Boo!

Have a Happy Halloween!

City Council Recap!

A quickie!

At last night's City Council meeting Mayor Howard read a statement saying, "Journeys from PADS to HOPE will not be expanding their service area to include the city of Park Ridge." Mayor Howard then said that in light of this development he was withdrawing his recommendation to the City Council for consideration of his homeless shelter contract scheme to provide the Public Works Center as a PADS site.

Mayor Howard went on to remind those in attendance that the City Council still has "difficult decisions to make" and will be discussing the remaining text amendment and licensing ordinances at their next meeting on November 17, 2008.

The work isn't over, but a big hunk of what we feel was a disaster waiting to happen has been removed. We hope our City Council will address this issue in a way that places the concerns and interests of residents and taxpayers ahead of any other special interests.

The City Council then moved on to consideration of whether or not the city's liquor ordinances should be amended to allow for arcade games and other entertainment to be allowed in establishments that serve alcohol. That action was referred back to the Procedures and Regulations Committee for further discussion.

Finally, we hear PRUdos may be in order for a certain city employee's promotion! The PRU Crew wanted to light some sparklers to celebrate, but we understand that's illegal!

Short but sweet!

Late Edition -- Soapbox!

Published with permission of the author.

Please note -- Officer Strada is expressing his personal opinion gleaned from experience; he is not acting as a spokesman for the City of Evanston, nor in any official capacity.


October 28, 2008

RE:Homeless Shelter

Dear Aldermen, Paul Chevlin & the Greenwood-Busse Neighborhood Coalition,

I have been a Park Ridge home owner for the past twenty eight years. I live on a nice quiet block & have nice neighbors. I would like to keep it that way, but I know that if the City goes forward with it's plan to open a homeless shelter at the end of my block life as we know it will be gone forever.

Let me explain. I am a police officer in the City of Evanston & have first hand experience in dealing with the homeless. Evanston has a homeless shelter, a battered women's shelter & about six soup kitchens. The homeless shelter has rules & lets a person stay there as long as he/she is in need, is actively looking for work & is not intoxicated by drugs or alcohol. If the person is in violation of the rules the person is not allowed into the shelter. This puts the person in the neighborhood & is now a problem for the residents. The homeless subject usually wanders around until he finds somewhere to sleep off his intoxication. I am called frequently to remove some one from a back yard or front porch of some unsuspecting citizen. We have frequent complaints of the homeless urinating & even defecating in private back yards & alleys.

We have increased domestic disturbances as the men & women "hook up" at the shelter. We have panhandling all over the downtown area & the citizens constantly complain about that. There is increased retail thefts, residential burglaries & car burglaries. Remember they are homeless, jobless & penniless.

Many of the homeless have extensive criminal histories. Not all homeless are bad people. But, some make being homeless a career. They don't want to live as we do & have told me so. I have seen the same faces on the street for the past 10 – 15 years. Once you open the door to this type of community service you will never be able to close it again.

Park Ridge has always been known as a quality community with good schools, good property values & a lower than average crime rate. If the City persists in its plans, the property value in my area will plummet & the crime rate will sky rocket. The children in my area play freely outside now, but how safe will they be if Mayor Frimark has his way?

The other thing that the Mayor should consider is the cost. Even if the City did not have to donate a building it is going to cost us, the tax payer. There will be more calls for service to the police department& more ambulance calls for the fire department. More calls for service means more police & fire personnel will be needed & more equipment & more salaries & benefits etc. And lets not kid ourselves, the City will wind up kicking in some money every time things get tight for the shelter. There goes even more of our tax dollars.

Please, consider this step carefully. Do what is right for Park Ridge!

Robert Strada

><{{{{{{*><*}}}}}}><

Mayor Howard Stars As...

As many of you already know, the city sent out a press release saying that tomorrow night's City Council agenda will not include the final reading of the zoning text amendment or licensing ordinances for temporary shelters.

An online update on the Herald-Advocate web site details Mayor Howard's desire to have his contract idea reviewed by the City Council before the aldermen vote to adopt the ordinances legalizing operation of temporary homeless shelters. According to the article, "The mayor said he believed that it is in everyone's best interest to have a proposed agreement that meets the needs of the Park Ridge Ministerial Association representatives and Journeys from PADS to HOPE before the City Council discusses this issue further," the release states."

Got that people? It's in everyone's best interest to see to it the needs of the PRMA and Journeys from PADS to HOPE are met before any further discussion, which the PRU Crew reads as meaning before the needs of Park Ridge residents and taxpayers are considered and met. Park Ridge residents and taxpayers just don't seem to be much of a priority for Mayor Howard -- so many deals, so many friends, so little time.

We're wondering exactly how it is in everyone's best interest to see to it the PRMA and Journeys from PADS to HOPE are protected from the special use permit and licensing process before there are ordinances enacted to require a special use permit and licensing process? Why is it that Mayor Howard is pulling the City Council in the direction of specifically considering the PADS franchise before the City Council generally considers regulation of temporary homeless shelters?

We're also wondering a couple other things, such as why the meeting agenda doesn't list Mayor Howard's PRMA/PADS shelter contract scheme as a discussion item, and why the city web site hasn't posted a copy of the "licensing agreement."

The PRU Crew can't do anything about the agenda, but here for your review is a copy of the proposed "licensing agreement."

PRMAPADSLicAgrmt - Upload a Document to Scribd

Bandito Brett McCleneghan!

Last Friday, our buddies over at the Pub-dog's site put up a post they called "Caesar? We Don't Need No Stinking Caesar!" The Pub-dog's discussed an email chain that featured the Park Ridge Community Church Senior Pastor Brett McCleneghan suggesting that people interested in opening a PADS shelter should "ignore the city and open the shelter."

The PRU Crew can't say where the Pub-dog's got a copy of the email they are citing and so we can't vouch for their source, but we're willing to vouch for ours and that the email from Big Talking Bandito Brett does appear to be authentic. And we're pretty sure not a single sender or recipient in that email chain is tech-savvy enough to engage in email spoofing, let alone Pastor Bandito Brett who doesn't seem to be able to grasp the simple principles of being a law-abiding member of a community.

Unlike St. Paul of the Cross Pastor Carl Morelleon, who seems to relish the role of dictator, Bandito Brett seems to prefer a role that offers a bit more of an outlaw persona. Though we do wonder why Bandito Brett hasn't offered up his own church as a site for a homeless shelter since the full text of Bandito Brett's email says, "I would hesitate to call good news any provision which allows the City to regulate, approve or license ministries of the Church. This establishes a dangerous and clearly unconstitutional precedent. Ignore the city and open the shelter."

And there you have it people -- at least one member of the PRMA, and probably all the others too, does not believe homeless shelters should be subject to any public oversight, even when it has been clearly established that the shelter operator -- in this case, PADS -- is publicly funded. And avoiding public oversight is precisely why Journeys from PADS to Hope has hidden behind churches who eagerly take up their cause in the name of religious free expression. And avoiding public scrutiny is precisely why PADS is alleged to have told Mayor Howard they would agree to a contract with the City of Park Ridge because they have "issues" with being subject to special use permitting and licensing procedures.

Some of the other recipients in the email chain include --

Pat Harrington -- Journeys from PADS to Hope, Inc.'s PADS Program Director

Amity Carrubba -- former Pastor at St. Mary's Episcopal Church

Gerry Gunderson -- Pastor at Mary Seat of Wisdom Church

Ted Stone -- Priest at Mary Seat of Wisdom Church

Stephen Larson -- Pastor at St. Luke's Lutheran Church

Jim McCracken -- Pastor at Park Ridge Presbyterian Church

Jack Owens -- Park Ridge zoning attorney and Friend of Frimark

Laurie Pegler -- An attorney tracking mold issues for the Property Loss Research Bureau, a national organization that serves insurance companies. (per our source)

We have no way of knowing if any of the people sharing in this email chain subsequently tried to pull Bandito Brett back onto the reservation, but we do know that one recipient, Ms. Laurie Pegler, got out her pom poms and cheered Bandito Brett on -- saying in part, "Contrary to the statement that a shelter cannot be opened without a zoning provision in place, it is legal to do so in the absence of a law to the contrary. Open the shelter using the compassion and empathy and common sense, not to mention patience, exhibited to date."

As we told our source, Ms. Pegler should stick with chasing mold -- municipal law is clearly over her pay grade.

While the PRU Crew recognizes and would strongly defend the right of each of these people to voice their opinion on any public issue of their choice, we take great exception to the arrogant and callous disregard PADS supporters have shown to their fellow parishioners, neighbors, and our community as a whole. "Patience", Ms. Pegler? You've got to be kidding!

We feel it is the height of corrupted contempt to not only try to shove their current pet social cause down the throats of everyone else, but to also suggest that the process of public governance, debate, and the laws of the community should be ignored if the outcome isn't exactly what they desire.

But hey, maybe the PRU Crew is just being grumpy about things like public discussion and respect for the rule of law. After all, Bandito Brett is one of the people Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan told us we should trust.

Addendum -- per "Anon's" request --

Opening email:

From: Gxxxxx Kxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:09 AM
To: xxxxx
Subject: PADS

Good Morning... and it is a good morning!!!

It looks like some positive movement has occurred!! I do not know if there are still issues which must be considered, but all the prayers and diligence have produced the below!!
I will send on any new information I receive. If anyone else gets new information, please send it on for the rest of us.

Keep the faith,
Gxxxxx

Updated 10/21: Park Ridge gives shelters first OK

(copy of H-A article)

Bandito Brett's Response:

>>> "Brett McCleneghan" 10/22/2008 9:15 AM >>>

Dear Friends,

I would hesitate to call good news any provision which allows the City to regulate, approve or license ministries of the Church. This establishes a dangerous and clearly unconstitutional precedent.

Ignore the city and open the shelter.

Grace and Peace,

Brett W. McCleneghan

Attorney Pegler's response:

From: Laurie Pegler
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:23 AM
To: xxxxx
Subject: RE: PADS

Brett,

Thank you for reading my mind and identifying the issue: Contrary to the statement that a shelter cannot be opened without a zoning provision in place, it is legal to do so in the absence of a law to the contrary. Open the shelter using the compassion and empathy and common sense, not to mention patience, exhibited to date.

Laurie

Strut Your Stuff!

Daniele3205

Have a great weekend!

Guest Essay -- Open Letter

Published with permission of the author

From: Rick Biagi
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:52 AM
To: carey407@comcast.net, dschmidt@cmn-law.com
Subject: Mayor Frimark Proposal re PADS

Aldermen Carey and Schmidt:

First, I want to thank you both for voting on the side of protecting our community last night. Your strong stance last evening on the various proposed amendments to the shelter ordinance was commendable and I truly appreciate the leadership role that you both took at the meeting. I especially want to thank you for exposing the obvious issues raised by Mayor Frimark’s proposal to waive the co-applicant requirement for PADS if the City actually hosts the site. Alderman Carey - you hit the nail squarely on the head when you stated that PADS’ reluctance to be a co-applicant points to some deeper issue that must be uncovered. I couldn't agree with you more.

That being said, I also have some concerns with the City Attorney’s statement to the City Council that requiring PADS and PRMA to enter into a binding contract with the City actually gives the City more protection than it would otherwise have. I respectfully disagree with the City Attorney’s position on this.

The City Attorney seems to base his opinion (that the contract provides stronger protection to the City, even in the absence of the co-applicant requirement) on two points, 1) that PRMA and PADS would be contractually bound by all of the restrictions set by the Council in the ordinance, and 2) that the facts that PRMA and PADS would contractually agree to not challenge the validity and/or constitutionality of the ordinance and its various restrictions insulates the City from potential litigation.

Point One – The fact that PRMA and PADS would be contractually bound to the restrictions set by the ordinance is irrelevant and, frankly, redundant. The fact of the matter is that the homeless shelter (no matter who operates it) would be legally bound by the restrictions set forth in ordinance (whether or not a contract is in place). The only “benefit” the contract gives the City is that they can now sue PRMA and/or PADS for breach of contract if they fail to abide by the terms of the ordinance. In reality, the better legal remedy for the City is the revoke their license rather than to spend money on litigation. There would likely be no monetary damage award in such litigation (and even if there was, PADS and PRMA have little money to begin with) and the only likely remedy would be to order specific performance by PRMA and/or PADS (i.e. to force them to comply with the ordinance). So, in the end, the notion of contractually binding PADS and PRMA to the terms of the ordinance has virtually no benefit to the City.

Point Two – One of our fellow citizens made the point last night that PRMA is not really a legal entity, it is merely a collection of local churches. I confirmed with the Illinois Secretary of State that there is no legal entity authorized under the laws of the State of Illinois named “Park Ridge Ministerial Association”. Therefore, if PRMA fails to exist as a legal entity, it is highly unlikely that they can enter into a contract with the City of Park Ridge. Again, if that is true, there is no benefit to the City for such an agreement not to challenge the validity and/or constitutionality of the ordinance because PADS, on its own, is highly unlikely to fund litigation to challenge the ordinance. Moreover, if we assume for the moment that the PRMA can, in fact, legally enter into the Agreement, that would only insulate the City from litigation where PRMA and/or PADS is a Plaintiff. As I understand the Mayor’s proposal, that agreement would not prevent a parishioner from one of the PRMA churches to file suit on their own and not as a board member of PRMA. In reality, neither PRMA or PADS has the financial backing to fund litigation of this nature. The only parties that would have such resources are either wealthy churchgoers from Park Ridge or organizations such as the ACLU. Thus, the contractual provision which forbids PRMA and PADS from challenging the restrictions enacted by the City Council provides virtually no protection to the City from potential litigation.

I trust that you will both address these issues in more detail when the Mayor introduces his proposal again at the October 29th City Council meeting. Lastly, I hope that you both will remain firm in your position that a 500 ft restriction (from schools) is absolutely necessary to protect our children’s safety and well-being.

Yours very truly,

Rick (and Susan) Biagi
(Sixth Ward) (St. Paul of the Cross Parishioner – Washington School family)