We hear it was a long city council meeting last night. After the usual opening niceties of declaring April to be Fair Housing Month and some recognition awards, acting City Manager Julianna Maller requested that the acting Director of Community Development, Carrie Davis, brief the Council on a March 31, 2008 meeting between city staff, the Park Ridge Ministerial Association, Benedict Alderman Ryan and Mayor Howard regarding the proposed PADS shelter.
Everyone was reassured that it is "typical" to meet with "potential" applicants to lay the groundwork for future action. Ms. Davis also said such meetings are necessary because such proposals effect many layers of city government. Ms. Davis also referred to PADS as a "franchise" that deals with the provision of shelter to the homeless, and that the Park Ridge Ministerial Association believes there is a "gap in services" for the homeless in Park Ridge.
Acting City Manager Maller then told those assembled that St. Mary's has been asked to provide more information and that if the council chose to they could refer the matter to committee for discussion to talk about the process. Ms. Maller requested direction from the City Council.
Ald. Dave Schmidt (1st ward) then remarked that he hoped the City Attorney would provide his legal opinion in a written memo with supporting citations and cases. Ald. Schmidt said he has looked at case law on the subject and that this is a confused area of the law, but that all signs point to PADS needs to get a special use permit. Ald. Schmidt went on to caution those in attendance, who are opposed to the PADS shelter, that there is a balancing requirement in the law. The city can require standards, but those opposed to the shelter can't simply say they don't want it; there must be a compelling interest for the city to protect. All that leaves the PRU Crew to wonder, what's more compelling than the protection of our kids, ourselves, and our property?
Benedict Ald. Ryan (5th ward) then spoke about his last Saturday morning meeting with area residents and the Ministerial Association. He spoke of the many questions raised and believes that residents had taken time to think through their concerns, and that the Ministerial Association had also taken time to think through the issue, for the two years they have been thinking through the issue. Benedict Ald. Ryan said everyone needs to find a "way forward" and that the special use was not the issue. Ryan wants to see everyone engage in dialogue to have a better understanding. Ryan said he's asked that a public meeting will be held by the end of April, and that the Ministerial Association has said they would do that.
Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd ward), addressing the actual request of the acting City Manager, said he hoped the Council would choose to discuss the PADS subject as a committee of the whole.
Mayor Howard said he has asked that a City Council workshop be put on by the Ministerial Association, and that he's also asked the City Attorney for his opinion, and he encourages everyone to listen to the City Attorney's opinion.
Ours has got to be the most work-shopped City Council in the history of municipal government!
The next item on the agenda was supposed to be a vote to accept the proposal from Ekl Williams to do an audit of the Park Ridge Police Department. Some of you may recognize the name of Ekl Williams -- their firm represented the female bartender who was beaten by Chicago Police officer, Anthony Abbate. However, Ald. Frank Wsoooool man (7th ward) requested that the matter be deferred for two reasons, 1) A resident of the 7th ward has purportedly asked Ekl Williams for representation, and 2) a source has referred to allegations raised against attorney Terry Ekl by a group calling itself Citizens for Legal Responsibility.
We have no idea whether or not the resident seeking Ekl's representation has a beef with the Park Ridge police or not. The PRU Crew did do so some very quick online searching and found some very disturbing information about Mr. Ekl. None of which we will discuss here today. We aren't even certain it's the same Mr. Ekl. But if it is, we would hope there would be no further consideration of Ekl Williams for the police department audit.
The Council voted unanimously to defer the matter.
Next it was time for Citizens Wishing To Address The Council On A Non-Agenda Item. Mayor Howard warned that he would be "very strict" in enforcing the Council's 5-minute rule for speakers.
The Unfriendly Ghost of the 6th Ward, Ald. Thomas Carey, inquired that this was for address to the City Council on Non-Agenda items, stressing the Non-Agenda aspect, and as you will see he was roundly ignored.
Our sources tell us that the count of for/against ran 7 to 17 with 1 "don't know exactly". Most all of the speakers who rose to support the proposed PADS shelters were the pastors and PADS volunteers, while those who voiced concern and or objection to the proposal were residents.
Father Ted Stone from Mary Seat of Wisdom was the first to speak, saying that they have had 20 "clients" coming to MSW asking for help and that they, MSW, hasn't been able to help. They have wanted to find a way to help and make provisions for temporarily homeless people. Other members of the clergy also spoke in similar terms offering that sheltering the homeless is a mandate to churches and that they too were looking for dialogue on this issue.
Those with PADS volunteer experience spoke of how much more they got from the experience than they have given and that but for the grace of God...etc. etc. etc. One of the PADS volunteers said she has never felt threatened and that she has never observed people congregating outside shelters waiting to get in, vomiting on the street, or urinating in public. The woman reported that late arrivals receive a police escort and that, in her estimation, homeless people are no different from anyone else. The PRU Crew suggests this woman make an immediate visit to an optometrist.
The members of the public who spoke against the proposed PADS shelter offered nearly unanimous feeling that the biggest problem with the homeless shelter is location, location, location. But many reiterated the "stealthy" way the project has been handled. Two residents, Pat Livensparger and Judy Barclay, were also adamant about the zoning code and the necessity for PADS to seek a special use permit through the proper procedures.
The citizens' address to the City Council ended at about 9:15 and everyone took a break.
The Council then resumed business on the topic of the first reading of the special use permit for Christie's Carousel of Learning Child Care Center at the Park Ridge Presbyterian Church. They spent nearly an hour discussing the placement of a dumpster in the church parking lot, and the size of arborvitae bushes to be used to screen residents' view of the unsightly sight of children playing on the Christie's playground. At one point in the discussion, Christie's attorney Jack Owens seemed to be begging the Council to please just tell them, Christie's, what they want and they will do it! But City Councils being what they are, the discussion continued on and on. Two residents in the area of the Park Ridge Presbyterian Church spoke of their concerns about the child care center moving into their neighborhood, but ultimately the City Council voted unanimously to approve the first reading of the Christie's special use permit.
Then the council again voted unanimously to approve a 3 year contract with a new tree care service and to raise the water and sewer taxes.
Next up, Fire Chief Dubowski attempted to entertain the crowd with talk of disaster plans and emergency preparedness. Our sources report that Chief Dubowski was their favorite speaker of the evening because he kept it short.
Finally, under New Business, Ald. Don DreadBach (3rd ward) asked why Maine East can't have a digital bulletin board and learned that the Park Ridge zoning code doesn't allow them. Maryor Howard then offered that Maine East will be submitting a request for a text amendment to change the zoning code to allow for electronic bulletin boards. While Benedict Ald. Ryan passed out a summary of research he's done on the process of building a new police station.
The most interesting item under New Business came when Ald. Wsoooool man mentioned the rumored and confirmed closing of Napleton Cadillac by May 2, 2008, then asked that the City Council review the gift contract that had been given to Napleton to see if this closing renders the contract null and void, because he thought that the City should not be "fooled twice".
Mayor Howard, who took much credit for having negotiated this deal, then said he had been called by Napleton that day and had been told that General Motors had pulled their franchises from the Napleton location at Busse and Greenwood. Mayor Howard then lamented the sad story of the current conditions of the car sales market.
The PRU Crew is wondering why Mayor Howard did not mention this rather important matter under the council agenda item where it says "Reports of City Officials - Mayor", or is that space expressly reserved for political idiocy like pseudo-condemnations?
Alderman Dave Schmidt then asked that Napleton and PRC be made aware of the fact that the City will be reviewing the contract so that they do not proceed with their closing on the old Napleton site under the impression that they City will still be paying money for the clean-up of that property.
Mayor Howard said he thought Ald. Schmidt shouldn't make such "wild statements", to which Ald. Schmidt replied that his was not a "wild statement" but rather a "caution" to all parties involved that they should not proceed without being fully informed of the current circumstances.
Watch for Mayor Howard and others to still push to give Napleton and PRC the $400,000 to clean up the old Napleton site. What you will hear is how terrific that redevelopment will be, and your taxpaying support will be expected. Of course, you will also be expected to forget that the reason for this whole incentive deal in the first place was to get Napleton to keep their Cadillac and Buick dealerships in town.
BOHICA MAXIMUS!
April 8, 2008
Council Roundup!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Thanks for the roundup, PRU! It sure does sound like it was an interesting meeting. I'm sorry I couldn't have been there.
Great round up!
Now - if we can only
get Howie to round down
with his spending and throwing
of money to Billy Napleton.
Let's also look into the GOLDEN
parachute that the former police chief received - all hammered out behind closed doors - we can safely assume.
What a time we live in when
a community that needs to change its leadership - from the top down
is faced with its economic challenges.
BOHICA is right!
Thank you again.
What I want to know is how many and what size arborvitae bushes need to be installed to screen residents' of the unsightly sight of the homeless on the steps and sidewalk's of St. Mary's.
how do I enlist Algretti and Carey to come to the rescue of the fifth ward residents?
If we could put ourselves into the time machine and fast forward about 3 years to a time when Howie is under indictment for corruption, it will probably be uncovered that he was taking quite a bit of cash from the Napleton guys to push through the TIF. AND...they most certainly knew about the closing of the dealership while this was getting "approved" by the city council.
hey anonymous at 2:09---you can't GET Allegretti to respond to you by phone, email or FAX.
I doubt Carey is any better.
Good luck with that pipe dream!
Has anyone asked or seen the environmental report that estimates the cost of clean up to the Napelton site? Did the city take the cost at face value? At the end of the day, I would bet the actual cost will be below $400,000.
I appreciate the PRU news of the meeting.
I cannot believe the Mayor did not immediately report on the Napleton problem until the end of the meeting! That's ridiculous. What will happen with the site now? I sense a new police station purchase coming. Another bail out for Napleton.
Anonymous at 2:13,
I was trying to be funny......
ParkRidgeUnderground:
Indeed, what is more important than protecting our kids? That is exactly why the PADS shelters are important. Each year the shelters provide a safe place for children to stay. Perhaps your readers would like to know that in 2004, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty estimated that 39% of the homeless were children. Yes, children. Maybe you wouldn't be so cavalier about the issue if you worked with some of the families of these children who had been burned out of apartments, or beaten by their fathers.
How many people would it take presenting at a church in Park Ridge who were homeless before your compassion kicked in? It doesn't seem like twenty moved you. 50? 100?
Tell us ParkRidgeUnderground, what makes the homeless so much different from the average person, other than a lack of a home? You casually dismiss the assertions of people who say they aren't different. And while you're at it, would it be too much to ask that you quote some data to back up your assertions?
Todd Stull
Todd, have you visited the proposed site? Have you been there on Monday mornings to witness the young children who pass that spot? Do you even live in Park Ridge? If not, what gives you the right to tell those who will be most affected how they should feel, especially the parents of young children?
p.s. If the homeless shelters in Arlington Heights, Des Plaines and other places are so wonderful, why don't they stay open 7 days a week? For instance, leave the Des Plaines site open all day everyday for all I care, and let the do-gooders and hand-wringers in Park Ridge donate their time and money to make that a first class operation. Why force the homeless to travel from here to there to there to back here and then back there over and over again depending on the day of the week? Makes no sense to me.
Todd,
everyone here has been way too polite and you don't GET IT. So here it is...plain as day:
GET OUT OF PARK RIDGE. WE DO NOT WANT YOU HERE!!!!!!!!
I do not believe for one golldang minute the St. Mary's PADS is going to be for homeless children. That is a very dramatic story Todd, but you are full of it if you expect this town to believe we have droves of homeless children roaming around. We have the youth campus.
It is too bad Todd and the PADS folks did not have the balls to show up last night at the City Council meeting to state their case. No, instead they hide behind the men and women of the cloth who engage in a campaign to shame opponents into feeling bad for being against a shelter which has no place in a residential area.
Hey, there goes Oliver!
And isn't that Little Orphan Annie!
Get 'em to St. Mary's, they need a place to flop for the night!
Todd,
It is funny but when you addressed us in the Human Needs task force you stated that children are not in the pads shelters.
So which is it?
Yes, I have been to the proposed site. No, I have not been there on Monday evenings. No I do not live in Park Ridge. I'm not telling you how to feel; I am pointing out that the NIMBY attitude has real consequences on children.
The reason we have no one fixed site is due to funding and volunteers. Spreading the burden of providing shelter does not overstress one particular church for financial or human resources.
You can scream at me if you want, but the fact remains, the homeless are already in Park Ridge. We have the data to prove that, and I believe your ministerial association tried to tell you that at the city council meeting. If you prefer that they camp outside rather than have a structured shelter during most of the year, my opinion is that you are setting yourself up for more problems.
I never said you have droves of homeless children wandering around. (By the way, what youth campus are you referring to?) I simply stated that the data indicates that close to 40% of the homeless are children. Therefore, by denying shelter in Park Ridge, you will be denying shelter to children at some point. I find that sad. You may try to dismiss this by denial, minimizing, satire, personal attacks on myself, Journeys staff, or ministers; you may claim I have no basis to talk because I don't live in Park Ridge; unfortunately while we debate, children and adults suffer.
As for not being at the meeting, we were notified about it too late to be there. As for hiding behind people of the cloth, I make no secret of who I am and hardly expect any religious person to speak for me.
What is saddest to me is that whether it's children or adults who will be at the PADS sites, somehow people are able to dehumanize the homeless so that it seems OK if they have no place to go. Take the children who have no place to go out of the equation. You still have fellow human beings that do not enjoy the luxury I am assuming other readers here take for granted - a warm place to sleep, food, and if not a welcoming home, at least not outright hostility to their presence.
You describe people who are pro shelter, such as myself, as hand-wringers and do-gooders. When did doing good become a perjorative? And I hardly wring my hands. I'm too busy sweating, trying to help people find jobs, get them food, and recover from disasters.
These fellow human beings who are largely invisible in your community, your neighbors, have been through things like: rape, domestic violence, have seen comrades die in war, have survived physical and emotional abuse, have lived through fires and natural disasters, have been bankrupted by unforseen medical expenses, have lost jobs due to a shifting of the economy to service jobs, have suffered from the demons of depression, have made poor choices, have become in some way dependent on substances... none of this is pleasant, but it's true. These people aren't animals, they don't run amok hurting children and destroying neighborhoods, leaving needles on the ground. If that was true, there wouldn't be 18 other PADS sites. It is not as if the people around those other sites care about their children and community any less than you, and would tolerate those things the readers here seem to fear. Why so much fear and hostility towards the homeless?
Todd Stull
Like I said, if the other PADS shelters are only open one night because of lack of funding and volunteers, take the funding and volunteers you have lined up for the Park Ridge site and transfer it to Des Plaines. Then Des Plaines can be open two nights a week and it comes out even. They obviously wanted the shelter. We don't.
Todd,
Park Ridge is a very caring town and I do not like your accusations.
For over 100 years we have had the Park Ridge Industrial School for Girls now the Park Ridge Youth Campus that houses Children and families in need
http://www.theyouthcampus.org
Park Ridge also is home to Avenues for Independence and has housing complex on Clifton North of Touhy.
http://www.avenuesonline.org/
We also housed the Edison Park Norweigan Childrens home for 80 years until it was torn down in the 1990's.
We have been a very charitable community.
The community also has the Center of Concern which effectively closes the front door on homelessness in our town.
So I am completely offended by the BS you have submitted to the blog!
Todd,
The City of Park Ridge and the Maine Township Government fund the programs mentioned in our previous post.
From what I understand, Our own Maine Township government which is very generous and runs the foods pantry, social services, and all the same things you do have turned you down for funding. They found you were not serving the needs of our community. And that was after you had opened the Pads shelter in Des Plaines.
So, if Maine Township reviewed your services and finances and found that out, what makes you think that they City of Park Ridge is going to be any different.
Jean Dietsch:
These places you mentioned all sound like institutions that do quality work. And I have not accused Park Ridge as being an uncaring town. What I did say is that there seems to be a lot of fear and hostility directed towards the homeless, based on false stereotypes and information. What I am asking readers to do is reconsider their position in light of information I have presented here.
What statements have I made, specifically, that were BS?
The Center of Concern does not run an emergency shelter for the homeless. I am very familiar with their work, as they refer clients to us, and we in turn refer clients back to them. So, despite your assertion, they do not close the door on homelessness in Park Ridge. They definitely do make a important dent in it, and I respect all the people who have been involved with them or any of the other social service agencies in Park Ridge.
Their are many tiers of service that are helpful to people transitioning out of homelessness into a permanent place. Emergency shelter is one; I believe some of these other agencies you mention provide transitional housing, or permanent supportive housing. These are more restrictive programs that many clients are not immediately able to enter, due to circumstances such as waiting lists (demand outstrips supply) and eligibility criteria that make take weeks or months to meet and/or provide documentation for. In the meantime, emergency shelter is necessary.
I was not privy to decisions made in the past by Maine Township or Park Ridge related to our funding. We do serve Park Ridge residents, so I am not entirely sure what you are getting at.
Todd Stull
Now MSW wants homeless folks just off the blue line? Father Stone - stick around for the calls at 4am.
Huh? Think the homeless will be flying into O'Hare then stopping off at Cumberland? I don't think so.
Todd,
Have you ever read the plan that was put together by the National Mayors Conference on Homelessness in 2003?
Step one is to close the door on homelessness by providing assistance when a family cannot pay the rent, mortgage, heating bills, etc..... That is exactly what the center of concern, and our Maine Township Government does!
Park Ridge already has a Shelter for children and families in need. So I don't see the droves of children and families that we are turning down! DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!
We have stated many times why we do not want a shelter in a residential pedestrian neighborhood, especially an area that has been declared by the City to be a child safe zone. And you better get used to our arguments about the safety of our children, seniors and residents because we are not going to back down.
Maybe if the community had been involved with the ministerial association in looking into filling more of a homeless need other than children and families and disabled persons (which we do already provide homes for in Park Ridge) you would have a more willing to help group on your hands.
Todd, for someone who claims to be sweating while working so hard and dilegently on finding jobs etc. you sure have an awful lot of time to write into the blog ALL DAY LONG. Federal dollars hard at work.
Jean,
I have not read that specific document that you are referring to. If you have a link to it, I'd be happy to. However, I have not done a lack of homework on this issue. I work with homeless individuals and those who make policies that affect these individuals on a daily basis. I invite you to attend the AHAND meeting this Thursday at 1616 Rand Road at the Catholic Charities building if you are interested in seeing how in depth I am in the issue.
I am well aware that Maine Township and Center of Concern do the good work that you mentioned. That is why I refer homeless Park Ridge residents to those agencies.
Again, I never stated there were droves of homeless children and families in Park Ridge. By the very nature of homelessness, it makes it hard to track hard numbers. I will attest to the fact that we serve Park Ridge homeless.
And, my other point is still valid. The agencies that you mentioned do exist, but the need for transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and other affordable housing is outstripping the demand. There is not enough to meet the demand. That said, emergency shelter is needed to fill the gaps.
And while I respect your concerns about safety, again, I am suggesting that our track record as an agency has proven that our policies and processes make the shelter and surrounding areas very safe.
I would hope that now there is attention being paid to the matter, there is an opportunity for the community to become engaged in helping a Park Ridge PADS shelter meet this need.
Todd Stull
Todd,
no matter WHAT you write on the blog...the answer is NO.
NO.
No.
No.
We do not want you here.
Anonymous:
If you'll look at the record of my comments, you'll notice that many of them were made on the weekend and after business hours. Actually I'm willing to put in more than 40 hours a week on this issue. Plus, advocating for creation of PADS shelters is well within the purview of normal business hours.
Todd Stull
A picture is beginning to emerge... Yes, I think I see where this is going...
Advocate for a homeless shelter in Park Ridge to establish a presence so as to prove to Maine Township and other charitable supporters that a community need is being served, then go back and ask for more money...
No doubt, Ms. Nabors needs another compensation boost along with the other professional Journeys paid staff...
Is "advocating" the same thing as lobbying...or attempting to influence public opinion...? I thought that Journeys didn't do lobbying...at least that's what I thought I read on their tax return...
Amazing work indeed.
wow...
to read this blog you'd think that Park Ridge ONLY had weathly, self suffient families with trust funds big enough to sustain their gandchildren's grandchildren, even when they screw up and suffer severe hardships- hige medial bills, unemployment, underemployment, maybe some mental illness too ( not enough to make them dangerous to themselves or others, but just enough to make them unable to make good decisions or budget their money so they end up on the street-- and there are no governement programs to help such people-- and there are long waiting lists at the few angencies that could maybe help them).
Park Ridge has also never had a family with a child who experimented with drugs and got hooked and had to get kicked out of the house to learn to stand on his own two feet (hit bottom so he could begin recovery)... ever heard of tough love? Or maybe its the alcoholic that gets kicked out because the family will not enable that pattern to continue fro everyone well being... those families clearly do not want to safe, clean shelter that their loved one could turn too... a church basement in the suburbs is obviously way too plush for them... let's make sure they have to go deep into the city, find the most lice infested flea bag of a shelter and make really good friends that will definately be a positive infuence on the rest of your life...every parent wished that on their struggling child... let them get good and desperate since "its not my problem"... things like that never happen to anyone I know, or anyone in my family or in my neighborhood... if this did happen to someone I know then they clearly should be forced to leave my town because Park Ridge has no room for anyone that can't afford their own rent. We all drive volvos and huge trust funds that will continue to go in this wonderful economy.
Yep... there are no foreclosures, no evictions here ... Park Ridge is above all that... hey, if you can't pay for something, just go to Human Services- they'll write you a check... no worries.
Hey...that should be the slogan of our welcome wagon, invite everyone as long as they can pay rent or mortgage and taxes, forever, no matter what, under any and all circumstances... who needs a PADS shelter? We have other programs that take care of EVERYTHING. No one slips through the cracks here, ever.
Idiots.
To the poster above at 8:10 PM - Thank you. Well said. We clearly have enough problems in Park Ridge without inviting more problems to our community. Bravo to you and your excellent observations.
The PADS system is inherently flawed if you are claiming that you are helping primarily down and out middle class Americans who happen to have had a bad break and just need a hand to get them back on their feet. You are making people like that become nomads by sending them to Des Plaines one day, Arlington Heights the next, then Park Ridge, then back to Arlington Heights, on to Inverness ad nauseum. You are not doing them any long-term good. Give them a stable place where they can remain everyday until they get back on their feet. Build a homeless development in a centrally located spot like Arlington heights and service them all there. Why are you dispersing your "regular customers" (which they are because you say they must register with you) throughout such a wide area on what appears to be a haphazard basis? You are causing more problems than you are solving. Centralize. Don't spread the problem.
There are several residential properties within a stone's throw of the selected site. Heartless as it may seem, it is unfair on these people to just open up a homeless shelter in their midst. The presence of the shelter will have a dramatic effect on their home values. Is this fair? Does the charity consider such effects when it selects a site or does it not care about those people who have homes only those who do not?
Surely, there is a better location that can be agreed upon with the community. Ultimately, money is at the root of all of this and I am sure that the St. Mary's folks, who have been crying the poor mouth for a while now, see this shelter as their financial savior.
Silly people PADS doesn't want to consolidate and run a centralized system. They might actually have to provide real services and use all the money they get funded for program and overhead instead of salaries.
The more churches involved the more funds they collect. They do not have the expense of the people running the program because the church volunteers are doing all of their work for them. The communities and churches make the meals, provide the beds and bedding. Even Lutheran General is providing laundry service.
Pads doesn't want the work involved in a centralized semi permanent housing unit. They want their big salaries, more churches, more volunteers and more funding.
The more
Jean Dietsch-You say Park Ridge is a "very caring town." You are kidding aren't you? Have you read any of your posts or the posts from the other NIMBYers? There is little caring or compassion in these posts. You are entitled to your opinion-but based on what people are saying and posting-including you-you are fooling yourself into thinking there is much caring on the issue of the homeless in Park Ridge. As one person stated in the Advocate-I don't mind helping the homeless-just not in my backyard. Caring about the homeless stops right at the border of Park Ridge for many in this town.
On the Napleton deal-was the city attorney at last nights meeting? Did he comment on the contents of the agreement with PRC and Napleton and our ability to nullify the $400,000 clean up deal because Napleton failed to tell the city council that they would be closing the dealership in the spring 2008?
Thanks for the information.
It is our understanding that regular city attorney Mr. Hill was not in attendance at last night's meeting.
To those of you who are unhappy with the neighbors comment with respect to the shelter not being in his back yard, which can almost be taken literally - would you like it if your next door neighbors decided to open a homeless shelter in the basement? Rhetorical of course!
It appears here that the fear and anger is being directed in the wrong direction. It is the Village (ultimately) along with the Minesterial Association that has detrmined the desire to open a shelter in PR. Let's take Journeys out of the mix. Journeys didn't come to PR - they were asked. They still have not been formally invited to the table - so they are not motivating the debate. Mr. Stull has tried to respond but I fear he is just sparking more anger because he speaks of things no one really wants to hear - or maybe they can't through their present heightened fear and anger - understandable but unfortunate because I think he had a lot of good information to share. Whether it was WINGS opening a domestic violence shelter or Center of Concern opening an emergency shelter near or at the St. Mary's location - some of the PR residents living close to St. Mary's would not want it - regardless. The debate could go on and on...pro-con...for-against.
I truly believe those in support are coming from a good place and those against are coming from a good place. Everyone wants to do good for their primary focus - whether it is their ministry or their children or their proerty value. Regardless - everyone commenting here wants what is good for what is important to them. So with that said...what now?
This blog definitely serves a purpose but it isn't going to win a debate or lose one. It also isn't going to solve anything.
I hear a Town Meeting is in the works and I believe Journeys may finally be invited to attend. Maybe when that happens we can get some actual answers when we are calmer and more prepared to listen. It may not change our opinion - one way or another but I am sure it would be more productive than this.
Really...who cares what salaries people are making? No one is asking what salaries are of those living by St. Mary's or those running this blog site? The tax payers do not pay for Journeys salaries - grants and donations do. No one gets rich on free services. I also do not believe the services provided are anything but quality - I feel just as strongly that the Village of PR is nothing but quality. The debate is over who those services go to and if, as a community, we are ready to serve those people here at the level of care that shelter offers. This is really about us feeling safe and understanding every angle so we can make decisions and have a firm standing on our position. I have heard it said before - even if Journeys does not join the Village and the Minesterial Association after all this...PR might have a shelter without Journeys anyway. Would we be better off then? I think it wise for us to really define what we are against/for and what we actually fear/celebrate and put our energy there.
Anonymous at 10:23-It is not the fact they do not want to help the homeless and less fortunate by providing food and shelter at a church on the edge of downtown PR one night per week from September through April, it is the hateful, demeaning belittling "I am better than the homeless because I live in Park Ridge" way they say it. It is embarrassing for the town of Park Ridge and the 38,000 people who live here.
Anon@10:33PM,
Interesting use of language -- it's very inclusive in the phrasing with "we" and "us" and such. Now, it could be that the Crew's got limited contact with fellow Park Ridgians, but we must admit, you are the first we've heard refer to the City of Park Ridge as a "Village".
Salaries are, in fact, a big indicator of whether or not a charity is wholly legitimate, and the reason that all manner of charity check organizations exist, including some operating under State governments.
Since Journeys is government funded in large part, then yes, taxpayers are footing the bill for Journeys staff in one form or another, and we suspect Journeys does not discuss what portion of donor gifts go to paying staff salaries when they are making their pitch to donors.
Your claim that the "Village" has determined to open a homeless shelter in Park Ridge and that they were asked to come to Park Ridge leads us to ask, by whom?
Anon@10:35PM,
We aren't ashamed to tell you that we feel productive, hardworking residents are much better than substance abusing, unproductive, homeless people. That's not a lack of compassion, that is simply the truth. If it weren't the truth, then Journeys would not be seeking to help substance abusing, unproductive, homeless people become productive, harworking residents.
But while Journeys seeks to do that, they may not demand that those who are already productive, hardworking residents give whatever it is Journeys demands in the name of their cause. Those productive, hardworking residents may already do plenty for charity, but perhaps just not the one you choose as worthy. They aren't lesser Christians for the choices they make, nor do they lack warm hearts and open wallets.
And we note, while so many PADS supporters decry the opposition to a PADS shelter in the community, none of those supporters are willing to open their own homes and hide-a-beds to the homeless. So it would seem ALL have their limits, for some those are their front doors for others its their town's border.
Please think about these 2 questions: Does everyone truly believe that St. Mary's is the one and only possible location for a shelter? As a community that wants to help the disadvantaged, shouldn't we step-up and share the burden, instead of targeting a few citizens?
Hills Hobby just moved out. Maybe Owen Hayes can get the owner of the building to donate the space for a period of time to see how the PADS program will work, without trying the social experiment in a residential neighborhood.
Just a thought, because the discussion seems to be "all or nothing" without an offer of alternatives.
Nice idea 10:23
They can stroll right
off the train and into
the downtown area.
Maybe hang up there at the
Library with some of the
others........
Thank you.
How about putting in some of the vacant storefronts in the uptown development? I do not have a lot of faith in this plan when you see the deer in headlights look of one of the ministers when she is asked any questions.
I have been reading all that I can find on this issue. Here's a comment that really struck home for me. I hope it is okay to copy other posters comments? If not the PRU can erase it. Thank you.
Wondering said...
Definitely agree w/ Anonymous at 2:38pm. Keep your eyes and ears open folks or BOHICA!!
On a separate matter, I scanned the IRS Form 990 that was attached to the item today. Do I have this right? This organization had total revenue of $638k in the fiscal year 2006 and paid salaries of $402K in that same year??? 63% of the fiscal year's revenue went to current salaries. Huh??? And that $402k in pay was 41% of he total expenses. Something doesn’t smell right.
And that $402k is made up of the $80,520 to Ms. Nabors and $394,089 paid to "employees not included on lines...”, that is, paid to undisclosed individuals. That’s a lot of money folks. Where’s it going?? I am no expert on this sort of thing but does that seem a bit out of line? BTW, add another $44k of employee benefits to that payroll number... sniff, sniff.
So, this organization had about $550k of cash on hand at the end of their fiscal year 2006 end. That was after blowing through $343k that year ($638k revenue - $982k expense).
Executive Director Nabors... you get paid for this???
April 2, 2008 3:45 PM
Non-profit social service salaries are hard to compare to a corporate structure because social service budgets are different than a profit business in that at social service agencies the product/service is counseling, case management, vocational counseling, referrals, etc. Those services are done by people not machinery or computers or other things that take up huge % of budgets at a corporation.
The services are (in the case of Journeys) free. Services at corporations are not and in fact many of Journeys' counter parts do charge for services either at a fixed rate or a sliding scale thus their services are also revenue generating. At Journeys this is not the case.
So, if the services provided are counseling at Journeys than it would make sense that the salary of those doing those services would be the highest expense in the budget. To put the salary issue in perspective...if we were to look at the choices these staff make at Journeys to serve the poorest of the poor instead of those who can pay for their counseling...they take a salary verses a fee for service. If they were to counsel to people like you or I in a private practice setting, hospital setting, university setting, or a treatment center the going rate is anywhere from $80-$150 and up per hour for fee for service counseling. If making money were all that mattered to those working in non-profits I would say they would only last a year or two and then go in to private practice.
To address those who keep bringing up salaries at Journeys…Ms. Nabors’ salary is comparable to those at other social service agencies. In fact, her salary is under that of many of the E.D.'s at other local non-profits. To name a few, WINGS ED makes $88,294, Shelter, Inc.'s ED makes $111,929 and their Associate Director makes $88,470, and the Youth Campus right in Park Ridge... their President makes $171,346, their Senior Executive makes $117,995 and their Director of Finance makes $99,275. All of these salaries were pulled from 990's found on Guidestar.org
So, now we know Journeys is not the highest paying (or anywhere near it) in the non-profit arena.
Truly, is this the issue we all care about re: homelessness (or the lack of) in Park Ridge?
I want to give a shout out to those St. Mary's neighbors for coming up big on this issue...and then not buckling when those paragons of virtue (the PADS supporters) started hurling the accusations of "NIMBY" and "un-Christian" at them.
There's already more than enough stuff in Park Ridge that needs our time, talent and treasure without importing more. Charity begins at home. If there are homeless Park Ridge residents, let's start with them before we become just another way station for nomads.
Is this Northerly Island?
With Google Map I found the perfect site for a homeless shelter: a tax-exempt, brick residence at 239 Ridge Terrace!! I drove over to have a look - it's an empty lot covered with wood chips! Who would bulldoze a gem of a structure, in the midst of a homeless crisis??? Mayor Daley? Nope, the property belongs to St. Paul of the Cross-! The families that Todd Skull spoke about could have been comfortable there.
Have our churches been fortifying against a PADS attack? Father Carl with his bulldozer, Rev. McCracken luring the day care, how have the others prepared? I've heard that MSW owns a transitional homeless residence, but am unclear on the details. And when a small, pastor-less church showed empathy - they sprung it on HER!
To Annonymous at 7:18pm
Through the Catholic Charities New Hope Apartments Program, Mary Seat of Wisdom along with St. Paul of the Cross are housing a homeless family for a two year period of time. The father is gainfully employed and the mother is staying at home with their son with a profound facial disability.
The churches collect pledges from the congregation to help house and support this family who has a child with a facial deformity.
I don't know if this is the property you are talking about. Do you have an address? It could be that they are paying rent and not owning?
Father Stone has a big house on Crescent and he is living in it all alone! He has been preaching at the pulpit on Sundays that we must take in the homeless. Maybe he could walk the talk!
Here is the real scoop!!!
Father Carl is set where he is at and they will not be moving him from parish to parish. Father Gunderson has only five years more at Mary Seat of Wisdom before he is sent on his next assignment.
What a perfect opportunity for him to seize on to add the accomplishment of bringing the homeless to Park Ridge. So, we get homeless and he moves on.
St. Mary's Episcopal Church lost alot of members when the Female minister had her domestic partner come up and kiss her at the end of the service. Two women professing their love with a kiss on the pulpit was just a little too much for the congregation.
From what I understand the majority of St. Mary's current members are not from Park Ridge.
Post a Comment