The Crew appreciates your patience -- yesterday, the technology came through, but the clock was not on our side. So here today are the second two videos from Monday night's Council COW meeting, for your viewing pleasure.
video #00002.MTS
Begins with continuing discussion and vote on the Historic Preservation ordinance amendments offered by Ald. Ryan., then amendments offered by Ald. Wsol, then amendments offered by Ald. DiPietro
@46:00 mark -- Discussion begins on modification to liquor ordinance relating to live entertainment
@48:08 mark -- Discussion begins on modification to the Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA) for the Uptown Redevelopment agreement between the City of Park Ridge and PRC Partners
video #00003.MTS
Begins with continuing discussion of the Uptown Redevelopment REA
@00:17 mark -- During discussion of the Uptown topic, Deputy City Mgr. Maller opines that she/they "don't believe there will be any profit" for the City of Park Ridge from partnership with PRC for the development project
@04:05 mark -- Discussion of property maintenance code begins
@15:55 mark -- Public Works Committee begins -- with discussion of payment to Des Plaines on Levy 50
@27:55 mark -- Discussion begins on ordinance revising parking restrictions on and around Summit Ave.
@29:15 mark -- Ald. Bach requests that the preliminary flooding report received from Burke Engineering be placed on the next Public Works agenda as a discussion item
@30:00 mark -- Under New Business, Ald. Wsol remarks on the City sewer tax and services
@31:00 mark -- City Manager Hock suggests that Council meet at a 6:30 pm workshop to conduct his review
@32:45 mark -- Council adjourns
September 30, 2009
Round 2! Video From 9-28-09 COW
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Thank you to Alderman Ryan for making sure the minority can't cram anything down the throat of the majority.
Mayor Dave doesn't seem to want to understand that 25% of people in an area shouldn't be allowed to induct the other 75% into a historic preservation education effort. Homeowners shouldn't have to get sucked into a some kind of historic preservation reeducation camp based on the will of only 25%.
At least half the people in a area should agree to start the process and if not even half are willing then those 25% can go get their own historic designation for their own homes.
The 25% is just to apply...
2/3 of the owners have to agree for it to take effect. Along with council vote...
So you wouldnt get sucked into anything unless 2/3 of your neighbors want it. Otherwise, the only thing that you'd HAVE to do is respond to the affidavit request.
So why not move the level that would require the response to the affidavit request up to 51%??
Anonymous 1:15,
That is my whole point. I don't want to HAVE to do anything because a small minority demands that I get involved with their cause. I don't want to HAVE to sign any legal documents based on the will of such a small number of people. I have enough to do already.
Actually you don't even HAVE to respond since they made a non-response a no vote...
Why do we need a majority to file a request?? Isnt it in essence just an official way to present the idea that a certain area should be considered?
I could see a possibility that some areas may have a few determined and/or opinionated residents who want to start the process and another part of the residents be indifferent for the most part but just not want to have to appear before the council or have to have their name attached to any such application.
Once the application is in process, then an official yes/no would be determined by all residents.
Anon@255:
Then a simple no would be your vote...
But the 25% would be to ask the question...
This would be like requiring 50% of PR residents to sign a petition to get someone on an election ballot.
Wouldnt the 25% be enough to apply and then require 67% to approve?
AND you also have the council who could reject it as an appeal.
Pardon me for changing the subject.
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the city manager said in an open meeting that after everything that was planned and spent that the city does not expect to see any profit from the Uptown redevelopment?
I thought the whole development was supposed to bring some kind of windfall to Park Ridge.
Anon@4:37 --
Ms. Maller is the Assistant City Manager.
Anon@3:44,
Whatever. The Aldermen already voted for the 50% and I hope they vote and keep it at 50%.
Re: Uptown development...but we did get a "special insert" in our Spokesman" today telling us our "dream" has matured... the question is: into what?
Answer is: a money pit.
I am bothered too.
If I remember correctly Lambeises said at an earlier meeting that "in like 20 years, the uptown development will make us look like really smart" or something like that. You all just have to be patient! HAHAHA
Anon@4:37,
I am bothered that we won’t see a profit from the Uptown redevelopment. And I’m also bothered that our Economic Development Director oversees a money pit.
Anonymous 9:46:
The City's Economic Development Director doesn't oversee the redevelopment. PRC Partners does.
What do we have to do to make any and all new development illegal?
And lets back that up with a powerful historic inititive which will force property owners to recognize the community's needs.
Anon at 10:34, I'm not sure what you are proposing with respect to property owners. What are the 'needs of the community'?
Schmitty can't get enough of the old stuff! Yea, lets make all new development illegal!
Post a Comment