In our last post, we hoped PRU readers would "critically consider" what was published in last week's Herald-Advocate.
If you read the Herald-Advocate, then you may have read their article What should be on the Napleton Cadillac site, about a meeting between approximately 50 residents and 5th Ward Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan. If you read that article, the following paragraphs may have struck you as something to critically consider:
Residents asked Ryan what they could do to get the land rezoned for townhouses or condominiums which are recommended in the 2002 Uptown comprehensive plan. Ryan said he did not know and would need to ask staff.
Acting Director of Community Development Carrie Davis told the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate that a request to rezone property can only be made by the property's owner.
"The owner is the only party that has the ability to bring forth the request for a zoning change," she said.
Davis also clarified that the Uptown plan's recommendations are not absolute: "It is not something that says, 'this is something that has to happen.' It is something the city uses as guidelines for determining the future land uses," she said.
Apparently Ryan wasn't fully aware of the residents' concerns, at least not enough to have consulted the City's Zoning Ordinance before attending the meeting. It has been reported that Ryan carried with him to the meeting a copy of the City's Uptown plan-.pdf, instead of a copy of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
News Flash for Ald. Ryan!!! Your constituents are already aware of what is contained in the Uptown plan. Didn't you think maybe they would want to know about the Zoning Ordinance too?
But o.k., we know Ald. Ryan is a busy guy with not enough time to show up to all required meetings, let alone look up local zoning laws. So when in doubt, ask a city staffer. And that's what the reporter for the Herald-Advocate did, which brings us to Ms. Carrie Davis, acting Director of Community Development. As noted above, Ms. Davis said, "a request to rezone property can only be made by the property's owner." (emphasis added)
We would like to now take the opportunity to introduce Ms. Davis -- and Ald. Ryan -- to the City's Zoning Ordinance-.pdf. It is a useful tool when conducting the job of Director of Community Development -- or Alderman -- in either a real or merely "acting" capacity.
A quick search of the Zoning Ordinance may even lead someone to the following:
4.8 ZONING AMENDMENT
A. Purpose
The regulations imposed and the districts created by this Ordinance may be amended from time to time in accordance with this Section. This process for amending the Zoning Ordinance text or the Zoning Map is intended to permit modifications in response to changed conditions or changes in City policy. Amendments are not intended to relieve particular hardships or confer special privileges or rights upon any person or party.
B. Initiation
An owner of any property in the City or the City may propose text or map amendments.
Does that say what we think it says? Does that say that an owner or the City may propose text or map amendments? Are "text or map amendments" the same thing as the "zoning change" Ms. Davis talked about?
The last paragraph of the Herald-Advocate article says:
Ryan promised residents he would support their desire to make the properties residential. "I think it's important to follow our [Uptown] plan," he said.No time like the present to keep that promise, Ald. Ryan.
As for Ms. Davis, by our count she's 0 and 2 in knowing the critical information available in the Zoning Ordinance, and providing that information to those with questions about a zoning issue.
And finally for residents with concerns about zoning issues or anything else...as one of our more friendly correspondents likes to quote, "Trust, but verify."
63 comments:
Good work Undergrounder!This week's Herald-Advocate, a story appeared, complete with photo, of 5th Ward Alderman Robert Ryan in the midst of 50 of his constituents, concerned about the development of the former Napleton Cadillac property.
There he stood, one arm in the air, appearing to be fervently focused on the issue at hand. He was having his John Adams moment.
As a member of the Save Cumberland Coalition, I have to ask...when do we get our piece of fiery oratory on our behalf?
If our group formed a human chain across Cumberland to protest the Cumberland Expansion, would he stand with us, or would a photographer have to be there? The Cumberland Extension, according to Mayor Frimark, has been put on the "backburner." Hmmm...no photo opp there.
Ryan has been publicly criticized for his lackluster performance as the 5th ward's voice at City Council. Has he had an epiphany? Is Ryan actually going to meet with the other citizens' groups he represents, or do we wait until we bump into him in the hallway at a City Council meeting?
Of course, there is always that hope that he has indeed had an epiphany. That he will roll up his sleeves and listen-with or without a camera poised to catch him in his aldermanic glory.
The 5th Ward should throw down the gauntlet. It's time for him to represent all of us.
With or without a photographer.
The Cumberland Patriot
Well stated, PRU.
Ms. Davis' comments in the article were noteworthy, of course, for what they *didn't* say. Which is, obviously, that the city can initiate a zoning change any time it wants to.
The comments of the Director of Community Development would lead some to believe that ONLY the owner of the Napleton property could request a zoning change. While she didn't just come out and say that changing the zoning would be impossible unless Napleton signs off on it, that's what her comments were intended to lead readers to believe.
And, of course, it's completely false. If the Mayor and the City Council just up and decided to honor The Plan and listen to the neighbors, they could propose, vote on, and pass a zoning change in a matter of weeks, if not days.
And Ms. Davis, the Mayor, and all the Aldermen know this good and well.
Nonetheless, they mustn't let the citizens know they know, because then people might hold them accountable. It's just so much easier to stonewall when people think there's nothing they can do about it.
This kind of stuff is SHAMEFUL. These people serve us. They should be working to *include* citizens in the political workings and decisions like this. Instead, they are doing what they can to keep citizens out of the process, to keep them ignorant of public policy, and further enable their end-runs around what the actual voting public of Park Ridge wants for it's neighborhoods.
It's up to us, the citizenry, to educate ourselves because it's become clear that these guys aren't going to be straight with us. PRU, you do a public service by running this blog and by posting the pertinent information for all to see.
Thank you and keep up the good work!
"the city can initiate a zoning change any time it wants to"
Hmmmm....
One problem with that, the City (Howard P. Frimark) doesn’t want to. It would be economically negative for certain individuals if that were to happen, so it never will.
Cumberland Patriot:
First of all, I agree with the premise that any alderman should represent his entire ward and should be willing to meet with all groups. There are many issues that one could go after related to Ryan - his attendance record is horrible. While I am not in his ward, I would certainly support the idea of someone running against him and hope that happens.
Having said that, isn't the Cumberland extension currently "dead in the water"? Please tell me where I am wrong but it is not true that even the funding for a study has been withdrawn? Of course, as with any issue, the whole thing could come back again. When it does your group and others need to make sure your voices are heard. I think it was your voices that helped to make it dead in the water. I also think based on my unscientific read that there is enough sentiment against it that it will never happen.
Your issue is the Cumberland extension. As of right now, through your voices and others, has your issue not been resolved? As of this moment there are no plans to go forward in any way with a Cumberland extension.
Am I the only one who actually likes some development? Maybe it is because I lived in the city for so long but I see no dangers of "caverns" in Uptown. The new building is only 4-5 stories high. Even it they were to build on the other side of NW the street is wide enough that there is no danger of caverns.
Of course the people have to watch out for inside deals and hold government accountable. They have to follow their own rules and if they change them it has to be in a visible and public forum. That is the purpose of these boards and a very valuable service.
But can't we at least chalk some of this up to a difference of opinion? The new development does not offend me in any way. I like Trader Joe's. I am glad it is in PR and think it adds to the community. My dog likes the new pet store, although she cannot vote. Conversely, some of you may think that the development is the sign of the downfall of PR.
Yeah Cumberland Patriot, your issue has been addressed, to your satifaction. Now run along and let the city get back to business as usual.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Backroom deals and private meetings? No, don't do that. Really. Trust us.
Go back to sleep.
Conform.
And don't ask any more questsion.
Obviously you did not read my entire post.
Anonymous 11:42,
You may not be the only one who is not offended or fearful that development will ruin P.R. but I would say beyond the developers and money grubbers you are in the minority. Tell me how much you don't mind it in a couple of years when the sweetheart tax incentives are up and store are not performing to the corporate measures and they are sitting vacant among the caerns. And no NW hwy is NOT that wide. Especially when variances allow for ZERO lot lines. It is a cavern. Overdevelopment is the downfall of a small residential community, urbanization is the very reason people move from the city out to the SUBURBS. Over developement, taller buildings, mega-retail, and resuraunts by the dozens, and with any luck, bars with entertainment will fill the gaps, puts us right back into the city we fled, but with higher taxes and less ammenities. Whoo Hooo!
Anonymous at 11:42 AM,
For the sake of discussion, would you be kind enough to explain or define what you mean by "some development"...?
...as I've not heard anyone profess to be against *all* development...but ymmv...
Anonymous wrote:
Am I the only one who actually likes some development....can't we at least chalk some of this up to a difference of opinion? The new development does not offend me in any way. I like Trader Joe's. I am glad it is in PR and think it adds to the community. My dog likes the new pet store, although she cannot vote. Conversely, some of you may think that the development is the sign of the downfall of PR.
You may not believe this, anonymous, but we're in agreement. I love Trader Joe's and love having it a few steps from my front door. I think the Uptown development has been designed and built well, looks great, positions some higher-density housing close to public transport and walking distance from Uptown shops, and I love what that does for and says about the community.
However, The Uptown Development Plan clearly states that the Napleton properties are supposed to revert to residential in the event of any change of ownership.
People agreed to development based on this plan. I bought recently, but looked at the plan and considered what would be across the street from me before deciding to buy.
I'm not opposed to all development. Not at all. Communities need development in order to grow and thrive.
What I'm against is when politicians play 'bait and switch' by saying what they need to say to get projects approved and then going back on their plans after the big stuff's already built.
And I'm also against things like a CVS pharmacy with a drive-thru, and a drive-thru bank because that type of development has zero to do with community and pedestrian traffic and everything to do with making money off of cars driving past.
Please don't misread my posts. I'm not against *any* development on the Napleton site. I just want to see the right kind of development. Development that is in keeping with the character of the community.
I thought the Cumberland thing was "on hold" and they could open it up again at any time.
I didn't know that it was completely cancelled.
Wow....it appears I hit a nerve. First of all I guess caverns is a matter of opinion. All I know is if I stand in front of Ridgeway Cleaners and look at the width of the street I do not see caverns based on my definition - even if they build 4-5 stories on the other side. I guess that is a matter of opinion. I have no problem with development as long as it is monitored and there is public input.
None of us know for sure what will happen with any development in a few years. I will grant you there is risk, but there is risk with any change. If I take your position, then we will have no knew development EVER. By the way, based on what I am seeing I do not think Trader Joe's is going anywhere. For you to say that the limited development here puts us "back in the city we fled" from my perspective is just not true. Guess we just look at it differently.
Lastly, Higher Taxes?????? What???? I am not sure what on earth you are talking about. I know taxes suck and I do not like to pay them either. But I had a place in the city that was about 1/3 smaller in sq. ft, had no yard and had one deeded parking space. My taxes the year I sold the place were about 40% higher then I paid here last year. I sold the place 5 years ago.
What do I mean by some development? My comment was aimed at what I perceive as some people who are very negative about the new development across Touhy from the library. I was simply saying that I like that development and do not think it negatively changes Uptown. If there are other developers who have an interest I would look at their proposals, designs, what they will use the space for etc.
But again, many here seem to have a different opinion. Any development must be evaluated within the existing rules and regulations in PR. Also, those who live closest to the development must have a voice.
ms. manchester"
I am not sure what the difference is. It is my understanding that they first wanted to do a study but that recently all state funding to do the study had been pulled off the table.
I guess canceled versus on hold is a matter of definition. I would seem to me that even if it were termed canceled, the issue could be re opened at any time.
Neighbor to napleton you make a great point that this argument is about what the city said it would do, and us as citizens believing them.
Saying that however,how is it that having a developed UPTOWN area destroys all of Park Ridge. Yes maybe there will be slightly more traffic around the area, but how are we losing are town when only a few blocks of the whole town change? I for one will never feel like I live in a big city just because one block of my town has high buildings on either side of the street.
I am new to this blog. I think it would be helpful if the authors of the blog let us know who they are. Thanks.
from Jennifer Johnson in the Herald-Advocate on July 17th:
The office of U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-9th, has withdrawn a request for $500,000 in federal funds that Park Ridge city officials were seeking in order to study the feasibility of extending Cumberland Avenue.
Peter Karafotas, deputy chief of staff for Schakowsky's Washington office, said the funds will not be requested for the city due to the opposition many residents expressed in regards to the possibility of Cumberland being extending north of the Metra tracks if an engineering study recommends it.
"After we found out that not everybody was on board with the project and that a number of residents were opposed, we withdrew the appropriations request," Karafotas said.
Park Ridge Mayor Howard Frimark, a supporter of the Cumberland study, said the study is now "on the back burner," and the decision to put it there actually came from discussions he had with Schakowsky.
["on the back burner" = until we can slide it in disguised as something else]
Neighbor to Napleton:
I agree with much of what you wrote in your 1:27 p.m. post, but with a strong exception to "and I love what that [the current Uptown structures]...says about the community," especially when you end your comment with an ode to the "character of the community" that those new Uptown buildings have nothing in common with.
What exactly does plopping a few 5-story buildings in the middle of a two story Uptown say "about the community"?
We didn't need those buildings dropped there (with some heavy taxpayer subsidies, by the way) in order for our single family homes to appreciate by an average of approx. 10%/yr., so we can only hope they'll come close to that rate with all these condos clogging up Uptown and competing for what has become, hopefully only temporarily, a dwindling supply of buyers.
And you're just plain wrong when you say that "people agreed" to the Uptwon Development Plan.
"People" had no say in the plan because it was rubber-stamped by the Uptown Advisory Task Force comprised mostly of members who could be counted on to go along to get along - the typical usual suspects like pre-alderman Robert Ryan, Pickwick's Dino Vlahakis, pre-ald. Kirke Machon, realty speculator Owen Hayes, former ald. and EDC gofer John Kerin, and realtor Don Sebastian.
So if "character of the community" is your thing, remember that before those blockbusters were built on Touhy and NW Hwy., there were fewer 5-story condos than there were drive-in banks in town.
anonymous2, if you think the developers are stopping with multi-story residential when they finish the current Uptown buildings, you're kidding yourself. Exec. Office Plaza is already teed up on the east end of Uptown, and the City Council is in the process of expanding R-5 zoning into the west and southwest end as well.
how is it that having a developed UPTOWN area destroys all of Park Ridge. Yes maybe there will be slightly more traffic around the area, but how are we losing are town when only a few blocks of the whole town change? I for one will never feel like I live in a big city just because one block of my town has high buildings on either side of the street.
--anonymous2
well, i don't think it does destroy anything. sometimes people have very strong negative reactions to change, especially BIG change. uptown development is a big change, but no, it's not going to destroy park ridge. people overstate things when they're emotional. that's understandable, i think.
I think it would be helpful if the authors of the blog let us know who they are. Thanks.
--anonymous 2:12pm
why? what would be helpful about that? you don't need to know who someone is to assess the validity of what they say.
FYI
Just recently I received a phone call from U.S.Rep. Jan's office in D.C.
The caller " Daniel" stated the following:
" WE WERE TOLD BY MAYOR FRIMARK
THAT ALL OF THE PEOPLE WANTED
THE CHANGE IN CUMBERLAND AVE".
" HOWEVER, NOW THAT WE HAVE
BEEN GIVEN THE TRUTH THAT
THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT --BEEN
ASKED AND THAT THEY DON'T
WANT CUMBERLAND REVISED -
WE WILL NOT ASSIST WITH
THOSE FUNDS".
" WE WILL IN THE FUTURE ASK
ALL OF THE ALDERMAN FIRST -
THEN GET THEIR COMPLETE
APPROVAL ON ANY FUTURE
REQUESTS FOR FEDERAL ROAD
PROJECTS".
What exactly does plopping a few 5-story buildings in the middle of a two story Uptown say "about the community"?
I'm glad you asked! To me, putting higher-density residential buildings there speaks to a desire to place a larger number of people in close proximity to public transportation, something that i view as tremendously important in this age of global warming, and the geo-political problems that our current dependence on foreign oil is causing.
I also view the Uptown development as an effort on the part of the city to cultivate a city center in which walking can serve as the main mode of local transportation for a large number of people. This recalls another era, one in which small and mid-sized towns had downtown areas which people utilized on a daily basis for the necessities of life. People knew each other and the shopkeepers and this fostered a sense of community that has all but disappeared in today's America.
It's a phenomenon that got lost a few decades ago, especially out in some of the more newly-developed suburbs which have been built and designed solely for car travel. They stopped building sidewalks and small shops and just built bigger and bigger parking lots, mega-malls, and four lane highways. and along the way, much of America lost its sense of belonging and community. Why? Because so many of us simply go from our enclosed garage to our enclosed parking spot and back again every day (with a couple stops at drive-thrus along the way). How can you foster community when you never see anyone?
So this Uptown development appeals to me on two levels;
1)Putting more people in a position to walk to shops/restaurants/public transportation is good for the environment.
2)Having a pedestrian-centric central district fosters a sense of community among the residents and offers better opportunity for people to get to know their neighbors.
as far as whether the people agreed to The Plan or not, you may be correct. I am ignorant of the history of how it came about. Nonetheless, the city should adhere to The Plan, the final draft of which is online for all to read.
NtoN,
To address your two points of how the Uptown development appeals to you...
>>1)Putting more people in a position to walk to shops/restaurants/public transportation is good for the environment.<<
...that sounds so reasonable upon a cursory review...but in actuallity, the number of people walking in the area does not balance out the number of people still...and who will be...driving to and through the area. Further, the increased traffic...in conjunction with the slower movement of traffice and greater idling times...is a greater detriment to the surrounding air quality...
>>2)Having a pedestrian-centric central district fosters a sense of community among the residents and offers better opportunity for people to get to know their neighbors.<<
...it may be only my opinion, but I find the development anything but "pedestrian-centric"...and certainly not "pedestrian-friendly"...
The tremendous increase in residential density for the development...as well as the wish to increase that same sort of density in the immediate surrounding area...has two goals, and only two goals...
1...provide a "market" to support the increased amount of commercial space...
and more importantly...
2...provide the developers with "easy pickins" for real estate sales...
Weren't no nothin' about "fostering a greater sense of community"...but that sure does make for a good story-line...
...all at the expense of taxpayers who did not get to vote about any of this...and had to "give-up", whether they wanted to or not, about 10 or 12 acres of a park-like green space in the center of town...
I have to pile on here and agree with Bean; the new development in Uptown is not necessarily conductive to a pedestrian environment or fostering a greater sense of community in Park Ridge, or anywhere for that matter. Just because we have have multistory buildings (someday) filled with people doesn't mean you'll see these and others walking around and mingling! By the way, the design with zero lot lines (to maximize space) is hazardous to pedestrians. The sidewalks are a mess after snowplowing. And if you think this new development will bring back to good old days of Americana of the 1940's and '50s, with a small town atmosphere in which everyone knows each other, you're nuts. And oh by the way, I thing the new buildings are eyesores.
I think a lot of this frustration today and in the past is based on the fact that we are being kept out of decisions made regarding the community development.
YES, we should all attend city council and commission meetings, but wouldn't it be nice to televise them so that those who cannot make it still know what's going on?
Oh, that's right, I forgot, the mayor doesn't want us to know what's going on AND he spent all the money that could've been used to get this set up in city council chambers on STUPID STUDIES ABOUT STUFF WE DONT WANT OR NEED.
p.s. Alderman Dave, you are very quiet.
Televised meetings....hmmmmm. How many people here watch CSPAN??
Probably more than you think. But ratings aren't all they're cracked up to be. Nor should that be the foundation and reason for whether or not government provides access to its information and functioning.
think of all those senior citizens who voted for Howie and think he's just the bestest.
then they are home, watching TV and the city council meetings are available.
hmmmm...reality bites.
I agree most of the development is crap.
There's already enough traffic in the area why add more?
I may understand why some may like it and in a way I hate to be one of those who do complain about such stuff especially now with seeing some store vacancies Uptown especially south of the tracks.
But with the ammount of traffic that goes through the area they should of comsidered building something not as large.
Regarding Cumberland...in the Thursday, July 17th Herald-Advocate article itled "Residents' concerns set back Cumberland study" the mayor is quoted saying, "We sat down and talked about it, and we felt at this time we should work on something she feels could get through right away. So we changed focus."
Just to set the record straight, according to Rep. Schakowsky's office, Frimark and she did NOT sit down and discuss. Rep. Schakowsky, upon learning that there was opposition to the extension called Frimark and told him the request for funds was being pulled. He was told that when the council and citizens are in agreement, the request can be re-submitted.
In addition, at the council meeting when the Mayor discussed the request for funds he stated that the cost for the study would be $50,000-$100,000, yet the request for funds was for
$500,00.
Seems the Mayor's version is what he'd like it to be, rather than the reality.
Anon@6:14 --
We hate to nitpick, but do you have any authority or proof to be setting the record straight on what happened or did not happen between Mayor Howard and Rep. Jan?
Here I go headed for a lashing again!
I am assuming that what they would televise is exactly what I would see at meeting that I chose to attend. They would not be televising the mysterious closed sessions - if they did they would not be very closed. So the reason for televising the meetings is that I don't want to get off my fat ass and drive the maybe 10 min max from virtually anywhere in PR (5 min from where I live) to go to the meeting and/or I do not want to read the minutes of the meeting (again the closed meetings would not be available).
I have been to many meetings where there are plenty of seats available. Are you saying that Bill and Mary Parkridger are going to watch the meetings rather then what ever stupid freakin reality program is on.
I agree about the concerns expressed here about closed meetings, but televising meetings is not going to change that. Every bit of information that they would televise is available today.
Also, if I go to the meeting, I can actually talk with members and/or my Alderman after the meeting.
The televising discussion is not about whether they do or do not provide access. It has to do with the medium in which they provide it.
Anon@6:44 --
Nobody has any intention of lashing you yet. We're more interested in helping you pry your head out of your ass.
1 -- Not every ass is fat and still such non-fat asses may have difficulty making it to a meeting. We're thinking of all the lovely mommies in town with very nice asses and their assholes who may have to work late. Our lovely mommies in town are not the only people who may not be able to physically go to City Hall to watch and hear a public meeting.
2 -- Giving people the option of turning on their television to watch a public meeting may make them more apt to make the effort to watch the meeting, hear the issues, and thus become more well informed; rather than having to turn over the ignition in their car, drive to the meeting, find a parking space, and hike up the stairs to City Hall. And we don't know about you, but the contents of the Crew's refrigerators is superior to anything offered by the vending machines at City Hall.
3 -- Not every bit of information is available now from what happens at meetings. Our most recent example of that would be what was reported to us about the Mayor's conduct at the last meeting. You can bet your happy ass none of that will ever appear in the official minutes of those meetings, and we don't remember seeing any of it in the press either; making the medium of television very useful for providing the whole picture of the tone, tenor, flavor and conduct of those at the meeting -- much better than what either the meeting minutes or local press reports.
Bonus! Televise meetings and PRU becomes much less important on Tuesday mornings. Our readership numbers go wild on Tuesday mornings.
in many towns, the meetings are on TV, then rebroadcast at different times on a local cable channel.
it's not just at 730pm on a Monday.
I think MANY people would be interested in watching them.
However, Howie would have to get some manners and not make the rude comments that he tends to make. Decorum would have to be followed. I'm not sure if he could handle that.
A few points.
1.How about we wait until the Uptown Development is actually completed before we judge how "pedestrian friendly" it is. I have to say, just the addition of the light at Summit and blocking of Meacham has made crossing Touhy a lot more friendly.
2. Our little community is dependent on having a thriving commercial base. Since an earlier generation of fear-mongers kept the city from annexing the south side of Higgins road, we are pretty limited with our commercial property (TAX BASE). Replacing a water tank with high-density development seems to me to be a pretty good trade. Also, a I recall, the TIF money payed for the public parking, streetscape throughout the downtown, new streetlights, signals and the beautiful park at 6 corners. Where was the givaway?
3. Look at the exciting group of small shops and restaurant that have popped up across from the new development in the past year. Ask any of those owners, and they'll confirm that the redevelopment has been a catalyst for them investing in the community and helping to rebuild the tax base.
One last thing. While I agree that the city has the right to change zoning on a piece of property, don't you think if you were the owner of that property, that you'd have a voice in the decision? Especially if the value would be reduced as a result?
PRU 6:21
So far just verbal, working on getting it in writing...
As to the dollar amounts in question, that is in writing.
don't forget the 'you tube factor'. if it's been on tv, it's infinitely searchable and easily referenced forever, thanks to you tube.
so anyone who wants would be able to go back and watch any snippet of any city council meeting dating back to the first day they turn on the cameras.
37 posts in one day? is that some kind of record, well done.
Forgive me going off topic but after coming up from my basement after the tornado warnings with, miracle of miracles, the power still on, I can't help but wonder how much of Park Ridge is in the dark at the moment.
Anonymous at 7:33 PM,
1. When you say "completed", do you mean fully occupied...? Because in my view, with the bulk of the project already completed...the buildings built, the sidewalks installed, the balconies over the sidewalks offering their winter icicles to the pedestrians below...one could reasonably assess at this point whether or not the project is or is not "pedestrian-friendly"...
2. Our little community is definitely NOT dependent upon having a thriving commercial tax base...it never has been. Our little community has always been sustained by the residential property owners...it is the revenue derived from the value of our residential property that our little community has been dependent upon. I also believe that all the pie-in-the-sky promises of commercial tax base expansion will not come to fruition...
We did not replace a water tank...it was an underground water reservoir...a ginormous mixed use development was built on what used to be public green space... And so far, I do not believe the trade has meant much in the way of benefit for the average resident...not when the average resident is still supporting the TIF district through tax dollars, as opposed to the TIF district supporting itself, or miracle of miracles, the TIF district generating something that might support of the average resident by way of reducing their tax burden...
However, from your comment it sounds as if you don't understand that TIF dollars are actually tax dollars, i.e. public dollars...as you said, "the TIF money payed for the public parking, streetscape throughout the downtown, new streetlights, signals and the beautiful park at 6 corners. Where was the givaway?" um...Howard is that you?
3. We, you and I, must get "excited" by different things...because I must be honest when I say I do not find any of those new little shops "exciting" in the least... In fact, while I continue to patronize the old shops, I did give a few of the new shops a whirl...and found them outrageously expensive or simply not to my personal liking...
While a couple of the owners of those new little shops have said they looked forward to the development, I also have heard them voice complaints about it too. All is not rosy between the new shop owners and the development across the street. And when my property tax bill stops rising, and my school district stops asking for referendum money because the TIF is done and they are reaping the promised windfall from the development, THEN I'll believe that any new businesses in town and the development have "rebuilt the tax base"...
As for the city changing zoning...I believe you might be referring to the Napleton property? I believe Mr. Napleton already "voiced" his feelings, as reported in the paper, that he too would like to see residential development on the property he is looking to sell to some developer. Are you suggesting that Mr. Napleton should not be taken at his word? Or, are you looking to assist Mr. Napleton in asking the city *again* for a give-away, to clean-up the property he made a mess of with his business, before he sells it to a developer who will then ask for height and density variances...you know, because that's the only way such deals make "economic sense"...?
Drats! That was me posting all that response to Anonymous...I forgot to type in my name...sorry!
Bean...honey...we...knew...it...was...you...! ;-)
BWAHHAAA...HEY!!
Don't worry Mouse, I'm here. I'm listening. Alot of territory has been covered here. I'll chime in on this: the proposed R-5 expansion is perhaps the most harmful zoning change this Council will ever address. The ramifications for the character of our City are monumental. If all plays out as some R-5 supporters envision, Park Ridge will end up being indistinguishable from Des Plaines, Mount Prospect, Arlington Heights or any other suburb along METRA's northwest line.
And the prospect of lining the north side of Northwest Highway with four or five-story condos saddens me and leaves a real bad taste in my mouth. I will not go quietly on that one.
See you later Mouse.
Careful Bean, your BWWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA! is shoing.
Has anyone else noticed the increased quality in the reporting of Jennifer Johnson at the Hearld Advocate? It seems she is getting a fire under her belly and exposing the Park Ridge political system. Thoughts?
Wonder what's taken her so long to do that?
Uhh, someone is actually reading and editing her work before it goes to print?
And that somebody is not named Anne??
Bean:
I do not want to argue TIF's. It is clear that I am way overmatched in that argument. I will stipulate that it is obviously way too early to deam the new development a financial success. As to if it will ever be a windfall remains to be seen and then of course there will be a huge debate over exactly what a windfall is. If what you expect (or what was promised) is what I would consider a windfall, I would say it is a longshot at best.
As to the comments on pedestrian friendly. I guess I just don't notice these things that other people notice. It seems like most of the community just must be looking at different things then me. I lived in a condo once where someone complained I had installed my dead bolt too high on my door. I was amazed that someone actually noticed that. I guess I must just walk through life in a daze sometimes.
What the hell exactly is pedestrian friendly?? If I walk to the new development I have to go through Uptown and across Touhy/NW. This is a busy corner but there are walk lights (maybe we could build a pedestrian underpass). Once I am by the new development there are sidewalks. How hard is this? What else do you want? Is it really a concern that we are headed into a severe icicle problem? Again, I amazed that someone would think of this. Of course, if I walk to Uptown in the winter I have to deal with about half of the residences that do not shovel their walks after a snow storm as well as the icicles on trees.
Lastly, you and the prior poster have different opinions as to whether the shops are exciting. Isn't that one of the main points? There are 37,000 + people in PR which make up a great deal of different opinions. I want things to be done in the open, above baord, with input from the community and especially those who are close neighbors. But I am not so nieve to think that every decision made in PR is going to be 100% to my liking. You do not like the development and the way that it happened (at least it would appear that way by your posts) but isn't it possible that there is a group of people who live in Park Ridge who are happy it is there? Who are glad we have a Trader Joe's Store and look forward to some of the other stores? You may not understand us, poor midguided souls that we are, but we exist.
Anonymous at 10:08 PM,
Yes! Let's argue about TIFs...because I would win win win!!! Wheeeee!
Regarding...>>What the hell exactly is pedestrian friendly??<< I could go look up some urban planning criteria...but I'm too lazy and it's getting late... Suffice it to say...like erotic art vs. pure porn...you know the difference when you see it...you know the difference between *just a sidewalk* and walkways that are "pedestrian-friendly"...
Yes...different strokes for different folks on shopping til you are dropping...but the point being made about the new little shops was their presence due to the development and their rebuilding the tax base (I didn't know it had fallen down...?)...and I just don't see that happening...
You are correct...while I do like elements of the development (Trader Joes, for example) I think overall I do not like it...it's huge and over-done for the space it is in...along with things like balconies that over-hang the sidewalks and DO pose a hazard to pedestrians...and I'd be 100% happy about accepting the development being there if the city had put the thing to a referendum (including the TIF district formation) and 51% of the voting public had expressed a "yes" on the matter...I'd be happy about the inclusive process and I'd accept the majority opinion...which doesn't mean something is right, just that it is desired by a majority...even if I wasn't happy about it.
In the absence of that...then the "happy people" simply will have to put up with critics like me...and that is something you will have to understand, if not accept.
Zoinks! Away for one day and I have to take an hour to read the comments. What's it going to be like when I go on vacation later this month... Probably come back to a Sam's Club in Hinkley Park.
So many good comments here. And several arguments (well, discussions, if you will) that remind me that most of us want the same thing here. Whether the Uptown development is pedestrian-friendly or not, whether you like the way its going or not, I think most would agree you don't want it creeping up or down Northwest Highway, or Prospect, or your street, wherever you live. Especially if its been previously presented to you as one thing and now, when it's "too late," sold to you as another. So maybe it's not as "pedestrian oriented" as it was supposed to be--does that mean now you'll support any kind of strip-mall coming here, any size of building?
The PRU article was right on, regardless of how the comments have been going. There are several avenues to rezoning, and, as was pointed out to me, page 17 of the Zoning Ordinance (https://www.parkridge.us/assets/Zoning_Ordinance_5-9-2007.pdf for the patient or masochistic) points out that "consistency with the comprehensive plan" (which includes the Uptown Plan) is one of the accepted standards for map amendment (aka changes) to current zoning. This is the perfect time for this, because ALL the properties concerned are vacant.
Bill Napleton is a smart businessman: he sees this crisis as an opportunity. He "agrees" the parcels should be residential, but sadly (sniff) doesn't see any way of this happening unless the City gives him some money. This statement has the two-fold benefit of 1) possibly getting him some of the money, or 2), more likely, making all of us say, "That'll be a Hooters before I give him a dime!" Pretty slick. Bet we'll see a letter to the editor to that effect (when none were published last week about this, except here of course).
Couple that with what has to be intentional misinformation from Ms. Davis. Could she really be that ignorant of the zoning ordinance, when a major overhaul of the map took place last year? There were many zoning changes then that weren't introduced by the owner of the properties.
Keep digging, Jennifer Johnson! You're getting more sources--now see if what they're saying holds up.
Call me a dreamer, but when I drive by the empty lot across from the Napleton spot, I just keep thinking, "wouldn't a simple park be great there?" Hasn't anyone noticed how our green spaces are shrinking? Noticed the huge building that is going up at the corner of Northwest Highway and Greenwood? It completely changes the feel of that corner, and just wait until the Heinz project across the street begins. And those are residential developments-- they have just as much ability to change the feel of a neighborhood as a commercial development does. Wait until the Executive Office property is developed! It's all too much. I miss the town that was Park Ridge. I miss the trees and the grass. It's that simple. I know that I am not alone in feeling this way.
Bean:
Thanks for your reply. I am somewhat of a disadvantage in that I was not hear for the battles around this project going or not going forward. They were already well underway when I got here.
I will defend your right to be critical and I think it adds a great value to the dialogue, especially when it is aimed at the processes and proceedures, or lack there of, of our local government.
But, because of our differences in the way we look at things, when I hear things like pedestrian friendly and icicles of the balconies I just have to breath deeply and scratch my head.
That too is a good thing. Based on things I have read on this board, I have started out not understanding peoples positions but with a little information, and digestion have come to understand (not always agree but understand).
Anon 7:33
Did I miss something? Did you say cozy shops in the new development? Which shops are those? The chain eye glass store, the chain Noodles& co, the Houllahans that's coming, Banks, Chico's? ALL chain retailers that you can find in the 5 next nearest surrounding towns. OOOOOOOOH charming!Nothing cute or charming just generic delveloper garbage. With promises or tax revenue without tax releif for the residents.
Perhaps before planning the next redevelopement we should wait til this one is complete and after Norwood is done as well to see how the uptown has morphed and then decide how much more we REALLY need.
Anonymous August 4, 2008 7:33 PM:
For the past 25 years "our little community" has not had, and will not likely ever again have, a "thriving commercial base" - unless you pack in several thousand more residents/customers and/or you turn it into Edison Park with a bundle of restaurants/bars to attract outsiders.
How many current residents are willing to sign onto THAT kind of experiment? We'll never know, because nobody will ask them, just like nobody really even asked them about the current redevelopment.
Sure, let's "look at the exciting group of small shops and restaurant that have popped up across from the new development in the past year" and then let's see how many are still around a year or two from now. Anybody can take a flier and open a place with several months of free rent and other concessions from a developer looking fill marginal retail space, but staying power is the key.
That's why if we as a community had any brains at all, we would not do one more major redevelopment project in or around Uptown until this current "Target Area II" phase of Uptown Redevelopment (including the development that's already been approved - EOP and Heinz residential) was completed and we could assess its success and its effect on the community.
But with the land speculators looking to get their money out of their investments, the developers at the ready, and Mayor Frimark looking to make their dreams come true, watch us move full speed ahead into the next "phase" of Uptown Redevelopment - I think it's supposed to be Target Area IV - and the character and feel of the community be damned!
Why do you think they're trying so hard to expand R-5 into the west and southwest edges of Uptown?
anonymous @ 1:17am---I have had the same thoughts. YES! A PARK THERE! Like the rose garden in Evanston? Maybe not that extravagant. Now we just need to get Howie's greedy friends to donate it to the city that they sucked so much money out of.
hmmmm
Back to Jennifer Johnson at the Herald-Advocate, did anyone see this article called "When Park Ridge Objected Before..."
(on the front page of the website this a.m.)
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/parkridge/news/1082245,pr-objections-073108-s1.article
Interesting!!
Developers are not dumb. With the fool in the mayor's office they know they must grab while the gettin's good. With people waking up and taking notice, howard will not be in office after next year. God help us.
To Dave:
What do you mean by the past 25 years and what was different prior to that time?
What I'vew wondered these past several years is what all those bussinessess that were here long before the current development feel about it?
Reading the papers for years I don't recall ever seeing anything in the papers on it.
Not to be too much off topic:
Speaking of parks...What ever happened to the proposed park/greenspace for the triangular piece of land between Dee/Oakton/Busse?
It is my understand that the Enterprise Rent a car is moving and going to be building on that spot.
I am all for green space but that has to be one of the craziest places to put a park I have ever heard of.
Im just thinking that having anything commercial on that spot would just add to the traffic problems that already exist. I would think that a green area but not so much a park may look better than the eyesore there now and not add any more problems to an already troubled area. It's a bit small to put any sort of park of any substance but maybe just a couple trees. Maybe a statue to Mayor Fri...kidding kidding...
I hope any plans for something at that site actually dont have a lot that is accessed by Oakton and Busse. I can just see that as a shortcut for those who already disregard all rules of the road (and everyone else around them) in an attempt to get through that intersection quicker.
Post a Comment