As reported in an online article by the Herald-Advocate, the District 64 deadline for adoption of their budget is Sept. 30th. The School Board's Finance Committee of the Whole will be reviewing a final draft of the District's 2010/11 budget at their September 13th meeting! Time to pay attention, people!
What will also be occurring at the Board's regular meeting on September 13th is administration of the oath of office to whomever is selected to fill the current Board vacancy! How exciting!
Previous attempts to persuade the Park Board Commissioners of the wisdom and necessity of this plan were met with little, if any, interest by Board members.
And we don't blame them.
Should the discussion of the City's proposal go beyond a polite "thanks, but no thanks," we fully expect the Park District Commissioners to ask lots and lots of questions before agreeing to allow the use of park land for water retention and flood mitigation .
The article notes, "Traveling the corridor today, one can see why Park Ridge wants to spruce things up. Looking north, the first a visitor sees of the city is a gas station, a grocery store and a sea of parking spaces. Elsewhere is a mishmash of commercial and residential buildings of different styles, sizes and uses."
Because if you're going to have a spruced up "gateway" then it better not be "a gas station, a grocery store and a sea of parking spaces!" Commercial and sales tax revenues shmevenues! Future visitors, probably on their merry way to lose their paycheck at the new Des Plaines casino, must be given something spruced up to look at! Like a shiny glass, multi-story office building! There's a real head turner!
The biggest laugh the PRU Crew got from the whole article was what was missing! There are quotes from Mr. Jacques Gourguechon, principal consultant with Camiros, the urban planning firm hired by Park Ridge -- quotes from the City of Chicago's 41st ward Alderman Brian Doherty -- quotes from Ms. Gail Haller, of the Park Ridge Chamber of Commerce, in which she notably states, "the organization has not discussed the plan other than to note its preliminary approval." which may explain why the article says, "Business owners along the corridor who could be reached said they didn't know much about the plan." -- and finally, there are quotes from Ms. Carrie Davis. Remember her? She used to be employed by the City of Park Ridge as the Director of Community Preservation & Development.
So what is missing from the article? Not a single word from any City of Park Ridge elected official! Though we can't blame the reporter if he didn't want to talk to any of them. As we all know, that bunch can be very annoying. Or maybe the reporter tried to get their statements but they all deferred his calls.
The PRU Crew must admit, we aren't big fans of term limits since we believe limiting terms, or not, is the purpose of elections. And those who tend to support term limits usually do so because they want to limit the terms of, what they perceive to be, the opposition.
Instead of term limits, we would really really really like to see a local recall ordinance. Just a suggestion!
August 25, 2010
Hump Day Quickies!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Here, here!!!! I am a firm supporter in the idea and execution of a LOCAL RECALL ORDINANCE.
Wasn't a recall ordinance talked about last year here? Whatever happened with that?
Anonymous @ 3:09,
The used-to-be first ward alderman Schmidt raised the issue 3 years ago, but it got shot down by Frimark and his alderpuppets...
Schmidt hasn't raised the issue again, as far as I can...pardon the pun...recall.
Bean,
Thank you for the "recall". :-D
It doesn't seem like it was 3 years ago!
PRU:
Do you oppose using parks for water retention areas?
Anon@4:11 --
Maybe.
Could you be a little more specific?
Anon@4:16 --
Nope.
We want to wait to hear what is discussed between the City and Park Board.
Considering they are separate bodies with seperate budgets, I would thing the Park DIstrict would be looking for some sort of compensation.
August 25, 2010 4:45 PM
Those budgets might be separate but they fill those budgets from the same well.
I've been living near the Higgin's & Cumberland interection for 36 of the 37 years I;ve been alive and I can't really see anything reaaly wrong with it though economically, it's perhaps not a bad idea to improve it.
They certainly need put in crossing signals for the interection which I can't understand why after these years it hasn't been done.
Schmitty doesn't want a recall ordnance law now. He's the mayor now.
Isn't it time we have a serious discussion about the city taking over reposessed houses and turning the land into local cess pools. This will alleviate the flood problem in the most green of fashions. Duhhhhhh!
Fungi from outer space 2 --
We appreciate your thoughtful contribution.
Anytime fellas, and ladies. I am not sexist.
Fungi from outer space 2 --
Nope. "Sexist" is not what came to mind.
I'd sure like to see the generated tax revenue that comes from the grocery store and gas station, before I decide whether or not redevelopment in that area is a sound proposal.
After all, if there is one thing that has been talked about over and over and over again is getting business in town for the generated tax revenue, and here you have two contributing business' that do exactly that, but somehow that's now prime for redevelopment.
If anyone has traveled via hwy, you may have noticed that nearly every entrance/ exit of the hwy has a gas station located there.
Ever wonder why that is?
It doesn't take a PHD to figure that out.
However if there are some having trouble figuring it out let me help...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
So although gas stations may not be all that pretty to look at, they have a purpose.
As for Dominick's, really?!? does anything need to be said?
I'm kind of surprised the businesses in the area don't know much about the plan. I would ahve thought the city would have taolked with them to get their take on things.
"Park Ridge Park District's mission is to enhance Park Ridge’s quality of life by providing park and recreation opportunities for all residents while being environmentally and fiscally responsible."
This may conflict with using the parks as retention ponds. The Park Board and Staff are charged with making sure that the few park district green spaces our town does have are used for recreation by the citizens. If the retention idea hinders that mission, the Board has a duty to say so.
On the flip side, the town's greater good should be considered. Hopefully there is a solution that can both maintain our recreation space at the level we enjoy now and help with flooding issues. I am interested in how this city/park board meeting will go.
I am not sure that a recall ordinace and term limits solve the same problems.
The idea behind term limits is that as the incumbant sits in his/her position they amass power in the form of allies in other elected and staff positions. They may even have the power to gerrymander for and appoint people into supporting positions. Campaigning becomes easier with the shared supporters from multiple elected and hired officials. So does fundraising. After years of this they may have created a power base that is unstoppable (Daley I and II are good examples of this). Add to this the inertia that often supports incumbants. Term limts force them out.
Recall gives voters the opportunity to pull someone mid-term. I am not sure that an incumbant pushing the term limit question would be so vulnerable to a recall (unless you argue that voters have crappy memories and that a mid-term, recall inducing, affront would be forgotten by the next regular election).
Either way, I am pretty sure that I support neither recall or term limits in local government (especially the size of ours). A well educated and informed voting pool solves most of the problems surrounding the term limit issue. The recall issue would potentially cause more problems in the form of wasted energy between elections.
Now, how do we make people pay attention all year, and especially at voting time? Maybe we could give people a discount on their taxes for meeting attendance or downloading. . . .just kidding. . . . kinda.
Anonymous @ 7:55,
You said >>Either way, I am pretty sure that I support neither recall or term limits in local government (especially the size of ours). A well educated and informed voting pool solves most of the problems surrounding the term limit issue. The recall issue would potentially cause more problems in the form of wasted energy between elections.<<
I agree with you re: term limits. I strongly...VERY STONGLY...disagree with you about allowing voters the right and ability to recall elected officials...ESPECIALLY in a local govt. the size of ours.
We have *only* 7 people casting votes for a town of 37,000+/-, which means it usually takes only 4 to make any given decision which will effect the other 36,996+/-...and as has been written here, barely more than 1/2 the time are there all 7 present to vote.
...and at least one of those 7 can't manage to get himself to a respectable attendance level of 75% of those end-of-the-decision/final-vote-taking meetings.
As you say, a well-educated voting pool solves most of the problems, re: term limits....and I'm suppressing every urge I have to begin alternately quoting both Churchill and Santayana...
Okay...so how do you solve the problem of your single/only representative not doing his job? Or, any number of other grossly flawed actions and/or inactions by that one and only representative? I don't think telling the voters "suck it up until the next election" is much of a comfort because...well...giving them an alternative *could* "potentially cause more problems..." What problems? ..."in the form of wasted energy between elections."
Really? REALLY?
I must tell you, I'm pretty comfortable letting interested voters decide how they wish to spend their energy, go through the recall elections process of gathering a significant number of signatures, filing the required paperwork, and letting those energy chips fall where they may.
...and believe me when I tell you, I think most voters are profoundly ignorant and base their voting choices on some profoundly stupid and unreasoned reasoning.
But believe me when I tell you, I think Democracy is worth the risks.
Term limits are the answer.
Informed electorate? Please. Most people don't vote at all. And most people in Park Ridge are barely aware that they have an Alderman. At least term limits keep the elected offical pool fresh.
And before somebody else goes for the easy laugh, I will note that, yes, they elected me.
I don't know about that.
If we had term limits all along, someone like Marty Butler wouldn't of been mayor as long as he was in office.
For the most part he was a good mayor.
Don't worry about the south corridor and your state tax dollars at work.
Danger Dan Kotowski has it all covered.
Bean, if you want to have fun with numbers, figure how many US Reps and Senators we need to pass federal law compared to the number of citizens. You need 0.00086% of the US population to pass a federal law compared with the 0.0109% in Park Ridge, or 126 times more elected offical per person for local government than for federal.
I do understand your point that in City Hall you need only 4 people to agree, and each ward has only one voice. If that voice is a slacker or worse, your up shit creek for 4 years. I get that.
The problem I have with the recall vote isn't with voter energy, but with elected official energy. With the recall, a group of voters no where near a majority, and possibly just because they disagree with a decision, could put in motion a mid term recall vote that a current elected official would have to fight. This could take focus off the business of the city, even if the elected official is just voting his conscience on a controversial issue.
Plus, if there really is a slacker who doesn't show to meetings regularly, isn't there is a procedure for dealing with that alderman in the city law already? If there is an alderman voting for his own financial benefit, there are legal ways of handling him too.
There are sometimes unpopular, hard decisions an elected official needs to make. Reducing safety employees is a recent good example. I wouldn't have liked for that decision to spark a recall vote campaign on either side of the issue.
Besides, the process would take some time, probably a minimum year to figure out you have a mope, and another year to go through the process and convince the electorate. By then he's half way through his term, and spent a year of it fighting a recall.
There are better way to motivate those we elect. Go to meetings. Speak at meetings. Write the elected official. Write the papers. Write on the evil blogs. If there is something illegal going on expose it and force the other aldermen to act on it.
A recall would cause more harm then good. . . We might have to agree to disagree on that.
Anonymous @ 4:32,
The critical fact to note is, how many elected officials does any given interest need to persuade...and in this community, only 4 is a frighteningly low number in what has "traditionally" been a town rife with the "exchange" of what's been called "social currency."
Yes...we will have to agree to disagree...since I tend not to give a flying hoot in the sky about causing an expenditure of engergy by elected officials, as well as being wholly unmoved by arguments about a process taking too much time.
...and no, there is no penalty or ordinance I am aware of for "dealing with" either elected or appointed officials who are slackers.
I thought there was some minimum number of meetings an alderman had to attend, and once he falls below he is booted. I know on the Park District Board there is. Usually in situations like this a fed up elected officer on the same body will suggest that the slacker resign rather than force the group to go through the formal booting.
Good luck to Ald. Bach.
Rest up sir....we may call on you later for the big election campaign!
Post a Comment