#1 -- Follow the Leader!
For those of you who spent the time to read 3rd Ward Alderman Don Bachtard's letter to the press announcing Mayor Howard's re-election bid, we commend you for your endurance. You may recall the following passage from the letter, where Bachtard claims :
"We have had far fewer closed session meetings compared than other neighboring cities, and all of them have been in compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act. If any of them were not, I am sure Mr. Schmidt and his cronies would have seen to it that the incidents were reported and prosecuted for their own political purposes. Since this has not happened, in spite of their best efforts to try, it should be obvious that Mr. Schmidt's bellicose bellowing about transparency is motivated by his desire to win the election and has no basis in fact. Please also keep in mind that Mr. Schmidt was censured by his peers on the council for revealing confidential information from a closed session."
Well it looks like somebody did report it, and Mayor Howard and his cronies were admonished by the Office of the Attorney General. We thank one of our faithful readers for the submission.
MadiganIOMAltr508pg1&2
This is the incident that earned Park Ridge an Illinois Press Association 3rd Place Worsty Award. We do note that the Country Club meeting was moved back to City Hall, according to Mayor Howard, "to make everybody happy." So Bachtard's claim that all the meetings the City Council has held have been "in compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act" is technically correct. But that doesn't mean Mayor Howard and his lapdogs haven't tried! And it also means that 1st Ward Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg's "bellicose bellowing about transparency" does appear to have some "basis in fact," in addition to the citizen survey results we assume Bachtard was given a copy of.
We also see that Alderman Bachtard is listed as a recipient of a "cc" for the Madigan letter, but maybe Bachtard didn't read it because he was busy with other things -- like spending quality time with his dictionary in preparation for one of his nasty letters to the press?
#2 -- Quickie Council Recap
As expected, at last night's City Council meeting --
1. -- PRC developers got what they asked for; the City Council voted to allow the Uptown developer to rent retail space to service provider Coldwell Banker. However, semi-PRUdos for the Council requiring that, should Coldwell Banker leave the space before the term of the lease expires, PRC will guaranty the sales tax replacement payments to the City. Additionally, the sales tax replacement payments will not be added to the deductions PRC takes before it figures the 11% rate of return on the development before profit sharing with the City. Still, don't expect any profit sharing with the City.
2. -- The 5th Ward's Benedict Alderman Ryan offered a formula for figuring square footage and the allowable number and size for televisions in restaurants. We are so relieved! The change to the liquor ordinance passed with flying colors.
3. -- Alderman Bachtard and Mayor Horses Ass got blasted by one resident who found Bachtard's letter to the press, announcing Mayor Howard's re-election bid, very negative. We're wondering if this method of operating comes as a surprise to anyone? Of course Bachtard went negative on behalf of his master! That way Mayor Howard can appear to be above the fray! Look! There Goes Elvis!
The Council was also treated to citizen opinions about their conduct in failing to second Ald. Schmidtzkrieg's motion for a resolution to discuss a referendum on building a new police station. And the citizens' opinions were decidedly unhappy.
In response to a recent quote in one of the local rags, where Mayor Howard discussed the wording of the police station referendum and said, "The way Schmidt had it questioned, no one in their right mind would vote for that. It has to be a fair and honest question, " one resident challenged Mayor Howard, saying, "Come up with your own wording for the referendum question!" The PRU Crew thinks this may be the meanest thing anybody has ever said to Mayor Howard because, as most folks know, Mayor Howard can barely manage words already written for him!
9 comments:
Is there anyplace on the City's website where we can see exactly what the City has paid out so far in connection with the Uptown Redevelopment, what it has taken in so far in taxes or whatever gets set off against the expenses, and the amount of debt we still have in connection with Uptown Redevelopment?
I've looked and can't find anything.
great post. and you've got to love "bellicose bellowing" for alliteration value, if nothing else. right up there with "nattering nabobs".
Is that a direct quote from Howie, "No one in their right mind?" REALLY?
Um...all those not in their right mind in the City Council please raise your hand.
sheesh! That was tooooo easy Howie.
As a friend of several wonderful referenda that did not pass, I believe there is a legal requirement that the cost of the referendum must be expressed in dollar figures in the question, and so the less concrete benefits of the project necessarily come off worse, in marketing terms. There's no way in a few sentences anyone can craft a referendum question that expresses enough of any referendum's benefits when compared to the stark horror of the actual dollar figure just about anything will cost. But Howard is wrong; that's NOT Schmidt's fault or a plot, either. It's just how referenda are worded. It tends to prevent the expenditure.
You could say "Shall the City proceed to the Rapture and take every resident with it to a bliss-filled eternity for a cost not to exceed twenty million dollars?" and it would fail. All you see is "twenty million dollars" and it's OMG! time.
Referenda are tough sells, regardless of the merits of the case. Sometimes, that's not a bad thing!
Go back to PDF that Scribd is awful
The latest spin on the police station appeared in Frimark's comments to the Herald-Advocate in a story on their web site: The referendum seeks opinion on a plan that hasn't been made yet. My favorite paragraph:
"Second Ward Alderman Rich DiPietro and 3rd Ward Alderman Don Bach also said they did not support Schmidt's motion because the language, like that on the petitions being circulated by referendum supporters, sets $16.5 million as the cost of a police station even though no action has been taken by the council supporting this."
So here's a question -- why not entertain Schmidt's motion for the purpose of having a little discussion and pointing this out to him?
Answer -- because you already plan to spend the $16.5 million but you haven't made it "official" yet.
That poor horse looks constipated.
MWIP,
That poor horse, like much of city hall, needs an enema.
Anyone care to do a FOIA request to see how - if at all - the city responded to the letter from Maddy's office?
~SN~
Anonymous on December 16, 2008 10:47 PM:
There are no "wonderful referenda," just like there are no "wonderful taxes." "Necessary" or "unnecessary," yes, but not "wonderful."
The reason referenda with dollar figures attached scare people is because THEY SHOULD! This is real money that these governmental bodies want to spend. And usually that money comes from long-term bonds that add millions more in interest and costs to the original price.
That's why most referendum proponents and other irresonsible spenders (like Howard, Bach and DiPietro) always beef when dollars are mentioned. But if we all ran our personal lives the way they want to run our city government, we'd all be driving BMWs that we'd be paying off for the next 20 years while having a hard time paying for the gas needed to drive them.
Hey, that sounds a lot like Park Ridge city government already.
Post a Comment