By now, anyone paying attention to the issue of a proposed zoning change to allow billboards to be put up in Park Ridge has also heard 4th Ward Aldermope James Allspaghetti chant, "I did want the City Council to have the final say on it because it's a substantial amount of revenue."
"...it's a substantial amount of revenue...it's a substantial amount of revenue..." echo echo echo
According to an online article in the Herald-Advocate -- 'Zoning panel's message: Don't place your ad here' -- "Allegretti said the city stands to receive $400,000 if the billboards are installed, with another $200,000 to be paid over 20 years" despite the fact the article also reports, "There is no proposed, written agreement stating how much revenue the city would actually receive, said City Manager Jim Hock."
Ignoring for the moment Ald. Allspaghetti's dangling of dollars before the dolts on the City Council -- with very few exceptions, those amounts aren't chump change, until you take a closer look at those amounts in the context of the City budget and the proposed 20 year permit term.
Last Spring, the City Council reviewed and passed a City budget of nearly $50 million with a planned-for deficit of roughly $2 million. After the City Council planned to spend more money than it took in, the Aldermopes promptly got down to the task of further subsidizing water usage by refusing to pass along the full amount of water rate increases from the City of Chicago to Park Ridge water users. Then the Aldermopes really got serious about the budget, after voting for more water usage subsidies, by immediately voting to exceed the budgeted amounts of taxpayer dollars annually gifted to various community groups -- an amount that totals almost $250,000.00.
One thing we can say, nobody is ever going to accuse the members of the City Council of being "conservative to a fault," at least not where fiscal management comes in.
So now Ald. Allspaghetti is very very very concerned about opportunities to bring in revenue for the City of Park Ridge, and he believes a one-time payment of $400,000.00 is so important that the entire Planning and Zoning process for independent review of land use matters should be altered.
Here we suggest the English majors skip ahead --
Let's do the math: ($2,000,000.00) + $400,000.00 = ($1,600,000.00)
Looky there. After receiving a one-time payment of $400,000.00 to allow billboards in Park Ridge, the City budget -- assuming nothing else changes -- would still have a budget hole of $1.6 million. And we get these billboards for 20 years.
And brush pick-up will still have been eliminated. And Public Works employees will still have been laid off. And Park Ridge will still experience flooding. And the Park Ridge sewer system will still need major upgrades. And Park Ridge streets, curbs, and gutters will still be in disrepair. And the Aldermopes will still spend our tax dollars like drunken sailors on shore leave.
Okay, we know what some of our faithful PRU readers may be thinking, "But PRU, what about the $200,000.00 over the next 20 years?" Okay, what about it? For an annual fee of $10,000.00 for billboards, fees that are supposed to cover annual inspection costs to the City, we're supposed to believe this billboard deal is some kind of good deal for Park Ridge, for the next 20 years?
We don't.
We don't feel Park Ridge's zoning ordinance should be for sale. We don't feel Park Ridge should be for sale. We used to feel it was bad enough when we thought City Hall was for sale. We would never have guessed we would be saying, "We miss those bad old days."
Try to enjoy the weekend.
November 20, 2009
Big Bucks and Billboards, Baby!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I used to think these guys were stupid, but now I think they are greasy dealers.
Yes, indeedy...or why else would Allegretti be looking to get rid of the ethics ordinance's 2yr restriction for former elected officials...along with consolidating still more power in the hands of the council for determining the direction of ethics violation complaints?
Scumbag. Total scumbag.
Bean:
What am I missing about "consolidating more power in the hands of CC about direction of ethics complaint?" What changes are he/they proposing to the existing process?
Anonymous at 2:22,
Here's the link to the -pdf
http://www.parkridge.us/file.asp?F=4E7AC6EAE108465F8A06DF5873A96214%2Epdf&N=Ethics+Ordinance%2Epdf&C=events_documents
Here's the verbiage from the city atty's memo...
Mr. Chairman, at your request, I have made certain modifications to the Ethics Ordinance. They are as follows:
1. Removal of the "two years after office" prohibition against acting as an agent. The prohibition would apply only to sitting officials. It is now consistent with the prohibition against doing business with the City.
2. The removal of the dual tiered complaint process. Under the proposed language, there would not be a complaint by affidavit.
3. Under the proposed language, the City Attorney would be responsible for making preliminary findings and reporting them to the City Council. Instead of the City Council being required to make a determination as to whether prosecution is warranted, the City Council will only make a determination as to whether or not an Independent Reviewer will be appointed. The question of whether or not prosecution is warranted will, in each instance, be up to the Independent Reviewer. Under this scenario, the City Attorney will be required to make findings of fact as to each complaint, but not be required to make a decision as to whether there has been a violation. At the same time, the City Council will not be required to act as a "grand jury", but only decide whether or not the allegations merit the retention of an Independent Reviewer.
4. Under the proposed language, once the City Clerk notifies the elected officials that a complaint has been received, no elected official may contact the City Attorney or Independent Reviewer with respect to the complaint until the findings of fact are made public or the Independent Reviewer has retained a Special Prosecutor.
5. Under the proposed language, all complaints, findings of fact and deliberations are a matter of public record.
...essentially, they will be removing the opportunity to "go around" the city council/aldermen, while at the same time making any "findings of fact" by the city atty. much weaker in his/its force and effect...and creating a second "review" process before getting down to brass tacks.
Too bad, Bean. Even Mayor Schmidt didn't think voting to prosecute Frimark for his ethics violation of making a deal in 6 months of leaving office would further the ordinance.
Bean, weren't you a big Schmidt fan during the election?
This should not be a surprise to you that Allegretti is now going to get the 2 years provision removed and make sure Frimark's aldermen have the final say so on any violations that might come up again.
Anonymous at 2:47,
Made me sick to watch.
Yes, I *was*...
...:::sigh:::...I'm not surprised.
Bean:
Thank you for the information. I will have to get to the link later. I fired up a new computer a few days ago and have not yet installed adobe. I guess my opinion of some of the changes is a bit different than yours. I may be interpretting this wrong so bear with me. How would these changes have influenced the recent Frimark farce? There was no official affidavit in that case, only a request by the mayor to investigate. Are you saying that these changes would npw prevent a citizen or official from filing an official complaint? I do not read it that way. I read it as an affidavit is no longer required.
You seem to see the part about now having an independent reviewer as weakening the findings of the city atty. I see it as a necessary step and portection for the city atty. It also (in theroy) gives us a completely indepepdent person who is not beholding or at risk by anyone.
The Frimark claim took place with none of these changes in place. I do not see these changes as having changed the outcome in anyway. Rather than voting not to prosecute that would have voted not to assign an indelendent reviewer.
Anonymous at 2:55,
Don't mention it...
"I guess my opinion of some of the changes is a bit different than yours. I may be interpretting this wrong so bear with me. How would these changes have influenced the recent Frimark farce?"
They would not...the "Frimark farce" outcome is a different issue, separate and apart from the *current* process...
"There was no official affidavit in that case, only a request by the mayor to investigate. Are you saying that these changes would npw prevent a citizen or official from filing an official complaint?"
Not at all...I'm saying the possibility of "going around" the council with an affidavit is going to be eliminated.
"I do not read it that way. I read it as an affidavit is no longer required."
Read it again...currently, filing an affidavit would mandate >>The City Attorney shall then retain an Independent Reviewer for the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause to believe that a violation was committed.<<
"You seem to see the part about now having an independent reviewer as weakening the findings of the city atty. I see it as a necessary step and portection for the city atty."
...?!?!?!..."protection" of the city atty. from what?...doing his job????
"It also (in theroy) gives us a completely indepepdent person who is not beholding or at risk by anyone."
Nice "theory"...but as a practical matter, with the removal of a mechanism for immediately bypassing the council, there's a whole lotta zero independence possible...since the new language mandates review of everything, first, by the city council.
"The Frimark claim took place with none of these changes in place. I do not see these changes as having changed the outcome in anyway."
There was the possibility of someone filing an affidavit which would have immediately mandated an independent review...these changes remove that possibility.
"Rather than voting not to prosecute that would have voted not to assign an indelendent reviewer."
Exactly...and the matter would not have had the "force and effect" of the city atty's determination that prosecution was warranted. The new language removes that...and so, not that hasn't done this anyway, but under the NEW language Frimark would have truly appear to have been "vindicated,"...and as far as I'm concerned the man is a scumbucket liar about "not knowing" the city was an insured...if there is ONE thing Howard Frimark knows its the insurance business and how to make a buck off selling policies...and I also think he's a scumbucket liar about not "intending" to do anything wrong. I think he knew it was wrong and I think he thought, again, that he wouldn't get caught.
Without a single vote for prosecution of Frimark it looks like all the aldermen and the current mayor think having to wait two years before being an agent to the city is such a big deal it should change. It looks like they are all comfortable with revolving door lobbying and I wonder if Allegretti is expecting to take his turn soon.
hmmmmm. A lobbyist specializing in Park Ridge. I hope he does not have his heart set on a Bentley.
We suspect the proposed changes are to provide cover in case of future revelations.
We also suspect that, with the Council moving closer to demanding disclosure of financial statements for Special Events and various organizations, should it come to pass that the former Mayor has been the insurance provider for Taste of Park Ridge -- while the Taste has been the beneficiary of City tax dollars -- the proposed ethics ordinance changes would provide sanctuary from complaints and prosecution.
PRU:
Would it still not require a public vote not to pass it to an independent reviewer? I mean getting rid of th two years after leaving office part would not provide cover for the former mayor if he wrote insurance for an entiry that benefits from tax dollars or that does busniess with PR while he held the office of Mayor.
Of course I would have thought there was no cover for the recent Frimark issue and yet somehow he was covered.
Anon@4:01 --
We believe you're correct -- a public vote would still be required. But as was pointed out, the vote would come without the opinion from the City Attorney of a violation having occurred.
The vote would merely express the will of the Aldermopes to pursue an independent investigation of whether or not a violation had occurred.
If the ordinance is changed there would be nothing under which to pursue prosecution for past wrong doing.
As you pointed out yourself, the current ordinance did not provide cover for the former Mayor in his violation of the ethics code and the current ordinance in and of itself is stronger than the changes which have been offered.
Notwithstanding the idiocy of the conversations about the meaning of the words agent vs. broker -- what provided cover to the former Mayor was the cronyism of his handpicked Aldermopes and the gelatinous mindsets of others.
Maybe I am being too pragmatic, but I could care less whether the vote is called "to prosecute" or "to go to Independent reviewer. The bottom line is, due to cronyism you referred to nothing happened.
Point 5 of the proposed changes reads "Under the proposed language, all complaints, findings of fact and deliberations are a matter of public record". Under point 3 it says " the City Attorney will be required to make findings of fact as to each complaint." I take this to mean that what the city atty provides to the CC for them to make their vote will be public record. They could always go to a closed meeting but the Mayor said he was against those. Of course he said many things.
So if they decide to do what they did this time, which is basically ignore their own ordinance, it will all still be out there for public viewing - just under different names.
In other words, I would be every bit as pissed off if Mayor Schmidt had voted not to send it for review rather than voting not to prosecute.
Anon@4:33 --
We would not say you are being too pragmatic. There are other adjectives we're tempted to employ.
What you appear to be missing is the nature of the proceedings.
Now, the City Atty. offers an unequivocal opinion of whether a violation has occurred and a prosecution is warranted. Under the proposed changes, the City Atty. would only offer findings of fact and the City Council and Mayor would then determine if the finding of facts suggest further review to determine if a violation has occurred -- those are subtly but distinctly different things.
What you also appear to be missing or ignoring is that the proposed changes remove the procedure for filing an affidavit which currently requires an independent review, skipping over the procedure that includes the votes of the City Council and Mayor.
The City Council and Mayor would become the ultimate gate keepers for all serious pursuit of review and investigation into an ethics violation.
Allegretti and Bach want the city Council to decide everything.
Why don't they cut the chase and say they want to get rid of things like the Planning Commission and all the other citizen boards.
The next thing Allegretti can say is he is a Lawyer so we don't need a city Attorney either.
Most of the Schmidt supporters also had Obama signs in their yards.
Please vote with your mind and not your heart.
anon 2:36:
So what you are saying is that these people should have cast theri vote for McCain/Palin and Frimark????? Is that what you are saying???
Anon 2:36, that makes sense since both McCain and Obama were both terrible choices. I guess our choices here in PR matched up perfectly.
5:25 - Yes.
8:00 - The last vestige of a scoundrel. It's rarely not the least of the worst as the best choice.
Post a Comment