That Explains It!

In both of the local rags this past week, we got to read about Mayor Howard's views on the Napleton deal, which the Mayor's tie-breaking vote assured would give his campaign contributor, Napleton, as much as $2.4 million over the next 15 years.

The Wednesday rag ran Mayor Backs Incentive Vote, while the Thursday rag had a special "Guest Essay" under the Mayor's own name.

Members of the PRU Crew have had the dubious privilege of reading things the Mayor has actually written, and while it cannot be proved at this time, it is universally believed among the Crew that the Mayor's pen never met paper, nor did any of his fingers touch a keyboard during the production of that essay. And if you've ever heard the Mayor speak, then you are already aware that the Mayor's having dictated his thoughts is not even close to a possible reality in this lifetime - nor the next.

However, since the Mayor put his name on the "Guest Essay", we will move forward as if he really did author the thing, and we will explain to you all the things the Mayor didn't tell you in either of those pieces.

We read in the first piece that Mayor Howard said of his vote on the Napleton deal, "I'm not ashamed of my vote at all." Translation = "I'd do it again." Believe it people; he sure will.

The first article also quoted Frimark as saying, "43% of our sales tax comes from automotive: car dealers and gas stations" What the Mayor didn't tell you is that the roughly $5.9 million dollars in total sales tax revenues collected accounts for only 11% of the City's total revenue income of almost $53 million.

Property taxes ($15 million) account for about 30% of all revenue collected. All other revenue is split among 5 other sources of income. The City earns more from the sale of water ($6.5 million), and almost as much from the utility taxes it collects ($5 million) as it does in sales taxes.

Further, that 43% includes ALL automotive categories not just gas stations and car dealerships, but also car rentals and repair shops.

One of the City's greatest revenue streams comes from a category of income called "other"; about $12 million. The revenue sources for "other" include income from various fees, such as ambulance, gasoline, food and beverage taxes, etc.

It seems to us that the $200,000 in sales taxes generated by Napleton may be a 6% contribution to the City's total sales tax revenues, but it is less than .5% of the City's total income. So the PRU Crew isn't exactly sure what would be so tragic about losing the Napleton dealership to some other municipal suckers willing to bribe a car dealership to locate in their town; and that's if you are willing to believe that Napleton would high-tail it out of Park Ridge for "greener" incentive pastures.

Here's what we think: Napleton isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. They have already invested in their new site at Busse and Greenwood. And more significantly, Napleton has more clout in Park Ridge because of that 6% addition to the City's sales tax bottom line than they would have in any of the larger, more sales tax rich surrounding towns like Niles or Des Plaines. And Napleton is probably well aware that when it comes to generating sales tax revenues, what they are talking about generating in Park Ridge would be nothing more than a pimple on a flea’s sales tax ass in Niles or Des Plaines. Napleton knows this. Des Plaines' Mayor Arredia and Nile's Mayor Blase know this. And so do Mayor Frimark and his council bobble heads, even if they don't want to share that knowledge with you.

The Wednesday rag goes on to report that Mayor Howard said Park Ridge taxpayers, "...hear you're giving (Napleton) $400,000," he said, but he explained the town would eventually get that money back after the town homes are built and property tax starts coming in at a higher rate."

There you have it folks. You'll get the money back, as long as you are willing to tolerate more town houses being built into an already saturated and slumping housing market, not to mention the greater residential density and traffic the project will bring to Uptown and the surrounding neighborhood.

Of course, the taxpayer's of Park Ridge know that they wouldn't have to "get that money back" if it hadn't been given away. And most Park Ridge taxpayer's also seem to have a healthy respect for the idea that government should keep its nose out of private business transactions between two privately held businesses.

In the Mayor's essay, he elaborates on what he said about the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds in the news piece; that, "The agreed-to contribution of up to $400,000 will be generated by the project itself and is consistent with the intended use of TIF revenues. None of this revenue comes from the taxpayers of the city of Park Ridge."

That is such a remarkably stupid statement, we aren't sure where to begin to unravel the idiocy.

TIF funds are, in fact, revenue from the taxpayer's of the City of Park Ridge. Period. Whether the taxes are generated within the TIF district or not, ALL OF IT is taxpayer money. Those residents and businesses located within the TIF district are as much Park Ridge taxpayers as are the folks at Boardwalk, Park Ridge Point, Edison Park Homes and every other property owning and property tax paying person or business in Park Ridge.

Because TIF funds are held separately from the general City fund used to pay for services for Park Ridge residents, that DOES NOT MEAN IT ISN'T MONEY COMING FROM PARK RIDGE TAXPAYERS! And every dollar of TIF revenue given to a private interest is a dollar less that the City has to spend on infrastructure within the TIF district; or to retire the TIF debt sooner so that our local School District and Park District can realize the full benefit of Uptown redevelopment along with the rest of Park Ridge's taxpayers.

Furthermore, the longer the TIF fund takes to break even, the longer taxpayers outside the TIF district will have to cover increasing expenses for City services, including those demands for services within the TIF district. And the City's general fund is forced to advance money to the TIF district for anything not covered by the generation of enough TIF funds.

The Mayor's essay also says, "Napleton will be investing $2 million in improvements into his dealership. This will be used to help remodel the facilities at their new location on Busse and Greenwood."

What the Mayor fails to tell you is that the remodeling of Napleton's new location is required by their franchise agreement. Perhaps Napleton Cadillac would remodel their new facility anyway, without the franchise agreement. But they have to, and now the taxpayers of Park Ridge will be paying for yet another deal between private businesses: Napleton and the manufacturers for whom it serves as a dealer.

Mayor Howard's concluding remark in the Wednesday article is, "The agreement benefits both of us"

Yeah...both Mayor Howard and his campaign contributor, Napleton Cadillac.

2011.

At Tuesday night's Procedures and Regulations committee meeting, aldermen discussed the adoption of a resolution that would place a referendum on the November ballot asking voters if the City of Park Ridge should stagger the election of members of the City Council.

A memo from the City Attorney explains that if the referendum is approved by the voters, staggered terms for the election of aldermen will begin with the general aldermanic election in 2011; where aldermen from even-numbered wards would be elected for two year terms, aldermen from odd-numbered wards would be elected for four year terms, and "thereafter, their successors shall be elected for terms of 4 years."

Of course, the practical effect is to ensure that Frimark's hand-picked alderpuppets are guaranteed full four year terms. And that should Mayor Howard choose to run for reelection in the next 14 months, he will then be able to concentrate his energy and money on himself, presumably with the help of his protected incumbents.

During discussion among committee members last evening, Alderman Allspaghetti (4th Ward), who was originally appointed to the council by Mayor Howard, remarked that council members expected to run for four year terms. Alderman Wsooooolman (7th Ward) reminded Allspaghetti that he, Ald. Wsooooolman, had now had to run for two four year terms. Allspaghetti seemed to have momentarily forgotten his support for the Mayor's council cutting referendum that also cut 7 aldermen's terms to two years.

As reported (without a by-line) in the Journal & Topics, City Could Bring Staggered Terms Back, Mayor Howard explained that aldermen take "a certain period of time" to become efficient in their job, and that the reason staggered terms were removed from the Mayor's referendum to cut the council was because the matter was "too complex".
In light of what we recall of Mayor Howard's criticism of the last council, and his motives for cutting that council, the PRU Crew is enjoying a hearty laugh. The guy actually says these things with a straight face!

In any event, it looks as if any residents unhappy with their current representation will have to wait a full four years, until the 2011 aldermanic election, for a chance to make their sentiments known in the voting booth.

We wonder if their will be anything left in the City's coffers by the time Frimark and his merry band get done bonding, taxing, spending, and gifting the taxpayer's money away to Friends of Frimark and other special interests.

Advocating for Evil.

Good afternoon, PRU readers. The Crew appreciates your patience while we get our story straight.

At last night's Procedures and Regulations Committee meeting, it was the Lord of the Manor, Alderman Rich DiPietro (2nd ward) who led the charge to keep Park Ridge "safe" for the doing of evil under the guise of "protecting" the residents of Park Ridge from too much knowledge.

Just like the Illinois Family Institute, who prefer that High School freshman never even hear the words birth control, let alone learn how to use methods of birth control, the Lord of the Manor is reported to have said that the taxpayers of Park Ridge must be protected from the disclosure of information the council chooses to discuss in secret.

It is further reported to PRU that the Lord of the Manor is demanding that a procedure for censure be put in place to punish anyone who does release closed session material, or the Lord of the Manor can't, "in good conscience", vote for future closed sessions of the city council.

We've got news for the Lord of the Manor, what you're advocating is pure evil and illegal.

Keeping information from the citizens of Park Ridge and claiming it is for their own protection is so Orwellian in its twisted logic we believe DiPietro's "good conscience" has been possessed by some sort of evil demon.

Forget censure. The city council needs a procedure for an exorcism.

Comment - In The Spotlight.

Anonymous said...

February 5, 2008 3:01 PM

If you want to exercise another right, I hear that the procedures and regulations committee will be discussing the open meetings issue and Alderman Schmidt's handling of that issue at its meeting tonight. 7 pm at City Hall. If Alderman Schmidt is going to be getting reprimanded, perhaps some people ought to show up to let the committee know how we feel about closed session meetings....

Super Tuesday!

Have you exercised your right today?

You Can't Handle the Truth!

During one of those classic Hollywood moments in the 1992 film 'A Few Good Men', Actor Jack Nicholson in the character of Colonel Jessep treats viewers to a passionately patriotic speech worthy of Oliver North. Of course, viewers already know Jessep is a bad guy, and his impassioned pontification reeks of ego-maniacal madness.

It is with tremendous pleasure that we now assure the City Council and Mayor Howard Frimark that Park Ridge is not Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is no wall or fence to be patrolled. Park Ridge residents are not Cuba's "Frontier Brigade". You can tell us the truth about what you're doing. We can handle it.

And you can stop conducting so much of the public's business behind closed doors.

Since the current council members took their seats on May 21, 2007, they have had 17 meetings; including one oddly titled "Special Meeting" (Nov. 14, 2007); which does not appear to have been a "Special Meeting of the City Council", but nevertheless was a closed session.

The council's very first full working meeting on June 4, 2007 included a closed session to discuss the acquisition of property. When Mayor Howard was asked by a resident what was the "business of the closed session meeting regarding acquisition of property. Mayor Frimark stated no further information could be released at this time." Correction, Mayor Howard, but you could release "further information." The law does not demand that you keep information secret from the public. It is your choice to do so.

There have been 18 items scheduled for closed session discussion; 9 of which have been listed as "discipline, performance or dismissal of a specific employee" or as a "personnel matter". We strongly agree that those items covering the discipline, performance, or dismissal of a specific employee and personnel matters are best discussed privately; providing staff with some measure of employment "due process", especially where discipline and dismissal may be concerned.

However, the rest of the items scheduled to be closed from public view now appear to possibly have been abuses of the closed session exceptions allowed under the law, at least according to press reports (press report 1, press report 2, press report 3) and quotes attributed to Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg (1st ward).

Again, a big high-five to Alderman Schmidtzkrieg from the PRU Crew. And a warning too; we hear Mayor Howard is trying to sick his lackeys on you for the purpose of "ripping your eyes out of your head and pissing in your dead skull" (-Jessep; 'A Few Good Men'), which may take the more literal form of some Frimark-orchestrated theater during a council meeting.

We sure hope somebody can read the law - the Illinois Open Meetings Act - to Mayor Howard and explain that the release of "confidential" information about public business conducted in secret is not against the law, and in fact the law does not allow for any form of sanction against those who do.

In short: "the people have a right to be informed."

We think the people can handle the truth.

Killer!

Have a super weekend!