As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.
-- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Enjoy your own escapade this weekend!
For our faithful PRU readers who've got a couple hours to kill.
The PRU Crew believes the Mayor's pre-ramble, before his remarks about his veto of the amended and then suspended facade improvement program, was a disclosure of some kind. We get the impression the Mayor found the matter pesky. However, we were pleased to hear the Mayor treat the veto subject as he did, though we are wondering why the Mayor chose not to issue his traditional email blast to supporters explaining his reasons for exercising his veto authority. We hope the City Council will choose to moooooves forward accordingly -- allow for the completion of the last remaining facade reimbursement agreement and reject any further applications, then fully suspend the program. We also hope that should any future Council choose to reinstate the program, they also demand a financial accounting to support the claims on which the program is predicated.
As for the discussion of the PROAC recommendations to retain the Taber Law Group for consulting on fighting O'Hare expansion, the PRU Crew found Commission Chairman Sue Perschke's offerings very entertaining. Where the former chairman had nearly perfected the damsel in distress approach, we find Ms. Perschke's baffle them with bullshit approach rather refreshing!
Two PRUdos are due!
The first goes out to City Manager Jim Hock for his ~~THUD!!!~~HOLY WOW!!!~~ inducing comments opposing a request, by Uptown developer PRC Partners, to grant a zoning text amendment and special use to again allow the developer to lease space to a non-retail, non-sales tax generating business. Mid-America Real Estate Group, the partner in the PRC Partnership which is responsible for retail leasing, may want to read their own rather up-lifting Retail Review – Fall 2010 Newsletter, then study their own 2010 Retailer Demand Study, and get to work.
Our second PRUdo of the day goes to resident Ms. Pat Livensparger for so clearly pointing out that an appeals process of any kind, in this instance the Tree Preservation on Private Property ordinance, must include criteria on which an appeal may be based. Spot on, Ms. Livensparger!
Enjoy the show, people!
First we will get, and I quote, "a strongly worded letter with this presentation to the FAA," which it is anticipated will not work.
Then we will get Mr. Taber to, and I quote, "select these experts [for "air quality and noise impacts" studies] based on his substantial experience with EIS law and science and Mr. Taber's firm would also outline the scope of work." And presumably, since Mr. Taber will be researching various avenues for funding these studies, Mr. Taber's fee does not include the costs of these experts and these studies. What is the ballpark/range of such experts and studies and why, exactly, do we need Mr. Taber to select these experts, why shouldn't the members of the OAC be doing this research? After all, they were able to dig up Mr. Taber.
Then finally we will again have Mr. Taber, and I quote, "submit another letter to the FAA, again requesting a supplemental EIS based on "significant" new information." I presume this letter too will be "strongly worded."
So, for the nice tidy sum of $8,987.50 the actual work product Mr. Taber, himself, will be producing for the city of Park Ridge is two letters to the FAA requesting a supplemental EIS study; $4,493.75 per "strongly worded" letter, the first of which it is presumed will fail in its' goal.
Though there is cold comfort in knowing that, for $8,987.50, the city will get two "strongly worded" letters to the FAA, which is a better return on investment than we got from "investing" $650K for a Peotone study.