HAPPY NEW YEAR!

New Beginnings
by Gertrude B. McClain

It's only the beginning now
...a pathway yet unknown
At times the sound of other steps
...sometimes we walk alone

The best beginnings of our lives
May sometimes end in sorrow
But even on our darkest days
The sun will shine tomorrow.

So we must do our very best
Whatever life may bring
And look beyond the winter chill
To smell the breath of spring.

Into each life will always come
A time to start anew
A new beginning for each heart
As fresh as morning dew.

Although the cares of life are great
And hands are bowed so low
The storms of life will leave behind
The wonder of a rainbow.

The years will never take away
Our chance to start anew
It's only the beginning now
So dreams can still come true.

Happy New Year from the Crew.

Have A Very Merry Christmas!

He who has not Christmas in his heart will never find it under a tree.
-Roy L. Smith

To our faithful PRU readers and other drop-ins, we wish you all a joyful holiday!

PS To our kind and gracious Santa at last Monday night's meeting -- thank you very much for the generous gesture. We hope you and yours have a great Christmas.

City Council 12-20-2010 Video!

And a jolly good time was had by all, if you're a fan of clusterf#%&$!

The PRU Crew would like to point out that we strongly believe, on the issue of voting to appeal from the decision of the chair regarding his ruling on the motion to reconsider being out of order, the Council is in violation of the law.

In support of our belief, we offer --

Appeals that cannot be entertained

Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised states that "when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." Demeter's Manual recommends using the mnemonic devices F, T, R, L and J, O, D to remember that no appeals can be taken from the Chair's rulings which arise out of known Facts, evident Truths, established Rules or operative Laws, but can be taken only from rulings which are based on his personal Judgment, Opinion or Discretion.

The City's Zoning law, an established operative law, providing fact, truth and rule is unequivocally clear -

H. Limitations on denials

"No application for a variance which has been denied by the City Council or Zoning Board of Appeals shall be reconsidered for a period of one (1) year from that date of denial."

And we note the City Attorney's opinion on the matter. We also note the City Council's lack of understanding the necessary fine point of the language denying an application versus preventing applicants from coming before the public body more than once in a given year. It is reasonable to deny repetition of specific applications while allowing applicants to submit as many different applications before the public body as he or she can possibly muster.

So gentlemen of the City Council, if you are going to cite and follow the rules provided for by Robert's Rules of Order and the City's laws, then it appears you've once again screwed the legal pooch.

Hey Baby, What's Your Sign?

For our faithful PRU readers, who've had the dubious privilege of attending a meeting in the City Council chamber at City Hall, you may have noticed there are signs on either side of the Council horseshoe -- No Citizens Beyond This Point.

The PRU Crew feels very strongly, we need new signs. See above.

The practical effect of the new signs may be reducing the number of Alderdunces allowed to sit at the Council horseshoe, but the voters of Park Ridge have already shown their approval for reducing their representation. What could possibly go wrong?

For those interested in watching the smaller, more efficient Council in action -- there's another City Council meeting tonight, set to begin at 7:30 pm. If you're interested, you can review the revised agenda (.pdf) and then send Ald. Allspaghetti and possibly Ald. assWsol a thank you note -- so much for Allspaghetti's continual harping on talking issues to death! The Council is reportedly set to entertain a motion to reconsider the Hoffman Homes project (.pdf) proposed for Touhy Avenue. Because as we are all learning, "no" does not mean "no."

The meeting will also include another veto (.pdf) from Mayor Schmidtzkrieg -- this time, of the Police Chiefski's salary. Approval of the proposed City Manager's contract (.pdf), is also up for discussion and a vote, and we look forward to more unsubstantiated claims by those expected to whine their way through discussion of suspending the City's Facade Improvement Program (.pdf).

B.O.H.I.C.A. humbug.

COW 12-13-10 Video!

The City managed to get last Monday's COW meeting video posted by this morning -- damn thing's been up all day but has only gotten 20 views. Come on, people! Take the weekend to relax and give your local government some of your time and attention!

There's more fun yet to come at the next City Council meeting on Monday night!

Bah Humbug Grab Bag!

The PRU Crew is in a bad mood. Sorry. Not really.


For our faithful PRU readers who look forward to viewing the City Council meeting videos, it appears you may have to wait longer than usual. The City did manage, after 48 hours, to post a 3 minute video of the Special City Council meeting -- aren't they all? -- from Monday night, but hasn't managed to post the video of the regular City Council meeting as of 10:00 AM this morning. We may have thought somebody would get a clue and realize that 3 video views in 24 hours means people aren't very interested in what's been made available, and are instead waiting for something more substantive than the Council rubber stamping approval of the tax levy. Apparently not.

The PRU Crew is wondering if any of the people posing as our representatives in local government have bothered to inquire about the delay.


For our faithful PRU readers who thought there was any hope of city officials getting the message through your majority votes on referendums, guess again. As covered in an online article by one of the local rags, we learn "no" does not mean "no." Just ask the O'Hare Airport Commission people -- they'll explain it!

And remember, way back when, we explained why Police Dept. brass was willing to keep on keepin' on with "the golden fleece boy, who answered the siren's call - hi there, Hoopty Lou, how's it going in traffic? - [who] can be kept safe for future use as a PRPD pitchman; there are not too many coppers with the ability to speak and write impressive sounding bullshit as well as Hoopty Lou can."

A new proposal for renovation and expansion of the Park Ridge Police Dept. was offered for review at the City Council's budget workshop on Tuesday night. And the PRU Crew now understands very well why no supporting documents were included on the City website for review prior to the meeting.

The PRU Crew is again wondering if any of the people posing as our representatives in local government have bothered to inquire about the lack of supporting documents being made available for public review -- and the limited demands of the law should not be an acceptable excuse.


Covered in another online article in one of the local rags is the anatomy of a travesty. While the PRU Crew more than understands the legal questions, as well as the risk of precedence, we cannot get past how thoroughly and completely the City process screwed the Vine Ave. residents.

We don't know what the answer is, but we know we haven't heard it yet. And we strongly encourage the City Council and staff to find a way to make those residents whole. What has happened to them, throughout this saga, is unacceptable and should never be allowed to happen again.


Finally, the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board will be meeting tonight (agenda .pdf). They are scheduled to go into closed session, which is expected to last a very very very long time. We hope the discussion includes talking really really really bad about these people!!!

In all seriousness, we wish calm heads and reasoned consideration for the Park Board as they contend with the task ahead -- it's certainly a loss, but not the end of the PRRPD world as we know it.

Good luck.

Have Some! And a Welcome Note!

Have Some Cow pie!

For our faithful PRU readers who may want to take a break from the holiday madness, may we suggest some madness of a different sort? How about a COW meeting!

If you're up for some assorted madness, you can attend tonight's City Council COW meeting -- the agenda (.pdf) offers topics for discussion and action on subjects for every City Council committee!

The PRU Crew is very interested in hearing the discussions on a number of issues. We feel the pending agreement with Lutheran General Hospital, on the issue of the parking garage tax, should be of extreme interest to the people of Park Ridge. And we look forward to learning precisely what community health care services the City has been providing, in addition to ambulance and paramedic services, since the community groups listed on exhibit A (last page) of the supporting documents (.pdf) are not City-provided community health services. But the PRU Crew is mighty intrigued by the idea of being able to contract for the rescinding of tax ordinances and then earmarking payments to government for preferred program support!

We're also wondering about Lutheran General Hospital's ability to use the proposed agreement to help satisfy legal requirements for providing charity care.

The PRU Crew expects the Mayor and City Council will support the addition of "advice and consent of the City Council" when reviewing department head hiring, and express approval of the City Council, by vote, of severance payments. And we feel this is a cluster f%$# waiting to happen. If history provides any instruction and-or insight, it is likely this Mayor and City Council would have approved the extra severance payment made to the former Director of Economic Development, while voting against any extra severance payment to the former Director of Community Development. And their doing so would have been highly subjective and rife with personal sentiments. But hey, discrimination lawsuits are always interesting!

Finally, we expect the residents on Vine Ave., seeking reimbursement for engineering costs (.pdf), may want to be prepared to bend over and grab their ankles. But some of the residents on Bonita Drive may have better luck with the City Council, right after explaining what they are really after is enforcement of the current truck parking ordinance -- versus the inexplicably stupid cover memo (.pdf) which states, "There seems to be two groups of thought – one believes the restrictions on truck parking should be stronger and the other group believes they aren’t strong enough." Just more of the same nonsense of the continuing saga of Meatgate and one family's adventures in local government!


Welcome Note!

Today was the first day candidates for local office could submit their petitions for inclusion on the ballot for the upcoming spring elections.

We're told, as of noon today, current Aldermen Joseph Sweeney (1st ward) and Rich DiPietro (2nd ward) have submitted their petitions to the City Clerk for inclusion on the ballot.

We're also told relative newcomers to the fun that is local City of Park Ridge government, Franklin Ramirez (7th ward), Sal Raspanti (4th ward), and Dan Knight (5th ward), have also submitted their petitions to the City Clerk for inclusion on the ballot in the same aforementioned elections.

Welcome! The PRU Crew is very much looking forward to your campaigns!

Let The Friday Fun Begin!

'The Cocktail Hour' by Joseph Catanzaro
at chicagocontemporaryart.com


Have an enjoyable and relaxing weekend
with your contemporaries!

Mayor Schmidt -- Email -- Budget Hearings

From: Dave Schmidt
To: supporters@electdaveschmidt.com
Subject: Budget hearings

I wanted to let you all know that we will be starting budget discussions much earlier this year. The first session will take place this coming Tuesday, December 14, beginning at 7pm at City Hall. The first session will involve a capital budget review, an overview of goals and priorities and a review of revenue projections. The next scheduled meeting is January 31 when the actual budget booklet will be distributed to the Council. However, it is entirely possible, perhaps likely, that there will be one or more additional meetings between those dates.

Last year's budget hearings we by far the best-attended in any one's memory. Although I obviously was not satisfied with the final product, I was pleased that there was so much resident involvement. I strongly believe that it has an impact, and I encourage residents to participate again this year. I hope to see you Tuesday.
(sic)

City Council 12-6-2010 Video!

For the viewing displeasure of our faithful PRU readers!

We suggest viewers pay special attention to the discussion of the vote to override the Mayor's veto of the amended and suspended Facade Improvement Program, which begins @ the 0:23:13 mark of the video. It would seem Mayor Schmidtzkrieg may have made a new frenemy!

Residents Mr. Declan Stapleton and Mr. Ed Berry, of O'Reilly's Public House fame, address the Council beginning @ 0:24:00 mark of the video. And the PRU Crew feels it's very sad how little understanding Mr. Stapleton has not only for general municipal accounting practices, but also that Mr. Stapleton has less than zero understanding of TIF district financing in general, or the Uptown Redevelopment TIF district, specifically.

And despite the PRU Crew's strong suspicions that the Council doesn't understand either municipal accounting or TIF district financing much better than Mr. Stapleton, they somehow managed to vote to sustain the Mayor's veto of the amended and suspended Facade Improvement Program -- which they plan to discuss and amend again at the December 20th Council meeting.

Under Citizens Wishing to Address the Council on Non-agenda items, we hope people will give consideration to the remarks offered by resident and local builder, Mr. Rob Lohens, begining @ 1:14:02 mark of the video. Unfortunately, while Mr. Lohens' comments on public employee salaries and pensions have much merit, his grasp of the Crook County property assessments and the property tax system is lacking.

For others who may not quite get how the whole mess currently works -- as simply as we can state the matter -- property value assessments are created for the purpose of apportioning shares of the property tax burden, within any given taxing district. You can have your property tax assessment reduced and you still may end up paying as much or more in actual property tax dollars. Why? Because until the local taxing bodies actually reduce the tax levies -- the actual total dollars they ask for from the taxpayer pool -- taxes will generally continue to remain the same or rise. Place your bets, people!

Thus concludes our PRU civics lesson for today.

The discussion of the proposed Hoffman Homes project, as recommended to the City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission, begins @ 1:20:51 mark of the video. And we found the discussion of affordable...er...no...make that, attainable housing very entertaining.

The Aldermen voted 3-yes (Sweeney, Bach and Allegretti) to 3-no (DiPietro, Ryan and Wsol) on the matter. Mayor Schmidtzkrieg attempted to break the tie by voting "no," but the City Attorney advised him his vote was not necessary as a tie vote means the request for approval of the special use dies for lack of receiving a majority.

The project developer, Mr. Hassinger, then took the opportunity to let the Council know he would not be back with a new application. So there!

Enjoy the rest of the show!

Comments In the Spotlight

Under our post yesterday, one Ken Hubbs remarked --

"Did anyone see the Spokesman? Is the Mayoral opinion piece a message to the community or a campaign 2011 mail piece? He goes way beyond discussing the issues at hand and lays direct blame at the feet of the Council. He cites three separate issues and then goes on to heap blame directly on “The Council”. I’ve seen previous Mayors use the Spokesman before as a tool to disseminate information on issues. I’ve even seen the prior Mayor use it as a tool to pursue his political spin on various issues. However not even he ever used this publically funded mail piece to directly attack other elected officials."(sic)

For those who may have missed the latest issue of the Spokesman, and the particular Mayoral message being discussed, here you go --



A further exchange took place later --

Anonymous said...

"Hubbs,

You can call it "blame," but each thing Schmidt said the Council did is what the Council did. That would make it fact. Do you have something against facts?"

December 7, 2010 9:03 AM

Ken Hubbs said...

"No I have something with people using taxpayer funded resources for political purposes. What happened may be fact, but the implied reason is opinion."

December 7, 2010 11:25 AM

The PRU Crew felt our faithful PRU readers may wish to review what Mayor Schmidtzkrieg had to say about the use of taxpayer dollars and resources for the promotion of political agendas, in a discussion regarding Veterans, PBS, and Bill Moyers, back when Mayor Schmidtzkrieg was still just a lowly Alderdunce --

"I do not relish the thought of my tax money going to fund someone like Moyers so that he can despouse his agenda on my dime. And that, my friend, is my fair and balanced view."(sic)

As for the PRU Crew, we're wondering if Mayor Schmidtzkrieg still believes "The Spokesman provides a service which is a cost-effective way of distributing information to the citizens," given his statements about the City of Park Ridge being on the "brink of financial disaster" and his repeated professions of his preference for "fiscal conservatism" and only spending on "essential City services."

Is the Spokesman an essential City service?

Are You Paying Attention?

The PRU Crew and all our faithful PRU readers should, by now, have come out of our Thanksgiving turkey comas.

If you have been paying attention, then you know there's a City Council meeting tonight, at City Hall, beginning at 7:30 pm.

And if you have really really really been paying attention, then you also know the City's Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the residents of Park Ridge be spared the blight of non-conforming signs.

However, P&Z Commissioners Arrigoni, Piche, Wells and Rifkind believe it is in the best interest of the Park Ridge community to allow a 70% increase in density (8 additional units over the zoning code limit of 12 units for this "high density" district) for the proposed Hoffman Homes condominium development at 1963-1975 W. Touhy Ave., and have recommended the City Council grant a special use for the 3-story, 20-unit condominium development. Did we also mention the allowances for additional lot coverage and decreased set-backs? Flooding, schmudding.

The PRU Crew takes particular note of Commissioner Rifkind's observation of the economics involved -- we must have missed the part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's mandate to ensure economic benefit to developers who ask for lots of extras.

Of course, when developers come asking for extras, they offer amenities to the community from which they are asking for those extras. What will Park Ridge be getting? Affordable housing units.

Be still our beating, bleeding hearts!

Nobody saw this one coming, right? Oh. That's right. We did.

The rest of tonight's City Council agenda should be entertaining, as well -- included under the action items for the Finance & Budget Committee is a "First reading for approval of December 2010 Property Tax Levy – For the Budget Beginning May 1, 2010 and Ending April 30, 2011." B.O.H.I.C.A.!!!

Have A Happy Thanksgiving!

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

COW 11-22-2010 Video!

Another fine performance for your viewing displeasure!

They'll Be Discussing Our Mooney Again!

The City Council will be holding another COW (committee of the whole) meeting tonight, after a special 10 minute Council meeting (.pdf) to discuss the appointment of the City's new Director of Finance!

As usual, the COW agenda (.pdf) includes some items of interest -- the PRU Crew is looking forward to the discussion of the Financial Report (.pdf). Over all, it doesn't look too bad, and the Mayor's concerns for some of the revenue streams appear to not be as nearly doomy and gloomy as he feared. However, we would like to hear an explanation for the increased legal counsel expenses -- we're wondering if the increase has anything to do with the City appearing to have lost the case against the Napleton rezoning, a change initiated by the City Council and supported by the Mayor, which you can get a flavor for here (.pdf - page 2).

The Procedures and Regulations portion of the meeting will cover topics ranging from expanding the "occupancy limit" (.pdf) for the Youth Commission to consideration of restrictions on occupancy limits for residences (.pdf). The PRU Crew is very interested in hearing the discussion about who gets the honor of hiring City Department Heads (.pdf). So far it looks as if the City of Park Ridge will continue to operate under a City Manager form of government. So far.

Today's Post Possibly NSFW --

-- depending on how nannified your IT department is.

The PRU Crew feels the recent news over the brouhaha surrounding the enhanced screening procedures instituted by the TSA just prior to the holiday travel season could be quelled with an enhanced marketing campaign.

Of course, any successful marketing campaign requires a popular celebrity spokesperson.

We would like to suggest musical artist Janet Jackson.

As you can see, Ms. Jackson is already familiar with enhanced pat-down procedures -- and she would be an excellent spokesperson for a new TSA marketing campaign. The TSA could contract with Ms. Jackson to use her 'Janet' album cover for posters placed in airport terminals, which would demonstrate for airline passengers what lies ahead for them as they snake their way through the security lines.

Enjoy your own escapade this weekend!

City Council 11-15-2010 Video!

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!

Ready! Fire! Aim!

Hey Chiefski, are you running for office? A little more circumspection in consideration for the judicial process may have been better for all concerned.

PressRlseLeavittNov2010

For our faithful PRU readers who may have missed the conventional press coverage of this story, the Herald-Advocate has an online article for your reading displeasure.

In the article, the following is reported -- "Following the settlement of the lawsuit the State's Attorney's Office, assisted by the FBI, began investigating the Police Department" -- things that make us go hhhmmmmm. We aren't experts on such matters, but we're pretty sure the State's Attorney's Office doesn't make a habit of opening investigations into settled lawsuits. We wonder what their source of investigative inspiration may have been?

Ladies and Gentlemen! Boys and Girls!

c1899. Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress

The circus we've come to know as our Park Ridge City Council will be meeting tonight at City Hall. For our faithful PRU readers, interested in live entertainment, the show is set to begin at 7:30 PM.

Tonight's program (.pdf) features two acts which hold promise for providing special excitement!

First, Ringmaster Schmidt will attempt to amaze the audience with another veto! This time Ringmaster Schmidt will attempt to make the City's amended and then suspended facade improvement program disappear! The PRU Crew has serious reservations about how this vanishing act will be conducted. And we are again hoping discerning consideration will win out over ham-fisted treatment of this budgetary issue, but we have our doubts.

The second act we are looking forward to is the discussion of the O’Hare Airport Commission's Recommendations regarding the Taber Law Group (.pdf). A friendly correspondent worded concerns surrounding this issue as --

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.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls -- enjoy the circus!

Ponder the Possibilities!

Give yourself time to think, relax and enjoy the weekend!