Roll 'Em!

Have a very good weekend!

A Spotlight On Private Citizen's Comment!

Yesterday, Private Citizen said...

"Who cares if "safety" is a ploy.

What's so bad about red light cameras?

They might keep people from blowing a red light which in
turn might make the streets safer.

Even if they don't do that, they'll generate revenue for the city.

I don't see the down side here".

August 27, 2008 10:47 PM

The PRU Crew says...

We care. We care because we've had a belly full of bullshit getting shoveled to the citizens. We care because we are sick of the bullshit that busy, distracted, and sometimes unthinking citizens seem willing to swallow from ploy employing bullshit artists. We care because we actually believe in concepts like "truth in advertising". We care because we have the right to demand that governments not just appear to be doing something, but actually produce results. We care because when a government tells citizens they are doing something for their safety, they better mean it and do it. We care because the consequences for failing to deliver on promises of increased safety for citizens can be very fucking serious. We care because claiming to provide a mechanism for increased safety that may actually produce some greater harm of unintended consequences can't be balanced out by any amount of increased revenue.

We care because the bullshit, cavalier, bureau-rat mindset of statements like yours, Private Citizen, are why there is so much waste in government and apathy among citizens who've grown tired of even bothering to fight the fight.

We care. That's why this blog exists.

Of Cops, Cameras, And Enforcement.

As you should know by now, the Ekl Williams report on the Park Ridge Police Department contained a rather lengthy dedication to the subject of elected officials who meddle in police enforcement matters; of course, without naming those elected officials.

Two examples of the pols interfering in enforcement issues were discussed: the zero tolerance law for underage drinking, and crossing the railroad crossing while the gates were down.

As you may recall, Aldermen James Allspaghetti (4th ward) and Don Bachtard (3rd ward) were the elected officials complaining of aggressive zero tolerance enforcement. We do not have confirmation of who complained about gate crossings.

As you may also recall, it has been Ald. Bachtard who has lead the charge to bring red light cameras to Park Ridge.

And as you may recall, we oppose red light cameras; observing that cameras cannot prevent accidents -- they can only record them. We will continue to maintain that it is the police who should be asked and then supported in the enforcement of the law.

As a glaring example of the above, we offer the below -- please dedicate a full 27 seconds to watching the video.



Just so we're all clear about the difference between what cameras can do and what officers can do.

Can I Get A Witness! (Freewheeling)

The reports have rolled in, and it sounds to us as if the meeting last night was fairly well managed. The crowd in attendance at the Planning and Zoning public hearing last night numbered around 350, with about 50 individual speakers.

We're also hearing that speakers were almost evenly divided in their feelings about restrictions on homeless shelters in town, with a very slight -- maybe by one speaker -- edge going to the white shirts in the crowd.

Among the thinking members of the audience, the Planning and Zoning Commission was asked, sometimes repeatedly, to consider the following regulations and changes in the text amendment for homeless shelters:

1. -- Insert "cold weather" before the phrase "temporary overnight shelter"; limiting operation from October through April, with days of operation not to exceed 31.

2. -- Include schools in the exclusion list of locations where shelters may operate.

3. -- Do not allow shelters in the R1, R2, and R3 zoning districts.

4. -- Change the phrase "owner or operator" to read "and" so that an operator of a shelter must apply for a special use permit and be subject to annual review and approval by the City Council.

5. -- Limit the number of shelters that can operate within any single ward.

6. -- Do not allow shelters to operate within 500 ft. of schools.

7. -- Require fingerprint background checks for all homeless shelter users.

8. -- Require a proper legal linkage agreement between a shelter operator and the city.

9. -- Require metal detectors be installed at shelter entrances; similarly, require wanding searches for shelter "guests".

10. -- Require security to be present on premesis.

11. -- Separate men from women and children within shelters.

12. -- Provide proper shower and bathing facilities within shelters.

Those seem like reasonable requests to us!

We are a little concerned by reports that most speakers were chock full of opinion but provided very little source material and "evidence" when testifying at this public hearing. Though we understand that a lot of this government procedural stuff is new to a lot of people, and there's always a learning curve to be managed.

The Planning and Zoning Commission decided to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at about 9:45 PM, then they voted to continue the rest of their meeting (their discussion) until September 8th. Should the Planning and Zoning Commission choose to reopen the public hearing on Sept. 8 or another future date, we strongly suggest to those interested in the issue to do their homework and submit "evidentiary" materials to the commission.

And finally, we are told the various preacher creatures still do not understand the United States Constitution, and what is meant by separation of church and state in the first amendment. No big surprise there.

The PRU Crew is looking forward to reading the transcripts and minutes of this meeting, and future meetings on this issue, for the entertainment value alone!

Another Chance To Stand And Be Heard!

As most of you know already, the city's Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing tonight at Emerson Middle School, 8101 North Cumberland Avenue, Niles, IL 60714 at 7:00 pm to Consider Regulations for Temporary Overnight Shelters -pdf. We strongly encourage people to attend this meeting.

With any luck, Park Ridgians will persuade the Planning and Zoning commission to recommend real regulations and procedures for regulating homeless shelters within the borders of our town.

The PRU Crew is aware of several recommendations that will be offered by community members, but we aren't willing to steal their thunder here and now. We would like to offer a few items for consideration we feel the community should not be shy about asking for --

1. Because it is documented fact that many sex offenders use homeless shelters, we feel no homeless shelter should be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any school. The State of Illinois law says that a registered sex offender may not reside within 500 feet of any school -- such a regulation for an overnight homeless shelter would be no more stringent than what the State of Illinois demands.

2. Because it is documented fact that many "clients" of homeless shelters have addiction and mental health issues, in addition to criminal backgrounds, every overnight homeless shelter guest must be subject to having their belongings checked for contraband and their persons subject to being wand searched. These types of searches are done at other shelters.

3. Because it is documented fact that many sex offenders, other criminals, addicts, and those with mental health issues use overnight homeless shelters, we feel that any overnight homeless shelter should be required to hire their own professional on-site security.

4. Because of the nature of homeless shelters and the "clients" using such services, we feel no homeless shelter should be allowed to operate within any R (residential) zoning district.

And with that, the PRU Crew offers everyone good luck for a good meeting!

Let The Sunshine In!

Photo by: Joel Bedford, "Where Time Stands Still (Morning Glory)" - Flickr

Once again, we offer PRUdos to Alderman Dave Schmidt (1st ward) for his continued fight against the forces of darkness! Excellent letter to the editor yesterday, Alderman Dave!

Have a bright and peaceful weekend!

One Year Ago, Today -- BOOM!

Happy Birthday to us -- the PRU Crew!

We hope that, during the past year, everyone has found something of value in our blog. If not? Tough shit. We like it. As we said in our very first post --

"Leave your prissy tasseled loafers at the door - we'll loan you a pair of Doc Martens.

We are, as our header says, irreverent and unrepentant in our opinions.

If hard driving sentiment with a dash of twisted humor is not your cup of venti caffé mocha then don't let the cyber-door hit you in the ass as you exit.

And don't forget to take your prissy tasseled loafers with you!"

In a year's time, we've covered some pretty good ground; 250 posts with almost 200 tags.

We did have a good laugh when we realized the first subject we posted about was of Aldermen Allspaghetti's and Bachtard's opposition to full enforcement of the Zero Tolerance law by police in Park Ridge, and now that subject is being discussed again a year later in the Ekl report; kind of like zero tolerance bookends!

We do appreciate (most of) the folks who spend the time to read and even comment on the subjects posted here. Without your participation this whole thing would be pretty dull. We sincerely thank you.

And finally, for our faithful PRU Tech whose tastes and interests are constantly curtailed by the less rowdy sensibilities of our PRU Admin, enjoy the vid below! The rest of you may want to turn down the sound if you choose to give "BOOM" by P.O.D. a listen.

To Protect and Serve.

1957 Pulitzer Prize winning photo taken by
William (Bill) Beall, Washington Daily News.

We had planned for today to comment on the findings, both the perceptions and the realities, of the Ekl Williams Police Department audit. Then an anonymous reader submitted the following, and we feel it's a lot better than anything we had to say today. We're going to leave our comments on the audit for another time.

A Policeman Is...

A policeman is a composite of what all men are...a mingling of saint and sinners...dust and deity. Cold statistics wave the fan over the stinkers... underscore instances of dishonesty and brutality because they are news.

What that really means is they are exceptional, unusual - not commonplace. Buried under the froth is the fact that less than one half of one percent of policemen misfit that uniform. And that's a better average than among clergymen.

What is a policeman made of. He of all men is at once the most needed and the most unwanted...a strangely nameless creature who is "sir" to his face... and "pig" to his back.

He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals... so that each will think he won...But if the policeman is
neat, he's a flirt. If he's not, he's a grouch.

In an instant he must make decisions which require months for a lawyer. But if he hurries, he's careless. If he's deliberate, he's lazy. He must be first to an accident...infallible with a diagnosis...he must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints and above all be sure the victim goes home without a limp, or expect to be sued.

The police officer must know every gun...draw on the run...and hit where it doesn't hurt. He must be able to whip two men his size and half his age... without damaging his uniform and without being brutal. If you hit him, he's a coward. If he hits you, he's a bully.

A policeman must know everything and not tell. He must know where all the sin is and not partake.

The policeman must, from a single human hair, be able to describe the crime, the weapon and the criminal.. and tell you where the criminal is hiding. But if he catches the criminal he's lucky...if he doesn't he's a dunce. If he gets promoted he has political pull. If he doesn't he's a dullard.

The policeman must chase bum leads to a dead end and stake out ten nights to tag one witness who saw it happen, but refused to remember.

He runs files and writes reports until his eyes ache to build a case against some felon who will get dealt out by a shameless lawyer or an honorable judge who isn't.

A policeman must be a minister...social worker...a diplomat...a tough guy... and a gentleman.

And of course he will have to be a genius, for he will have to feed a family on a policeman's salary.

-- Author unknown

Council Show Recap!

Last night's City Council meeting was another excellent installment of "Stupid Rep Tricks!"

The council's first interesting item of business was discussion of the release of the Ekl Williams Police Department Audit .pdf to the press and public, which can now be viewed on the City's web site. During the discussion, Alderman Allspaghetti (4th ward) said that he did not feel that if he had questions about the audit he should have to run those questions past his council peers first. Allspaghetti went on to say that he's "known Terry Ekl for 20 years" and would just pick up the phone and call Ekl to ask any questions he may have, indignantly adding that he nor anyone else is "not trying to hide anything" or "doing anything untoward". All of which gave the PRU Crew a good chuckle this morning, because we remember Ekl's interview before the City Council where Ekl was asked if he had any affiliation with the Mayor or any members of the City Council. As we reported to our readers back then, Ekl's response to that inquiry was that he'd met Allspaghetti once a number of years ago. And we are reminded of why not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is a bad practice for elected officials -- as we also recall that Allspaghetti didn't say a single word during that question and answer session about knowing Ekl "for 20 years".

The next hot topic the City Council considered was the expansion of the R5 zoning district. Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg (1st ward) attempted to offer several amendments that sought to severely limit if not eliminate R5 zoning altogether; his reasoning being that developers could go through the planned unit development process for building taller and denser projects. Schmidtzkrieg's amendment was defeated in a 4 (Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, Carey) to 3 (Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro) vote. The council then voted to adopt the new R5 zoning language in another 4 (Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, Carey) to 3 (Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro) vote.

And once again Fair Housing Commission chairman, Nan Parson, along with her trusty sidekick, former Alderman Sue Ding-a-ling Bell, complained that the City Council was wrecking all their do-gooder plans for the people of Park Ridge by voting to adopt a Fair Housing ordinance that eliminates the commission's plans to "conduct studies", "educate", and "advocate" for the people of Park Ridge on the issue of fair housing. The City Council then voted to adopt the Fair Housing ordinance as written by a vote of 4 (Allegretti, Carey, Wsol, Schmidt) to 3 (Bach, Ryan, DiPietro).

In an anti-climactic action, the City Council voted unanimously to "authorize the City Manager to sign the Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims with former Police Chief Caudill and authorize payment to former Chief Caudill pursuant to agreement", now that Ekl Williams has given assurances that Caudill cooperated with the audit. And the PRU Crew still feels that the stink wafting from this one is enough to make a butcher gag.

Finally, the political highlight of the evening came under council agenda item "new business". In what has been described to us as a scathing rebuke of Mayor Howard, Ald. Schmidtzkrieg read a letter in response to the Mayor's attack on Schmidt regarding the disclosure of closed session information to the press and the public. We are looking forward to reading Ald. Schmidtzkrieg's letter in the press this week.

And The Award Goes To.....!!!

...Mayor Howard P. Frimark, for...

Confidential information should not be released

I read with interest and dismay, Jennifer Johnson's July 31 article on the possible acquisition of the Napleton Busse site for a police station. Aldermen Schmidt has again chosen to betray the confidence of his fellow aldermen by publicizing closed session discussions.

We have previously been advised by the city attorney that the topic of acquiring real estate by the city is appropriate for closed session discussion. The city attorney has told us that this not only includes discussions of the amount to be paid, but also includes discussing the advisability of acquiring a particular property.

The reason the Illinois legislature has created this as a permissible subject of a closed meeting is obvious. Once the marketplace learns that a government entity is even interested in acquiring a particular property, the price is driven upward. The legislature was trying to protect the public treasury and the taxpayers whose hard earned dollar fund that treasury.

We in Park Ridge know that Alderman Schmidt marches to his own drummer and does whatever he pleases, even when he knows the Council is acting legally and even if he knows that his actions are taken at the taxpayers' expense.

However, I wish to express my disappointment in the Pioneer Press for printing his inappropriate breaches of confidence. We assume that Alderman Schmidt will answer to his electorate for his indiscretions. But, it is irresponsible for the press, knowing that a closed session is legal and knowing that disclosure will be costly to the public, to publish information from that closed session.

Howard Frimark

Mayor, Park Ridge

We're pretty sure we don't need to deconstruct this drivel point by point, because we're pretty sure PRU readers have a superior grasp of not only the Illiniois Open Meetings Act, but also the snivelling bullshit that regularly pours from the mind -- we use the term loosely -- of Howard P. Frimark in his effort to smooth the way for "Friends of Frimark."

Have a wonderful long weekend!

Think!

The PRU Crew has been watching the conversations taking place here and on other blogs with mixed reactions lately. Sometimes our readers shock us with their understanding and insight. Other times we wonder how some people manage to dress themselves every morning.

And when it comes to politicians, we always find their brainstorms highly entertaining.

If you haven't had a chance to do so, check out the Niles Underground post: Blago has another brain fart. While we aren't impressed with the newbie effort at writing, and we would strongly encourage the employment of spelling-check software, the message of the piece is bulls eye right.

Another one bites the dust

The turnover of senior City of Park Ridge Staff moved closer to completion last Thursday (August 7) when Fire Chief Ed Dubowski announced that he will retire from the Department on Sept. 2 after 30 years of service.

Chief Dubowski worked his way up the ranks of the Department and distinguished himself in every position he held. He has won a number of awards and commendations.

No doubt he has earned his right to retire, but we still find his departure disturbing because it follows on the heels of the early retirements Police Chief Jeff Caudill, City Manager Tim Schuenke, and Community Development Director Randy Derifield, along with the resignations of Public Works Director Joe Saccomanno and Human Resources director Mike Crotty. That's the largest exodus of senior people from the City in memory.

The table was set for these departures by the previous city council's early-retirement incentive (ERI) program, which actually made it attractive for Caudill, Schuenke and Derifield to leave city employment earlier than expected. We don't like ERIs because they tend to strip local governments of their most experienced employees on the promise - usually a false one - of cost reductions resulting by the hiring of less-experienced replacements at lower compensation.

We haven't seen any of those savings yet. In fact, from what we've heard and read on the topic, new City Mgr. Jim Hock will be costing the city a lot more than his predecessor, Schuenke - although we can't imagine Hock not being worth it compared to a guy (Schuenke) who seemed to cause more problems than he solved.

Fair Housing Advocates Unmasked!

As our faithful PRU readers know, we've discussed the issue of the Fair Housing ordinance along with the antics of the Fair Housing commissions chairman, Nan Parson. We've also given former third ward alderman, Sue Bell some attention.

In today's Pub-dog posting they've offered some straight-up commentary on the subject that's worth a read and takes the topic to a new level of openness. PRUdos to the Pub-dogs!

Doan Porget To Wahr Yewr Happy Slip!

Have a great long weekend!

note -- until YouTube gets their act together, if you want to view the 'Chill Pill' video, you can use this link

It's For Your Own Good!

Last November we discussed the issue of Red Light cameras being installed at "dangerous intersections" throughout Park Ridge. Alderman Don Bachtard (3rd ward) was reportedly prompted into action on this idea because "a driver running through a red light broadsided the son of one of his constituents at Oakton and Greenwood Avenue."

We criticized the idea as being more about revenue generation for municipalities and less about safety than either elected officials or the red light camera companies are willing to admit. But Ald. Bachtard has pushed the idea forward.

We respect Ald. Bachtard's professed concerns for safety. We expected that after his remarks about safety, and his push for two red light camera companies to conduct studies at various intersections around Park Ridge, we would be able to read about the studies and learn about the anticipated reduction in accident rates at those dangerous intersections, especially the intersection where the son of one of his constituents was broadsided; Oakton and Greenwood Ave.

But so far, we haven't been able to find much in the way of discussion of a hoped for increase in safety or estimated reduction in accident rates at the intersections only one of the two red light camera companies studied and recommended for camera installation. Neither the July 17, 2008 Public Safety Committee meeting minutes, nor the documents available on the city web site for the upcoming Public Safety Committee meeting on Thursday, August 7, 2008 talk about such issues as estimates for reducing accident rates at intersections with red light cameras. And the two companies that conducted the studies did not recommend that cameras be installed at the intersection of Oakton and Greeenwood; the intersection where the T-bone accident happened that has spurred Ald. Bachtard on in his quest to install red light cameras in Park Ridge.

However, we were able to read, in a Herald-Advocate report on the issue, about the maximum amount of fines allowed ($100), the fact that the city can keep a percentage (how much?) of the fine, the monthly maintenance fee charged for each camera ($1500), and that there is also a processing fee (how much?) charged for each violation.

But in a report in the Journal & Topics on this subject, Alderman Frank Wsooooolman (7th ward) did manage to work in a quotable sound bite on the subject of safety and "minimizing the number of accidents". After all, the Wsooooolman is the Public Safety Committee chairman.

Addendum: Freewheeling April 15, 2008 -- reader recommended links on red light cameras.

More Freewheeling?

The PRU Crew went back and forth about things last night and again this morning. We aren't sure if today's post should haul off in a new direction on a new topic, or if the conversation from yesterday should be continued here?

The Crew did have a whole new topic for today, but we think we'll just save it for a later date and let PRU readers proceed at will.

The topic of land use has surely not been exhausted, but maybe the discussion has been, though we note the additional comments to it today.

And as Alderman Dave noted, the issue of the R-5 zoning district is on the table.

In addition, yesterday at least one poster raised the question of whether the City should proceed with a zoning amendment without the express blessing of a property owner. That's a good question, irrespective of what the law allows; kind of like a little sibling to the issue of eminent domain.

We would add to these topics the matter of "historic preservation" and how that could be handled.

Good luck today.

It must be like being high all the time!

In our last post, we hoped PRU readers would "critically consider" what was published in last week's Herald-Advocate.

If you read the Herald-Advocate, then you may have read their article What should be on the Napleton Cadillac site, about a meeting between approximately 50 residents and 5th Ward Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan. If you read that article, the following paragraphs may have struck you as something to critically consider:

Residents asked Ryan what they could do to get the land rezoned for townhouses or condominiums which are recommended in the 2002 Uptown comprehensive plan. Ryan said he did not know and would need to ask staff.

Acting Director of Community Development Carrie Davis told the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate that a request to rezone property can only be made by the property's owner.

"The owner is the only party that has the ability to bring forth the request for a zoning change," she said.

Davis also clarified that the Uptown plan's recommendations are not absolute: "It is not something that says, 'this is something that has to happen.' It is something the city uses as guidelines for determining the future land uses," she said.

Apparently Ryan wasn't fully aware of the residents' concerns, at least not enough to have consulted the City's Zoning Ordinance before attending the meeting. It has been reported that Ryan carried with him to the meeting a copy of the City's Uptown plan-.pdf, instead of a copy of the City's Zoning Ordinance.

News Flash for Ald. Ryan!!! Your constituents are already aware of what is contained in the Uptown plan. Didn't you think maybe they would want to know about the Zoning Ordinance too?

But o.k., we know Ald. Ryan is a busy guy with not enough time to show up to all required meetings, let alone look up local zoning laws. So when in doubt, ask a city staffer. And that's what the reporter for the Herald-Advocate did, which brings us to Ms. Carrie Davis, acting Director of Community Development. As noted above, Ms. Davis said, "a request to rezone property can only be made by the property's owner." (emphasis added)

We would like to now take the opportunity to introduce Ms. Davis -- and Ald. Ryan -- to the City's Zoning Ordinance-.pdf. It is a useful tool when conducting the job of Director of Community Development -- or Alderman -- in either a real or merely "acting" capacity.

A quick search of the Zoning Ordinance may even lead someone to the following:

4.8 ZONING AMENDMENT

A. Purpose

The regulations imposed and the districts created by this Ordinance may be amended from time to time in accordance with this Section. This process for amending the Zoning Ordinance text or the Zoning Map is intended to permit modifications in response to changed conditions or changes in City policy. Amendments are not intended to relieve particular hardships or confer special privileges or rights upon any person or party.

B. Initiation

An owner of any property in the City or the City may propose text or map amendments.

Does that say what we think it says? Does that say that an owner or the City may propose text or map amendments? Are "text or map amendments" the same thing as the "zoning change" Ms. Davis talked about?

The last paragraph of the Herald-Advocate article says:

Ryan promised residents he would support their desire to make the properties residential. "I think it's important to follow our [Uptown] plan," he said.

No time like the present to keep that promise, Ald. Ryan.

As for Ms. Davis, by our count she's 0 and 2 in knowing the critical information available in the Zoning Ordinance, and providing that information to those with questions about a zoning issue.

And finally for residents with concerns about zoning issues or anything else...as one of our more friendly correspondents likes to quote, "Trust, but verify."