To our Monday night post, the following comment was added last evening --
Anonymous said...
The average daily flights, over Park Ridge, on the runways 9L/27R and 4L/22R(these are the paths over P.R), arrival and departure combined, according to the data on the ONCC website are:
Nov 2008--------343 prior to new runway,
Nov 2009-------283,
Feb 2010-------213
Obviously far fewer flights over P.R. regardless of path, with the new runway added.
Now, before someone says this is because there are less flights overall…guess again. There were the same number of total arrivals and 50 fewer total departures when comparing Nov 2008 and Feb 2010; same data source. If you doubt the number just go to the ONCC website and confirm for yourself. I live on the south end right under the new flight path….RIGHT UNDER. It sucks! I got used to it.
What I will not get used to are people talking down my property value by continuing to speak about how bad it is to live here, when it has clearly gotten better for P.R. as a whole.
Lastly, investing anything on an environmental study is just asinine. Park Ridge paid for a study several years ago that shows the air quality in P.R. sucks. I have some news for you; we live next to a major airport, several major expressways, and the 3rd largest city in this country. The air quality will always suck.
June 8, 2010 7:35 PM
The PRU Crew has not taken the time to verify the information in the comment above, but at this time we have no reason to suspect the Anonymous comment as being wrong or intentionally false. And we did find the effort at seeking out and sharing actual facts and data rather refreshing. The Anonymous commenter obviously isn't following the PROAC-scripted version of ineducable ignorance on the part of the citizenry.
Email Release -- from Mayor Schmidtzkriegto: presscontacts(at)electdaveschmidt.com
date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM
subject: Fwd: Park Ridge, Illinois
To: staber@calairlaw.com
Good afternoon, Mr. Taber, I am the Mayor of Park Ridge. I want to thank you again for coming to Park Ridge to make your presentation. As you may have gathered, I am skeptical of the efficacy of further litigation regarding the O'Hare expansion ("OMP"). However, I have vowed to keep an open mind.
By way of background, I am an experienced litigation attorney and pride myself on being able to assess the viability of a claim or defense. Without going in to too much detail, I have enjoyed great success over the years by consistently approaching potential litigation through a careful process of review and analysis. I view the potential of litigating the OMP issue as I would any other type of potential litigation: before I do anything, I need to see an assessment of the relevant facts, the applicable law, an analysis of how that law would apply to the given set of facts, and then I need to be comfortable with the conclusion before I advise my client regarding whether to proceed. That would be especially true in this situation because I am dealing with taxpayers' money. I cannot achieve the required analysis through a telephone conversation. Rather, I am accustomed to approaching potential litigation by preparing a legal memorandum addressing the aforementioned matters or reviewing a memorandum prepared by an associate.
To that end, if you want to try to convince me that litigation is a viable option for the City of Park Ridge, I would need to first see a detailed legal memorandum which lays out the relevant facts as you see them, your view of the applicable law, your analysis of how that law would apply to our particular set of facts in Park Ridge, and your conclusion which would include an honest assessment of the City's chances of prevailing.
If you desire to take this course of action, please prepare a legal memorandum and submit it to me for my review. Please be advised that the memorandum will NOT be kept confidential. As our City Attorney has correctly pointed out, any discussion regarding proceeding with litigation, and the reason for doing so, must take place in open session.
I look forward to hearing from you.
-Dave Schmidt
Mayor
Mayor Schmidtzkrieg is obviously not following the PROAC and CAL legal team-scripted version of secrecy concerning public policy, at least not on this issue. And the PRU Crew finds that refreshing too.
In an online Herald-Advocate article -- Community group handouts still face veto at mayor's desk -- we read, "Park Ridge Mayor David Schmidt says he will veto any City Council-approved financial contributions to community and social-service organizations."The article continues, "Schmidt, who believes the 2010-11 budget contains inflated revenue projections and does not take into account potential losses in income-tax revenue from the state, said he will not support disbursements for not-for-profit city groups.
"My intention is still to veto it if and when it goes to the council," he said of the motion. "My hope is that the council will see the light and there won't be a need for a veto."
The PRU Crew once again reminds the Mayor that he has the power to wield a discerning red pen over making the choice to swing a total veto axe.
We find the Mayor's threat to veto all community group contributions in total, without either demanding an accounting of each group's expenditures and--or making a value judgement between the services provided, to be as mindless a course of action as the Council's choosing to make across-the-board cuts of 12% for each contribution.
And as others have repeatedly pointed out, expenditures on tree trimming and planting, as well as fireworks displays and staff support for other special events, aren't essential city services either -- why the nearly complete silence on those expenditures, Mr Mayor?
13 comments:
why the nearly complete silence on those expenditures, Mr Mayor?
Does anyone have to ask really why the mayor wouldn't want to cancel the fireworks?
I have said it before and I will say it again, if Mayor Dave thinks the revenues are inflated he could have made cuts to many items in the budget to get the budget to a point he thinks matches where he thinks the real revenues will be. Making his statements and blaming the Aldermen or Manager is just the cowards way out of taking responsibility.
Same games. Different names.
The Mayor intends to veto contributions to social service agencies too?
Okay!! So much for compassionate conservatives!!
Many of us always thought the Mayor was just giving out lip service during the PADS debate. Now we know.
What a politician.
What a croc.
the PR Youtube Channel has Monday's meeting up.
MIKE, thank you. I finally watched the discusson. It is like deja vu all over again with the airport.
The comments about property values going down because of the airport are kind of one sided. I understand there are people whose properties will suffer because they have the planes going over them now but doesn't that mean there are also people whose properties will benefit because they don't have the planes going over them any longer? For the whole town the property values question would balance out wouldn't it?
Cuts to services for our Senoirs is beyond mindless. It is heartless.
Anonymous @ 4:27,
Well...I guess it depends on what you mean by "services for our Seniors"...
There are some worth supporting with our tax dollars, but others...not so much.
...and if you were referring to Mayor DipSchmidt as being "mindless" and/or "heartless"...I'm fairly confident the Mayor hasn't pursued this course of action as an idea "all his own," but watching knee-jerk (emphasis on "jerk") Republicans respond to each other like Pavlovian dogs is entertaining in a way...
Crud...the comment I really wanted to respond to, I almost completely forgot about!
Anyhoooo...
Anonymous @ 11:09,
You asked, "For the whole town the property values question would balance out wouldn't it?"
The answer to that is "no/yes/maybe/it depends"...
...and it depends on which study you read and what view/scope (broad? narrow?) you take into consideration.
Based on one study, done a few years before the most recent RE market bubble burst, Park Ridge was "measured" as being the ONLY community in the vicinity of the OMP which would experience a "NET decrease" in values *for the homes affected by* the new runway configurations...
Of course...there are PLENTY of OTHER factors at work too...one of which is how blabber-mouthy is the clowncil willing to allow the PROAC folks to become when they go on shrieking about how terrible living in PR is...when it might be it's only really terrible to live at the end of the BellePlaine corridor
I think we should find a way to keep meals on wheels and one or two other programs that directly affect the citizens of our city who rely on those programs for food and other basics. When we talk about cutting support for the civic orchestra, teen center and even the hospice(which can get support elsewhere) it is far different from saying we won't feed people. Common sense is all it takes to see the difference.
Anon 12:52
I could not agree more. Thank you.
12:52:
Feed people? Now wait a second. If you want to feed people next thing you know someone will suggest we shelter people and you know where that leads!!!
Post a Comment