Boo!

Have a Happy Halloween!

City Council Recap!

A quickie!

At last night's City Council meeting Mayor Howard read a statement saying, "Journeys from PADS to HOPE will not be expanding their service area to include the city of Park Ridge." Mayor Howard then said that in light of this development he was withdrawing his recommendation to the City Council for consideration of his homeless shelter contract scheme to provide the Public Works Center as a PADS site.

Mayor Howard went on to remind those in attendance that the City Council still has "difficult decisions to make" and will be discussing the remaining text amendment and licensing ordinances at their next meeting on November 17, 2008.

The work isn't over, but a big hunk of what we feel was a disaster waiting to happen has been removed. We hope our City Council will address this issue in a way that places the concerns and interests of residents and taxpayers ahead of any other special interests.

The City Council then moved on to consideration of whether or not the city's liquor ordinances should be amended to allow for arcade games and other entertainment to be allowed in establishments that serve alcohol. That action was referred back to the Procedures and Regulations Committee for further discussion.

Finally, we hear PRUdos may be in order for a certain city employee's promotion! The PRU Crew wanted to light some sparklers to celebrate, but we understand that's illegal!

Short but sweet!

Late Edition -- Soapbox!

Published with permission of the author.

Please note -- Officer Strada is expressing his personal opinion gleaned from experience; he is not acting as a spokesman for the City of Evanston, nor in any official capacity.


October 28, 2008

RE:Homeless Shelter

Dear Aldermen, Paul Chevlin & the Greenwood-Busse Neighborhood Coalition,

I have been a Park Ridge home owner for the past twenty eight years. I live on a nice quiet block & have nice neighbors. I would like to keep it that way, but I know that if the City goes forward with it's plan to open a homeless shelter at the end of my block life as we know it will be gone forever.

Let me explain. I am a police officer in the City of Evanston & have first hand experience in dealing with the homeless. Evanston has a homeless shelter, a battered women's shelter & about six soup kitchens. The homeless shelter has rules & lets a person stay there as long as he/she is in need, is actively looking for work & is not intoxicated by drugs or alcohol. If the person is in violation of the rules the person is not allowed into the shelter. This puts the person in the neighborhood & is now a problem for the residents. The homeless subject usually wanders around until he finds somewhere to sleep off his intoxication. I am called frequently to remove some one from a back yard or front porch of some unsuspecting citizen. We have frequent complaints of the homeless urinating & even defecating in private back yards & alleys.

We have increased domestic disturbances as the men & women "hook up" at the shelter. We have panhandling all over the downtown area & the citizens constantly complain about that. There is increased retail thefts, residential burglaries & car burglaries. Remember they are homeless, jobless & penniless.

Many of the homeless have extensive criminal histories. Not all homeless are bad people. But, some make being homeless a career. They don't want to live as we do & have told me so. I have seen the same faces on the street for the past 10 – 15 years. Once you open the door to this type of community service you will never be able to close it again.

Park Ridge has always been known as a quality community with good schools, good property values & a lower than average crime rate. If the City persists in its plans, the property value in my area will plummet & the crime rate will sky rocket. The children in my area play freely outside now, but how safe will they be if Mayor Frimark has his way?

The other thing that the Mayor should consider is the cost. Even if the City did not have to donate a building it is going to cost us, the tax payer. There will be more calls for service to the police department& more ambulance calls for the fire department. More calls for service means more police & fire personnel will be needed & more equipment & more salaries & benefits etc. And lets not kid ourselves, the City will wind up kicking in some money every time things get tight for the shelter. There goes even more of our tax dollars.

Please, consider this step carefully. Do what is right for Park Ridge!

Robert Strada

><{{{{{{*><*}}}}}}><

Mayor Howard Stars As...

As many of you already know, the city sent out a press release saying that tomorrow night's City Council agenda will not include the final reading of the zoning text amendment or licensing ordinances for temporary shelters.

An online update on the Herald-Advocate web site details Mayor Howard's desire to have his contract idea reviewed by the City Council before the aldermen vote to adopt the ordinances legalizing operation of temporary homeless shelters. According to the article, "The mayor said he believed that it is in everyone's best interest to have a proposed agreement that meets the needs of the Park Ridge Ministerial Association representatives and Journeys from PADS to HOPE before the City Council discusses this issue further," the release states."

Got that people? It's in everyone's best interest to see to it the needs of the PRMA and Journeys from PADS to HOPE are met before any further discussion, which the PRU Crew reads as meaning before the needs of Park Ridge residents and taxpayers are considered and met. Park Ridge residents and taxpayers just don't seem to be much of a priority for Mayor Howard -- so many deals, so many friends, so little time.

We're wondering exactly how it is in everyone's best interest to see to it the PRMA and Journeys from PADS to HOPE are protected from the special use permit and licensing process before there are ordinances enacted to require a special use permit and licensing process? Why is it that Mayor Howard is pulling the City Council in the direction of specifically considering the PADS franchise before the City Council generally considers regulation of temporary homeless shelters?

We're also wondering a couple other things, such as why the meeting agenda doesn't list Mayor Howard's PRMA/PADS shelter contract scheme as a discussion item, and why the city web site hasn't posted a copy of the "licensing agreement."

The PRU Crew can't do anything about the agenda, but here for your review is a copy of the proposed "licensing agreement."

PRMAPADSLicAgrmt - Upload a Document to Scribd

Bandito Brett McCleneghan!

Last Friday, our buddies over at the Pub-dog's site put up a post they called "Caesar? We Don't Need No Stinking Caesar!" The Pub-dog's discussed an email chain that featured the Park Ridge Community Church Senior Pastor Brett McCleneghan suggesting that people interested in opening a PADS shelter should "ignore the city and open the shelter."

The PRU Crew can't say where the Pub-dog's got a copy of the email they are citing and so we can't vouch for their source, but we're willing to vouch for ours and that the email from Big Talking Bandito Brett does appear to be authentic. And we're pretty sure not a single sender or recipient in that email chain is tech-savvy enough to engage in email spoofing, let alone Pastor Bandito Brett who doesn't seem to be able to grasp the simple principles of being a law-abiding member of a community.

Unlike St. Paul of the Cross Pastor Carl Morelleon, who seems to relish the role of dictator, Bandito Brett seems to prefer a role that offers a bit more of an outlaw persona. Though we do wonder why Bandito Brett hasn't offered up his own church as a site for a homeless shelter since the full text of Bandito Brett's email says, "I would hesitate to call good news any provision which allows the City to regulate, approve or license ministries of the Church. This establishes a dangerous and clearly unconstitutional precedent. Ignore the city and open the shelter."

And there you have it people -- at least one member of the PRMA, and probably all the others too, does not believe homeless shelters should be subject to any public oversight, even when it has been clearly established that the shelter operator -- in this case, PADS -- is publicly funded. And avoiding public oversight is precisely why Journeys from PADS to Hope has hidden behind churches who eagerly take up their cause in the name of religious free expression. And avoiding public scrutiny is precisely why PADS is alleged to have told Mayor Howard they would agree to a contract with the City of Park Ridge because they have "issues" with being subject to special use permitting and licensing procedures.

Some of the other recipients in the email chain include --

Pat Harrington -- Journeys from PADS to Hope, Inc.'s PADS Program Director

Amity Carrubba -- former Pastor at St. Mary's Episcopal Church

Gerry Gunderson -- Pastor at Mary Seat of Wisdom Church

Ted Stone -- Priest at Mary Seat of Wisdom Church

Stephen Larson -- Pastor at St. Luke's Lutheran Church

Jim McCracken -- Pastor at Park Ridge Presbyterian Church

Jack Owens -- Park Ridge zoning attorney and Friend of Frimark

Laurie Pegler -- An attorney tracking mold issues for the Property Loss Research Bureau, a national organization that serves insurance companies. (per our source)

We have no way of knowing if any of the people sharing in this email chain subsequently tried to pull Bandito Brett back onto the reservation, but we do know that one recipient, Ms. Laurie Pegler, got out her pom poms and cheered Bandito Brett on -- saying in part, "Contrary to the statement that a shelter cannot be opened without a zoning provision in place, it is legal to do so in the absence of a law to the contrary. Open the shelter using the compassion and empathy and common sense, not to mention patience, exhibited to date."

As we told our source, Ms. Pegler should stick with chasing mold -- municipal law is clearly over her pay grade.

While the PRU Crew recognizes and would strongly defend the right of each of these people to voice their opinion on any public issue of their choice, we take great exception to the arrogant and callous disregard PADS supporters have shown to their fellow parishioners, neighbors, and our community as a whole. "Patience", Ms. Pegler? You've got to be kidding!

We feel it is the height of corrupted contempt to not only try to shove their current pet social cause down the throats of everyone else, but to also suggest that the process of public governance, debate, and the laws of the community should be ignored if the outcome isn't exactly what they desire.

But hey, maybe the PRU Crew is just being grumpy about things like public discussion and respect for the rule of law. After all, Bandito Brett is one of the people Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan told us we should trust.

Addendum -- per "Anon's" request --

Opening email:

From: Gxxxxx Kxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:09 AM
To: xxxxx
Subject: PADS

Good Morning... and it is a good morning!!!

It looks like some positive movement has occurred!! I do not know if there are still issues which must be considered, but all the prayers and diligence have produced the below!!
I will send on any new information I receive. If anyone else gets new information, please send it on for the rest of us.

Keep the faith,
Gxxxxx

Updated 10/21: Park Ridge gives shelters first OK

(copy of H-A article)

Bandito Brett's Response:

>>> "Brett McCleneghan" 10/22/2008 9:15 AM >>>

Dear Friends,

I would hesitate to call good news any provision which allows the City to regulate, approve or license ministries of the Church. This establishes a dangerous and clearly unconstitutional precedent.

Ignore the city and open the shelter.

Grace and Peace,

Brett W. McCleneghan

Attorney Pegler's response:

From: Laurie Pegler
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:23 AM
To: xxxxx
Subject: RE: PADS

Brett,

Thank you for reading my mind and identifying the issue: Contrary to the statement that a shelter cannot be opened without a zoning provision in place, it is legal to do so in the absence of a law to the contrary. Open the shelter using the compassion and empathy and common sense, not to mention patience, exhibited to date.

Laurie

Strut Your Stuff!

Daniele3205

Have a great weekend!

Guest Essay -- Open Letter

Published with permission of the author

From: Rick Biagi
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:52 AM
To: carey407@comcast.net, dschmidt@cmn-law.com
Subject: Mayor Frimark Proposal re PADS

Aldermen Carey and Schmidt:

First, I want to thank you both for voting on the side of protecting our community last night. Your strong stance last evening on the various proposed amendments to the shelter ordinance was commendable and I truly appreciate the leadership role that you both took at the meeting. I especially want to thank you for exposing the obvious issues raised by Mayor Frimark’s proposal to waive the co-applicant requirement for PADS if the City actually hosts the site. Alderman Carey - you hit the nail squarely on the head when you stated that PADS’ reluctance to be a co-applicant points to some deeper issue that must be uncovered. I couldn't agree with you more.

That being said, I also have some concerns with the City Attorney’s statement to the City Council that requiring PADS and PRMA to enter into a binding contract with the City actually gives the City more protection than it would otherwise have. I respectfully disagree with the City Attorney’s position on this.

The City Attorney seems to base his opinion (that the contract provides stronger protection to the City, even in the absence of the co-applicant requirement) on two points, 1) that PRMA and PADS would be contractually bound by all of the restrictions set by the Council in the ordinance, and 2) that the facts that PRMA and PADS would contractually agree to not challenge the validity and/or constitutionality of the ordinance and its various restrictions insulates the City from potential litigation.

Point One – The fact that PRMA and PADS would be contractually bound to the restrictions set by the ordinance is irrelevant and, frankly, redundant. The fact of the matter is that the homeless shelter (no matter who operates it) would be legally bound by the restrictions set forth in ordinance (whether or not a contract is in place). The only “benefit” the contract gives the City is that they can now sue PRMA and/or PADS for breach of contract if they fail to abide by the terms of the ordinance. In reality, the better legal remedy for the City is the revoke their license rather than to spend money on litigation. There would likely be no monetary damage award in such litigation (and even if there was, PADS and PRMA have little money to begin with) and the only likely remedy would be to order specific performance by PRMA and/or PADS (i.e. to force them to comply with the ordinance). So, in the end, the notion of contractually binding PADS and PRMA to the terms of the ordinance has virtually no benefit to the City.

Point Two – One of our fellow citizens made the point last night that PRMA is not really a legal entity, it is merely a collection of local churches. I confirmed with the Illinois Secretary of State that there is no legal entity authorized under the laws of the State of Illinois named “Park Ridge Ministerial Association”. Therefore, if PRMA fails to exist as a legal entity, it is highly unlikely that they can enter into a contract with the City of Park Ridge. Again, if that is true, there is no benefit to the City for such an agreement not to challenge the validity and/or constitutionality of the ordinance because PADS, on its own, is highly unlikely to fund litigation to challenge the ordinance. Moreover, if we assume for the moment that the PRMA can, in fact, legally enter into the Agreement, that would only insulate the City from litigation where PRMA and/or PADS is a Plaintiff. As I understand the Mayor’s proposal, that agreement would not prevent a parishioner from one of the PRMA churches to file suit on their own and not as a board member of PRMA. In reality, neither PRMA or PADS has the financial backing to fund litigation of this nature. The only parties that would have such resources are either wealthy churchgoers from Park Ridge or organizations such as the ACLU. Thus, the contractual provision which forbids PRMA and PADS from challenging the restrictions enacted by the City Council provides virtually no protection to the City from potential litigation.

I trust that you will both address these issues in more detail when the Mayor introduces his proposal again at the October 29th City Council meeting. Lastly, I hope that you both will remain firm in your position that a 500 ft restriction (from schools) is absolutely necessary to protect our children’s safety and well-being.

Yours very truly,

Rick (and Susan) Biagi
(Sixth Ward) (St. Paul of the Cross Parishioner – Washington School family)

Possibilities!

Some of the comments we've received have asked about any connection between the issues of homelessness and affordable housing. For those interested in a starting point on the subject, you can review our following posts --

1. The HUDdled Masses And More!

2. Avast, mateys!

For those of you interested in what a contractual agreement between a PADS franchise and a municipality can be or become, you can review the following document --

elginpads[1] - Upload a Document to Scribd

Aces and Eights! Recap!

Good morning PRU readers! We understand the meeting last night was very long and arduous. We're waiting on a couple of things and we'll have a recap ready for you in a little bit. In the mean time, we thank you for your patience and feel free to post your own report comments to this post.

Recap!

We've compiled the reports and sorted through notes and we've finally got a recap ready. We're going to try to cram 5 hours of discussion into a blog post here, but we do want to try to also provide PRU readers with a taste for the flavor of the meeting, so this is a lot longer than we would normally prefer our posts to be.

Again our sources report that Mayor Howard did his best to promote the interests of the Park Ridge Ministerial Association and PADS organization over the interests of Park Ridge residents and St. Paul of the Cross parents. By some miracle, Mayor Howard wasn't able to completely neutralize the ordinances regulating homeless shelters. Yet.

First to offer up changes to the zoning text amendment to allow homeless shelters to open and operate in Park Ridge was the 2nd Ward's Lord of the Manor, Rich DiPietro. DiPietro moved to amend the zoning text to allow not more than one shelter in each ward and not within 1000 ft. of each other. Audience member, Jennifer Conlon, spoke to the amendment saying that the council was talking about church property rights and that she felt it was wrong to tell one property owner what to do because of where they "live", and that the amendment is "arbitrary and deprives churches of their rights." We're not sure about anybody else, but the PRU Crew feels pretty strongly that churches have no more property rights than anybody else. And when churches start paying their fair share of property taxes to support the infrastructure provided to them, then and only then will we be willing to listen to anybody moan and groan about Church's property rights; especially when their desire to use their property for their pet social causes may bring harm to the rest of the community that does pay its fair share.

In a roll call vote, the amendment passed unanimously.

DiPietro then motioned to add language that would not allow shelters to operate more than one night per week from October through April.

In a roll call vote, the amendment passed unanimously.

Next up, it was the 7th Ward's Frank Wsooooolman's turn at bat. Wsol moved to add language to the area of the zoning text amendment regarding the 500 ft. restriction; Wsol left the 500 ft. language in the text but added that shelters may not operate "within 60 minutes of children being present." The ensuing discussion of this amendment was the longest of the evening, with Mayor Howard unable to directly answer a question about whether or not shelter "guests" would be prohibited from returning to a church property for services of the ecumenical variety. When repeatedly asked if shelter "guests" would be prohibited from attending mass with the school children, Mayor Howard kept repeating that "guests" would have to "leave the premises." The matter was later clarified by the City Attorney; shelter "guests" could not be prohibited from returning to church property to attend mass.

During discussion of whether or not to allow homeless shelters to operate inside schools, resident and city benefactor, Tony Svanascini, reported that he conducted an email poll of 380 St. Paul parents -- asking them to vote on whether or not they wanted a homeless shelter to operate inside their school. Half of those emailed responded, and the results showed that 79% of those who chose to exercise their right to vote, voted "no" to the question of allowing a homeless shelter in their school.

Many of those speaking from the audience also brought up the matter of Mayor Howard's Public Works Service Center compromise, discussed in a press release (.pdf) late last week, saying that they believed it was a good idea and that they didn't understand why the council would vote to nullify the 500 ft. restriction in the zoning text.

But when the question was called, nullification of the 500 ft. restriction is exactly what the City Council did. In a vote of 5 (DiPietro, Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, and Wsol) to 2 (Schmidt and Carey) ~~THUD!!!~~ Carey??? You betcha!!! PRUdos and thanks to Schmidt and Carey! Your votes on this matter won't be forgotten.

Next the Wsooooolman offered another amendment designed to clarify the matter of "significant support" being provided for shelter operations and require co-application for licensing. Wsol defined "significant support" as including security, health screening, and background checks. This amendment was clearly intended to make shelter organizations subject to licensing. This amendment brought Benedict Alderman Ryan (5th Ward) out of his reverie to offer that, from his perspective, the PRMA is the shelter operator. The audible gasps and grunts of disgust from audience members didn't seem to distract Ryan from his perspective. Again, audience member Jennifer Conlon spoke about the PADS franchise being only a provider of support for shelter operators. CURRB spokesperson, Judy Barclay, rose to offer the council a view of a PADS booklet detailing the business of providing shelter offered by the organization and said, "PADS is not merely a provider" of "support" for shelter operators.

During this portion of the discussion, Mayor Howard stated that in his view, if a shelter were to operate on city property, the city would be a co-applicant for the special use permit, the PRMA would be considered the operator, and the PADS franchise would be the consultant. To paraphrase the words of one audience member, the PRU Crew too is "dumbfounded" by Mayor Howard's twisted spinning of this issue.

Benedict Alderman Ryan asked if PADS would agree to be a co-applicant for a special use permit and license, to which many members of the audience shouted variants of "who cares?" and "so what if they dont?" Ald. Wsol responded to Ryan's question by simply saying that the question "isn't relevant." Ryan chose to then take a different angle of approach and said that he "trusts the PRMA to bring in the right people."

The PRU Crew will wait for everyone to stop laughing.

In a roll call vote on the amendment, the council voted 5 (DiPietro, Bach, Carey, Wsol, and Schmidt) to 2 (Allegretti and Ryan) in favor of the amendment.

Then it was Alderman Don Bachtard (3rd Ward) who offered still another amendment to the zoning text. Bach moved to limit the number of shelters that can operate simultaneously to two. Ald. Allspaghetti (4th Ward) asked why limit the number to two? Bach responded that his intention was to limit the number of shelters operating simultaneously and to limit the help being provided to helping those here in Park Ridge. Allspaghetti then said he "didn't get a chance to comment on Wsol's earlier amendment, but thought it was too restrictive." The PRU Crew believes Allspaghetti has been paying careful attention to recent political debates where candidates ignore a question or previous statement and babble on about something else they prefer to talk about, otherwise we have no way of explaining Allspaghetti's disjointed and unconnected response to Ald. Bach's statement.

Ald. Ryan insisted that the PRMA is "only interested in opening one shelter" and that for 30 years there has been "trust in each other" so "if they say one" we should all trust them.

During the audience participation portion of the discussion of this amendment, pastors Larson and Morello both spoke. Pastor Larson, from St. Lukes, reiterated Ryan's comment that the intention is to only open one shelter, he is concerned with the polarization in the community, he feels the process must be transparent, PADS is not a money-making franchise, Journeys is only part of the process and that it is Park Ridge that will be providing the volunteers, food, and care, and that PADS is concerned because no other community has required PADS to apply for a special use permit or license. For his part, Pastor Carl Morelleon, from St. Paul of the Cross, took great pains to remind those at the meeting that the "parish is first, then the school is part of the mission of the church." Most of the responses to this among Crew members are not fit to print, even on this blog! We will say, Morello pull your head out of your ass. You've proven yourself to be a dictator with very little concern for the school children you and others have attempted to use as pawns to bludgeon your parishioners. It is painfully clear that when it comes to prioritizing parish concerns and church missions, the kids take a backseat to everything. May your God have mercy on your soul.

In a roll call vote on the amendment to limit the number of shelters operating simultaneously, the council voted 4 (Bach, Carey, Wsol, Schmidt) to 3 (Allegretti, Ryan, DiPietro).

Next came what one of our friendly correspondents has described as Mayor Howard's "October Surprise". The mayor read a statement to the council wherein he proposed that the city enter into a written contract with the PRMA and PADS for use of the Public Works Service Center as a homeless shelter site. The PRMA and PADS would sign a contract with the city that waives the portion of the ordinances that would require either the PRMA and/or PADS to co-apply for special use permits and a license in exchange for agreeing not to file any lawsuits against the city for "x number of years."

Mayor Howard asked for a motion from the council so that his "October Suprise" could be added as language to the zoning text amendment being discussed. The Lord of the Manor obliged him.

Most of the aldermen, by nearly all accounts, looked stunned by this eleventh hour surprise. Bach asked if the city would incur any greater liability and what precedent such a scheme would set. Schmidt said he just didn't get this at all. Carey asked what value there was in eliminating the ordinance requirements and why a term would be set for a time limit. Carey went on to say that he found it "extremely suspicious" that this sounds like a "cloak for PADS" to avoid co-applicancy. ~~THUD!!!~~ WHO IS THIS GUY??? AND WHERE HAS HE BEEN HIDING FOR THE PAST 17 MONTHS???

As discussion of Mayor Howard's "October Surprise" continued, Ald. Bach said that he feels the Mayor has the authority to try to negotiate a contract with the PRMA and PADS but that he "doesn't see what a contract offers that the ordinances and co-application process doesn't." Mayor Howard insisted that he needed the council's authorization to mooove forward, at which point Ald. DiPietro asked the City Attorney if the mayor did, in fact, need the council's express authorization. City Attorney, Buzz Hill, stated that the mayor did not need the language to go ahead. DiPietro then withdrew his motion. Ald. Allspaghetti offered that he felt it was a mistake to withdraw the motion. Bach stated that this amendment has been "relatively undiscussed" and that the mayor should "go ahead" and try to negotiate a contract.

Alderman DiPietro then moved for the City Council to consider the zoning text amendment in its entirety. In a roll call vote on the first reading of the zoning text to be added to the zoning code the City Council voted 6 (Allegretti, Ryan, Carey, Wsol, DiPietro, and Bach) to 1 (guess who?) to adopt the code that will allow homeless shelters to operate in Park Ridge.

Then it was on to the licensing ordinance portion of the homeless shelter discussion! What fun!

Again, DiPietro was first up and moved to add language that would require the City Manager to issue reports on the number of shelters operating, the location, and any police calls. The additional language passed unanimously.

Ald. Dave Schmidt offered an amendment that would require the director of community development to make a recommendation to the City Council on the licensing of a homeless shelter and that the City Council be required to vote on the matter -- because he believes the issue is important enough that the City Council should not leave oversight to staff. After even more complaining from the usual suspects, the city council voted 5 (Carey, Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro, and Bach) to 2 (Allegretti and Ryan) to adopt the amendment.

Schmidt then offered another amendment to the licensing ordinance that the guidelines for shelter operation plans allowing entry of "guests" would include health screening, criminal background checks, and identification cards. Again, audience member Jennifer Conlon objected to the regulation saying that PADS allows first time shelter "guests" to access their shelters "temporarily" with a call to the police department. Schmidt responded that he wasn't talking about PADS. One of our sources reports that this is the first time "blabber mouth" was at a loss for words, but she did manage to recover and gripe on about this requirement in the guidelines. We don't have much respect for Ms. Conlon, ourselves. We also think she is a blabber mouth without much gray matter to back-up her statements. We do have to give her a nod though for taking part in this long process and for doing it somewhat more intelligently than her holy rolling brethren.

In a roll call vote, the council unanimously adopted the amendment to the licensing ordinance.

Alderman Bach then moved to amend the licensing ordinance to remove the word "may" and insert the word "shall" in mandating that, if any regulations were violated in the operation of homeless shelters, the director of community development "shall revoke a temporary overnight shelter license." Ald. Allspaghetti offered that he didn't think it was right to require the director of community development to revoke a shelter license for minor infactions and he wants to leave discretion for revoking licenses of shelter operators who violate regulations to city staff. In a roll call vote, the City Council defeated the amendment 5 (DiPietro, Allegretti, Ryan, Carey, and Wsol) to 2 (Schmidt and Bach).

Finally, Benedict Alderman Ryan took his turn at carrying water for the PRMA and their homeless legions, and attempted to amend the licensing ordinance by removing language that prohibits non-emergency medical care from being provided in temporary homeless shelters. Ald. Wsooooolman asked if the ordinance was written this way to avoid creating a "clinic atmosphere"? The City Manager, Jim Hock, replied that was "correct" and that the portion of the ordinance probably came from what other municipalities do, but it could be "softened" if the council wanted to do that. Ald. Carey offered that the section needed work, while DiPietro offered that since this was only the first reading of the ordinance, Ald. Ryan could work on his amendment and then "come back on the 29th" of October with a new amendment.

Ryan then withdrew his motion.

With that the City Council took its final roll call vote of the evening and unanimously adopted the first reading of the licensing ordinance for homeless shelters as amended.

There you have it people -- Your government in action.

The PRU Crew would like to add a special note here -- while we are disappointed that the council did not adopt the zoning text amendment as it was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and while we would have really liked to see at least one alderman offer a resolution to the council to have the matter voted on in a referendum, we could not be happier about the participation of so many Park Ridge residents and local church parishioners.

What you have done is no less than carry on the greatest tradition of democracy ever known. You participated -- deeply, consistently, and unwaveringly. You have stepped up, taken hold of the microphone and spoken your views -- more eloquently and ably than many of you give yourselves credit for. Without each and every one of you, even the people we feel have been totally stupid on this issue, there would be no democracy. Without debate and consideration there is no democracy. To those of you who so diligently did your homework on this matter, you should take tremendous pride in seeing that much of what you researched on the matter and demanded from your representatives has been made part of the legislation governing this issue. We agree that the most important demand, the 500 ft. regulation that would have kept homeless shelters out of elementary schools, is a tough and heartbreaking loss. Nevertheless, you should view this entire process as a win. You worked for it. You earned it. Don't let Mayor Howard's "October Surprise" thwart you. Continue to demand that your elected officials respond to your concerns and represent your best interests.

For the PRU Crew's part, we're damn glad to know ya.

For Mayor Howard's part, we think he's holding a hand full of aces and eights, politically speaking.

The Show Must Go On!

Once again, our City Council will be meeting tonight to discuss matters of great import for the public good. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7:30 PM at Washington School, 1500 Stewart Ave., Park Ridge.

As PRU readers know, the council will be discussing the requirements for regulation of homeless shelters. The related documents for tonight's meeting can be reviewed on the city website, here. The PRU Crew and others have noted that the documentation published for review by the city is incomplete -- the minutes of the City Council discussion portion of the C.O.W. are conspicuously absent. However, a news release (.pdf) issued by the city on behalf of Mayor Howard late last week tells everyone that Mayor Howard has been thinking overtime to try to find a solution to the burning problem of homelessness here in Park Ridge.

As one of our friendly correspondents put it, "Even the clown in the big chair seems to be getting a clue on this...homeless shelters do not belong inside schools." And that is why the PRU Crew is hoping the members of the City Council will vote to adopt the zoning text amendment as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. We are also hoping the members of the City Council will adopt the other reasonable regulations being suggested by their constituents.

In Living Color!

From the Christian Science Monitor
Patchwork Nation Map
About the Patchwork Nation project

Enjoy a colorful weekend!

One of these things --

-- is not like the others. Can you spot the difference?


by: digitalgod.deviantart.com


Beginning excerpts from three letters printed in today's edition of the Herald-Advocate:

Ministers didn't plan to be near schools

If you've been reading the Herald-Advocate, you know that the Park Ridge Planning and Zoning Commission recently voted that homeless shelters cannot be located within 500 feet of a school. The City Council must now decide whether or not to adopt the P&Z Commission's recommendation.

Here's what you may not know - on Jan. 30, 2008, the Rev. Amity Carrubba, pastor of St. Mary's Episcopal church, sent a letter to the neighbors of St. Mary's. In it, she wrote: "The Park Ridge Ministerial Association (PRMA) understood the host parish needed to be selected WITH GREAT CARE IN PARTICULAR RULING OUT ANY CHURCH WITH AN ON-SITE SCHOOL." (all caps added by me for emphasis)....

M. Cohen Park Ridge

PADS should be a local discussion

At the Oct. 6 City Council meeting, Alderman Bach proposed that the 500 ft. distance between PADS and a school be replaced with a time separation. I believe TIME is a better separation. PADS guests should be required to leave the premises at least one hour before school starts, or whatever time span the council and Zoning Commission decide.

At the last Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission was asked "why 500 feet?" the answer was, "That's what others do." Must Park Ridge blindly follow others? Cannot we think outside of the box? Does that mean that a shelter could operate 501 feet from a school DURING SCHOOL HOURS?...

Roger Loeffler Park Ridge

Try Civil Behavior lessons on PADS

Thank you to the City Council for providing a forum on Sept. 29 for the Park Ridge community to further discuss the PADS issue. After hearing and reading the arguments on both sides, I strongly support a PADS shelter in Park Ridge. A PADS shelter in Park Ridge presents a real-life opportunity to demonstrate the District 64 Civil Behavior values and skills at work:...

Annalise Herman Park Ridge


That's right faithful PRU readers -- only the first letter writer actually understands the issues and questions before the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, and the Park Ridge community. PRUdos to M. Cohen! The second two writers don't get it. But we can't say for certain if their ignorance is willful or not -- we feel it probably is. They can't really be dumb enough to ignore the issues and questions of regulations in general for any and all homeless shelters and the organizations that operate them, can they? We wonder why that is.

Killer Trees!

Back in the 80s, one of the more unfortunate quotes uttered by the 'Great Communicator' was that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Which prompted Jim Brady, while aboard Ronald Reagan's campaign plane as it flew over a Louisiana forest fire, to shout, "Killer trees! Killer trees!" That kind of twisted humor makes Jim Brady our kind of guy.

In Park Ridge government, we haven't been able to find anyone with such a well developed sense of humor. But we haven't heard anyone in Park Ridge government accuse trees of being bad for the environment either. Still, it appears there's at least one alderman who believes trees may not be worth protecting.

The City Council Public Works Committee chairman, Don Bachtard (3rd Ward), has placed a discussion item on tonight's Public Works Committee agenda.pdf -- "Elimination of Tree Preservation Ordinance"

Maybe Alderman Bachtard finds trees annoying? We have heard a few developers complain about trees and the city's preservation ordinance. We have also heard some residents complain about trees and the city's preservation ordinance when they've wanted to construct an addition to their current homes or build new. And then there was what many refer to as 'Meatgate', which was discussed in the comments on one of our blog posts here ("Reggie", comment #14).

Anyone who is interested in reading the background memo for tonight's committee meeting can do so here (.pdf). You can find all the publicly posted documents for tonight's meeting here.

Avast, mateys!

The PRU Crew missed "Talk Like A Pirate Day" but decided to go marauding anyway. Our discussion today is an idea we pillaged from a comment we read in a post on the Pub-dog's blog.

Our regular readers may recall one of our early posts on the subjects of Journeys from PADS to Hope, HUD funding, and the State of Illinois' plans for affordable housing; we titled our post "The HUDdled Masses and More." In that discussion we told readers that --

"In a 2004 report released by the Illinois Housing Development Authority, Park Ridge was listed as one of the affordable housing community slackers (.pdf), right there on page 4. But what caught the PRU Crew's attention in that report was the section:

Local Control is Maintained

“One of the important provisions of the law is that local decisions remain with the local government and that all developments must meet the standards of the local community,” explained Dibble. “The community can tailor its own plan for its own needs and concerns. And once they have their plan in place, the community is in charge of its own destiny.”

"Communities also have the option of choosing one of three planning goals. They can adopt a plan that requires 15% of all new developments to be affordable; a plan whereby the community will increase its overall percentage of affordable housing by three percentage points; or a plan whereby communities will increase their overall percentage of affordable housing to 10%."

"The type of development – rental or for sale – as well as the type of buildings – detached single family, attached townhomes, condos, etc. – are all completely under the control of the municipality. Also, the population that the community intends to address is completely flexible and under the control of the municipality. Communities with aging populations may consider rental developments for seniors, but others may plan for a homeownership program for teachers, hospital workers, or other municipal employees. Still others may develop a program to retain the young families who grew up in the community, who are otherwise forced to find homes in other communities."

And that right there, our dear fellow Park Ridgians, means developers. Campaign contributing developers, along with whatever else those developers may deign to bestow upon a politician who may then look favorably on a new development.

Because what will happen is that any developer required to set aside some portion of a development for "affordable housing" purposes will then have a substantial reason to ask for......can you guess......that's right......increased density. Density. Density. Density."

What caught the PRU Crew's attention in the comment on the Pub-dog's website was a link to a pioneer press article and a reference to an Arlington Hts. task force, known as "ACT, an acronym for the Appropriate Conduct Task Force." Arlington Heights Village Manager Bill Dixon is quoted in the article as saying the task force has been asked to, "make sure our village resources are being used to the best they can be" and "He expects the task force to report its findings by the end of the year." And we were reminded of our cautions about how we here in the City of Park Ridge could find ourselves dealing with issues surrounding low income housing and a host of tangent issues and fallout from that.

So we went looking to find the promised "ACT" report on the Village of Arlington Hts. website. We couldn't find the full report, but we did find a set of village board meeting minutes.pdf (item #6 on the agenda) that discusses cameras at the Arlington Hts. train station and also some of the findings of the "ACT" report. It appears to us that considerable time, effort, and expense is being spent by the village of Arlington Hts. on the issue surrounding homeless loitering, though we note with general amusement each board members careful avoidance of actually mentioning homeless loitering as a problem. We also note Village President Mulder's references to seeking grant money.

We also found that the Village of Arlington Hts. has a Housing Commission and "Multi-Family Affordable Housing Policy" which demands "Developers of multi-family residential housing must now submit information to the Village concerning how they intend to address the Village Board's goal to promote affordable housing in the Village. The provision of affordable housing will be one of the issues examined when deciding whether to grant new Planned Unit Development of amendments to Planned Unit Development for multi-family residential housing."

The PRU Crew is wondering if the very visible homeless population that likes to hang out in Arlington Hts. has had anything to do with why the Village so eagerly promoted and adopted the "Metropolitan Mayors Caucus’ “Housing Endorsement Criteria” that include promoting transit oriented and pedestrian-friendly development projects, encouraging an array of quality housing options throughout the community including housing at various price points, giving preference to mixed-income developments, promoting good design in order to ensure the long-term contribution to the improvement of neighborhoods." We're willing to bet that any inquiry to Village President, Arlene Mulder, would be met with some variation of, "We simply responded to a community need that we saw. The PADS programs run by our churches have never been a problem."

But we all know, this is Park Ridge, our elected officials would never bow to developer demands for zoning variances for height and density just because developers cry poor-mouth. And our elected officials would never bow to those demands because developers may cry poor-mouth about being required in the future to set aside a portion of their developments for low income and subsidized housing. No way. That will never happen here.

We're sure there's no connection or correlation whatsoever between homeless shelters, increased numbers of homeless people, adoption of affordable (read low income and subsidized) housing policies, and developers. And surely there's no connection or correlation whatsoever between politicians and campaign contributions from developers. No way. That only happens in Chicago.

And as Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan (5th Ward) offered in his statement read by Mayor Howard at the last City Council C.O.W., "there is a need in the Park Ridge community" for homeless shelters.

Caveat Emptor!

Last week a PRU reader posted a comment (#12) and link address to a news piece, on our post "Oh, The Cow Goes...", discussing an unfortunate incident that has resulted in the death of one man and possible murder charges being filed against another man. The alleged offender gave his address as being 1140 E. Northwest Highway in Palatine, which many of you now know is the Journeys from PADS to Hope day center.

The commenter queried, "I'm also wondering if the 4 "tree trimmer wannabes" in the news story are also part of the much ballyhooed "Lawn Service" run by the service provider in question?" The PRU Crew is wondering about that too. We have no proof that the men in the news piece are in any way connected with the Journeys Lawn Service. But the following ad, featured in this past Sunday's St. Paul of the Cross church bulletin --



-- gave us pause, and a chance to once again remind Park Ridgians of the need to be cautious about whomever you hire to do work around or inside your home.

We did not find any business registration for Journeys Lawn Service with the Illinois Secretary of State office. In fact, the only mentions we've seen of the Journeys Lawn Service is on their web site and in the St. Paul bulletin.

We also do not believe the Journeys Lawn Service would be subject to licensing demands by the City of Park Ridge because they would probably qualify as a charitable organization under article 12.pdf of the city's municipal code.

The PRU Crew feels that trying to provide the homeless with "job skills, time management, cooperation and responsibility" are admirable goals. However, the questions about Journeys from PADS to Hope's screening process and background checks remain -- and whether or not the men in the news story were a part of the Journeys Lawn Service or just "freelancing".

We caution Park Ridgians to ask any business they engage for work on their property some very basic questions --

1. Is the business licensed in any way?

2. Is the business insured?

3. Are the employees background checked?

4. Are the employees bonded?

5. Is there an available list of references that can be checked?

Remember, caveat emptor.

Light It Up!

electric sheep

Enjoy the weekend!

Reader Soapbox! & Freewheeling!

Quality of Writing in Terry Ekl's 2008 Audit

The writing quality in Terry Ekl's Park Ridge Police Department 2008 Audit is not high; it seems, to me, more like a first draft than a final report. This may seem a trivial issue, since the meaning Mr. Ekl intended can be determined, in most places, without great effort. It concerns me nevertheless, because I have no direct way of getting a sense of the quality of the investigation itself, as the report omits many details on which conclusions were based. I am also aware that the report was bought at a much lower price than those proposed by other firms. So I find myself asking: if the writing is this sloppy, to the extent that it wasn't even run through a spelling/grammar checker, was the same laxness applied to the investigation itself?

The report is highly redundant, and I was reminded of writing assignments from my school days, in which I didn't have much to say yet tried to take as many pages as possible to say it. There are multiple spelling errors, many of which would have been caught with the spell checker in Word. Commas are omitted where they are needed, and added where they shouldn't be. Many sentences are conflicting in the use of number, and some preposition choices are… interesting. The underlining is even misaligned with amazing frequency for such a simple task, as if done in great haste.

This issue is best appreciated while actually reading the report, but I've made some observations below.

Some Spelling Problems

Commander Jogmen's name is always spelled wrong.

“Swobada” for “Swoboda”

“Manger” for “manager” twice, one time in the fifth row

“affect” for “effect”

“effect” for “affect”

“there” for “their”

“it's” for “its”

“motived” for “motivated”

“recurrent” for “recurring”

“catlyst” for “catalyst”

“thief” for “theft”

“alderman” for “aldermen”

“who” for “whom”

“whom” for “who”

“may” for “might”

“cover-up” used as verb

“first hand” for “firsthand”

“under-age” for “underage”


A Few Excerpts

(I don't set them off by quotes, and my comments are in square brackets)

There is often two sides to how…

Once I received an accusation by a citizen against an officer, it was important to determine whether the allegations made by the citizens against the police department are credible.

…bias or agendas…

elected officials…put aside any personal agenda

…civilian complaints none of which resulted finding of “sustained”. [Note all three errors.]

…it is not possible for me to make what amounts to a credibility decision as to
whether a citizen who has complained about the conduct of an officer or whether the
officer is being truthful as to how the event actually occurred.
In evaluating my findings and suggested changes, I provide you… [He is evaluating his own findings?]

…unfair in both the administration of discipline or…

…my staff and I interviewed individuals whose identity was learned as a result of conversations with others as potentially having information relevant to the investigation of the police department.

I was able to review the videos as well as compare the statements made at the time of the incident by the persons involved and any witnesses to the information I received during the interview process with my staff.

There appears to be a sincere desire on the part of the officers to bring about
change and improvement to the department. [Followed shortly by:] There
appears to be a sincere desire to bring about improvement within the
department…

…investigation of the complaints have…

…has, in many occasions…

The promotion system provides unlimited discretion in the Chief…

…the mixed message being given to the police over enforcement of under-age drinking laws, as officers were supported by the previous city council in aggressive enforcement of these laws, however, when residents began to complain to the current elected officials, this policy changed;
When it is clear that an officer engaged in misconduct the discipline has, in
many occasions…

…she was, in fact, the victim of identity thief.

…need to impose more severe discipline to officers…

I interviewed labor attorney, Robert Smith,…

This finding should not be confused with those officers…

This perception is extremely detrimental to (1) the morale of the department; and (2) for effective law enforcement.

Love of Quotation Marks

I was asked to make “findings” as to whether…

There will be circumstances where police officers make “mistakes”…

…significance I place on the “perceptions”…

The following are “recommendations” I am making.

What can best be described as a “mixed message”…

Submitted By: C. Elegans

Oh, The Cow Goes...

Mooooooooove forward!



Thanks for your patience PRU fans -- we've had some technical glitches today.

The highlights of the City Council COW can be summed up by saying that Mayor Howard is a pandering coward and most of his council alderhacks are firmly under his control.

Also under Mayor Howard's control is ooh, pick me! pick me! I wanna be police chief real real bad, Tom Swoboda, who offered a not-so-cleverly spun recitation of how PADS sites in other towns haven't posed a serious problem, on site, for police departments in those towns. When questioned by Alderman Dave Schmidt (1st Ward) about information Swoboda has been given by a Chicago Police Dept. 16th District Commander, regarding the 513 arrests of PADS clients outside of PADS shelters, Swoboda offered that the information would have to be looked at more closely and broken down, which is another way of saying, "Give me time and I'll find a way to dismiss these facts in favor of the position preferred by Mayor Howard."

For his part, Mayor Howard tried to be clever and ask the city attorney that if the 500 foot restriction remains in the ordinance along with the demands of city building codes regarding sprinklers, how many churches would qualify to be homeless shelters. City attorney Buzz Hill said he couldn't answer that, to which Mayor Howard replied, "I can answer! The answer is zero!" Mayor Howard also stated that PADS gives "health exams" and remarked that the city is "constitutionally on thin ground with regard to fingerprinting". At which point the city attorney said, "No. I never said that." Mayor Howard also stated that he had "called 14 Mayors of other towns today" -- today? Jeeze Howard, what's your hurry? -- and that the 6 that responded to him all said that, in short, PADS is terrific! The PRU Crew would suggest that no other response could possibly be forthcoming from those Mayors, since those Mayor's would then have to answer to their constituents about why they aren't doing anything to address the issues surrounding PADS shelters in their towns.

Alderman Don Bachtard (3rd Ward) said he does not believe that a 500 foot restriction that prevents homeless shelters from operating inside schools will have any effect, and that children do not play within the "little circles" that comprise the 500 foot buffer. Ald. Bachtard also let everybody know that he is tired of listening to arguments over the constitution and didn't want to hear any more. Later, as if to demonstrate his disinterest in hearing anything about constitutional rights, Bachtard suggested that "security escorts" be provided during PADS shelter exits to "escort" PADS clients to buses and trains. And as we can see, Park Ridge's very own Constitutional UNscholar seems to not have gotten past the First Amendment to take a look at all those other pesky constitutional amendments, or this piece of stunning idiocy would never have left his mouth. But we're only speculating on that since that requires the assumption of his ability to understand information.

Alderman Frank Wsooolman (7th Ward) offered that he would like to see the 500 foot restriction language in the ordinance left as-is, with the addition of language stating "while children are present". He also seemed to indicate his support for limiting the hours of shelter operation, and months of operation, as well as shelter operators being required to co-apply for either special use or licensing. Ald. Wsooolman's best question of the evening came when he confirmed that shelters will be allowed in all residential zoning districts, and then he asked why the B4 (business district) zoning district was excluded for special use by homeless shelters. Acting Director of Community Development, Carrie Davis, responded that the purpose of that exclusion was to "limit the impact" of homeless shelters on the business district. And people, we have to tell you, when we read that in our various reports this moring...well...we just don't know what to say about that -- the total disregard for the impact on residents of Park Ridge is so unbelievable, we are left virtually speechless.

Alderman Tom Carey (6th Ward) was the only alderman to address the issue of whether or not the question of Park Ridge supporting the opening of a homeless shelter could go to referendum. Ald. Carey also indicated that it is the City Council's responsibility to find a "healthy balance" between the desires of the community and constitutional laws, and this issue has been very divisive to the community.

~~THUD!!!~~ Who is this guy??? This can't possibly be the same guy who took office just 17 short months ago!!! Has anyone checked under this guys bed for a pod?

What a concept! Send to referendum what 2nd Ward Alderman Rich DiPietro himself described as "the most controversial issue" he's seen in his fourteen years of council service.

Alderman Carey, we can only hope that you will pursue this matter by proposing a resolution of the City Council approving a referendum that asks the voters whether or not they support the opening of a homeless shelter in Park Ridge, and if appropriate, under certain restrictions.

Speaking of Ald. DiPietro (2nd Ward) -- his suggestions were that St. Paul of the Cross erect a partition that will keep PADS clients from accessing other areas of the SPC building. DiPietro also wants bike racks installed for PADS guests who are into pedaling their way from shelter to shelter, from town to town.

Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan (5th Ward) was...can you guess?...absent from the meeting. But he did submit a statement to Mayor Howard to be read at the meeting. Essentially, Ald. Ryan believes there is a need in the community for a homeless shelter and that Journeys from PADS to Hope has a proven process for addressing the issue of homelessness. Benedict Ald. Ryan also wants to eliminate the 500 foot restriction on where shelters can open, wants St. Paul of the Cross to be the only applicant in the special use and licensing, wants to allow medical services to be provided inside shelters, adjust the ordinance to add that temporary overnight shelters provide continuous parking on site or adjacent to the shelter property, and that to address the issue of loitering, shelters not operate within a 1/4 mile of each other in the Uptown area.

Alderman James Allspaghetti (4th Ward) let it be known that when dealing with the constitution, it "puts religion in a special place". Allspaghetti went on to say that when he talked about what the Park Ridge Police Department was doing in enforcing the zero tolerance law, that what they were doing the constitution says they can't do, which may explain why then Chief of Police Caudill issued a memo to his department that zero tolerance was not to be enforced as they have been doing. But of course, this leads the PRU Crew to wonder why Allspaghetti's buddy, Terry Ekl, so strongly suggested that the directives in that memo from then Chief of Police Caudill be immediately rescinded? Anyone? We can't make heads or tails of this "logic".

Finally, Alderman Dave Schmidt (1st Ward) was once again the champion of the residents of Park Ridge, and the representative who challenged his fellow council members to answer the mandates in the zoning code which address the fundamental considerations and purpose for zoning text amendments. Schmidt's council peers were stunningly silent on that issue. Schmidt also read from a rather long dissertation on health issues in the homeless population, pointing out that there are reasonable concerns among those who question whether or not opening a homeless shelter inside a school could expose children to air borne illnesses. Schmidt also questioned the costs that would be undertaken by the city in regard to providing police and ambulance services to a shelter.

Mayor Howard addressed that issue later by pointing out that residents are not charged when police vehicles answer their calls, which of course ignores who it is that provides all the tax revenue used to fund services like police and fire departments -- but, the PRU Crew has come to understand that Mayor Howard doesn't know much about who is actually funding the government he's running. Mayor Howard also presumed that residents of the Youth Campus are not charged for ambulance services, but Chief Gjelsten corrected him on that point, so Mayor Howard offered that maybe the city could charge for ambulance services to any homeless shelter.

Schmidt went on to try to refute much of the unfounded claims of his fellow council members, such as Ald. Allspaghetti's incorrectly stating the City Attorney's position on the 500 foot restriction, and Ald. Bachtard's hair brained idea of "security escorts" out of town for shelter clients. Finally, Ald. Schmidt supported Ald. Carey's question of putting the issue to a referendum vote before the people of Park Ridge.

After Mayor Howard had his final say on the issue of homeless shelters, Ald. DiPietro moved that the matter be referred as an action item on the next City Council agenda.


---------------------------------------------------
And now, a recap of the highlights of last night's City Council regular meeting, which was held at its usual time, interrupting the committee of the whole meeting that took place before and after the regular City Council meeting --

The City Cluck, Betty Henneman, asked the council to vote on a change of venue for the October 20th and 29th meetings of the City Council; those meetings will take place at Washington school.

Next, City Manager Jim Hock offered that he had reviewed the details of the interviews conducted by attorney Terry Ekl in his audit of the police department. Mr. Hock assured the council that the background interview material used by Ekl to write his final report looked okay, and the council can now pay Ekl's outstanding bill. It was moved by the Lord of the Manor, 2nd Ward Ald. Rich DiPietro, that the council pay Ekl $52,381.25 -- seconded by 4th Ward Ald. James Allspaghetti.

First ward Alderman Dave Schmidt moved to demand that Ekl not be paid the balance of his bill to the city, and that fees already paid to Ekl be refunded to the city. That motion died for lack of a second.

Schmidt went on to say that Ekl had stonewalled the council on every issue and that he would not be voting to pay Ekl his final bill.

On a roll call vote, the council approved final payment of the Ekl bill by 4 (Bach, Allegretti, Carey, and DiPietro) to 2 (Wsol and Schmidt).

The next item was a discussion of how to best proceed with accomplishing the needed improvements in the air quality system at the award winning Public Works Service Center. The council had to reject all the bids received in order to eliminate having to accept the lowest bidder, because the lowest bidder provided an inconsistent and incomplete bid; in addition to not meeting the standards required in the staff's reference checks. The city has been actively engaged in this issue, regarding the physical health of city employees, since January, 2007, and at one point it seemed a correction of the Public Works air quality would be deep-sixed due to budget constraints. So the PRU Crew will not stand for even an ounce of whining from any PADS asshats who think the city hasn't moooooooooved forward fast enough on some dumbass homeless shelter, while our own city employees have endured another nine months of talk talk talk over matters surrounding their personal health.

The next item on the city agenda was a discussion of the purchase of four new trucks for the Public Works department. Ald. Schmidt (1st Ward) asked why the city should purchase these trucks now, in light of the city budget deficit of approximately $1.7 million? The answer was that the vehicles are old, 19 years old, and their maintenance costs could skyrocket, and the city may not "get lucky" next year and have these trucks operable. Schmidt then asked City Manager Hock if the city could wait on this nearly $500,000 purchase. Mr. Hock responded that the funds set aside for the purchase of new trucks can't be used for certain things such as payroll, but that it could be spent on things such as fixing roads, to which Schmidt responded that fixing roads in town are a need and that he believes these trucks are a want. Hock then remarked that the longer the city waits to purchase new trucks, the lower the trade-in value for the older trucks become. Several remarks from the audience seemed to suggest that it would be best for the city to either wait on this purchase or find alternatives to buying new trucks, but in the end the City Council voted 5 (DiPietro, Bach, Allegretti, Carey, and Wsol) to 1 (Schmidt) to purchase the new trucks.

Then under the Public Safety agenda line item, the city council voted to finalize raising ambulance fees.

Finally, City Cluck Betty Henneman reported on her recent trip to Park Ridge's sister city of Kinver and Ald. Schmidt reported that he is going on a trip to Fatima Portugal where he has promised to offer prayers for his City Council peers. We would suggest that Ald. Schmidt not waste his energy on his council peers and instead pray for the residents of Park Ridge who are suffering the idiocies of his council peers.

And shortyly after that, the city council adjourned their regular meeting and got back to moooooooooving forward on discussing the issue of regulations for homeless shelters in Park Ridge.

More PRU Briefs!

The Aldermoorons meet again!



Tonight the City Council COW discussion among the aldermen will take place at City Hall beginning at 6PM. As PRU readers know, the topic is about the proposed text amendment.pdf and licensing standards.pdf to be added to the city's zoning code, which will allow for the opening of temporary homeless shelters in Park Ridge. Do note that the agenda for tonight's meeting says "The meeting will commence with discussion among the Aldermen, Agenda Item #4", which is a nice way of saying "comments from the audience will not be continued or accepted."

Look for the adlermoorons to contort themselves into pretzels in their attempts to justify compromising over the text amendment and licensing standards for any temporary homeless shelters. All that compromising will function as the lube designed to enable our local politicians to act as the lucky Pierres between the pro-PADS PRMA and the thinking portion of the Park Ridge community.

We also expect to receive reports about a certain cow on city staff who is expected to once again chew gum with her mouth hanging open while she feigns detachment at the goings on.


Bellowing for the homeless!



We hear the bagpipes were a big hit last night at the St. Paul of the Cross protest march held to bemoan the delay in opening a PADS shelter in Park Ridge -- we're going to call it a "protest march" because another source tells us there may have been between 300 and 400 people blocking traffic as they marched across the six corners intersection in Uptown. According to the news report linked above, 12 churches are promoting the PADS shelter for Park Ridge. 12 churches? 400 people? That's only an average of 33 people per church! Not quite the turnout the good shepherds may have hoped for from their faithful flocks.


Deadline Tomorrow!



Are you registered to vote? Tomorrow is the deadline to register and be able to walk into your polling place and cast your vote, or participate in early voting. There is a 14-day grace period to register, but there are restrictions.

More information can be gotten from the Cook County Clerk's web site.