Happy Thanksgiving!

by: VermontFerret - flickr.com

Have a great holiday!

Sunshine Superman! -- Updated!

By: daniellefave

Many of you may remember that back in March Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg got into trouble with Mayor Howard and his council lapdogs for daring to disclose public business to the public.

The PRU Crew decided to nominate Ald. Dave for a Sunshine Troublemaker of the Week award, and Ald. Dave won!

The Open Records blog wrote, "Alderman Schmidt’s response to a “resolution of condemnation” signed by the Mayor and several other alderman is that it is an: …illegal resolution [which] will have absolutely no effect on how I conduct myself as an alderman, so the mayor’s behind-the-scenes machinations were a complete waste of time.”

As with most things, time is the test. So we are very pleased to see that Ald. Dave is making good on his promise to continue to be open and honest with the public. And we are very pleased to see Ald. Dave has made that promise part of his campaign platform.

Addendum -- The fine folks over at the Open Records blog have taken notice!

We're Gonna Need A Bigger Boat!

Back in October of 2007, a little over a year ago, we told PRU readers Lesson #1: Pay Attention!



In that piece we wrote about how the council's Finance and Budget committee, chaired by the Lord of the Manor, Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd Ward) had been cancelling meetings. We viewed those cancellations as a mixed blessing but warned that, "We sure do hope the Lord of the Manor is paying attention, because his won't be the only ass that could get bitten by something that creeps up from behind."

Six months later, in April 2008, we again wrote about the Finance and Budget committee meeting to discuss some serious budget issues that had crept up. We called that piece Lesson #2: Pay Attention or Pay Up!

Well people, just another six months later and the piper's come calling again, and he's got really really big teeth and an insatiable appetite! The city's bloody red spending is starting to look a lot like this --



Who's the guy on the surf board, you may ask? You'll find the answer in the mirror.

Last year's red ink totaled a whopping $1.7 million dollars, and according to some of the recent articles in the local rags, the city is poised to be swamped with another red ink wave of the same magnitude.

We're glad to see the Finance and Budget committee hasn't cancelled their next meeting (.pdf), but we sure do wish they'd post those financial statements their background memo (.pdf) refers to.

So people, how long can you tread water?

Real Estate Downfall!

...the housing bubble bursts on a speculator.



Enjoy life's simple pleasures this weekend!

Reader Soapbox!

Today we read in the Park Ridge Herald that Alderman Ryan has asked for costs involving potential design/construction of a new police station.

I for one am for this and congratulate the city fathers once and for all.

But , recently we have seen the posted statements by our new city manager Mr. James Hock who stated that we are currently operating a city budget that is in the "red ".

Therefore, if we are already in the hole - why would we go forward with this proposal ?

Did we miss something here ?

A letter was submitted ( respectfully ) with suggestions as to how we can cut the fat from the budget. Such as :

- Stop the use of take home city cars for those non-emergency personnel.

- Stop all paid overtime with time due being substitute until funds are available.

- Salary cuts and start from the top down on a volunteer basis - first.

We are in tough financial times and have seen other cities cut very deep such as the city of Naperville in cutting three officers and two fire fighters from their budget.

The city of Hoffman estates had decided not to fill the five vacancies from their police department also due to the budget.

We certainly hope that this will not be the case here in Park Ridge but if we don't get tough and stop the spending and make some revisions within the city - we could see the above nightmare in loosing highly trained city department personnel being laid off.

I'm sure this is not what the city and the residents want.
Less coverage and more spending.

Its like the current rear wheel squad cars that we have patrolling the streets - when the heavy snow comes - our wheels will only spin.

We need some traction with our budget and those who protect us deserve only the best. Let's not let them or the residents down before its too late.

Thank you.
Gene Spanos
Park Ridge Resident

New Meat!

The PRU Crew is very happy to post the following announcement!

Today I am announcing my candidacy for the office of Mayor of Park Ridge.

When I was elected First Ward Alderman less than two years ago, my only desire was to serve the residents of the First Ward to the best of my ability – in the most open, accountable, and fiscally-conservative way possible. And that is what I have tried to do for these past 18 months.

But during my time in office, it has become increasingly clear that the entire city is suffering from a lack of vision, a lack of credibility, and a lack of leadership in City Hall. Most troubling, however, is the widespread lack of confidence and trust in the person currently holding the office of mayor.

Consequently, I am running for mayor, first and foremost, to restore the public’s trust in city government and in the office of mayor.

As "The Great Communicator," President Ronald Reagan, advised: "trust, but verify." As mayor of Park Ridge I pledge that city government will earn our residents’ trust by making everything it does – EVERYTHING – completely transparent and readily "verifiable."

I will work to ensure that all important information about city government is posted on the city’s website in a timely fashion, and that it is posted in an easily accessible and understandable form. The city’s website should be the ultimate public information resource, available 24/7 and fifty-two weeks per year.

Not only do I pledge to make Park Ridge city government as transparent as possible, but I promise to end the secret, behind-the-scenes deal-making that has characterized city government under the current administration. There will be no special sweetheart deals at the taxpayers’ expense for anybody – not my friends, not my business associates, not my campaign contributors.

Not only will I disclose any personal, social or business relationship with anyone seeking anything from the city, but I will not cast a tie-breaking vote on any such matter, because the residents of Park Ridge who pay this city’s bills also keep this city’s heart; and they should never have to wonder for even an instant whose side their mayor is on.

I believe in balanced budgets and sound fiscal policy because we cannot govern ourselves and provide for the future of our community by a policy of irresponsible spending and debt. I oppose mortaging our city's and our children's future for short term benefits or mere convenience. And I support utilizing our limited resources to do what is most important to the residents: upgrade and maintain our city’s infrastructure and delivery of basic services instead of going further into debt to build a new police facility.

As a fiscal conservative and believer in the free market system, I consider myself a friend of business. The residents want and need a vibrant business community. As mayor, I will work for a city government that encourages, accommodates and facilitates the ownership and operation of local businesses, but that does not spend our hard-earned tax dollars on handouts and subsidies.

I am running for mayor because this community stands at a crossroads. It has survived and thrived as a bedroom community made up of primarily single-family residences, conveniently located to both the Loop and O'Hare Airport. But the current mayor and his allies, while claiming to love this community, at the same time have worked relentlessly to drastically and permanently change this community's appearance and fundamental character. I do not believe the residents support such a change.

In addition to its uniquely exceptional location, the quality of life here in Park Ridge is what draws people to move here and remain here. That is why I support the preservation of a diverse assortment of structures and appropriate green space, and why I believe that growth and development must be held to the highest standards of performance and compatibility with this city’s character and feel. I pledge to look carefully at every development application to ensure that it does not adversely affect the existing character and uses of the area in which the development will occur.

Finally, I have chosen to run for mayor because I have found the vast majority of the people of Park Ridge are confident, courageous, generous and persevering. Those are the people whom I would be honored and privileged to represent and serve as mayor of this city, and those are the people whose support I seek in this endeavor.

I welcome the input of the residents from whom I will draw my strength and support. Anyone wishing to contact me or learn more about me, where I stand and what my vision is for Park Ridge should visit my campaign website at electdaveschmidt.com.

Watch your back, Alderman Dave. The purveyors of the status quo -- peddlers of business as usual -- are massing to give you one hell of a fight.

Attempting A Municipal Mobius Strip Trip!

Mobius Strip


Our source reports have come in and here we go, PRU readers! A council recap for your reading pleasure!


As most of you know the City Council met last night at Washington School. After the usual niceties of roll call and pledge of allegiance, the council got to work.


First up was a proclamation in recognition of the Rotary Club Fruit Day; the citrus variety.


Next, Mayor Howard reported on this past weekend's Strategic Planning meeting. According to the mayor, the city staff and council met on both Friday evening and Saturday to formulate their grand plan -- 12 formulated goals for Park Ridge to "move forward" in the upcoming years. Mayor Howard assured everyone that a report of the meeting would be available in the near future. We can hardly wait to see what this bunch of spendthrifts has planned for us now!


Then Mayor Howard repeated his prepared statement about respecting all points of view and that the audience has generally been respectful and he wanted that to continue. The Mayor went on to say that while a site for a homeless shelter was no longer being considered the council would still have to amend the municipal code to address the issue of temporary homeless shelters in Park Ridge. The Mayor also reminded those present that speaking time for members of the audience would be limited to 3 minutes.


Alderman Frank Wsol (7th ward) then offered a nice remembrance for the recent passing of Dr. Martin Doot of Lutheran General Hospital. Dr. Doot was a member of the Community Health Commission and instrumental in that commission's founding.


The City Attorney's report was next on the agenda. Buzz Hill, as required by ordinance for the responsibilities of the City Attorney, made a disclosure for Acting Director of Community Development, Ms. Carrie Davis. Park Ridge Plaza LLC is a petitioner to the city and Ms. Davis' husband works for the architectural firm that represents the petitioner; therefore, Ms. Davis will not participate further in the applicant's petition for consideration from the city.


The City Clerk, Betty Henneman, then informed the assembly that the recent referendum to stagger the terms of aldermen passed by nearly 70% of the vote. The staggering of aldermanic terms will begin in the year 2011.


City Manager, Jim Hock, then began his report. The first item of business was final approval of the ordinance regarding licensing regulations for temporary overnight homeless shelters. Mr. Hock clarified language in the ordinance regarding medical care -- "medical care, nursing care or clinical services may not be offered as a regular service at any temporary overnight shelter." Some exceptions apply to seasonal vaccinations, non-prescription drugs, emergency medical attention, and routine, non-invasive treatments.


The ordinance was motioned for consideration by the 2nd ward's Lord of the Manor, Rich DiPietro. Mayor Howard then asked the council if they had any questions, and we are pleased to report that none of the aldermen were dumb enough to admit it if, at this point in time, they did. The Mayor then moved to comments from the audience.


Ms. Jennifer Conlon, the champion of all things ministerial, rose to speak. Our sources report Ms. Conlon tried to finagle longer than a 3 minute limit on speaking time but, to his unusual credit, Mayor Howard denied that request. Ms. Conlon then read a prepared statement that repeated the same old, discredited positions held by the Park Ridge Ministerial Association and the PADS homeless shelter supporters.


Ms. Conlon then asked the council to vote against the ordinance, or to table it. And that is where the idea of a municipal mobius strip trip comes in. In the Crew's view, what Ms. Conlon and her cohorts -- each addressing the council to ask that they vote against the licensing regulation or table the ordinance -- were attempting to do after what has been a long, twisting, and arduous trip down the municipal process path, is to attempt to begin at the beginning again. Doesn't that sound like fun? Wouldn't everyone like to go through this all over again? Wasn't it fun? Everyone who's taken this trip could just take one more step and find themselves right back where they started! Rockin' good time!


Next Ms. Margaret Gallagher Smythe picked up where Ms. Conlon's 3 minutes ended, and she too repeated, for 3 minutes, the warn out arguments of how Journeys from PADS to Hope has been done wrong!


Next Mr. Joe Garvey continued in the shared statement, offering his 3 minutes to ask if Park Ridge wants to be a town that only "writes checks" to charities? As far as the PRU Crew is concerned, that sounds fine by us. But we are wondering which self-righteous charities will now begin turning away cash donations being offered by the generous residents of Park Ridge? Maybe Mr. Garvey should put together a list and let everyone know which charities don't want just our checks any longer.


After Mr. Garvey spoke, Mrs. Garvey rose to offer her portion of the endlessly shared 3 minute statement. Mrs. Garvey informed all present that she's lived in Park Ridge for 38 years and that after all the meetings it's very sad that there won't be a homeless shelter in Park Ridge this year. Jeeze, Mrs. Garvey, have you been sad about that for the past 38 years? Or did it take you 38 years to notice Park Ridge doesn't have a homeless shelter?


Mrs. Garvey took particular aim at Alderman Dave Schmidt (1st ward) and "his band of anonymous bloggers" who had "entertained" everyone and treated this issue "like a Saturday Night Live skit!"


-- The PRU Crew will pause now and take a bow! --


Though we were hoping to be more like "The Onion" -- we like this one too -- we'll settle for comparisons to Saturday Night Live! Knock, knock Mrs. Garvey -- Candy gram!


Mrs. Garvey went on to speculate on whether Ald. Schmidt was the source that revealed the nasty email from Fr. Carl Morello in which he accused those opposed to a PADS homeless shelter of "racial and economic bigotry." For the record, the PRU Crew states that we also received copies of Fr. Carl Morello's email, and Ald. Schmidt was not the source. If we'd gotten it a day sooner, we would have scooped the Pub-dogs!


Then Mrs. Garvey decided to sling some serious dirt and stated that Ald. Schmidt told a news reporter the PRMA was staging a protest march. We do not know if Ald. Schmidt did that, but we will say we believe we were the first to publicly characterize the PRMA's "Bellowing for the Homeless" as a protest march through Uptown Park Ridge, because march through Uptown Park Ridge is exactly what they did. These folks are really radicals! (editor's note -- paragraph content corrected)


Mrs. Garvey concluded her remarks by saying that Ald. Schmidt's actions may not be illegal but they have been unethical and "he deserves sanctioning from the citizens and council."


Well, Ald. Dave -- at least she didn't threaten to condemn you! But we do feel that if you run for Mayor you may want to skip knocking on the Garvey's door, unless you're delivering a candy gram! And you can take comfort in knowing that, even after having lived in Park Ridge for 38 years, Mrs. Garvey still only gets to cast one vote. Democracy is funny that way.


Then, on a roll call vote, the council voted 6 (Carey, Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro, Bach, and Allegretti) to 1 (Ryan) to approve the final reading of the ordinance regarding licensing regulations for temporary overnight homeless shelters.


Next came a motion for final approval for the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary overnight shelters, creating a special use permit process.


Alderman Bach offered an amendment to attempt to limit shelter operations to Friday and Saturday nights to "protect kids" and make sure there would be "no Monday morning overlap." Our sources tell us that they truly believe that this amendment was offered with conviction and sincere consideration for the school children and concerned parents, and that the PRU Crew should be nice to Bach today, which is why we aren't going to call him Bachtard for the rest of our post today.


Again it was Ms. Jennifer Conlon who rose to speak, and ask that all the "evidence" presented by the homeless shelter supporters on September 23, 2008 be included in the record. We don't remember a public meeting taking place on that date, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a meeting held with homeless shelter -- PADS supporters or that they didn't submit "evidence" to city officials on the subject. Ms. Conlon went on to say that there is no evidence to support claims that the homeless pose a risk, that there is no evidence that this will apply anywhere else children are present, and that this is discrimination against the homeless in violation of city ordinances.


Alderman DiPietro said he would not vote for Bach's amendment because he felt they have "talked this thing to death" and the amendment was "over the top." Alderman Schmidt refuted Ms. Conlon's claims of lack of evidence of the health and safety risks that homeless shelters may pose.


In a roll call vote the amendment failed in a vote of 3 (Carey, Schmidt, and Bach) to 4 (Wsol, DiPietro, Allegretti, and Ryan).


Then it was Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan's (5th ward) turn to try his hand at offering an amendment. Ryan wanted to add language that "parking for temporary overnight shelters be entirely on site, or immediately adjacent to, or directly across the street." Ryan was inspired to offer this amendment because several people had concerns about the homeless congregating in the area of a shelter and that St. Mary's did not have enough on-site parking.


Alderman Wsol asked if it was more appropriate to follow past parking regulations and would this apply to any other entities? Acting Director of Community Development Carrie Davis said "the regulations used typically satisfy parking for the use of the property", which should now make that issue clear to everyone.


Alderman DiPietro said he felt the current, relevant language "gives staff broad leeway to incorporate what Ald. Ryan is proposing." The City Attorney said the current, relevant language gives the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to fashion the special use.


When it was time for comments from the audience, everyone's favorite homeless shelter pusher, Ms. Jennifer Conlon rose again to address the council. After hearing the audible groans from other members of the audience, Ms. Conlon prefaced her remarks by saying, "Someone has to speak on behalf of the people who are cold", which we are told by our sources prompted the Herald-Advocate reporter to leave her seat and turn off a giant fan whirring in one corner of the room. Ms. Conlon went on to say that she thought Ryan's amendment was ridiculous and she asked whether the next regulation would be to have the homeless "wear little aitches (h)?" Now that you mention it, Ms. Conlon, that's not a bad idea -- it would make it easier for all the super duper do gooders to identify those in need and take one or two of them into their own homes, one night a week or 365 nights a year; your choice, and bonus! no regulations!


When it was again the council's turn to speak, Ryan took umbrage at having his parking amendment called "ridiculous", and DiPietro said he understood the intent of the amendment but that the language under the special use is there now.


In a roll call vote the amendment failed by 2 (Bach and Ryan) to 5 (Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro, Allegretti, and Carey)


But Benedict Alderman Ryan was not deterred and offered another amendment to change language that would require application for special use to be made by the owner and operator of a homeless shelter, if the owner of the property were different from the operator. The motion for this amendment died for lack of a second. Still, Ryan felt the need to explain that he wanted to change the language so that the PRMA would be considered the operator and he felt there was no need for co-applicants, that the language as it now stands is onerous, and would discourage helping those in need.


On a final roll call vote, for final approval for the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary overnight shelters, creating a special use permit process, the council voted 5 (Schmidt, DiPietro, Bach, Allegretti, and Wsol) to 2 (Ryan and Carey) to adopt the ordinance.


At this point a member of the audience tried to ask Mayor Howard if she could address the council because many members of the audience had thought they would be given a chance to speak to the main motion just passed by the council but that Mayor Howard had not asked the audience for comment. Mayor Howard denied her request.


And the Crew would again like to repeat segments from one of our earlier posts on this subject --


"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. 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."


And we sure hope none of us is given a reason to have to talk about PADS or the PRMA for a long while.


In other council business, Ald. Schmidt refused to authorize another payment to the law firm of Ekl Williams, who our souces tell us has now billed the city for a total of approximately $100,000.00 -- 33% above the original bid for the police department audit. Ald. Schmidt said Terry Ekl had billed the city $2,000.00 to appear before the council and stonewall elected officials in answering questions. Schmidt attempted to amend the motion to approve the warrants -- payments of city bills -- to exclude the Ekl Williams bill, but the amendment died for lack of a second and the council voted 6 to 1 to approve the warrants.


The last items of business on the council agenda were approvals for an IDOT resolution to indemnify the State of Illinois for red light camera equipment placed on IDOT property, authorization for the city to enter an agreement for red light cameras, and to approve the placement of one red light camera at Oakton and Northwest Hwy. These three first reading motions were each approved on a unanimous voice vote of the council.


Finally under New Business --


1. -- Alderman Schmidt professed to having a "brain cramp" and said he had intended to vote "no" to the main motion to adopt the text amendment to the zoning code regarding homeless shelters. He reminded the assembly that the ordinances do not prohibit homeless shelters in Park Ridge, they only regulate them, and he urged all citizens interested in the issue of homelessness to rally behind the Park Ridge Center of Concern.


2. -- Alderman Schmidt said there is a difference of opinion regarding the building of a new police station and that to address this difference he would introduce a resolution at the next city council meeting, asking the council to approve a resolution for a referendum vote on the issue. PRUdos to Ald. Schmidt!


3. -- Resident John Humm asked the council about any follow-up report on the flooding issues and whether the Sibley Pump Station had been repaired yet. Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim said the pump would be repaired tomorrow. Ald. Bach told Mr. Humm he has asked the City Engineer for a report, and also if Mr. Humm would be willing to participate in meeting with himself, the Mayor and various government muckety mucks to see if they can find a solution -- "solution" being "government speak" for money -- to the flooding problems.


With that, the council adjourned the meeting.

Solutions Seeking Problems!

photo credit: pissedpoet pics; artist, Henry Bateman

Or, bait and switch, if you prefer.

The PRU Crew feels today's post title perfectly captures the essence of one of the meetings set to take place tonight.

First up will be a Special Public Safety Committee meeting whose members, Chairman Frank Wsooooolman (7th ward), Don Bachtard (3rd ward), and James Allspaghetti (4th ward) will take action to "APPROVE IDOT RESOLUTION AGREEING TO INDEMNIFY THE STATE OF ILLINOIS FOR PHOTO ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO IDOT FACILITIES."

If nothing else, government bureaucracy is exceptionally good at finger pointing.

In the cover memo (.pdf) for tonight's meeting we read that "IDOT does not allow Red Light Cameras at intersections interconnected with railroad crossing signals"; the Oakton and Dee intersection, that was originally recommended for a red light camera by Red Speed. We wonder if the consultant, Mr. Liebert of Red Speed, knew about the IDOT regulation the first time his company studied and then recommended that intersection in Park Ridge? He's an expert in this area, isn't he?

It is also interesting to note that the intersection now being recommended for a red light camera, Oakton and Northwest Hwy., was not among the intersections initially recommended by either of the red light camera companies asked to do studies. According to the August 7, 2008 Public Safety meeting minutes (.pdf) Mr. Liebert's Red Speed company studied 5 intersections and recommended 3 intersections for red light camera installation: one camera at Oakton & Dee, Summit & Touhy, and Cumberland & Devon. Red Speed didn't study the intersection of Oakton and Northwest Hwy.; that was probably left to the other red light camera company, Red Flex.

According to the July 17, 2008 minutes (.pdf) of the Public Safety Committee meeting, Red Flex did not find enough violations at the 5 intersections they studied to justify installation of red light cameras. And according to acting Chief of Police Swoboda, the "top ten intersections" in Park Ridge were studied by these red light camera companies. Anyone care to guess whether or not the intersection of Oakton and Northwest Hwy. was among the "top ten intersections" studied?

So now, since IDOT won't allow installation of a red light camera at the intersection originally recommended by Red Speed, all the red light camera fans can all take comfort that another study was done and, voila! There now appear to be enough violations at the newly recommended intersection to justify installation of a city cash generator -- oh, sorry! We meant to say red light photo enforcement equipment.

And can anybody tell us why the other two intersections originally recommended by Red Speed weren't selected?

What's that sucking sound, you may ask? That's the sound of red light camera fans sucking up the "safety" koolaid while getting their taxpaying wallets hoovered. Just lay back and try to enjoy it.


And it will all take place tonight, along with another favorite topic -- "final approval of an ordinance regarding licensing regulations of temporary overnight shelters to be included in the Municipal Code, Chapter 12" and "final approval of an ordinance for Text Amendment TA-08-02 to the Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary overnight shelters, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission" -- that is, if the darkside forces can't manage to have the ordinances tabled, so that they can, at some point in the not too distant future, try again to circumvent the will of the people.

Just lay back and try to enjoy it.

Awesome!

Our thanks to a PRU reader for the submission.

Have an awesome weekend!

More PRU Briefs!

1. -- Give the Pub-dogs a bone!

If you haven't had a chance yet, get on over to the Pub-dog's blog and read their post The Anatomy Of Fiscal Irresponsibility - Part 1. The PRU Crew is looking forward to Part 2!


2. -- You know who you are.

In response to the following comment and many repeated inquiries --

Anonymous said...I can see the few people who still read the vitriol spewed on this cowards blog are having a good time talking to themselves. The rest of Park Ridge has gotten past any curiosity that might have existed when the crackpots who publish this mean and spiteful garbage first started their hate campaign. November 8, 2008 5:07 PM

We set our PRU Tech loose backstage -- the following is from our reader meter for the last 45 weeks. We again say that we are humbled by the response to our blog -- averaging 2000 unique readers per week is beyond any of our expectations.


open pic in new window for clearer view

For the PRU Crew's part, we well understand that not everyone who reads here agrees with the positions we take. But they still read here, which proves to us what we have always suspected; the people of Park Ridge are hungry for information and will seek it out if they can find a resource for it that doesn't dose them with koolaid in the process -- and, they are adults who can handle not only dissenting opinion but also the unvarnished truth.

Rosemary's Risky Business!

Note -- PRU will be coloring a bit outside the lines today, but when garbage like this lands in the mailboxes of unsuspecting Park Ridge residents, we can't resist.



The PRU Crew was doing some after-election reading and ran across this on a dailyherald.com blog called 'Animal Farm' -- which by the by we think is a pretty great name for a political blog.

Blog author JP wrote the post which contains the following quote from State Representative Rosemary Mulligan: “I had my people ready to vote for McCain. Then they put Palin on (the ticket) and they look and me and say, ‘What do you want me to do now?’” (sic)

We guess Rosemary had a "eureka" moment while searching her soul for an answer, and then she had her campaign and political operatives mail out the following, which some faithful PRU readers and Park Ridge residents were kind enough to send us --












We know who "Citizens for Rosemary Mulligan" are, but we had never heard of the "Independent Campaign Committee." So, we looked them up. And we still aren't too sure about who they are, but if they're sending out political mail with Obama's picture on it, we're willing to take a wildass guess that they're probably on the liberal side of the aisle.

And as long as we were digging around the Illinois State Board of Elections Campaign Disclosure website, we decided to take a look at Rosemary's disclosure filings too -- to see if Rosemary had declared an in-kind contribution from the "Independent Campaign Committee", who were kind enough to inform the voters of Park Ridge of Rosemary's political similitude to Barack Obama.

We found that the $84,058.76 Rosemary reported in in-kind contributions came from three sources:

1 -- the Illinois Republican Party gave Rosemary $30,607.84

2 -- the House Republican Organization gave Rosemary $26,144.88

3 -- Personal PAC gave Rosemary $27,306.04

Personal PAC gave more in-kind moola to Mulligan than the House Republican Organization. And can anybody guess who is largely responsible for funding Personal PAC? We'll give you a hint -- the label starts with a capital "D" and ends in "emocrats."

For those of you not familiar with who Personal PAC is, they bill themselves as "a bi-partisan political action committee dedicated to electing pro-choice candidates to state and local office in Illinois." And from what we can tell, they do conduct themselves in a bi-partisan way. But one of our faithful PRU readers is of the opinion that Personal PAC will bend over backwards to ruthlessly endorse pro-choice Republicans because there aren't all that many currently holding office -- and Personal PAC needs to maintain the appearance of bi-partisanship.

Welcome people to a taste of the more local version of what columnist John Kass calls "the Combine."

What the PRU Crew believes is that politicians have long understood partisan politics only really matters to ignorant voters that can't be bothered to pay attention, and easy labels are a useful tool for confronting the ignorant. So we strongly suggest that the next time somebody like Rosemary's Political Baby tries to play you for a fool, short-hand the discussion, and warn you that he's the only thing holding back the marauding Democrat horde from invading Park Ridge, tell Rosemary's Political Baby they're already here and they helped get Rosemary re-elected.

Veteran's Day 2008 - Observance

In observance of Veterans Day - Again today we will set aside any discussion of politics, government, elected leaders, and policy concerns in order to offer our deepest gratitude to those soldiers who have served our country to protect our freedoms, so that tomorrow, and every tomorrow to come, we may again freely discuss politics, government, elected leaders, and policy concerns.

To all our veterans near and far, thank you.
May God bless you all.

Fat Cat Frimark!

As a handful of our very first PRU readers may remember, we published a piece we called Hat Trick! for our third PRU post. It was a fast, tongue-in-cheek look at Mayor Howard's relationship to three applicants to the Liquor License Review Board.

We hadn't checked in on the Liquor Board in some time, partly because they meet somewhat infrequently. But we decided to take a look and see what is on the City calendar and agenda for this week, and we saw that the Liquor Board is set to meet this evening.


screen shot of city website from this morning.

What we don't see is an agenda or any supporting documents listed for the meeting. And failing to post an agenda is a violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. The IOMA plainly states:

(5 ILCS 120/2.02)
(from Ch. 102, par. 42.02)
Sec. 2.02. Public notice of all meetings, whether open or closed to the public, shall be given as follows: (a) Every public body shall give public notice of the schedule of regular meetings at the beginning of each calendar or fiscal year and shall state the regular dates, times, and places of such meetings. An agenda for each regular meeting shall be posted at the principal office of the public body and at the location where the meeting is to be held at least 48 hours in advance of the holding of the meeting. A public body that has a website that the full‑time staff of the public body maintains shall also post on its website the agenda of any regular
meetings of the governing body of that public body. Any agenda of a regular meeting that is posted on a public body's website shall remain posted on the website until the regular meeting is concluded.

The PRU Crew then decided to take a look at minutes from past meetings of the Liquor License Review Board. At the board's December 3, 2007 meeting (.pdf), they reviewed 30 licenses for renewal and at their March 6, 2008 meeting (.pdf) they reviewed approval for 1 license.

Of the 31 liquor licenses reviewed and approved by the Liquor License Review Board, Mayor Howard had to recuse himself from discussion and voting on 8 licenses -- a little over one quarter of all the licenses approved in the City of Park Ridge!

Pay-to-Play! Priceless!

Update! -- 3:45pm -- The City has finally posted an agenda, background memo, and draft ordinance for tonight's Liquor Review Board meeting -- just hours before it is to take place. You may review the documents here. Minutes of the Liquor Review Board's last meeting held on June 10, 2008 seem to still be unavailable.

Update! -- per PRU reader "MIKE" -- CANC 6:30 p.m. Liquor License Review Board: -->This event has been cancelled.

Got to love decisive leadership!

Freewheeling!

Our congratulations to the winners.
Our condolences to the losers.

We're glad the frenzied federal election season has come to a close.

Enjoy the rest of your week.

Election Day 2008!

Republicans are red
Democrats are blue
Let the party of your choice
Be sure to hear from you!



Vote today!

PRESSto Chango!

As many PRU readers may remember, a year ago the City Council voted in favor of giving Norwood's Park Ridge 2004 LLC a density variance for 8 additional condo units; bringing the total number of residential units to be built on the site of Executive Office Plaza to 168. Condominium projects of this type are referred to as "planned unit developments", or PUDs.

We covered the matter at length in a dozen posts beginning here. And as we told PRU readers here, the variance sought for the density was based largely on the inclusion of 50 units -- less than 1/3 of the development -- for "senior housing."

So in last week's edition of the Herald-Advocate an article headline caught our attention:



Senior housing project? What Senior housing project? A 168 unit development that is less than fully 1/3 for senior housing is a "senior housing project?" The local rag has got to be kidding!

Then the PRU Crew remembered the magic of the local press; help the politicians hang their hat on whatever smoke and mirrors spin will make them "look their best", as City Cluck Betty Henneman has been known to phrase it.

Just more of the same.