Oh No!

We found the following photo and caption in today's Journal & Topics. We've underlined the distressing passage in the photo's caption.



We feel that with the right combination of therapy and tlc, these second and third graders will recover from this unfortunate incident.

After all, if you've been paying attention to what Mayor Howard and his Council lapdogs have been up to, you know that Mayor Howard believes the role of the City Council is to do exactly as he commands.

In fact, the City Council Procedures and Regulations Committee has been discussing a new ordinance that will give Mayor Howard all the power and authority he could possibly ever have wished to call his own.

Addendum for our inquisitive friend: The current ordinance language

3-1-1 APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS

The Mayor shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the City Council, all officers of the City whose appointment is not otherwise provided by the laws of this State or the provisions of this Code. The City Manager shall recommend and the Mayor shall appoint department heads with the advice and consent of the City Council. Whenever a vacancy shall occur in any office, which by law the Mayor is empowered to fill, the Mayor shall within ninety (90) days after the occurrence of such vacancy, communicate to the City Council the name of his appointee to such office. The name of the appointee shall be submitted to the members of the City Council two (2) weeks prior to the request for the approval and consent of the City Council to such appointment.

If you are really bored, you can read the rest of the municipal code here.

PRU Pot Luck!

There's enough room in the PRU kitchen for everyone.

Again, we invite PRU readers to tell each other what's on their minds.

The Crew would love to hear what impressions were left with residents who attended either the St. Mary's PADS information meeting or the Planning & Zoning Commission, or both last evening. We think a fresh, non-Crew perspective and report of those meetings may have an interesting flavor.

Finally, a not-quite-confidential note to our early morning commenter -- rock on!

It's Raining Meetings!

Commercial Art & Illustration

If you are a resident of Park Ridge, but especially a resident of the 5th Ward, you may be interested in two meetings scheduled for this evening.

First up is the St. Mary's PADS Community Information Night. The 6:30 pm meeting is billed as informational, but the PRU Crew believes this is one of those evenings designed to accomplish two things; 1) allow St. Mary's and the Park Ridge Ministerial Association to sell, sell, sell their PADS homeless shelter idea to the St. Mary's neighbors, and 2) gain forgiveness from the community for St. Mary's and the PRMA's having failed to ask anything resembling permission for this project from the St. Mary's neighbors.

We hear that St. Mary's and the PRMA were asked if it was possible to reschedule the PADS Community Information Night because there is also a 7:30 pm Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting this evening, but St. Mary's and the PRMA declined to accomodate that request.

The Planning and Zoning Commission will be discussing a rather important change to the zoning ordinance that would allow for an expansion of high-density R-5 zoning into more areas "adjacent to" the "Central Business District".

If you love very tall and highly dense residential developments, then R-5 is for you! Show up at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting tonight and give them your heartfelt support and thanks for this proposed change.

Post addendum -- resource provided by a PRU reader: A Guide to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People Second Revision -.pdf

Balance Is Key!

Have a great weekend!

Bananas!

In today's Herald-Advocate we read:

City manager choice due May 5

April 24, 2008

By JENNIFER JOHNSON

Park Ridge Mayor Howard Frimark said he will recommend the man he would like to see hired as the new city manager at the City Council's next regular meeting on May 5.

The City Council has been meeting in closed session to determine which of two candidates should be hired by the city, but has been unable to reach a consensus. The council met in closed session twice on Monday, but left both meetings without taking any action. No further meetings are scheduled.

Frimark said he has begun working with the city attorney on a contract for the individual he plans to recommend to the City Council.

The city has been without a city manager since Feb. 29. Deputy City Manager Juliana Maller has assumed the role of acting city manager during that time.

In the article above we have underlined "but has been unable to reach a consensus." We wanted to draw the attention of PRU readers to that phrase. Our sources tell us that phrase is not true. What the council has been unable to do is get Frimark to agree to their consensus. And as usual, we expect Frimark to proceed in his own best interest.

This Will Only Hurt A Little Bit!

In today's Journal & Topics we read:



Not that Lutheran General Hospital should be able to dictate tax policy in the City, but we are in agreement with Mayor Howard's statement that LGH has been a "good partner" to the City.

We are also pleased with the modest reduction of 1.4% in the property tax increase. But we note that an increase is still an increase, and we were much more taken with the bold proposal of Alderman Wsooooolman (7th Ward) when he suggested that the City eliminiate the property tax increase.

Our PRUdos to Alderman Schmidtzkrieg (1st Ward) for attempting to give attention to our infrastructure needs, which is what we believe to be one of the most basic purposes of government.

Unfortunately there are still those in City government who just don't get it.

As reported in the second news item linked above, "Ald. Robert Ryan (5th) disagreed with removing the Vision 2025 study characterizing it as "the most important part of our budget." Ryan said, "Planning dollars are cheap dollars. It allows us to get organized. I really don't think we can afford to be short-sighted."

That's right, people. The 5th Ward's Benedict Alderman Ryan believes some goofy "Vision 2025 study" is the "most important part of our budget." It seems that Benedict Alderman Ryan will leave no "expert" unconsulted and no consultant unpaid.

Where's a brick wall when your head needs one...

Council Rodeo Recap!

Last night's council meeting was another exciting display of representative democracy in action! Here's a quick recap of the highlights of what your council did to...er...did for...you.

After the cursory adoption of the consent agenda items, Mayor Howard announced that the city has received a letter from IDOT (Illinois Department of Transportation) promising that bad stretches of Cumberland and Higgins will be repaved, contingent upon Springfield's passing a budget. Our sources report that a good laugh was had by all.

The council then moved to the City Manager's report portion of the agenda. The first item of business was the adoption of an agreement with Ekl Williams for the Park Ridge police department audit.

We are told Alderman Wsoooool man (7th ward) lead the charge by asking several questions of Mr. Terry A. Ekl, who was in attendance. Alderman Schmidtzkrieg (1st ward) moved to amend the agreement to 1) not provide immunity for disciplinary action against police officers interviewed by Ekl Williams, 2) release the final report to the public, and 3) have Ekl Williams keep and manage a list of people to be interviewed.

That amendment was divided into its respective parts and treated independently for discussion and vote. Procedurally (under Roberts Rule of Order) that's known as "dividing the question".

Most of the discussion among the council and with Mr. Ekl centered around the question of providing immunity from discipline for police officers who will be interviewed by Mr. Ekl, while allowing that criminal prosecution would still be available, and the release of the final report to the public. It seems Mr. Ekl had asked to be able to grant immunity, as well as asking the council if the final report is intended to be released to the public so that his firm would know whether or not they were operating under the guidance of confidential attorney-client privilege; something Mr. Ekl would seem to have preferred.

During the discussion, Ald. Schmidtzkrieg mentioned that a letter of recommendation for Mr. Terry Ekl was received by the city from DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett. Ald. Schmidtzkrieg also noted that Mr. Terry Ekl was, at one time, Mr. Birkett's campaign manager and that over the years Mr. Ekl has donated nearly $20,000.00 to Mr. Birkett's election efforts.

In answer to the question of whether or not Mr. Ekl had any affiliation with the mayor or any member of the council, Mr. Ekl responded that he did meet Alderman Allspaghetti (4th ward) a number of years ago, but that he did not have any affiliation with any other members of the council.

After much discussion, the council did finally vote on the amended main motion to adopt the contract with Elk Williams. The result is that immunity from disciplinary action will not be given to officers being interviewed, the final report will be released to the public in some form, and Ekl Williams will keep and manage any list of interviewees.

Next, the council then moved to ratify the notice given to Napleton Cadillac that the city position on the previously adopted deal with Napleton was now kaput, with Alderman DreadBach (3rd ward) stressing that this notice means Napleton will not get a cent from the city. We can only imagine how very disappointing all this is to those 30 constituents whom Ald. DreadBach previously said he was representing.

The third item under the City Manager's report was a discussion of the process under which the proposed PADS shelter at St. Mary's Episcopal Church would be allowed to proceed. The city attorney, Everett "Buzz" Hill, asked the council for direction; stating that normally staff would make such a determination but that case law in this area was conflicting and that this was a very unusual circumstance.

Again it was Ald. Schmidtzkrieg who moved to refer the matter to the council's Procedures and Regulations committee for further discussion and recommendation.

Mayor Howard then informed all present that the city council will be conducting a PADS workshop at 6:30 pm on May 5th, 2008 with St. Mary's, people from PADS and selected members of a "community group".

With those items of business done, the council then moved to the portion of the agenda that allows members of the public to comment on non-agenda issues. And again, many many members of the public spoke both for and against the PADS shelter at St. Mary's with pastor Amity Carruba providing the council with 343 signatures from various church congregants in support of the PADS shelter at St. Mary's.

We hate to burst Amity's bubble, but the last time signatures were submitted to the council it was a final count of 400 residents opposed to granting zoning variances to Norwood Builders for the condo project at Executive Office Plaza, and the council wasn't persuaded. We can only guess that none among those 400, and likely none among the 343 submitted by Amity, are the "magical 30" DreadBach needs to vote to represent his constituency.

The rest of the council's business was conducted with much less citizen participation, and your water rates are going up, your sewer surcharge is going up, ambulance fees are going up, the parking tax at Lutheran General Hospital is going up, and your city government will undoubtedly be finding new and exciting ways to spend it all.

Have a great day.

Some People.

Norman Rockwell - 'Freedom of Speech'

There's nothing the PRU Crew loves more than free speech except seeing it being practiced! Today's guest essay is an email which was forwarded to us. It is published here with permission of the author.


GUEST ESSAY

Email from Dan Knight

To: Park Ridge Mayor Howard Frimark
Park Ridge City Council

Bcc: St. Mary’s neighbors and community email list

Gentlemen,

I hope you will indulge me once again. As I learn more and more about this matter I feel compelled to continue to ask questions.

As FYI, I have blind copied my many neighbors and others on this to keep them informed as well.

On Wednesday, April 17th, Mayor Frimark and I discussed options to the proposed PADS shelter at St. Mary's. This discussion, of course, was in line with the Mayor's stated position that St. Mary's is probably not the best location for a PADS site. The Mayor told me that the Our Lady of Ransom facility on Greenwood would be a better site for a PADS shelter, except that it isn't in Park Ridge .

I stopped the Mayor and asked him a question I have been asking for weeks and to which I have yet to get an answer: all other things being equal, is it so important that there be a shelter in Park Ridge? The Mayor's response was: "Not to me... but it is to some people." Some people?

How surprising is it that the neighbors to St. Mary's and much of the citizenry of Park Ridge are upset, critical, anxious, and even plain "anti" this proposed PADS shelter? Let me tell you why you should not be surprised...

> We were not "in the loop" on this decision in any way, shape or form until after this was decided - after far more than a year of contemplation, discussion and planning by PADS, Park Ridge , St. Mary's and, apparently, "some people."

> We have gotten no actual facts or communication of value from PADS aside from their brochures. What we have gathered and what we have learned, we have had to gather and learn on our own.

> We know that while St. Mary's volunteered to be the Park Ridge PADS site their interim Pastor Carrubba hadn't even visited one herself. And up until very recently, neither had more that just a few other members of the PRMA.

> We know that some PRMA mermbers voiced their own concern about "starting slowly" since they were "not sure about what they were getting into" in opening a PADS shelter.

> We know that, when asked, the PRMA could not provide any details or background information about how it was decided that Park Ridge needed a PADS or how it was decided to locate it specifically at St. Mary's.

> We know that the Mayor and our own 5th ward alderman now think that St. Mary's is the wrong place for a PADS shelter, or so they each have said on more than one occasion.

> We know that the majority of the alderman have gone on record with us as being opposed to the shelter at St. Mary's.

> We know that even many of the members of the PRMA have gone on record as saying that St. Mary's is probably not the best spot for a PADS shelter.

So why are we expected to just go with the flow and say yes - we need a PADS shelter in Park Ridge; and, yes - St. Mary's is exactly the right location for that shelter? In the face of how this was decided, the lack of any real due diligence and the reports that many of our city leaders and members of the PRMA now think St. Mary's is the wrong place for a PADS shelter, how are we expected to react?

I would suggest that it would be unnatural for us to simply say: "Go ahead, we're really confident in all you have done to launch this PADS shelter here in Park Ridge and at St. Mary's church."

Two weeks ago a neighbor lamented the fact that we are called "un-Christian," "uncaring" and "unsympathetic" to the plight of the homeless. I recently had someone tell me that they felt "sorry" for me. Well, we are not un-Christian, uncaring or unsympathetic to the plight of the homeless. And, frankly, we don't need anyone to feel sorry for us. What we are is troubled and disturbed at how all of this has unfolded, especially given the facts available. Why are we being branded the "heavies" in this docu-drama?

Yet things keep moving ahead. The original plans are apparently still in the works and we are still being told October is set for the opening of the St. Mary's PADS. We yet may get some “dialog” but it looks like it will be more of a monologue - with St. Mary’s and PADS telling us about how and why they will continue to move ahead with their plans.

Who exactly is deciding all of this? "Some people," as the Mayor related to me. And who are these "some people" ?? Are they Park Ridge residents? Are they our elected officials? Are they PADS representatives?

And who is PADS? Where is PADS? The controversy surrounding this PADS shelter at St. Mary’s has now been brewing for weeks without real people from PADS showing up to give us their bonafides. That's not very comforting to any of us who are expected to receive these homeless "guests" into our neighborhood.

I will end by saying what I said at the last city council meeting and what I will continue to say: The opening of a PADS shelter anywhere in Park Ridge deserves far more due diligence and public debate than we have seen or received to date on the current proposal. I say go back to square one, get that due diligence done, hold a thorough public debate of the issue, and then decide if we need a PADS shelter in Park Ridge and, if so, what the ideal location would be.

To forge ahead with the current mistake of placing a PADS shelter at St. Mary’s in the face of so many now acknowledging the problems with that location is flat out wrong and an affront to the neighbors and community.

Crab It In!

Keep your shiny side up and have an amazing weekend!

Shrinkage!

In a recent report in the Journal & Topics, we read the ballyhooing of this year's 5.5 miles of street resurfacing.

The Public Works committee, chaired by Ald. DreadBach (3rd ward), awarded the contract of $1,108,052.16 to J.A. Johnson Paving of Arlington Heights.

The PRU Crew decided to take a look at the resurfacing programs from the recent past, and we found...


2004/2005 - 5.3 Miles of Streets Resurfaced



2005/2006 - 8.3 Miles of Streets Resurfaced


2006/2007 - 9.3 Miles of Streets Resurfaced


2007/2008 - 7.3 Miles of Streets Resurfaced


2008/2009 - 5.5 Miles of Streets Resurfaced


Funny, but we don't remember paying less in property taxes.

We aren't unaware of the increases in costs. But we are aware that in order for our town's infrastructure needs to be maintained, we can't allow cut-backs on the very basics; such as street resurfacing.

Then again, we are also aware of the Frimark administration's preference for paving the way for deals for Friends of Frimark, rather than boring old street paving.

Finally, in today's Herald-Advocate citizens are invited to comment on the proposed City budget of $52.8 million. We don't know about everybody else, but we see an immediate $60,000.00 that should be cut right off the top; $50,000.00 for the Library "space needs study" and $10,000.00 for that goofy "Vision 2025" long-term city plan.

Another Comment in the Spotlight!

Yesterday a PRU reader asked:

"I know this does not apply to today's discussion but, I thought there was a state law, or perhaps fed, which says that an employeer with over ? employees must notify the state if they intend to close. Does this apply to Napleton?If not, if Napleton's employees are union did they have to inform the union of their intention to close?I just can't get it out of my mind that Napleton did not know he was going to close when working on the city donation to him. A. J." April 15, 2008 7:38 PM

You jogged our memory banks, A.J. Yes, there is a Federal and State of Illinois law that does require notice. That law, the Illinois WARN Act - "Applies to employer with 75 or more full-time workers" and says in part:

The Illinois WARN Act requires employers to give 60 days notice to employees and their unions, the Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity’s Bureau of Workforce Development and the Illinois Department of Labor, of a plant closing or mass layoff.

The law does not appear to apply to Napleton. We understand from what has been reported that Napleton Cadillac had about 50 employees, and we don't believe they are in a union.

It also appears the local rags have been ratcheting up their game and taking advantage of this newfangled thing called the Internet! On Monday, both the Journal & Topics and the Herald-Advocate posted online updates about the City Attorney's opinion on the Napleton deal.

The PRU Crew is going to go ahead and take a little credit for lighting a bit of a fire under the local rags' backsides. We have noticed that since Mr. Craig Adams became employed by the Journal, the quality of their content has definitely improved. We've also noticed that as of late, Ms. Jennifer - Rip Van Winkle - Johnson seems to have entered a brave new world of reporting. And considering all that has already taken place among elected officials in their various meetings this week, we are actually looking forward to reading what the local rags have to say about it!

It also appears from the reports that Mayor Howard is giving the City Attorney, Buzz Hill, the credit for the City's position that the Napleton deal is D.O.A. The City Attorney's memo says in part:

"It is clear that if any one of the dealerships moves from Park Ridge, the City has no obligations whatsoever to Napleton under the Agreement. Paragraph 8 of the Agreement states:

“Once any one of the Dealerships is moved, the City shall have no further obligations pursuant to this Agreement.”

This includes both the sales tax rebate obligation and the $400,000 Environmental Reimbursement Obligation.

I have informed Napleton’s attorney of this position. As soon as I am directed to do so, I will give written notification as required by the Agreement. Napleton then will have 30 days to notify us that he has convinced GM to change its position and keep the dealerships in Park Ridge."

Of course, giving the City Attorney credit for protecting the interests of Park Ridge taxpayers is the right thing for Mayor Howard to do, because many of us remember exactly what the Mayor's position was:

"Frimark said he has asked City Attorney Everette "Buzz" Hill to review the economic incentive agreement "and see where we stand." Frimark told the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate, however, that while the sales tax rebate is void, he believes Napleton is entitled to receive the $400,000 in clean-up costs which would come from Uptown Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds.

"I believe that's still going to go forward," Frimark said." - Herald-Advocate, April 10, 2008

Freewheeling - April 15, 2008

As we indicated in a previous post, we welcome PRU readers to ask questions of each other and discuss what's on their minds.

One topic that seems to be on the minds of some of our readers is the issue of Red Light Cameras being installed at "key intersections" in Park Ridge. PRU has covered the topic here and here.

Here's a list of recently recommended resources from readers:

1. Red light cameras too good for their own good?

2. Red-Light Cameras' Success Produce Financial Headache For Dallas

3. Effects Of Red-Light Cameras

4. Red-light camera monkey business may be a national trend

Lesson #2: Pay Attention or Pay Up!

Back in early October, we told you about the City Council's Finance & Budget committee. In that piece we said, "We sure do hope the Lord of the Manor is paying attention, because his won't be the only ass that could get bitten by something that creeps up from behind."

And some serious budget issues have crept up, which is why the Finance and Budget committee will be conducting a Finance and Budget COW - Committee of the Whole (.pdf) tonight in the City Council chambers.

With the surprise announcement of Napleton Cadillac's closing, additional expenditures for the police department audit, some goofy "vision plan" thing, the expense of improving air quality at the "new" Public Works Service Center, and Lutheran General Hospital's lack of cooperating on an increase in the parking garage tax, the City Council has a lot to discuss and much bloody red spending to staunch.

As quoted in an online update by one of the local rags, the Lord of the Manor, 2nd Ward Alderman Rich DiPietro said, "There will have to be some compromises made Monday night...I anticipate a lively discussion."

Like we said, things can creep up from behind.

And as an old bus driver used to say on a route once travelled by one of our crew, "Keep an eye on your pocketbooks, ladies and gentlemen, we have some special guests on board today."

Ode to Alderman DreadBach!

Hey, DreadBach! We found your letter in the Journal & Topics very inspiring!

To the Carly Simon tune 'You're So Vain'

(midi file) Right click to open, then minimize your player

You walked onto the Council
Like you were some kind of big hot shot
Your seat strategically meant to aid Frimark
You're a pawn in his power plot
You had both eyes on the Mayor as
You let Public Works go to pot
And all our streets seemed that they needed salting
Our streets needed salting, and

You're so vain
You probably think this blog is about you
You're so vain
We bet you think this blog is about you
Don't you? Don't you?

You've had many chances to prove yourself
And vote very thoughtfully
Well, you said you wouldn't spend your money with Napleton
And you said it indignantly
Then you gave away our town's money
And now it's a mess we can see
You cast your vote and you screwed it up big time
Screwed it up big time, and

You're so vain
You probably think this blog is about you
You're so vain
We bet you think this blog is about you
Don't you? Don't you?

Well we hear you went up to watch old Greenbay
And you and Frimark had fun
You were seen at the game on that special Sunday
Like you're Frimark's adopted son
Well, you vote like Frimark wants you to
And when you don't, you are still
Making quite sure that it's okay with Frimark
Okay with Frimark, and

You're so vain
You probably think this blog is about you
You're so vain
We bet you think this blog is about you
Don't you? Don't you? Don't you?

You're so vain
You probably think this blog is about you
You're so vain
You probably think this blog is about you...

Enjoy the weekend!

Napleton's 'Dear John' Letter.

Click on the image for a larger view

We thought PRU readers may want to see what Mr. William F. Napleton had to say to his benefactor, Mayor Howard Frimark, and the City of Park Ridge about the closing of Napleton Cadillac. We also thought it would be a nice accompaniment to the coverage of this story in the local press today.

Napleton to close Cadillac dealership in Park Ridge

According to the article:

"Susan Garontakos, a spokesperson for General Motors, said President Bill Napleton voluntarily opted to close the Cadillac-Buick-Pontiac dealership, located at Greenwood Avenue and Busse Highway.

"He made the decision to go away from the business," Garontakos said.

Mayor Howard Frimark and Deputy City Manager Juliana Maller met with Bill Napleton on Monday, and Frimark told the City Council it was General Motors that pulled the dealership's franchises. Garontakos said this was not true, and that it was Napleton's decision to close the dealership, not GM's."

We can hardly wait to see that full page ad!

Helluva job, Howie!

A Recall Amendment?

As most of our regular readers know, we've discussed the issue of a recall vote for local elected officials before. It is a topic that remains of interest to many Park Ridge residents.

We first spotted a report on the recall issue over on the burbcops blog --

Verbal fireworks part of Capitol recall debate

And then again on the local news last night --

House approves putting recall option on November ballot

"If a recall ever went into effect, it would apply to all the elected constitutional officers and the state legislature, no one at any local level. It's a long shot in Illinois because of the political dynamics, but definitely an embarrassment to the governor."

The bill still has to go before the Illinois Senate for a vote, and if it passes there then Illinois voters will have their chance to vote on the measure next November.

We haven't done any research on this legislation to see if it forbids local governments, especially those operating under home rule, from having a recall ordinance on their books, but we're going to bet it doesn't.

Council Roundup!

We hear it was a long city council meeting last night. After the usual opening niceties of declaring April to be Fair Housing Month and some recognition awards, acting City Manager Julianna Maller requested that the acting Director of Community Development, Carrie Davis, brief the Council on a March 31, 2008 meeting between city staff, the Park Ridge Ministerial Association, Benedict Alderman Ryan and Mayor Howard regarding the proposed PADS shelter.

Everyone was reassured that it is "typical" to meet with "potential" applicants to lay the groundwork for future action. Ms. Davis also said such meetings are necessary because such proposals effect many layers of city government. Ms. Davis also referred to PADS as a "franchise" that deals with the provision of shelter to the homeless, and that the Park Ridge Ministerial Association believes there is a "gap in services" for the homeless in Park Ridge.

Acting City Manager Maller then told those assembled that St. Mary's has been asked to provide more information and that if the council chose to they could refer the matter to committee for discussion to talk about the process. Ms. Maller requested direction from the City Council.

Ald. Dave Schmidt (1st ward) then remarked that he hoped the City Attorney would provide his legal opinion in a written memo with supporting citations and cases. Ald. Schmidt said he has looked at case law on the subject and that this is a confused area of the law, but that all signs point to PADS needs to get a special use permit. Ald. Schmidt went on to caution those in attendance, who are opposed to the PADS shelter, that there is a balancing requirement in the law. The city can require standards, but those opposed to the shelter can't simply say they don't want it; there must be a compelling interest for the city to protect. All that leaves the PRU Crew to wonder, what's more compelling than the protection of our kids, ourselves, and our property?

Benedict Ald. Ryan (5th ward) then spoke about his last Saturday morning meeting with area residents and the Ministerial Association. He spoke of the many questions raised and believes that residents had taken time to think through their concerns, and that the Ministerial Association had also taken time to think through the issue, for the two years they have been thinking through the issue. Benedict Ald. Ryan said everyone needs to find a "way forward" and that the special use was not the issue. Ryan wants to see everyone engage in dialogue to have a better understanding. Ryan said he's asked that a public meeting will be held by the end of April, and that the Ministerial Association has said they would do that.

Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd ward), addressing the actual request of the acting City Manager, said he hoped the Council would choose to discuss the PADS subject as a committee of the whole.

Mayor Howard said he has asked that a City Council workshop be put on by the Ministerial Association, and that he's also asked the City Attorney for his opinion, and he encourages everyone to listen to the City Attorney's opinion.

Ours has got to be the most work-shopped City Council in the history of municipal government!

The next item on the agenda was supposed to be a vote to accept the proposal from Ekl Williams to do an audit of the Park Ridge Police Department. Some of you may recognize the name of Ekl Williams -- their firm represented the female bartender who was beaten by Chicago Police officer, Anthony Abbate. However, Ald. Frank Wsoooool man (7th ward) requested that the matter be deferred for two reasons, 1) A resident of the 7th ward has purportedly asked Ekl Williams for representation, and 2) a source has referred to allegations raised against attorney Terry Ekl by a group calling itself Citizens for Legal Responsibility.

We have no idea whether or not the resident seeking Ekl's representation has a beef with the Park Ridge police or not. The PRU Crew did do so some very quick online searching and found some very disturbing information about Mr. Ekl. None of which we will discuss here today. We aren't even certain it's the same Mr. Ekl. But if it is, we would hope there would be no further consideration of Ekl Williams for the police department audit.

The Council voted unanimously to defer the matter.

Next it was time for Citizens Wishing To Address The Council On A Non-Agenda Item. Mayor Howard warned that he would be "very strict" in enforcing the Council's 5-minute rule for speakers.

The Unfriendly Ghost of the 6th Ward, Ald. Thomas Carey, inquired that this was for address to the City Council on Non-Agenda items, stressing the Non-Agenda aspect, and as you will see he was roundly ignored.

Our sources tell us that the count of for/against ran 7 to 17 with 1 "don't know exactly". Most all of the speakers who rose to support the proposed PADS shelters were the pastors and PADS volunteers, while those who voiced concern and or objection to the proposal were residents.

Father Ted Stone from Mary Seat of Wisdom was the first to speak, saying that they have had 20 "clients" coming to MSW asking for help and that they, MSW, hasn't been able to help. They have wanted to find a way to help and make provisions for temporarily homeless people. Other members of the clergy also spoke in similar terms offering that sheltering the homeless is a mandate to churches and that they too were looking for dialogue on this issue.

Those with PADS volunteer experience spoke of how much more they got from the experience than they have given and that but for the grace of God...etc. etc. etc. One of the PADS volunteers said she has never felt threatened and that she has never observed people congregating outside shelters waiting to get in, vomiting on the street, or urinating in public. The woman reported that late arrivals receive a police escort and that, in her estimation, homeless people are no different from anyone else. The PRU Crew suggests this woman make an immediate visit to an optometrist.

The members of the public who spoke against the proposed PADS shelter offered nearly unanimous feeling that the biggest problem with the homeless shelter is location, location, location. But many reiterated the "stealthy" way the project has been handled. Two residents, Pat Livensparger and Judy Barclay, were also adamant about the zoning code and the necessity for PADS to seek a special use permit through the proper procedures.

The citizens' address to the City Council ended at about 9:15 and everyone took a break.

The Council then resumed business on the topic of the first reading of the special use permit for Christie's Carousel of Learning Child Care Center at the Park Ridge Presbyterian Church. They spent nearly an hour discussing the placement of a dumpster in the church parking lot, and the size of arborvitae bushes to be used to screen residents' view of the unsightly sight of children playing on the Christie's playground. At one point in the discussion, Christie's attorney Jack Owens seemed to be begging the Council to please just tell them, Christie's, what they want and they will do it! But City Councils being what they are, the discussion continued on and on. Two residents in the area of the Park Ridge Presbyterian Church spoke of their concerns about the child care center moving into their neighborhood, but ultimately the City Council voted unanimously to approve the first reading of the Christie's special use permit.

Then the council again voted unanimously to approve a 3 year contract with a new tree care service and to raise the water and sewer taxes.

Next up, Fire Chief Dubowski attempted to entertain the crowd with talk of disaster plans and emergency preparedness. Our sources report that Chief Dubowski was their favorite speaker of the evening because he kept it short.

Finally, under New Business, Ald. Don DreadBach (3rd ward) asked why Maine East can't have a digital bulletin board and learned that the Park Ridge zoning code doesn't allow them. Maryor Howard then offered that Maine East will be submitting a request for a text amendment to change the zoning code to allow for electronic bulletin boards. While Benedict Ald. Ryan passed out a summary of research he's done on the process of building a new police station.

The most interesting item under New Business came when Ald. Wsoooool man mentioned the rumored and confirmed closing of Napleton Cadillac by May 2, 2008, then asked that the City Council review the gift contract that had been given to Napleton to see if this closing renders the contract null and void, because he thought that the City should not be "fooled twice".

Mayor Howard, who took much credit for having negotiated this deal, then said he had been called by Napleton that day and had been told that General Motors had pulled their franchises from the Napleton location at Busse and Greenwood. Mayor Howard then lamented the sad story of the current conditions of the car sales market.

The PRU Crew is wondering why Mayor Howard did not mention this rather important matter under the council agenda item where it says "Reports of City Officials - Mayor", or is that space expressly reserved for political idiocy like pseudo-condemnations?

Alderman Dave Schmidt then asked that Napleton and PRC be made aware of the fact that the City will be reviewing the contract so that they do not proceed with their closing on the old Napleton site under the impression that they City will still be paying money for the clean-up of that property.

Mayor Howard said he thought Ald. Schmidt shouldn't make such "wild statements", to which Ald. Schmidt replied that his was not a "wild statement" but rather a "caution" to all parties involved that they should not proceed without being fully informed of the current circumstances.

Watch for Mayor Howard and others to still push to give Napleton and PRC the $400,000 to clean up the old Napleton site. What you will hear is how terrific that redevelopment will be, and your taxpaying support will be expected. Of course, you will also be expected to forget that the reason for this whole incentive deal in the first place was to get Napleton to keep their Cadillac and Buick dealerships in town.

BOHICA MAXIMUS!

Business As Usual!

There is one thing we can say about the Frimark administration: there's never a dull moment, if you like confusion and stupidity.

Tonight's City Council meeting agenda is chock full, and if the meeting goes as we expect, there will be plenty of confusion and stupidity.

We hear that the City may take the position, along with the local Ministerial Association, that the proposed PADS homeless shelter is a "religious ministry" and may not require a special use permit. The PRU Crew disagrees.

The St. Mary's Episcopal Church Messenger (.pdf), characterizes the Journey's from PADS to Hope organization as a "ministry" and concedes that the PADS program is a new ministry for local churches. Last we checked, the Journeys from PADS to Hope organization is a social services program that does not conduct religious services. We hate to nit-pick, but ministering to those in need is not a function of religious beliefs. It's merely a function. And in the PRU Crew's opinion, the PADS function of the Journeys organization is a lack-luster performer.

We hope the City isn't confused about that and will require that the proper procedure for receiving a special use permit will be demanded of PADS, just as it is being demanded of Christie's Carousel of Learning Child Care Center, which the City Council will be voting on tonight.

The City Council will also be voting tonight to hire Ekl Williams to do an "audit" of the Park Ridge Police Department. The PRU Crew feels Ald. Wsoooool man (7th ward) is correct when he questioned the final bill the taxpayer's will get stuck with after this audit. We also wonder why Mayor Howard Frimark was allowed to be a voting member of a City Council subcommittee? In any event, we believe the outcome of this investigation is somewhat preordained. We got a hint of things to come from a quote by Ald. Allspaghetti (4th ward) in a recent article in one of the local rags, when he said, "I think a lot of our problems retired," Allegretti said. "But that being said, there are still problems that need to be addressed and looked at." Look for former Chief of Police, Jeff Caudill, to take the blame for all things wrong in the police department. And we expect that, despite Allspaghetti's disparaging comment, the non-disparagement clause in Caudill's separation agreement will be cited when the City refuses to release the findings of the audit in full.

At tonight's meeting, we are also hoping to learn more from Mayor Howard Frimark and the City Council about the rumored closing of Napleton Cadillac. And what effect, if any, such a closing would have on the recently inked deal to give Napleton a total incentive package of $2.4million for staying to do business in Park Ridge.

Finally, we hope at least one of our representatives will cast some light on what the PRU Crew believes may be another illegally closed meeting being orchestrated by Mayor Howard in his efforts to woo the new City Manager candidates. There are restrictions in the Illinois Open Meetings Act that require the recording of verbatim minutes (.pdf - pg. 5 & 10) for closed sessions. Does the Country Club have recording equipment? Will the private Country Club allow the public to attend the open portion of the meeting to observe the open session vote to go into closed session?

With Eyes Wide Open.

This week we've discussed some of the practical and political issues surrounding the proposed PADS shelter at St. Mary's Episcopal Church.

We certainly hope we have added useful information to the discussion. The entire PRU Crew felt very strongly that it was necessary to try to remove some of the rosy glow coloring the glasses of those supporting the invitation of an increased homeless population into Park Ridge.

We believe such an invitation should be undertaken with eyes wide open.

We had intended today to discuss at length the potential issues of vagrancy, loitering, squatting in vacant buildings, and future demands on services and city staff.

But we have decided to leave those discussions entirely up to you.

Feel free to add your thoughts, knowledge, and opinions to the issue.

Have a great weekend, and don't suffer one pang of guilt for having achieved the living you've earned as a Park Ridgian. And no, you do not have to give anything away to somebody else's preferred choice of charity.

The HUDdled Masses and More!

The PRU Crew feels that most people have kind and charitable hearts. So much so that organizing a 501(c)3 non-profit organization seems to be all the rage these days. And this non-profit business wing of the population seems to have enough clout to manage to get themselves exempted from pending legislation on junk mail, along with political entities and small businesses; small businesses being the only entities the PRU Crew doesn't mind receiving junk mail from.

Of course in many of these non-profit organizations there are paid staff members conducting the organization's work; we use the term loosely. And of course many of the 501(c)3 non-profit organizations are substantially government funded.

Say hello to HUD, a.k.a. the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD funds so many assorted 501(c)3 organizations that we could not possibly list even a fraction of them here. Which leads us to believe, as with most government departments the Crew's ever come to know, they probably aren't doing a real bang-up job of due diligence and oversight. And that is probably why lack-luster social programs such as PADS are allowed to continue being funded. That and the fact that nobody, and we mean NOBODY, really knows what the hell to do about the problem of the homeless and all the other problems associated with that condition.

It's "the system".

But, if one isn't truly looking for solutions to a problem and is, instead, looking to "work the system" then...

Say hello to HUD!

A couple days ago, a poster here referred to Mayor Howard and asked, "He can't make a buck on a PADS shelter, can he?"

The answer is, probably not directly. But indirectly? Quite possibly.

You see, the way the system works is that you incorporate a 501(c)3 (even out of sincere intentions), then you establish a continuum of care plan for the homeless and low/moderate income folks at risk, which is exactly what the Journeys from PADS to Hope organization is. Then you demonstrate that you are filling a community need through your program.

Then you apply for grants.

Community Development Block Grants.

Why would Park Ridge want to apply for CDBG grants with big time Federal strings attached? Because it's nice to get the Feds to pay for community development initiatives.

And because HUD is as interested in promoting its 'America's Affordable Communities Initiative' as any self-perpetuating bureaucracy can be, and the Feds can count on our very own Governor Blow Dry to help with that, along with so many assorted local organizations and socially conscious butterflies, we literally could not save all the links. But we did find a few "stand outs."

To start we have the “Prime Solutions for Affordable Housing” Illinois’ 2008 Annual Comprehensive Housing Plan (.pdf). The vision statement in this plan says: "Quality housing, affordable to each household, with accessible and appropriate services where needed, that supports individual and family success. Housing is an essential asset and economic engine for neighborhoods, integral to the creation of robust communities for the citizens of Illinois."

Okay, uncross your eyes and continue.

Apparently, if your community is so "robust" that your housing stock doesn't include at least 10% of units "affordable" to low and moderate income people, then you should expect to be required to make amends. No exceptions, or "non-exempt", as the State of Illinois' prefers to phrase it. And the "non-exempt" phrase means communities like Park Ridge.

In a 2004 report released by the Illinois Housing Development Authority, Park Ridge was listed as one of the affordable housing community slackers (.pdf), right there on page 4. But what caught the PRU Crew's attention in that report was the section:

Local Control is Maintained

“One of the important provisions of the law is that local decisions remain with the local government and that all developments must meet the standards of the local community,” explained Dibble. “The community can tailor its own plan for its own needs and concerns. And once they have their plan in place, the community is in charge of its own destiny.”

"Communities also have the option of choosing one of three planning goals. They can adopt a plan that requires 15% of all new developments to be affordable; a plan whereby the community will increase its overall percentage of affordable housing by three percentage points; or a plan whereby communities will increase their overall percentage of affordable housing to 10%."

"The type of development – rental or for sale – as well as the type of buildings – detached single family, attached townhomes, condos, etc. – are all completely under the control of the municipality. Also, the population that the community intends to address is completely flexible and under the control of the municipality. Communities with aging populations may consider rental developments for seniors, but others may plan for a homeownership program for teachers, hospital workers, or other municipal employees. Still others may develop a program to retain the young families who grew up in the community, who are otherwise forced to find homes in other communities."

And that right there, our dear fellow Park Ridgians, means developers. Campaign contributing developers, along with whatever else those developers may deign to bestow upon a politician who may then look favorably on a new development.

Because what will happen is that any developer required to set aside some portion of a development for "affordable housing" purposes will then have a substantial reason to ask for...

...can you guess...

...that's right...

...increased density. Density. Density. Density.

And in case anybody has forgotten, a majority of our city council members made drooling lapdogs of themselves when presented with "senior housing" that isn't really "senior housing," when Norwood Builders wanted to increase the density of their development at Executive Office Plaza. We tell you now, affordable housing set asides will be deemed a "real hardship" and there is likely to be nothing close to a fighting chance for staying within the zoning code.

And while all of that is procedural and municipal and ordinance-laden, the socially conscious butterflies are hard at work (.pdf - see pg. 5, first item). We guess former Alderman Sue Bell just can't get enough of "representing" Park Ridge. It also appears that our Fair Housing Commission chairman, Nan Parson, forgot which commission she intended to join. Though, anybody who has been paying close attention or knows Nan Parson, knows that Nan is nearly incapable of distinguishing her role as Fair Housing chairman from her "social justice" agenda for affordable housing.

And the people with social and political agendas hide themselves behind the communities of faith who will ALWAYS be suckers for a hard-luck story, but remain shallow and short on thought when it comes to public policy.

And all of that is likely why Mayor Howard is working behind the scenes to support the PADS shelter at St. Mary's. You don't risk appearing to be less than a "good christian" in front of the clergy because, after all, they've got the ultimate bully pulpit. And no matter how much of a ding-a-ling she may be, you don't cross a political party ally, former Alderman Sue Bell, politically. And you might just be able to spin some campaign contribution hay out of some new residential development plans.

BOHICA.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow -- Other things considered.

Stark Raving PADS!

Yesterday we told you what we know of the genesis of how the proposed PADS shelter at St. Mary's church came to be. We also told you we believe Mayor Howard is not telling the truth about what he knew (and knows) of the plans at St. Mary's church.

Today we will tell you why we feel the PADS program is nothing more than a feel-good exercise for the conscience-afflicted and a potential money-maker for those involved in it.

What we won't tell you is that we think the local clergy are a bunch of secretive asshats, who surreptitiously tried to shove a homeless shelter up the backsides of their neighbors until they couldn't hide their plans any longer.

Nope. We aren't going to criticize the ineffectual practice of ministerial faith by misguided souls. We believe their hearts are in the right place. It's the placement of their heads that is the problem.

But we are going to tell you why we feel the PADS program sucks as a matter of public policy.

It sucks because it doesn't do anything more than enable the homeless "lifestyle" by providing nothing more than "a hot and a flop", then leaving the homeless to return to the streets. In short, the PADS program does not work.

Based on the information available on the Journeys from PADS to Hope website:

1. "In the Northwest Suburbs alone, there are 1,200 homeless people accessing shelters with approximately 400 additional homeless people residing on streets, in cars, and throughout forest preserves."

2. "During the 2006-2007 season... Through the combined efforts of our volunteers and staff, we were successful in transitioning 39 clients out of homelessness and 309 clients in the past 6 PADS seasons out of an emotionally degrading life and into one of hope and independence, giving clients a much needed sense of belonging."

By their own account after boasting that "the PADS sites provided 12,149 overnight stays and 36,447 meals throughout the season" and that their volunteers invested "42,775 volunteer hours a year", they were only "successful in transitioning 39 clients out of homelessness" from a potential pool of 1,600. That's an annual "success" rate of only 2%. Hell, even in this crappy economy you get a better rate of return on your investment in a regular savings account.

Is it any wonder that across the nation those on the leading edge of advocacy for the homeless have begun to abandon the band-aid shelter treatments and begun tackling the much harder issue of finding and/or creating permanent housing? Not to mention the medical health advocates desperately seeking funding to provide beds in health facilities for those in desperate need of medical intervention.

Why would the Journeys from PADS to Hope folks persist in not only continuing this failed social program but also seek to expand it? Because when you are Beth Nabors, Director of Journeys from PADS to Hope, and Pat Harrington, Shelter Director, it may be that you find helping the homeless can be not only spiritually fulfilling but also personally lucrative (.pdf - see pg. 5 and Schedule A, respectively), especially if your compensation isn't measured by your "success" rate.

For Ms. Nabors, whose compensation in 2000 was $55,000 (.pdf - see Schedule A) and by 2006 had climbed to $80,520, we imagine working for the homeless coupled with a 46% compensation increase in 6 years is very fulfilling. We just wonder how the woman keeps a straight face when she goes recruiting for volunteers (read, free labor) who actually staff the PADS shelters and provide those "42,775 volunteer hours a year."

And now that we think about it, where one finds enablers one can usually find codependents.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow - The HUDdled Masses?

Lies, Damn Lies, and PADS!

Various sources report that Mayor Howard Frimark has been saying that the depth and breadth of his knowledge of the intended PADS homeless shelter at St. Mary's is what he's been reading in the papers, and that the City has not been approached by the church about the issue.

We don't know about you, but we think Mayor Howard is lying about reading the papers. In an article that appeared in the Journal & Topics, we read:

"Carrie Davis, acting community preservation and development director for Park Ridge, confirmed that St. Mary's approached the city with a proposal for a PADS shelter, but added, "That's as far as it's gone." Davis explained the city is determining the process the church must go through to get approval of the shelter. She also emphasized that the shelter is not governmental in nature.

"The city is not involved in this program in any way," she said. "We have not proposed it, we have not asked for it."

And in a letter written by Rev. James McCracken in one of the local rags:

"In 2006, during a Men's Breakfast at one of the churches, the guest speaker, Mayor Frimark, was asked why there was not a PADS shelter in Park Ridge. He responded that he would welcome a proposal for such a service from the Park Ridge churches.

At the same time, representatives of the Park Ridge Ministerial consulted with the Park Ridge Police Department, some aldermen, the Mayor's Task Force on Human Needs and Mayor Frimark. They were very encouraging in their support of the proposal. Three feature articles about the project appeared in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate."

Oops! Looks like not everybody has been following the script!

But let's just say that city staff didn't inform Mayor Howard of the "approach" to the city by St. Mary's. We suppose that could be the situation.

But what about that Men's Breakfast question back in 2006? And what about Rev. McCracken's contention that Mayor Howard has been "consulted"?

And what about the story in one of the local rags that appeared back in late November 2007 under the headline: "Hope for the homeless: churches hope to start PADS program here". The story is no longer available on the Herald-Advocate web site, because those dipshits archive their articles after 30 days. Still, you'd think an article like that may have piqued Mayor Howard's curiosity. If you were the mayor wouldn't you get on one of your office phones and start inquiring about the subject?

But let's just say that since that story appeared in a Thursday rag, and Mayor Howard must get busy finishing up the business he conducts on both of his city office phones before he leaves for his weekends in Bonita Springs, Fla., that Mayor Howard just forgot to follow-up. And, as we recall, the last time Mayor Howard followed-up on something, it was nearly two years after the fact. We suppose that could be the situation.

But what about the Human Needs Task Force meeting that Mayor Howard attended back on November 13, 2007. If the PRU Crew's party game reading of meeting minutes is correct, Mayor Howard doesn't usually show up at Human Needs Task Force meetings. But he showed up for that one. Why? We think he was expressly invited. Why? Because the agenda included some guest speakers; notably, Nan Parson, chairman of the city's Fair Housing Commission, Pat Harrington, Director of Journeys from PADS to Hope shelter system, Beth Nabors, Executive Director of Journeys from PADS to Hope, and Todd Statt, Director of Journeys from PADS to Hope, clinical arm of this organization.

And Mayor Howard's contribution to that meeting? Did Mayor Howard ask about possible locations for a PADS shelter? Nope. According to the meeting minutes, "Mayor Frimark spoke about a homeless woman he has seen and asked how to motivate individuals to get help."

So in November of 2007 Mayor Howard attended the Human Needs Task Force meeting, but didn't ask about a possible location for a PADS shelter.

Mayor Howard claims to read the local rags and so, after having attended the Human Needs Task Force meeting, he must have read the article "Hope for the homeless: churches hope to start PADS program here". And still Mayor Howard didn't think to inquire about a possible location for a PADS shelter?

But surely Mayor Howard read about the brouhaha surrounding Christie's Carousel of Learning preschool moving to the Park Ridge Presbyterian church; after being asked to move from St. Mary's, where they had operated for more than 20 years, because the church "wanted to use the center's space for other things."

Surely after having attended the Human Needs Task Force meeting and hearing the various guest speakers discuss the PADS program, and after reading of the local churches hope to start a PADS program in Park Ridge, and then reading about the newly available space at St. Mary's...

Surely after all that, Mayor Howard may have been inspired to finally ask about a possible location for a PADS shelter.

Nope. Not according to Mayor Howard. He doesn't know anything more about it than anybody else who reads the local rags.

Suuuuure.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow - Why the PRU Crew thinks PADS sucks.