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.
October 21, 2008
Aces and Eights! Recap!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
68 comments:
Hi, bottom line...we won nothing. Mr. Mayor did not take into consideration ANY facts. Mr. Mayor is a dictator and he dictated all of this. What a wast of both sides time. There NEVER was a decision to be made. Just like Hitler!
the only one who voted AGAINST was the "voice of reason" Schmidt
what is going on with the mayor? How can we find out? When is the next election, and does he even care if he's mayor? He looked at his lawyer everytime a question was asked of him. He didn't want to answer anything. He' so shifty, what does he have to gain on all this?
It was a performance.
Wsol amended language to say 500 ft restriction only when children are present at school. So now there is a time restriction - shelter can not operate one hour before children are present. It passed 5 - 2 only Schmidt and Carey opposing.
Bach proposed only 2 licenses at one time - that passed well.
Wsol proposed adding the language for co-applicants that would assumably add PADS or any shelter operator beyond PRMA tohave to co-apply - that passed 5-2...
FRIMARK! Now I understand your let's make a deal. He proposes IF the shelter is on city property then the operators would NOT have to co-apply but rather would enter into a contractual agreement with the city that would face full city council approval. This basically is backdoor politics! If PADS won't be a co-applicant how can we make this work Let's make a contract and PADS said they dould enter into a contract but will not co-apply. Buzz thinks it is a great idea and the aldermen were shocked (well it seems Bach, Schmidt, Wsol and Carey were shocked) that this is proposed. It basically contradicts what they just spent an hour passing - that operators should co-apply and Frimark proposes that if it's on city property they don't have to co-apply - there is always an exception to the rule.
Buzz also said this was the way they could get assurance from PRMA and PADS that they would not file suit against them.
So your fine council is makign decisions and placing into law an opdinance based on a threat of a lawsuit that there is no basis for.
Who is filing suit?
It's all ridiculous.
Kudos to Ald. Schmidt for speaking up for all of us, congrats to Carey for being supportive and asking good questions and for putting the "suspicious" nature of why PADS would enter into contract but not co-apply. Great job for Bach for seeing the suspicion in there as well. Boo to Wsol on the time restriction instead - it's not about time its about LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION!!!!!
Ryan, Allegretti, DiPietro - dangling by Frimark's threads... hilarious.
It was long but the debates were much more reasonable this time. Only a few speakers here and there and generally well made points on all sides.
Frimark behaves like a spoiled little boy that must get his way, OR ELSE!
The Mayor is a mean old man.
election is April 2009
""He's so shifty, what does he have to gain on all this?""
a Boat?
Seriously, this PADS thing screams graft.
And is it true that PADS has to be up and running here before 2009 or else PR cannot get its hands on the money for this calendar year - it just goes POOF and disappears/ that ship sails? [sorry, c/n resist]
Frimark's city sponsorship of / fastracking / backdooring the application could get PADS operational before Q4 ends - he hopes. That, too, would be a travesty. If nothing else comes out of all the PADS mess, cling to this: PADS MUST BE A CO-APPLICANT, always! Lift the kimono, shudder, run other way. PADS ain't pretty. Frimark must be prevented from acting as all 3 branches of govt in his supposed feifdom. And one way or another, anything and everything can [and in this case, should] be regulated ...could the trusty commerce clause be of some assistance here?
Chuck Goudie should be contacted to investigate Mayor Frimark. There is definitely something fishy about last night's meeting. He's got to be getting some cushy kickback. Frimark would not answer any direct questions.
we've contacted Lisa Madigan, John Kass, Channel 2, Chanel 5, Channel 7, Channel 9.
NOTHING.
Yes, there is something fishy.
And the fish stinks at the head.
Does Chuck Goudie live in PR? Another option would be John Kass. I know he loves to go after corruption.
As a poster wrote awhile back, Park Ridge has become "Howardville" just like the fictional "Bedford Falls" without George Bailey would have become "Potterville" in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life."
Frimark pretty much controls this town because he pretty much owns a 4-vote majority, even if those 4 voters change from time to time (as they did last night). And he's got Buzz Hill on a string because Buzz wants to keep his job.
What happened at last night's meeting was an insult to anybody who wants open, honest government in Park Ridge. 3 hours spent debating something and, once it goes against PADS and the PRMA, Frimark calls for a break and comes back with a new "deal" for PADS that he had worked out earlier in the day with PADS and the PRMA but said nothing about.
how long has frimark been mayor anyway? can we start a class action lawsuit against him?
A few weeks back PRMA held a protest and the media came out for that. Perhaps we should have a protest. We can all wear black shirts that say "500 FEET" on them. Maybe the media would come out for that.
Frimark is pond scum...and aside from Schmidt and Carey, so are the alderman. Wsol doesn't have a spine and Ryan is clueless. I can't wait to vote all these fools out of office.
do we need a permit to have a protest?
Frimark is what he's always been: A money-grubbing opportunist. And three years ago the voters gave him an opportunity to run Park Ridge...right into the ground.
He's counting on the voters giving him another 4-year opportunity once this has all blown over in a few months, all the concerned citizens stop showing up at the meetings, and all those PRMA clergy members start preaching the Gospel according to Howard to their respective flocks of sheep.
anony-mouse --
Yes.
People, people, people, you're missing the obvious question.
WHY DOESN'T PADS WANT TO BE LICENSED???????!!!!!!!!
And moreover, since when is "I don't want to" a valid arguement?
I don't want to......have you ever nheard anything more childish and insufficient in your life?!?
If that's what passes mustard, well then......Idon't want to pay my taxes, or my water bill. Anyone have a deal for me?!?
Sorry, went off track there.
They real, IMPORTANT question here is WHY ,WHY,WHY does PADS have such a problem being licensed?!?
Perhaps it's time to call them out!!! CALLING PADS COME IN PADS! we know your reading what if anything do you have to say?!?
What's the problem? What are you hiding? What are you afraid of?
My guess is PADS doesn't want to be licensed because they fear the liability. Right now, it's SPC's problem if something bad happens. It may also affect their 501c3 designation? Don't know.
As far as the permit for the protest, I'd offer to go apply for one, but I don't want my name on it. Can we get it under Frimark or Ryan's name?
PRU---so if we get a permit to MARCH, will you join the march?
I realize that PRMA didn't NEED or GET a permit for their little prance around town. We can do it the right way. The legal way.
501c3's function the same licensed or not. Not-for profit in NO WAY exempts you from being licensed.
Liability may be another story. But then the question is who should be liable for THEIR business? Us? Don't think so.
So again I ask WHY NOT be licensed?
It's starting to look like PADS is hiding something that a public process may bring to light. Again not our problem.
I believe we as residents and a community we DESERVE way more that what is being offered. Half assed deals with half assed organizations. Is this really the best we cn do?
Lawsuits? Please, if they intended to sue, it would have been done while the special use was being considered. Threats are not a basis for handing over OUR communmity. Not to shady organization like PADS or those like it.
Something fishy!? Unfortunutely even when a mayor, or city official does something illegal, it is a slow process in which nothing happens. Take a look at Niles, IL! Our only option is vote the bastard out!!!
There's definitely something fishy and rotten going on... he is determined to get these guys in the town. Why? Why? Why? has anyone asked Why Pads?
Park Ridgeans take notice - talk to your neighbors, have them write and email that the operator should be a co-applicant no matter what! NO MATTER WHAT? No matter where and no matter what. These aren't harsh restrictions, it isn't a burden, it isn't much. If the PRMA can do it then the PADS should be able to handle it. If not PRMAcan help them apply.
Something is HUGE fishy - and citizens should speak up - their chance is only now. Talk to everyone, wage a walk, a protest, the mayor et al need to know we are worried about what this operator can bring to the table - ifthey aren't wililng to disclose and apply then what are they hiding -???
Does anyone remember the last time the city council entered into a contractual agreement to avoid getting sued? It was when the Summit Retirement Hotel owners were threatening to sue the city over TA2 redevelopment. At that time Howard Frimark was a lowly alderman and he voted with the rest of that bunch to give almost $900,000 dollars of taxpayer money to Summit for them to upgrade their building. The only difference between then and now is that the council wasn't as honest about trying to avoid being sued. Anyone remember what happened after that deal was cooked up? Riiiiiight...everyone likes to only remember that nutball, Snarls Baldacchino, as being the fly in the redevelopment ointment...but nobody seems to recall Summit's role in that charade...and Howard never did come publicly clean about his belief that "Chuck's filing that lawsuit is the best thing that could have happened for me". I personally heard him say it to Machon and Allegretti, and I'd swear it on a stack of bibles in a court of law while hooked up to a polygraph machine... Howard's overarching self interest way back then was stunning...I have no reason to believe he's changed his tune or improved his character...there's too much mounting evidence to the contrary.
Sure Howard, your grand plan for entering into a contractual agreement with homeless shelter businesses that don't even have as much vested interest in Park Ridge as the Summit Retirement Hotel has is a sure-fire winner of a deal...especially with the limit on the number of years for which they promise not to sue us. I can only imagine how this one could be another one of those "best things that could have happened" for you.
What a complete and utter asshole Howard Frimark is...even more so than even I ever suspected... With each passing day and deal he proves himself to be nothing but a tool for the special interests that come knocking for a special deal...Lord only knows what he's promising and being promised behind closed doors...
I'll march in protest. How many are willing to join?
I love that PADS is "shocked"...they've never faced such resistence before. Hmm, maybe they never tried to set up a shelter in oh say...Winnetka? They're "afraid" to be on the license? If all this is true, why don't they leave? Come out and protest people! They won't need a referendum to know the majority of Park Ridge residents don't want this in the school. We should start downtown and march to the mayors house, then to the aldermans houses chanting "500 Feet", preferably during the dinner hour.
me too!!!!
Picketing of private residences is illegal.
but we can picket at a city council meeting...
Oh PRU...you're so...legal! What if we march up and down the street in front of the mayors house, just 3 or 4 times back and forth? Is that ok?
Or, maybe we should have the protest downtown, exactly 500 feet from SPC. There are many different ways to do this.
Let me know when and where to march. I'll bring 4 others in my family who feel the same way.
I have an Idea.
In protest, everytime you drive past the mayors home or one of his pocketiers, honk your horn no matter what time it is!
I'm working on it. Will post info in the next few days.
It's time for PR's to come out and let them know that the PRMA does NOT speak for the majority...
The very best way to let elected officials know what the majority believes is through a referendum vote.
An effort like that would require much more dedication in time, energy, and money than organizing a protest march.
Know now that any referendum question that asks only if homeless shelters should be allowed in Park Ridge would be a waste of time, because it is illegal -- there we go again -- to prohibit homeless shelters in total.
So is there anything we can do to show our opposition or do you think it is too late?
I've done much thinking about everything I heard at the meeting last night. One of my concerns is that if the city should become the entity that provides space for homeless shelters, does the city have the authority to make public schools house homeless shelters too? Robert Ryan used to be on the school board and one of the speakers for the white shirt crowd at the meeting at Maine East is a current member of the district 64 school board. It makes no sense to me that these people are obsessed with cramming one of these dangerous shelters into some school. The risks have been detailed and provided to all of them but they are obsessed with the notion of insisting that schools not be off limits. I do not get it. What am I missing? Why are these people hell bent on exposing our most vulnerable little citizens to their dangerous high risk pseudo ministry? It is insane to me that anybody would do this. I just don't get it.
Anon@5:21 --
It's never too late and there is no reason that any protest can't be offered at City Hall or Hodges Park or anywhere else a protest permit would allow for such a public gathering.
What I don't get is with all the lawsuits filed against the archdiocese regarding the sex abuse of children by priests, that St.Paul is willing to take ANY risks concerning the school children. What will it take for them to open their eyes and protect their smallest parishioners?
so what should be on the referendum vote, if that can be achieved? can we put it in the vote that frimark smells like a rat
sign me up for the protest showing, too.
this is such utter bullshit. frimark surely belongs in prison.
Every member of the Crew thinks Mayor Howard would look great in a bright orange jumpsuit. Unfortunately, we don't have a single shred of evidence that he's broken any laws that carry any sort of mandatory jail time.
We expect that once again any distasteful or unethical conduct on the part of Mayor Howard will be cast by the local rags as just another dust up, as the same old tired reporter for the Journal was in attendance at the meeting last night, and some members of the Crew also watched the reporter for the Herald-Advocate investigate and pick at some skin anomoly on her arm between staring fixedly at her shoes.
What grieves us most of all is that the people of Park Ridge twice voted to give Howard Frimark control of our local government. Mayor Howard clearly has reason to believe he is carrying out the wishes and best interests of the majority of voters who placed their trust in his judgement. Little did any of us know what a mess his brand of leadership would bring to this community.
But what is done can be undone. It will be a long and painful process for those so inclined to fight the fight, but we hope that those who are dissatisfied with how things are moving forward won't settle for the path of least resistance, give up, or turn away.
We'll be here.
here is something from a blog similar to PRU in oregon- topic is about homelessness portland, but it raises an interesting point in the matter of motivating factors...residents working to call out the 'fair housing' brigade made a similar point to me, back in june, after one of those interminable council meetings - PADS and 'fair housing' go arm in arm as a joint enterprise benefitting...who?
some 'really religious' type looking to see a piece of the action? is there a holy roller slumlord in the ranks? some ltd partnership with an llc as its general partner, whose agent conducts bizness out of a p.o. box in oswego?
" The year I was a freshman at Chaminade Catholic High School, on Long Island, New York I was seriously considering the priesthood. That Christmas Eve I, and other fellow students, went deep into the bowels of NYC's ghetto to play Santa Claus to kids living in the tenements. Going on pre-arranged visits, I'd never been in such abysmal housing.
As kids would gather around us, we ended up giving away toys and gifts to those not on our lists.
Back at school...I asked: why these particular people, and why in these particular buildings? Why those kids on our list? They were parishioners. Why those buildings? They were owned by the Archdiocese of New York.
Turns out of the Archdiocese of New York, circa 1966, was one of the --if not THE-- biggest slumlords in NYC.
I gave up on the priesthood. Stopped going to Mass every lunch. Eventually stopped going to Mass period. There seemed then --and I believe it's there still-- a disconnect between the teachings of Christ, and the deeds of the Church.
We don't have those awful NYC kind of slums in Portland. Maybe someday we will. But every time I hear "affordable housing" advocacy equated with subsidies to developers, and those developers make handsome profits along with political contributions, I get a little uncomfortable with all the "righteousness" attached to this enterprise.
What I offered on Chuck Currie's blog --whether it'll appear, I don't know, its a managed list-- was my experience as Assessments Manager, where I tried to get recognition that cancelling City liens on properties donated to non-profits by Multnomah County...that's millions of dollars in foregone revenues to the General Fund, the LID Fund, Environmental Services, the Bond Sinking Fund...that represents a hidden subsidy we don't even acknowledge. Other people's money, subsidizing developers. Made somewhat of a higher calling by calling it affordable housing.
There's nothing wrong with developers, nothing wrong with making a profit. But let's not make this more than it is. Those tens of thousands of tenement apartments in NY...affordable housing? Doing the Lord's work, or stuffing your back pocket with rent checks? "
I voted for Frimark in 05, because while I don't recall who it was that ran agaist him, I wasn't fond of him either. If the other guy was the better canidate then I must have been really misguided.
Who was that man who was with the city and claimed he lives in Mt. Prospect now?
I ask because it seems with the unwanted development which he I beelive claimed he supported he now lives elsewhere.
MIKE --
Mayor Howard's opponent in the '05 election was former first ward alderman Mike Tinaglia. As far as we know, Tinaglia has not left Park Ridge. He did make one public show of participating in a community issue, after his defeat in the Mayoral race, when he showed up to encourage the last council to vote for the new police station plan they adopted.
The choice of voting for Howard Frimark was the logical choice to make given the publicized backgrounds of each candidate.
Both candidates supported the Uptown Redevelopment plan when they voted in favor of it during their tenures as aldermen.
Thanks.
Though you sort of misread my question.
I didn't claim Mr. Tingaglia moved.
I was referring to someone else who was at the meeting who I can't remeber the name.
PRU: I respectfully disagree with you on the point that we shouldn't picket a public event, like the next city council meeting. a demonstration in the park outside city hall wont have as much of an effect.
I continue to believe that we need to contact our aldermonkeys and mayor via telephone and email. the info is available on the city's website--it's not hard to find.
But I also think we need to take another step. THEY ARE NOT LISTENING TO US. How do we make them listen to what WE want? Not what the PRMA scoundrels want. Not what the mayor's cronies want.
Something like what "WE THE PEOPLE" want.
ms. manchester --
Please read our responses on the subject again.
MIKE --
We clearly missed your shift from one subject to the next. Thank you for pointing out the difference.
We found one reference in one source report about a former Uptown Advisory Task Force member who served on the Park Ridge Planning and Zoning Commission for 28 years and he now lives in Mt. Prospect -- believing his years of service to the city of Park Ridge should allow him to be heard on the homeless shelter topic.
He spoke in support of passing the Planning and Zoning recommendation for regulation of temporary homeless shelters, noting that Alderman Wsol's amendment to the ordinance to impose a time limitation defeats the purpose of the 500 ft. restriction.
The source report does not say whether or not the gentleman supported or opposed the redevelopment in Uptown.
How about this for a referendum question:
"Do you agree that, if the City of Park Ridge is legally bound to allow homeless shelters to operate within the city limits, the City of Park Ridge should regulate the operation of homeless shelters, including the restriction that homeless shelters not be allowed to operate inside a school building?"
Anon@10:45 --
That seems like a reasonable start. However, the question does not address the 500 ft. restriction, only operation of homeless shelters inside school buildings.
Lets vote this goof out and "Bada Bing" in! Bada Bing for Mayor!
Ryan is such an idiot! That idiot really wants to have the homeless getting their medical care in a school gym? Sure, let's do that and then we can all have more to worry about with cleaning up afterwards. Where will this insanity end?
The new city mgr. seems to have Ryan's number right when he said that the ordinance was based on what other towns do. Isn't Ryan the one that is always asking what they do in other towns?
Here's an idea for the idiot, why not form a committee to explore the possibilities for a commission to identify experts in the Park Ridge community to be named to a task force to draw up a plan for how best to screw over the residents?? That's probably Ryan's favorite wet dream!!
The best part is Judy Barclay, Miss Purple Ribbon herself, continuing to look the part of the concerned citizen. After all she did to see that our mayor’s political coup was successful and then to continue to show her face in public and take no responsibility for it. I have lost all respect for her.
We are the idiots to vote the mayor in office. Not once, but twice. We are to blame. If someone does not step up to the plate, there WILL be a third.
Believe it or not, we have the power. The power of vote. It is aour responsibility and duty to do our duediligence and vote for the candidtae we believe will best serice OUR needs. We can picket, after the fact. We can complain, jump up and down, but at the end of the day, the power, at least for now, rides with the current mayor. Like it or not, it is a fact.
Write, e-mail and call, over and over, to the representative of your district with your displeasure with all that is happening. Let's take our energy and apply it towards making change. I still believe this is the land of democracy. We The People, can make a difference if we do not concide!
Excuse me but is it 500 feet from the mayor's doorway should we be
safe from......
Just a thought!
One day.....
I still don't undrstand why more of you aren't screaming over the fact that PADS "doesn't want to " be licensed.
Big picture... if we don't require them to go throught the process NOW, it will be a whole lot harder to get them to go through it later when it moves back to a church. By then they will be established here in the community and will argue that things are running sommothly, they have proven themselves, and there is really no need to go through that process, and someone like Jack Owens will call for a text amenedment to change the ordinance and "poof" significant provider and license requirement dissappears.
This means that the process we have gone through was meaningless. There still has to be an ordinance to allow shelters, however, without restriction. The 500 feet, licensing, insurance, limited numbers of shelters, in a nutshell
Don't mean diddly squat!
Require PADS to be licensed NOW!!!!
Type it, write it, scream it from the rooftop. License now, or forever hold you peace.
Has anyone brought up the possibility of a link between pads and affordable housing?
Will having a homeless shelter in PR establish a foothold for other groups to demand "file suit" for affordable housing?
Please read:
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=affordable+housing+park+ridge+il&fr=yfp-t-501-s&u=www.interfaithhousingcenter.org/factsheets/parkridge.pdf&w=affordable+housing+park+ridge+il+illinois&d=En3F8ULURi-M&icp=1&.intl=us
About the contract vs. licensing.
Remember that the City Manager responded to a question about the Elgin contract - the one they are using as a precedent - with PADS:
ELGIN PAID PADS $30k
So, what's in it for PADS? Once they have a contract, they will request funding. THAT'S the difference between licensing and a contract.
I am furious that PADS does not want to be licensed.
The whole thing the other night was bizarre! The only thing I can think of is the Fr. Carl is getting his hands on some of that fed grant $, when the mayor found out how much there was to be made, he decided to get in on the action and offered up the Public Works Building. Now they both have their hands in the fed. pie.
All the PADS directors live in Arl. Hts. While we're calling our alderman and mayor and e-mailing, etc...I say we include the PADS board members in our campaign. Lets call them as well.
Thee is an absolute connection between affordable housing and Pads. I believe there was a past post either here or on pubdog (sorry I can't remeber which-help)
that addressed that very subject/connection. If you create a need then that need requires adressing. Bring in homless, (and if anyone has ever read any propaganda the #1 reason listed for homlessness is lack of affordable houing) then you have a need to provide housing in the affordable area for them.
5 MORE MONTHS AND WE CAN VOTE HIM OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anon@11:04 --
We have written about the connection twice.
1. -- April 3, 2008 post
2. -- October 14, 2008 post
How about if we have t shirts printed up with the aldermen and mayors names and go to the next city council meeting and have someone make a statement like, "You turned your backs on us, now we turn our back on you." And then turn around. And make sure that there is a photographer there from the local rags. Yeah. lets do that.
Or we can find quality candidates to run against the current group and vote them out. Make a real change. Problem is the aldermen are in for another two years. Only Howie and Betty are up this year.
Have yet to see anyone note the significance of "aces and eights".
Folks, it's the "dead man's hand".
Hopefully that's the hand we can deal the Mayor come the election!
Per an anonymous request --
I found this list of Illinois grants for 2008 on the HUD website. It includes Community Dev Block grants, Home Program grants (helps expand the supply of affordable housing), and Emergency Shelter grants. Most important are the many PADS towns that receive the grants: Arlington Heights, Des Plaines, Mount Prospect, and Palatine Village. It's an Excel document and I'm not sure how to add it as a comment. If you could just include it as a comment from Anonymous, to your October 21st "Aces and Eights! Recap!" post, I'm sure readers would like to see it.
Found a link --
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/
about/budget/budget08/index.cfm
I think Frimark's rush with PADS is to get it up and running, so Park Ridge can be included in funding for 2009 HUD CPD's Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG).
exactomundo!! get it in by end of 08 or lose those $$
I knew there was some hidden
reason for HF to come forward
and bet the ranch with a PADS site.
HF is done!
Onward!
Post a Comment