers? sure - so were the russians when they volunteered to take Berlin.
What was left - you can figure that out just living here! Rape and pillage..............come on Frank you of all people know better - make the call downstate....pull back the curtain and show us all just like in the Wizard of Oz!!!
Post a Comment