Reload!

Visualparadox.com

We hope PRU readers take the time to read and critically consider the offerings in today's Park Ridge Herald-Advocate.

The PRU Crew is again planning to enjoy a long weekend.

Enjoy!

Kafka? No! Kopkaesque!

We've never seen anything like it! The speed! The agility!

Last week we posted a letter to the editor from Mr. Steve Kopka, who was protesting the plan to put another drive through bank in Park Ridge on the old Napleton parking lot near Uptown, and a CVS pharmacy on the site of the old Napleton Cadillac dealership.

Today we read in the Journal and Topics that the bank in question, CenTrust, is backing off of their plan.

JT73008CenTrust - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: JT73008CenTrust

In the Journal article today, CenTrust Chairman and CEO Carl Vander Wilt says that zoning variances and the process are too risky for his bank to go through. -- O.K., stop that! Really! That's enough laughing! -- But that's not what Mr. Vander Wilt was saying just a few days ago.

In an online Herald-Advocate update, Mr. Vander Wilt credited "concerns that residents in neighboring blocks had expressed about a bank at that location."

Also in the Journal and Topics article today we read that "some city officials...were not aware" of CenTrust's "recent change in plans" but that Mayor Howard was contacted personally about CenTrust's decision.

So what do you think, PRU readers? Think Mayor Howard isn't communicating with "some city officials"? Or, was Mayor Howard denying knowledge of the change in plans to the local press? Is anyone else willing to describe the current administration of Mayor Howard as "Kafkaesque"? And why is Mr. Vander Wilt now singing a different tune?

Is it possible that Mr. Kopka's letter to the editor and the efforts of other area residents that have produced one of the most rapid responses to citizen concerns that we've ever seen is viewed as threatening by the Kafkaesque Mayor Howard?

The PRU Crew can't say for sure. But from now on, whenever the concerns of citizens of Park Ridge are met with this kind of rapid response we're going to be calling it Kopkaesque!

Getting Away From It All.

If you're not into fishing, try Bocce ball!

Have a great day!

More PRU Briefs!

1. Taste of Public Relations?

As most of our readers know, we had a guest essay not too long ago, The Park District's Own Mr. Haney, about board president Dick Barton. It seems Mr. Barton was using his connections and political influence to promote his business.

Our pals over at the Pub-dog's put up another tasty piece of reading last Friday, Hooray for Us? Somebody decided to ask us if we knew anything about the financials of the Taste of Park Ridge and if we'd seen the following pic --




The above is a screen capture from the http://www.bartonchicago.com/ web site. The cars in the photo on the right are from the Taste event. There is no reference to the Taste of Park Ridge on the Barton & Barton web site and the Taste is not listed as a client. But we're sure that if anybody asks why a picture from the Taste is on the Barton & Barton web site the answer would be that Mr. Barton donates a lot of his time to the Taste and nobody saw anything wrong with letting him use a photo in the promotion of his business.

As for what we know of the financial arrangements of the Taste of Park Ridge committee, the answer is we don't know anything. The Taste of Park Ridge NFP organization hasn't provided any public information on their income and expenses that we can find.


2. "Hell No! You Can't Go!"

We were recently asked by a PRU reader if we knew about a meeting held at the Park Ridge Country Club, organized by Mayor Howard to discuss problems at the Youth Campus in the 1st ward with surrounding area residents, and if we were aware that Mayor Howard hadn't even bothered to invite 1st ward Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg to the meeting. The answer is yes. We have heard from several sources that Mayor Howard would rather play politics than actually work with all concerned parties on a problem facing residents.

What the PRU Crew finds surprising is that anyone would find it surprising that Mayor Howard plays politics first and sees to public policy second.


3. "Clean up on aisle D2!"

Last week we told you about Rosemary's Political Baby.

This week Rosemary's Political Baby got an address change, thanks to Mama Mulligan's filing of an amended D2 candidate disclosure form.



We can only imagine the conversation that took place on this one!

Bachtard, The Constitutional UNscholar!

Many of you may have read 3rd ward Alderman Don Bachtard's latest letter in the local rags the past few weeks. We're putting it here for our own abject amusement.

Letter to the Editor:

I wrote this to let your readers know how I will vote regarding Special Use for PADS at St. Paul, and to render my reasoning for that vote. I will vote "yes" to require special use. The primary reason is that the bulk of the constituents (at this point about 70% of more than 300 people) I have spoken with support special use.

I must say that I don't believe myself that government should be involved in this, that essentially it should be decided by the parish at St. Paul and the nearby neighbors of St. Paul. I am troubled by the fact that the city seems to be at odds with itself over this. Since I am an engineer by trade, and not a legal expert, I can only render my opinion of what is or is not constitutional or legal based on my own research and conversations with attorneys, including the city attorney.

With that in mind, there is some basis in law to support the Special Use requirement. If you read the Wikipedia article about the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, you will see that the exact phrasing of the clause is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). The most commonly held interpretation of the clause is the Jeffersonian interpretation which defines the clause as "a wall of separation of church and state".

The city is not part of Congress. Since the clause is directed specifically at Congress, it may not apply. We are not legislating to prevent the free exercise of religion. We have codified the Special Use process for the safety of our citizens, including the occupants of the PADS shelter. Under this interpretation, what we are asking is perfectly legal and constitutional.

Also, several state and federal court judges have ruled favoring municipalities and state governments in cases like this, as you can see in the Wikipedia article referenced. Fire safety, food safety and other risks associated with overnight stays are, according to the opinions I have read, "compelling reasons for a municipality to request special use". We, as the citizens of Park Ridge are liable if some one is injured there and we have not enforced our local safety codes as preventative measures to that injury.

Also to be considered is that statement in several of these opinions that "a homeless shelter is not directly connected to the free exercise of worship". In other words, these judges have ruled that requiring special use does no interfere with the church's worship or mission in any way.

Finally, I would say what I have said to several of the ministers in the PRMA. Going through Special Use is an advantage, not a hindrance, to the shelter and the PRMA. It shows that the churches are good neighbors and do not consider themselves to be above the law, and that they are not only concerned about the safety of their PADS clients and St. Paul's neighborhood, but are aware of the liabilities that the city and they themselves face by noncompliance with the city's codes and process.

I ask the ministers to consider also that if the church were to go through the process and meet all of the requirements that according to the opinion of several municipal attorneys I have spoken with, there would be no basis in our own local law that would provide an avenue to deny the permit. As a matter of my profession, I have been denied Special Use by several cities here in this region for placement of cellular transmitters. The denials were based on things that were exclusive of their Special Use permissions and governed by federal or state law. In every one of these cases, lawsuits that were filed were ruled on or settled quite expeditiously in our favor.

I ask for you all to encourage your minister to comply with our request for Special Use, should the council vote that way. I am voting the way my constituents have asked me to, in spite of the fact that I personally disagree with them. This is not the first time that has happened, and I doubt that it will be the last, but that is what I promised to do.

Donald Bach, 3rd Ward Alderman, Park Ridge

The PRU Crew couldn't believe what we were reading... And we think we understand how he got to that dark and distant corner in his head... And we thought about deconstructing the thing... But we're pretty sure even the Gonella Bakery doesn't have enough bread crumbs to get this man home again.

Reader Soapbox!

Two sent to PRU for you to read and consider --

Letter #1

Here's another example of what I'm assuming is Frimark and Friends. The following is a letter to the editor I'm sending out today. Please feel free to investigate yourself, or start a new conversation. Thanks for the great site.

Dear Editors:

I was floored to discover that the City of Park Ridge was negotiating with a bank (CenTrust) to build on the empty Napleton parking lot on the corner of Northwest Highway and Meacham, across from the Napleton Cadillac building. The plans include cutting new curb access on Northwest highway and drive-thru lanes. Anyone who has driven in the area and is familiar with traffic patterns knows this will effectively turn the residential streets of Meacham, Cedar, and Elm into drive-thru lanes too.

Not only is this an ill-thought-out plan, it is also completely contrary to what the citizens expect and what the City Council and (former) Mayor adopted for the area. The Uptown Master Development Plan, available for all to see on the City’s website (see https://www.parkridge.us/assets/Upfinalplan.pdf), clearly shows this land to be used for “transitional residential,” which is defined as condominiums or town homes (p. 16). It is not to be used for commercial at all!

If that’s not bad enough, I learned the same day that the City was talking with CVS Pharmacy about putting in a store and parking lot across the street on the site of the former Napleton Cadillac property. This too is addressed in the Uptown Master Development Plan. That land is to be used primarily for town homes.

As citizens we have to ask ourselves: who is this benefiting? Whatever answer you find for yourself, one thing is clear: it is not benefiting us. Just because the current developer is no longer interested in building town homes on the site doesn’t mean that the City can step in to help Napleton sell their property to any available buyer.

No one who lives near uptown, no one who uses Hinkley Park, and no one who is concerned with the character of Uptown wants a car-traffic-heavy (and perhaps 24-hour) drug store like CVS on that spot. Neighbors and park users do not want the bank across the street. These two businesses seem to mainly benefit people driving through town. Neither are pedestrian-oriented.

And neither of these is supposed to be allowed under the Uptown Development Plan, which was unanimously adopted and amended into the Comprehensive City Plan in 2002 (p. i).

The same Plan lists two of its primary objectives (p. 3): 1) Maintain Uptown as a small, compact, and well-defined geographical area, and 2) promote a pedestrian-oriented shopping environment.Both the CVS idea and the bank violate both of these primary objectives.

I don’t think we as citizens can allow major decisions about the character of the City, the traffic safety of our streets and parks, and the quiet altering of long-time plans to be made in back rooms, restaurants, or golf courses and then later be presented to the citizens as the new plan. The citizens have a right to expect our elected officials and City employees to follow the Plan as adopted, to keep the citizens posted on developments, and to act and communicate with full transparency so that we can see for ourselves that they are acting in our best interests.

The Uptown Development plan is clear: Uptown commercial development is not supposed to creep further up Northwest Highway. The Napleton parking lot is supposed to be residential. The Napleton Cadillac building across the street is supposed to be condos or town homes.

Stick to the plan, Park Ridge. It’s what the citizens want.

Steve Kopka

Park Ridge, IL

Letter #2

Letter to the Editor:

Today, we read where Mayor Frimark had the US government funds all set and ready to cash the check to the tune of $ 500,000 for a study for the Cumberland Ave possible extension.

Its not a big surprise here to see that all was just about closed for discussion on this issue and the ink on the check was ready to dry for mailing. But Mayor Frimark forget something - the people!

What is their desire ? What is their concerns....as well as traffic flow through the town north and south and back. A major artery that would be revised and extend - all because of HIS desire to collect federal tax dollars! "Its only federal dollars" Mayor Frimark once stated at a recent city hall meeting and its not city money.

Now, US Rep Jan Schakowsky must think that we are all two sandwiches short of a picnic in asking for federal tax money and the PEOPLE have not been approached.

Mayor Frimark this is just a continuation of the type of leadership that we have here in Park Ridge - from YOUR office sir.

Grant applications, state tax breaks, state monies from Gov. Blagojevich, veterans money stolen and used for " art in the park" with Roasemary Mulligan's fingerprints all over it ?

Parachutes being given out, a screw up with the (just retired police chief 's) pension/package and the payment to our new city manager in his cost of living - here?

I ask you sir - when is this all going to come to a halt?

Are we leading from the rear - here ?

I guess you could loop it all together and call this term the following:
" the dark night" or "the joker", or even better "space chimps".

"Momma Mia" as the film title goes.... when is the next election!!

Gene Spanos

" Dedicated Twice By Choice"
Police - Marines
Det # 553 MCL

Rosemary's Political Baby!

By many accounts, Mayor Howard wouldn't be in the political position he's in today if it weren't for the backing he's received from State Rep. Rosemary Mulligan.

So, it comes as no surprise that insurance salesman, Howard Frimark -- Park Ridge's self-described 24/7 Mayor, would also be Ms. Mulligan's go to guy when she needs insurance. And if you're going to be Park Ridge's 24/7 Mayor then we guess nobody should be surprised when you conduct your 9-to-5 insurance business out of City Hall.


Click on pic for larger view -
from Illinois State Board of Elections Campaign Disclosure listings

We wonder which loyal city staffer gets to volunteer to also handle Mayor Howard's insurance business at City Hall?

But as the Journal & Topics' "braying ass", Dwight Esau, put it to everybody in response to a letter written in reaction to our 'Worth 1000 Words' piece, this is probably just another one of those ethics violation "dust-ups".

Anybody have the number handy for ServiceMaster?

All That Jazz! Abridged Council Recap!

Hello, PRU readers! The reports have come in and we're going to cut right to the chase; last night the Park Ridge City Council voted unanimously to refer the matter of opening a homeless shelter to the Planning & Zoning commission for addition to the zoning ordinance under the requirement and review through a special use permit process.

You read that right folks! Unanimous! Even the perennially confused Alderman Don DreadBach (3rd Ward) and Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan (5th Ward) voted to require a special use permit process for the opening of a homeless shelter at St. Paul of the Cross, or anywhere else in Park Ridge.

There was an overflow crowd in attendance at the meeting last night, which prompted Mayor Howard to issue one of his infamously rambling decrees on council decorum and respect.

We're told that Mayor Howard is another one of those "preachers" who can't seem to manage much in the way of his own personal practice. In addition to the less than equal treatment certain speakers were subjected to by the meeting chairman, Mayor Howard, we are told that at one point during the meeting, while speakers addressed the council, Mayor Howard called a gentleman from a list of names of those wishing to speak. The gentleman declined to speak but did add, "Please protect our children, Mr. Mayor." Mayor Howard then told the gentleman that if he had anything to say he should "be a man" and step up to the podium. Mayor Howard's remark reportedly elicited a very negative response from the audience. So much for decorum and respect.

We're told that there were well over 40 speakers, the significant majority of whom favored the process of a special use permit for a homeless shelter. We are also told the majority who urged the council to vote for the special use permit process also requested that not only St. Paul of the Cross be required to apply for the special use permit, but also that PADS too be required to apply as a co-applicant, since it is that agency that will be performing the services they allegedly provide to the homeless population, as well as the agency that will be responsible for following their own policies for the protection of their volunteers and the rest of the community. The PRU Crew could not agree more with that idea; PADS must be a co-applicant for the special use permit process for opening a homeless shelter.

Also in attendance was the Chicago Archdiocese in-house lawyer, Maureen Murphy, who seemed to be present to figuratively hold the hand of Fr. Carl Morello. Ms. Murphy let everyone know that the parish would "only be hosting" the shelter, "not leasing or licensing" their space, and that the Archdiocese does not believe a special use permit could be required...but if it is required then the parish would go through the process. It's clear to the PRU Crew that Ms. Murphy is unfamiliar with not only the concept of an in-kind contribution, but also recent Federal court law. And now we see why continuing education requirements are as important for attorneys as they are for other professionals.

So now the issue will move to the Planning & Zoning commission for review, where members of the public will again have a chance to ask that their concerns and questions about homeless shelters be answered. Stay tuned!

In other City Council actions, Fair Housing commissioner, former Alderman Sue Bell, after giving another impassioned plea for understanding that we are told was rife with misleading statements, was handed her hat and shown the door, despite the Lord of the Manor's attempt to defer adoption of the ordinance yet again. The council voted, in its first reading, to adopt the fair housing ordinance as currently written. No more whining. No more nagging. No more delays. No more behind the scenes maneuvering. The reason posed for yet another delay, besides Ms. Bell's whining, was to give the new City Manager, Mr. James Hock, time to review the ordinance and his role in it. If history is any teacher, and the PRU Crew believes it is, Mr. Hock will be able to deal with one pseudo-fair housing complaint every decade or so.

We again give out some PRUdos here, and today they go to Alderman Jim Allspaghetti (4th ward). Nice job getting this thing finally done.

Finally, action on the R-5 zoning issue was again deferred until the next meeting.

We know there was more but our sources apparently pooped out and left the meeting before it ended, past midnight.

Overall, we feel the City Council did a reasonable job of listening to the issues and concerns from residents of Park Ridge. We wish somebody among their number would take Mayor Howard aside and clue him in on how this whole "representative of the people" thing is supposed to work.

It's Showtime, Folks!

City Council Meeting tonight!

City Council Recap tomorrow!

Stay Cool!

Digital Vision/Getty Images

Refresh, inside and out, and have a great weekend!

Math Is Hard!

In today's Herald-Advocate we learn the extent of Mayor Howard's inability to deal with numbers.

Residents' concerns set back Cumberland study

"When the City Council discussed the proposed Cumberland extension study in May, a memo from Park Ridge Economic Development Director Kim Uhlig stated the engineering study could cost between $50,000 and $100,000. When asked why $500,000 was requested from the federal government, Frimark said he could not comment without looking at the documents that had been submitted.

The application states that the funding "will be used for the feasibility study and environmental phases I and II." Frimark could not say what these environmental phases involved."

Mayor Howard, we know math can be hard. Really really hard. But we wonder why the champion for this proposed Cumberland extension doesn't have a better handle on the difference between needing $50,000 to $100,000 and asking for $500,000. What's up with that?

And PRUdos to reporter Jennifer Johnson for paying attention and reporting the story with the detail it deserved. We've been wondering when somebody was going to point out that little $400,000 difference!

Finally, to Congresswoman Schakowsky: Thanks for listening to the residents' objections to this project.

Additional information; thanks to a PRU reader.

AppropriationsRqstCumberland[1] - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: AppropriationsRqstCumberland[1]

Freewheeing PADS-free Zone - July 16, 2008

Anything but PADS!

Agreeable Friends And A Good Idea!

-- George Eliot, Scenes of Clerical Life

Agreeable Friends!

We thought we would return the favor to the Chicago Archdiocese and go read what is offered on their web site.

If you've clicked on the link above, you are now aware that the church has reacted to much of the negative fall-out they experienced after the priest-child sex abuse scandal by forming the new Office for the Protection of Children and Youth. We applaud their efforts; it's the least they can do.

Notably, the web page above also includes a link to the Chicago Archdiocese's Children Matter Network, which bills itself as "a partnership created to promote and protect the dignity of children."

Included in a discussion for choosing a summer program for kids, the Children Matter Network of the Archdiocese of Chicago offers the following suggestions --

before selecting your child’s summer program or activity:

Verify that the facility is licensed by the State of Illinois. Ask the Director to see the facility’s license and check the expiration date to ensure it is current;

Observe all areas of the facility to ensure that there are no safety or health hazards;

Ask the Director detailed questions regarding the screening of staff. These questions could include;

Ask to review their hiring application. Ask questions about the application if any areas are unfamiliar or critical information is not requested on the application.

Ask if they run a criminal background check on all employees prior to hiring? Is it an online background check or FBI digital fingerprinting?

Do they conduct a Child Abuse and Neglect Tracking Systems (CANTS) check with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services on all employees prior to hiring?

Ask if they request professional references and do they contact these references prior to hiring an applicant?

What type of experience must staff members have to work for this particular program?

What type of certifications must staff members have to work for this particular program?

Notwithstanding the ironic recommendation of government oversight for any given program, the PRU Crew is willing to bet that if anyone from the Chicago Archdiocese Children Matter Network were asked if parents should ask these questions only in relation to issues of program employees and sexual predation on children, they would answer "No! Ask these questions of any program and facility where you send your children, to ensure you are sending them into a healthy and safe environment!"

So, all you SPC parents daring to ask questions and demand answers about the PADS program your pastor, Fr. Morello, and his fellow members of the PRMA wish to conduct in the school gym your children use...? Tell them the Archdiocese of Chicago suggested you do so.

A Good Idea!

We received the following "Alternate Suggestion to PADS" in an email. The PRU Crew thinks this is a very good idea!

1. We DO NOT INVOLVE the PADS people at all. Their screening is not satisfactory and their program has been dangerous in other towns. Their system only offers one night of undignified help and invites in homeless from other towns. PADS will increase the homeless population in Park Ridge. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

2. The Park Ridge Police Department would locate and identify the PARK RIDGE HOMELESS (which likely number 6-10 individuals). The PARK RIDGE HOMELESS are then fingerprinted to ensure that none of these
individuals are a danger to us or our children.

3. Every church in PRMA would shelter one homeless person per night. This idea eliminates a large group assembling around a church before and after they are sheltered.

4. The homeless would be sheltered in the rectory or another location in the church, but not in an area used by children.

5. Volunteers (and there are many) would be scheduled to come to each location, actually meet the homeless person, and bring a warm meal. Many volunteers and their families may want to spend time with the guest, have dinner with them, and engage them in meaningful conversation. (Rather than just "supervise" them as PADS volunteers do.) This would be a great way to teach children about how to care for others.

6. An additional volunteer can take the persons clothing home to be washed and returned fresh and clean (something else that is lacking in the current plan.)

7. With this system, the homeless can also spend time with one of our priests and discuss our faith (something that is actually prohibited by PADS policy)

8. Unlike the PADS idea, the homeless would not be forced to share a bathroom with 10-20 other homeless people, or wait in line for a toilet.

9. A comfortable fold out bed can be purchased for the guest to sleep on, in a dignified location, rather than on a hard mat or cot on the floor of a gym.

10. The guest could have access to a shower, a television set, and caring people. The PADS system would require the homeless to wash themselves in a sink in the boys bathroom.

11. In the morning, the guest would have breakfast and leave - showered, wearing clean clothes, and feeling that they just spent time with good Christian people who truly care about them. Their experience would be far more meaningful and dignified than any PADS shelter could offer.

12. Finally, as the guest leaves, he would be told which church to go to that night. That would ensure that only one person shows up at each location. It also ensures that we take care of the Park Ridge homeless, and not people from Chicago and other suburbs.

Additionally, this program addresses the issue 7 days a week. PADS only addresses it for one day. This program spreads the homeless out at numerous churches, rather than a large number at one location.

The exact originator of the idea is unknown to us, but we offer our PRUdos just the same.

Taste of Transparency?

If you had a chance to enjoy the offerings from the many vendors at the Taste of Park Ridge this past weekend, you can thank the people in the picture above -- along with many many other volunteers -- for organizing and carrying out the event.

Thank you, people in the above picture and many many others!

Last week our friends over at the Pub-dog's asked some questions about the financial arrangements of the Taste of Park Ridge event and corporation. The PRU Crew thinks the issues raised are worth exploring, and that the Pub-dog's questions are worth answering.

We're not sure if the strident objections to the Pub-dog's postings were because of their timing in writing their articles, or whether or not people really are foolish enough to prefer to look the other way on popular and well-liked events.

In either case, our hats are off to the Pub-dog's for looking past those things, daring to stand and be counted in the face of strong objections to hard questions about a popular event, and for forging ahead in the public light.

We're always going to support the public's right to know. So thank you also goes to the Pub-dog's.

Animusic!

From: http://www.animusic.com/

Have a good weekend!

Enjoy some food at the Taste of Park Ridge!

Another PRU Twofer!

Narcissus, by Michelangelo Caravaggio, ca. 1598


From the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate:

Clarification

July 7, 2008

The Rev. Carl Morello, pastor of St. Paul of the Cross Catholic Church, said this week that, while he left Park Ridge's July 1 Procedures and Regulations Committee meeting, he did not "storm out" as originally reported.

"I did choose to leave the meeting, after being verbally abused," Morello said, adding that he stayed for more than 30 minutes of public testimony on whether or not a proposed PADS shelter should be required to apply for a special use permit in Park Ridge. His church's parish life center is the second religious location in Park Ridge to have been proposed to host a weekly shelter in the colder months.

Morello said he also was mischaracterized as appearing not to care. "I do care. I have been and am meeting with my parishioners. I'm listening to them." A parish meeting is set for 7:30 p.m. tonight at St. Paul of the Cross's Holy Family Chapel, 320 S. Washington.


From Wikipedia:

Entitlement

Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights, or by agreement through law. It also refers, in a more casual sense to someone's belief that he/she is deserving of some particular reward or benefit. It is often used as a negative term in popular parlance (i.e. a 'sense of entitlement'). The legal term, however, carries no value judgment: it simply denotes a right granted. In clinical psychology and psychiatry, an unrealistic, exaggerated, or rigidly held sense of entitlement may be considered a symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Mayor Frinocchio!

The three articles below are very informative in how business gets done under the Frimark Administration.

Attorney and local political insider, Jack Owens, met privately before the City Council meeting to request assistance from Mayor Howard in getting the Council to discuss and act on a non-agenda item for an Owens' client, according to our sources. It probably helped that the architectural firm hired by Owens' client to do the build-out of the new space is another connected insider, Chipman Adams, of Executive Office Plaza infamy; the same architectural firm that designed the now troubled Public Works Service Center.

As many of our faithful PRU readers should know by now, the rules governing the Council in conducting public business means that only under the rarest of circumstances may the Council discuss and act on a non-agenda item. But discuss and act they did for these special "Friends of Frimark", and it's not as if either Owens or Chipman can make any claims about ignorance of our zoning codes.

And of course, Mayor Howard's response is so full of holes it's the press release equivalent of Swiss cheese. Curiously, Mayor Howard never mentions any of the facts surrounding the matter, such as his good buddy Jack Owens' name, the attorney for the owner of the property, nor the fact that again Chipman Adams is connected to the case and looking for a favor. It sure seems that Mayor Howard would rather give a wink and a nod in dealing with most subjects, and allow city staff to be used as lie-telling tools on behalf of his "friends".

PRUdos to Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg (1st Ward) for once again bringing to light the shady dealings of Mayor Howard and his cronies.

Did Council err in zoning advice

Amendment is needed for medical office locations

Mayor responds on office zoning

We're Just Asking!

Saint Dogbert -- copyright Scott Adams

Is St. Paul of the Cross Pastor Carl Morello stupid? Or, does he think his congregants are? Like our title says, we're just asking!

What has inspired our question is the June 29th offering from Father Carl's Corner.pdf In it we read that Fr. Carl realizes that the decision and announcement to have St. Paul of the Cross host the PADS homeless shelter was done "rather quickly", and "That Sunday, June 8th, I printed in the bulletin what had been said earlier in the week at the City Hall meeting and what was sure to go into the newspaper. I tell you this simply to say to all the parish there was no intent to be sly and slip this by anyone. Rather, it was truly an effort to get the right word out in a timely manner under the circumstances."

It seems to the PRU Crew that Fr. Carl may be unfamiliar with when the local rags come out. To be helpful, somebody should let Fr. Carl know that the Journal & Topics comes out on Wednesdays, and the Herald-Advocate comes out on Thursdays...following Mondays, when City Council meetings are held.

So let's see, "earlier in the week at the City Hall meeting" would have been Monday, June 2, where Adreinne Timm (SPC's Social Service Minister) announced to all present at the City Council meeting that St. Paul of the Cross would host the PADS homeless shelter. O.K., so what day comes before Monday... Oh that's right -- Sunday comes before Monday. And what happens on Sunday... Oh that's right -- Mass happens on Sunday...before Monday. And what do priests do at Mass on Sunday... Oh that's right -- priests give a homily.

So let's see, on the Sunday before the Monday when the City Council and others learned of St. Paul of the Cross's plan to play host to PADS, did Fr. Carl give a homily? Why, yes! He did! In that homily did Fr. Carl mention PADS? Why, yes! He did! At any time during that homily did Fr. Carl give his congregation the courtesy of telling them, before the rest of the Park Ridge community heard the announcement at City Hall, that St. Paul of the Cross would host the PADS homeless shelter this coming fall? Why, no! He didn't!

And then Fr. Carl went on his excellent Poland adventure.

Fr. Carl also says to his congregation, "I also want you to know this. There were some folks, who wrote to say they were disappointed that I did not talk to the parish more about this and bring it to a vote. I have to say honestly that a “vote” was not something I felt would ever be possible. That was clear to me just by the responses I have gotten thus far." Right. It's only in a real democracy that you take a chance on losing a "vote" and agree to abide by the majority vote.

In any event, Fr. Carl does seem to be aware that, democracy or not, his bumbling of the public relations effort by failing to discuss the PADS shelter with his congregation first could produce an undesirable effect upon SPC's coffers. So Fr. Carl and his band of merry PADS proponents have planned a semi-public meeting for tonight; a format that closely follows the previous PADS meeting held at St. Mary's Episcopal Church.

In another offering from Fr. Carl's Corner for June 22nd, we read about concerns expressed in SPC's parish survey regarding etiquette for Mass. In that missive, Fr. Carl notes, "Churches are meant to be sacred places were people can pray. Keeping the noise down helps create that space. Protracted and loud conversations are never appropriate. (emphasis added)

So of course, tonight's meeting is supposed to be held in the St. Paul of the Cross Holy Family Chapel.