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)
36 comments:
I agree completely. Thank you, Mr. Biagi.
Now we need to start ridding our city government of Frimark and his special interest tools on the council.
i just heard that only 10% of illinois voters would vote to re-elect gov. blagojevich.
if you take away the prma, the pads white shirts, and the people actually trying to secretly make a few bucks from/through city government, could frimark pull even 10% in park ridge?
very well written. thank you!
Outstanding letter!
In less than 24 hrs. Mr. Biagi showed better understanding and depth of thought on the subject than Howard Frimark or the City Attorney managed to muster in all the time...one can only hope...they have taken to consider this "suspicious" proposal to "compromise"...
In my view, the only thing I see being "compromised" is the legislative process and our City ordinances...or, as some recognize, business as usual in the Frimark administration.
Who gives a flying hoot if PADS has an "issue" with having to be licensed... They and the PRMA can take their "issue" and stuff it up their bums, along with the HUD funding I believe they're trying to ride into our town on...
Mr. Biagi,
I cannot thank you enough for the time you took to write this. You do not have to be a parent of little children at SPCS to understand what a horrible idea it is to put a homeless shelter in a children's school.
I would also like to add my thanks to the Aldermen, Schmidt and Carey.
This is a fabulous letter well - written and succinctly states what we have been battling -
This is about ANY operator - PADS or otherwise operating anywhere within the city. Not jsut at a city site. Make one exception and you will be help accoutnable to making other exceptions.
Frimark's proposal no matter what the issue is just BAD PUBLIC POLICY! You don't come out with an ordinace with immediate exceptions to the rule.
Start with a strong ordinance. IF there is a lawsuit, IF it is further defined that it is too restrictive, IF it is realized the ordinace is written too strong then make the change.
You can't write public policy based on threats of lawsuits but rather ismuch be based on sound public policy -
Maybe I missed it, but when did the City Council discuss and approve, at a public meeting, the institution of a new city service to provide shelter to the homeless? Where is the hard documentation of the numbers of taxpaying Park Ridge residents who would need this service? How does this service fit into responsible city management to provide service for the benefit of the taxpayer? How can the Mayor offer a public building with no public discussion and/or vote from the City Council on behalf of the people they were elected to represent and the city employees who use that building?
Slymark putting the city in the homeless shelter business without any legislative discussion is just as bad as the PRMA putting a homeless shelter in a space shared with children.
Maybe Slymark is in need of a prolonged stay on Elba. Who knows, if we don't do something, he might decide to invade Russia next.
This excellent letter really lays out much of what I could not articulate myself, since I'm not a lawyer as I understand Mr. B to be.
It is crystal clear to me now that the only reason anybody would concoct a contract scheme and attempt to get it written into the local ordinance is for the sole purpose of protecting the PRMA and PADS from special use permitting and licensing procedures. Succinctly said and pardon the pun, to shelter the PRMA and PADS from the public process.
Repulsed and disgusted does not begin to exress my feelings on how certain performers are conducting themselves in elected office.
Invitation for Mr. Rick Biagi and family.
You are cordially invited to move into the Fifth Ward. We are right next door and you wouldn't have far to go. The neighbors are friendly, we have nice block parties, the women are strong, the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.
All we ask is that you bring your good brain and a willingness to become our Fifth Ward alderman as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
A hopeful future neighbor?
Thank you for getting to the bottom of it all.
You explain it perfectly.
Biagi for Mayor 2009!
First Alderman, now Mayor....and so begins the amazing political career of Mr. Rick Biagi!!
The reason for the contract is to take the whole issue away from public comment.
Howard will negotiate the contract with the phantom (in legal terms) PRMA himself. (Oh and by the way, do you need any insurance??) The council will then rubber stamp the agreement.
End of discussion.
I mean end of public discussion.
Since we are all too familiar with the dope in charge of the gavel...and another sope warming the seat for the 5th...when he bothers to show up...
Mr. Biagi strikes me as a vast improvement over either of them.
Before this discussion devolves into a blog rah rah session or smack down, I would like to highlight one of the author's most jarring points:
"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."
Mayor Frimark's stated intention for offering his compromise is for the purpose of protecting the city from potential lawsuits.
I have gone back through the minutes of recent city council meetings and have noticed the council has not recently met in closed session to discuss either threatened or pending litigation, as they surely would have and should have done if any litigation has been threatened. I will have to assume none has.
I firmly believe this community is being lied to by Mayor Frimark. I do not believe this compromise is being offered to avoid litigation. I do not believe litigation has been seriously threatened.
I believe this is simply another backroom deal being orchestrated by Mayor Frimark and his special interest group of the week.
I will hold out hope that the aldermen on our city council will not allow this unethical maneuvering to be rewarded with their votes to approve a contract of this kind.
I would also like to offer my gratitude to the letter's author for a fine piece of writing and for allowing his words to be shared with the rest of us.
COME on, really??... worried about being sued for the 500 ft rule??? Shame on this a_ _ of a mayor for this bs.
Do you want...
1) Pottersville = Park Ridge
2) Bedford Falls = Park Ridge
1) Mr. Potter = Frimark
2) Harry Baily = Ald. Schmidt
Oh am I too excited to speak, and once again be away from my family only to be completely ignored by the a_ _ of a mayor of Park Ridge.
SHAME on this disgusting mayor. Shame on our priest.
500 ft rule is only reasonable solution. OUR KIDS, thats ALL we are thinking of.
Disgusted, gmab
deaf ears is right! or in one out the other.
Hey-
Would just a plain old soup kitchen setup at St. Paul be ok with everyone?
Nobody spending the night? Someone said that they ran out of food while serving last Saturday night at the Pads shelter. These are hard times for everyone right now.
let's do a food drive, raise money, coat drive, etc. Things we CAN DO to impact the homeless daily and show them people do care. NOBODY HAS SAID THAT PADS OR ANY HOMELESS SHELTER IS TURNING AWAY HOMELESS, MALCOM STEVENS, PADS SITE DIRECTOR OF DESPLAINES ST MARY'S SAID THE CAPACITY IS 40 AND TYPICALLY NO MORE THAT 20-25 SHOW UP.
anonymous 10:04
Nice reference to my favorite movie, you're not kidding!!!
Bohica!!!!
I really want to demonstrate!!!!how about meeting outside early in advance of the meeting 10/29 w/ signs and then the aldermen and mayor and fr carl and the loonies will all have to walk past us??????We could have signs and wear baseball caps or something, anything to show opposition and initimidate the pants off them!!
I'm serious, anyone interested?
anon 11:112PM:
I brought up the senario months ago and received virtually no response to the question.
The reason I think this is a valid question is that I believe it gets closer to the heart of the issue. People are picking and choosing arguments. Everyone focuses on SPC...."how could they put it at a school?????" I do not believe their plan was ever to put it in a school but instead they went there because objections and circumstances around a previous site (St. Mary's).
Now there are rumblings about the Publics Works building and there are already arguments about using a public building and city resourses. I said this would happen months ago when someone suggested the senior center. Let's just move the argument.
So let's pretend, as you suggest, that it is just a soup kitchen. No overnite guests in the gym. School not anywhere near open. It would just be open for a few hours to provide dinner. I do not for a second believe that all parties involved are going to agree on a plan like this. All of the risks that have been discussed are still there. People will ask "do we want PR to be know as a place for a hot meal drawing homeless from all over the NW burbs? Where will they go after dinner? Parks? Uptown? alleys?
One sides sees huge risk, the other sees managable risk. Either way, no matter how you package it, there is no such thing as risk free.
11:11 PM
Volunteer error is the only reason a PADS shelter would run out of food, either the volunteers didn't bring enough or it was just bad planning.
Each shelter has a known capacity and food would be based on that number. PADS never takes in more people than the capacity, and they do not allow meals only. So, either the volunteers are cheaping out, or the volunteers didn't plan for their capacity number. This is why professionals should run social services.
Anon @ 12:58AM. I'll be there. 7:00 sound good? I think we should make t-shirts. Thoughts?
Nothing in life is risk free. The question is the safety of our children and the citizens of Park Ridge. Public buildings such as the library and train station become hang outs and bathing stations for the homeless. Why? Because they are public building that are open to anyone and there is not much we or the police can do unless a crime or disturbance is committed. Safety MUST be our #1 priority!! Helping others, sorry, must come second.
It's like the airline safety speech before take off. Apply the oxygen mask to yourself before helping others. Why, because if you are dead, you can not help others!
to "a hopeful future neighbor" and the Mr. Biagi and family.... I second the invitation. Please come to the 5th ward. We need you. Our aldermonkey, if and when he shows his face at council or committee meetings, is worthless.
Think about it. Thank you.
Screw the damn protests and picketing and demand an April advisory referendum on homeless shelters. That's the only thing that has any chance of getting attention - in a positive rather than a negative way.
And since you can't prohibit homeless shelters altogether, maybe the referendum language should as the voters whether they want restrictions on homeless shelters that will (a) favor Park Ridge "residents" over outsiders; and (b) support health and safety restrictions and regulations on shetler to the fullest extent permitted by law.
That might not be the final language, but at least it's a start. Now get going!
I will call on my cirlce of friends associated with trying to get the P&Z recommendations passed - we will be there at 7pm - tell everyone you know - have a sign - 500ft, P&Z recommendations - NO EXCEPTIONS -
Can we do this without a permit or do we get a permit - I will apply if I have to -
Bring people out in masses - people who can't get babysitters all night ot sit for the fiasco of council meeting, bring the kids - let them see faces - bring yoru neighbors - people who are afraid to speak or don't want to get too involved have them just show up for 30 minutes for a showing of faces -
This is getting to battleground -
I will be there
Hoover I agree with you about the April referendum, but I'd still like to protest now....we can, and should, do both.
I would love Biagi or Schmidt for Mayor. I live in the 5th, I'll run against the no-show and agree now to follow either of these fine citizens lead. BTW, do we care if Ryan shows up? He doesn't have a brain or a spine anyway.
I'll be ther 7:00 sharp, any tshirt ideas? I can bring posters, we have to make sure they know we're not just a crowd, but unified with a purpose!!
Where and when is the protest going to be?
Let's have a wet white tshirt contest, I'll get all the mom's I know together. We'll show the kool aid drinkers what we're made of.
we're pro child not pro pads!!!
we should meet before the meeting at washington school on 10/29. Is 7:00 early enough? if the meeting starts at 7:30? I'll be there with my posters. And wet tshirt.
Hoover @ 11:15 am,
Actually, homeless shelters ARE prohibited in Park Ridge. This point is one of the very few things that Attorney Buzz has gotten right (he couldn't even come up with the proper procedure to amend a standing motion before the council). The Zoning Ordinance is exclusionary meaning if its not spelled out in it, its not permitted.
As for why PADS is against all this...this is the test case. All the surrounding communities are watching and will pretty much adopt the zoning changes as a model. Same thing happened when the whole Adult Use cases went through the court system. Once one ordinance was declared "legal", all the other communities follow suit.
PADS is scared to death of having to get special use permits for all their sites, the PRMA wants to do their good deed and his honor wants the votes the white shirts can deliver.
Checks and balances.
We don't need an Atty
to tell you that.
Inspection and enforcement
through the AHJ.
Let's move on!
Thank you.
The reason Frimark is so set on having PADS in Park Ridge, is that after he gets voted out, he'll need a place to stay.
I say do what you can to get anyone outside at 7am - signs that say PROTECT OUR CHILDREN - or ACCEPT P&Z RECOMMENDATIONS AS IS - bring the kids - make it a fmaily affair - a strong showing in force outside is enough - let them walk past us at Washington school and see all the people who can't stay and sit through the bulls@%^ meeting - we can chant protect our children or something... we seriously need a turning out as if this was the local high school football championships...
Post a Comment