Our Briefs Runneth Over!

#1 -- Come on, feel the noise! -- PROAC

For any PRU readers looking for some free entertainment this evening, you may want to check out what's going on at the meeting of the Park Ridge O'Hare Airport Commission. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm in the Mayor's Conference room on the 2nd floor at City Hall.


#2 -- Better late than never! -- Park District Videos

Once again, attention Park Board Wannabes! The Park Ridge Recreation and Park District has finally managed to post the most recently available videos of their meetings. The next scheduled special meeting for the Park Board will be on Thursday, November 5th in the Board Room of the Maine Park Leisure Center -- the meeting begins at 7:30 pm.


#3 -- B.O.H.I.C.A! -- Property Taxes

A report in yesterday's Chicago Tribune warns of 'Double-digit property tax increases in city, Cook County suburbs' The article also provides a link to a map (.pdf) showing the median increases in property taxes for municipalities -- Park Ridge's median increase over last year is only 6.2%! Doesn't everyone feel just great about that?

The median property tax for Park Ridge is $7,176 -- and the PRU Crew is very pleased not to be living in Winnetka!


#4 -- Down on their luck! -- Knights of Columbus Fish Fry

Last Friday, the Knights of Columbus hosted a Fish Fry at St. Paul of the Cross. All proceeds raised will go to the St. Paul of the Cross Sunday Suppers, a joint venture of the members of the PRMA (Park Ridge Ministerial Association).

As some of you may recall, the PRMA was also the chief sponsor for the effort to open a PADS Homeless shelter in Park Ridge. When the PADS organization took their shelter idea back and went home to Palatine, the PRMA responded to the christian call by beginning the Sunday Suppers program at St. Paul of the Cross.

For the Knights of Columbus Fish Fry, in support of the PRMA/St. Paul of the Cross Sunday Suppers, all of the churches involved in the PRMA, as well as Adrienne Timm and the rest of the "Social Concerns Ministry" at St. Paul of the Cross, were invited to attend.

But clearly the Knights of Columbus were down on their luck, since not a single invited member showed up to support the Knight's efforts.


#5 -- Speaking of pretending to care! -- Faux Cardboard Duvet

Our PRU.Tech found the following item online. The Crew feels this is in really really bad taste, which is of course why we love it!


The above item comes courtesy of dutchbydesign.com and is being marketed as "The Home Duvet lets you sleep under a cardboard box so a homeless person doesn't have to!" and "30% of the gross profits go to Centrepoint, the UK charity for homeless young people aged 16-25."

Everyone got that? You can pretend to care about the homeless and pretend to experience sleeping under a cardboard box! That's even more convenient than giving up your time one whole night a week or showing up to eat Knights of Columbus Fish on Fry-day!

We're Baaaaaaaaaaack!

From -- nps.gov (national park service) -- photographer unknown

We hope everyone got a chance to relax, spend some time among family and friends, or just hibernate over Spring Break.

Did our faithful PRU readers miss us? Thank you to each for the very nice email notes -- that were mixed in with some not very nice email notes. Jeez!

As we told one of our friendly correspondents, we've been plowing through the mountains of slush left unattended while the Crew was on break.

And now we're back!

We think we will commence and dispense with an email note -- forwarded to us by a faithful PRU reader.

Some people should learn not to play with fire.



Below for your review is an unsigned email sent from Mary Seat of Wisdom. The sending email address is pads@maryseatofwisdom.org. We have chosen to delete the names of 134 of the 136 recipients, as they are not responsible for the action of this email being sent, nor for being selected as recipients, and they are private citizens, as opposed to public figures. The recipients whose names remain listed are that of City Clerk Betty Henneman, who is running unopposed for re-election, and Mary Seat of Wisdom Pastor Gerald Gunderson.

From: Pads At MSW <pads@maryseatofwisdom.org>

Subject: Park Ridge Mayoral candidates and support for PADS

To: bhennema@parkridge.us, ggunderson@maryseatofwisdom.org

Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 7:16 PM

I am writing this brief email in response to recent queries I have received regarding my observations of the Park Ridge mayoral candidates and their position regarding support for a PADS site in Park Ridge.

As many of you know I am an active volunteer at a local PADS site and supported the initiative to find a site in Park Ridge.

I should start by stating the obvious - the best way to understand a candidate's position is to enter into a dialogue with them directly.

That said, during the period that this was a topic of discussion, I attended many of the meetings and hearings. I observed first hand the clear and determined opposition to the PADS initiative demonstrated by Alderman David Schmidt. This contrasted with Mayor Frimark who was supportive of finding a method to support a shelter locally.

I am sharing this information as it has been brought to my attention that this level of detail is not widely known outside those who attended the meetings.

For the benefit of City Clerk Henneman, Pastor Gunderson, and any interested parties we are providing the following level of detail and a link --

IRS Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (.pdf)

On page seven of the guide you will find the following level of detail --

Political Campaign Activity

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

The IRS tax guide provides further level of detail on page 8 --

Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

* whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office,

* whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions,

* whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election,

* whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election,

* whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office,

* whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election, and

* whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office.

A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election. Nevertheless, the communication must still be considered in context before arriving at any conclusions.

Other interested parties may want to read this link for more level of detail.

Council Recap! And A Note!

-- For our patient PRU readers, a quickie council recap!

As we reported yesterday, the City Council had another meeting planned for last evening. Most of the items on the Council's agenda for approval were listed under the consent agenda that assumes no public discussion is necessary, as the items being approved are considered routine. The PRU Crew does not recall the Council routinely approving any Ground Water Ordinance (.pdf) or Limited Environmental Indemnity Agreements, but under the Frimark administration lack of public discussion does seem to be a routine.

Our sources report that Mayor Howard took full advantage of the evening's lack of scheduled public discussion to thrill those in attendance with an endless series of comments, offered under the Mayor's report portion of the agenda, though none of his comments were listed as agenda items. As we know, Mayor Howard just loves to surprise everyone with his missives!

Mayor Howard's comments included another mumbled reading of a Youth Commission* Proclamation, as well as slaughtering the English language while reading a City press release and a press release from Rep. Rosemary Mulligan concerning O'Hare expansion. Neither of which are listed on the terrific medium for City communications to residents known as the Park Ridge City website.

The two agenda items listed for discussion by the Council last night were "Approval of Modifications to CPS 36 -- Use of City Facilities" and "First reading of Modification to the Liquor Ordinance (12-6-10) -- Live Entertainment.

The first item passed unanimously without any questions or discussions from the Mayor or Alderman.

The second item also passed unanimously without discussion. Though we are told Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg (1st ward) recused himself because he is holding a fundraiser at Uncle Dan's which we are told will include live entertainment.

Under New Business on the Council agenda, our sources report that Ald. Dave made a statement regarding the disappearance of yard signs -- asking that all members of the community respect each other's right to free speech and respecting each other's right to take part in the democratic process. PRUdos to Ald. Dave!

Also under New Business, Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan (5th ward) asked City Manager Jim Hock when they would discuss the "objectives and goals" for the creation of a City Noise Commission. Confusion ensued as City Manager Hock seemed to recall that the matter of forming a Noise Commission had been deferred to the Council's March meeting. Benedict Ald. Ryan is reported to have disagreed with Mr. Hock's recall. The PRU Crew can only assume Benedict Ryan didn't read one of the documents (.pdf -- pg. 2&3) in his Aldermanic packet -- but at least Benedict Ryan made it to the meeting!

Finally under New Business, 3rd ward Alderman Don Bachtard reported that the Public Works Department has budgeted money for a City-wide study of the Park Ridge sewer system, and he invited Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim to explain why 2.05 inches of rain could cause 26 basements to flood, 50 streets to have minor flooding, and make 2 streets impassable. The answer is? Because the frozen February ground caused the water to run off and not be absorbed. According to Zingsheim the 2.05 inches of rain falling on frozen February ground was the equivalent of 3 to 4 inches of rain falling in a short period of time.

There you have it faithful PRU readers!

*Note* -- thanks to a PRU reader for the correction. The notes we received said "campus", but a double check with a few of our other sources inside the city confirms that while Mayor Howard mumbled Youth Campus it was ideed the Youth Commission.


-- A Note from the Crew

Please, you can stop sending us copies of the Mary Jo PADS email -- we've gotten a ton of them! We swear it! And yes, it's more of the same bullshit the PADS pushers have been spouting since discovering, after decades of residency, that Park Ridge doesn't have any homeless shelters.

As for the role PRU may have played in seeing to it the PRMA, PADS, and certain pastors did not get to run rough-shod over the rest of the community in pushing their latest pet social cause down everyone's throat without being subject to regulation -- you're welcome.

For those of you who haven't seen the latest round of email garbage on the PADS issue, you can read the crap pasted below -- tsk tsk, Mary Jo. Maybe you should just keep to Book Group activities such as reading, instead of writing.

"Hello to all of the PADS team,

I just wanted to get a quick e-mail out to you regarding the upcoming mayoral election. We all had first-hand experience of Dave Schmidt's role in derailing the PADS initiative last year. He publicly referred to homeless shelters as "flophouses" and "cesspools of infestation". He quoted Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in advocating the philosophy that those in society who work and are successful are in no way obligated to help those who are not. He aligned himself with the Park Ridge Underground even when it vilified and ridiculed Fr. Carl and other church leaders and citizens who didn't share their anti-PADS sentiments. Many of the people who were affiliated with the PRU and against PADS now actively support Mr. Schmidt.

The reason I write all of this is not to dredge up bad memories, but to encourage you to let people who were not involved in the PADS initiative know about Mr. Schmidt's role in it. I recently had a conversation with a life-long Park Ridge resident who called me about the Sunday Suppers. She was so upset about the outcome of PADS, but delighted that we are doing the dinners. She then went on to tell me about voting for Dave Schmidt. She had no idea about his role in derailing PADS and thanked me again and again for letting her now about it. I think there are a lot of people out there who are looking for change in local government, but who are unaware of Mr. Schmidt's history.

Hopefully, we can get the message out that Dave Schmidt is NOT the change we need or want. In my estimation, Dave Schmidt, the Park Ridge Underground and the anti-PADS movement represented the antithesis of what a caring community should be. On the other hand, the past month-and-a-half of working with so many people of good faith in our community on the Sunday Suppers has revealed the best of Park Ridge. It has shown a spirit of fellowship, compassion and unity that I dearly hope we can continue to build on and nurture. During these tough economic times, it seems that we need an even greater spirit of compassion and empathy from our public leaders for those in society who are most in need. We need leaders who are advocates of inclusion, not exclusion. In regard to Howard Frimark, I can only comment about what I gleaned from the PADS experience of the past year. I know that he sincerely tried to find a way to make the PADS initiative work and has fully supported the Sunday Suppers. In fact, he and his wife stopped by at last week's dinner to see how things were going and to show their support. Mayor Frimark always seemed willing to find middle ground and compromise, while Mr. Schmidt was divisive and always seemed to be politically posturing himself. I just think it is important that voters are aware of the difference.

I'm sorry if I may have crossed a line by sending this, but it just seems that there is a lot riding on this upcoming election.

Thank you for "listening"!

Mary Jo"

City Council Recap!

A quickie!

At last night's City Council meeting Mayor Howard read a statement saying, "Journeys from PADS to HOPE will not be expanding their service area to include the city of Park Ridge." Mayor Howard then said that in light of this development he was withdrawing his recommendation to the City Council for consideration of his homeless shelter contract scheme to provide the Public Works Center as a PADS site.

Mayor Howard went on to remind those in attendance that the City Council still has "difficult decisions to make" and will be discussing the remaining text amendment and licensing ordinances at their next meeting on November 17, 2008.

The work isn't over, but a big hunk of what we feel was a disaster waiting to happen has been removed. We hope our City Council will address this issue in a way that places the concerns and interests of residents and taxpayers ahead of any other special interests.

The City Council then moved on to consideration of whether or not the city's liquor ordinances should be amended to allow for arcade games and other entertainment to be allowed in establishments that serve alcohol. That action was referred back to the Procedures and Regulations Committee for further discussion.

Finally, we hear PRUdos may be in order for a certain city employee's promotion! The PRU Crew wanted to light some sparklers to celebrate, but we understand that's illegal!

Short but sweet!

Mayor Howard Stars As...

As many of you already know, the city sent out a press release saying that tomorrow night's City Council agenda will not include the final reading of the zoning text amendment or licensing ordinances for temporary shelters.

An online update on the Herald-Advocate web site details Mayor Howard's desire to have his contract idea reviewed by the City Council before the aldermen vote to adopt the ordinances legalizing operation of temporary homeless shelters. According to the article, "The mayor said he believed that it is in everyone's best interest to have a proposed agreement that meets the needs of the Park Ridge Ministerial Association representatives and Journeys from PADS to HOPE before the City Council discusses this issue further," the release states."

Got that people? It's in everyone's best interest to see to it the needs of the PRMA and Journeys from PADS to HOPE are met before any further discussion, which the PRU Crew reads as meaning before the needs of Park Ridge residents and taxpayers are considered and met. Park Ridge residents and taxpayers just don't seem to be much of a priority for Mayor Howard -- so many deals, so many friends, so little time.

We're wondering exactly how it is in everyone's best interest to see to it the PRMA and Journeys from PADS to HOPE are protected from the special use permit and licensing process before there are ordinances enacted to require a special use permit and licensing process? Why is it that Mayor Howard is pulling the City Council in the direction of specifically considering the PADS franchise before the City Council generally considers regulation of temporary homeless shelters?

We're also wondering a couple other things, such as why the meeting agenda doesn't list Mayor Howard's PRMA/PADS shelter contract scheme as a discussion item, and why the city web site hasn't posted a copy of the "licensing agreement."

The PRU Crew can't do anything about the agenda, but here for your review is a copy of the proposed "licensing agreement."

PRMAPADSLicAgrmt - Upload a Document to Scribd

Bandito Brett McCleneghan!

Last Friday, our buddies over at the Pub-dog's site put up a post they called "Caesar? We Don't Need No Stinking Caesar!" The Pub-dog's discussed an email chain that featured the Park Ridge Community Church Senior Pastor Brett McCleneghan suggesting that people interested in opening a PADS shelter should "ignore the city and open the shelter."

The PRU Crew can't say where the Pub-dog's got a copy of the email they are citing and so we can't vouch for their source, but we're willing to vouch for ours and that the email from Big Talking Bandito Brett does appear to be authentic. And we're pretty sure not a single sender or recipient in that email chain is tech-savvy enough to engage in email spoofing, let alone Pastor Bandito Brett who doesn't seem to be able to grasp the simple principles of being a law-abiding member of a community.

Unlike St. Paul of the Cross Pastor Carl Morelleon, who seems to relish the role of dictator, Bandito Brett seems to prefer a role that offers a bit more of an outlaw persona. Though we do wonder why Bandito Brett hasn't offered up his own church as a site for a homeless shelter since the full text of Bandito Brett's email says, "I would hesitate to call good news any provision which allows the City to regulate, approve or license ministries of the Church. This establishes a dangerous and clearly unconstitutional precedent. Ignore the city and open the shelter."

And there you have it people -- at least one member of the PRMA, and probably all the others too, does not believe homeless shelters should be subject to any public oversight, even when it has been clearly established that the shelter operator -- in this case, PADS -- is publicly funded. And avoiding public oversight is precisely why Journeys from PADS to Hope has hidden behind churches who eagerly take up their cause in the name of religious free expression. And avoiding public scrutiny is precisely why PADS is alleged to have told Mayor Howard they would agree to a contract with the City of Park Ridge because they have "issues" with being subject to special use permitting and licensing procedures.

Some of the other recipients in the email chain include --

Pat Harrington -- Journeys from PADS to Hope, Inc.'s PADS Program Director

Amity Carrubba -- former Pastor at St. Mary's Episcopal Church

Gerry Gunderson -- Pastor at Mary Seat of Wisdom Church

Ted Stone -- Priest at Mary Seat of Wisdom Church

Stephen Larson -- Pastor at St. Luke's Lutheran Church

Jim McCracken -- Pastor at Park Ridge Presbyterian Church

Jack Owens -- Park Ridge zoning attorney and Friend of Frimark

Laurie Pegler -- An attorney tracking mold issues for the Property Loss Research Bureau, a national organization that serves insurance companies. (per our source)

We have no way of knowing if any of the people sharing in this email chain subsequently tried to pull Bandito Brett back onto the reservation, but we do know that one recipient, Ms. Laurie Pegler, got out her pom poms and cheered Bandito Brett on -- saying in part, "Contrary to the statement that a shelter cannot be opened without a zoning provision in place, it is legal to do so in the absence of a law to the contrary. Open the shelter using the compassion and empathy and common sense, not to mention patience, exhibited to date."

As we told our source, Ms. Pegler should stick with chasing mold -- municipal law is clearly over her pay grade.

While the PRU Crew recognizes and would strongly defend the right of each of these people to voice their opinion on any public issue of their choice, we take great exception to the arrogant and callous disregard PADS supporters have shown to their fellow parishioners, neighbors, and our community as a whole. "Patience", Ms. Pegler? You've got to be kidding!

We feel it is the height of corrupted contempt to not only try to shove their current pet social cause down the throats of everyone else, but to also suggest that the process of public governance, debate, and the laws of the community should be ignored if the outcome isn't exactly what they desire.

But hey, maybe the PRU Crew is just being grumpy about things like public discussion and respect for the rule of law. After all, Bandito Brett is one of the people Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan told us we should trust.

Addendum -- per "Anon's" request --

Opening email:

From: Gxxxxx Kxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:09 AM
To: xxxxx
Subject: PADS

Good Morning... and it is a good morning!!!

It looks like some positive movement has occurred!! I do not know if there are still issues which must be considered, but all the prayers and diligence have produced the below!!
I will send on any new information I receive. If anyone else gets new information, please send it on for the rest of us.

Keep the faith,
Gxxxxx

Updated 10/21: Park Ridge gives shelters first OK

(copy of H-A article)

Bandito Brett's Response:

>>> "Brett McCleneghan" 10/22/2008 9:15 AM >>>

Dear Friends,

I would hesitate to call good news any provision which allows the City to regulate, approve or license ministries of the Church. This establishes a dangerous and clearly unconstitutional precedent.

Ignore the city and open the shelter.

Grace and Peace,

Brett W. McCleneghan

Attorney Pegler's response:

From: Laurie Pegler
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:23 AM
To: xxxxx
Subject: RE: PADS

Brett,

Thank you for reading my mind and identifying the issue: Contrary to the statement that a shelter cannot be opened without a zoning provision in place, it is legal to do so in the absence of a law to the contrary. Open the shelter using the compassion and empathy and common sense, not to mention patience, exhibited to date.

Laurie

Guest Essay -- Open Letter

Published with permission of the author

From: Rick Biagi
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:52 AM
To: carey407@comcast.net, dschmidt@cmn-law.com
Subject: Mayor Frimark Proposal re PADS

Aldermen Carey and Schmidt:

First, I want to thank you both for voting on the side of protecting our community last night. Your strong stance last evening on the various proposed amendments to the shelter ordinance was commendable and I truly appreciate the leadership role that you both took at the meeting. I especially want to thank you for exposing the obvious issues raised by Mayor Frimark’s proposal to waive the co-applicant requirement for PADS if the City actually hosts the site. Alderman Carey - you hit the nail squarely on the head when you stated that PADS’ reluctance to be a co-applicant points to some deeper issue that must be uncovered. I couldn't agree with you more.

That being said, I also have some concerns with the City Attorney’s statement to the City Council that requiring PADS and PRMA to enter into a binding contract with the City actually gives the City more protection than it would otherwise have. I respectfully disagree with the City Attorney’s position on this.

The City Attorney seems to base his opinion (that the contract provides stronger protection to the City, even in the absence of the co-applicant requirement) on two points, 1) that PRMA and PADS would be contractually bound by all of the restrictions set by the Council in the ordinance, and 2) that the facts that PRMA and PADS would contractually agree to not challenge the validity and/or constitutionality of the ordinance and its various restrictions insulates the City from potential litigation.

Point One – The fact that PRMA and PADS would be contractually bound to the restrictions set by the ordinance is irrelevant and, frankly, redundant. The fact of the matter is that the homeless shelter (no matter who operates it) would be legally bound by the restrictions set forth in ordinance (whether or not a contract is in place). The only “benefit” the contract gives the City is that they can now sue PRMA and/or PADS for breach of contract if they fail to abide by the terms of the ordinance. In reality, the better legal remedy for the City is the revoke their license rather than to spend money on litigation. There would likely be no monetary damage award in such litigation (and even if there was, PADS and PRMA have little money to begin with) and the only likely remedy would be to order specific performance by PRMA and/or PADS (i.e. to force them to comply with the ordinance). So, in the end, the notion of contractually binding PADS and PRMA to the terms of the ordinance has virtually no benefit to the City.

Point Two – One of our fellow citizens made the point last night that PRMA is not really a legal entity, it is merely a collection of local churches. I confirmed with the Illinois Secretary of State that there is no legal entity authorized under the laws of the State of Illinois named “Park Ridge Ministerial Association”. Therefore, if PRMA fails to exist as a legal entity, it is highly unlikely that they can enter into a contract with the City of Park Ridge. Again, if that is true, there is no benefit to the City for such an agreement not to challenge the validity and/or constitutionality of the ordinance because PADS, on its own, is highly unlikely to fund litigation to challenge the ordinance. Moreover, if we assume for the moment that the PRMA can, in fact, legally enter into the Agreement, that would only insulate the City from litigation where PRMA and/or PADS is a Plaintiff. As I understand the Mayor’s proposal, that agreement would not prevent a parishioner from one of the PRMA churches to file suit on their own and not as a board member of PRMA. In reality, neither PRMA or PADS has the financial backing to fund litigation of this nature. The only parties that would have such resources are either wealthy churchgoers from Park Ridge or organizations such as the ACLU. Thus, the contractual provision which forbids PRMA and PADS from challenging the restrictions enacted by the City Council provides virtually no protection to the City from potential litigation.

I trust that you will both address these issues in more detail when the Mayor introduces his proposal again at the October 29th City Council meeting. Lastly, I hope that you both will remain firm in your position that a 500 ft restriction (from schools) is absolutely necessary to protect our children’s safety and well-being.

Yours very truly,

Rick (and Susan) Biagi
(Sixth Ward) (St. Paul of the Cross Parishioner – Washington School family)

Possibilities!

Some of the comments we've received have asked about any connection between the issues of homelessness and affordable housing. For those interested in a starting point on the subject, you can review our following posts --

1. The HUDdled Masses And More!

2. Avast, mateys!

For those of you interested in what a contractual agreement between a PADS franchise and a municipality can be or become, you can review the following document --

elginpads[1] - Upload a Document to Scribd

Aces and Eights! Recap!

Good morning PRU readers! We understand the meeting last night was very long and arduous. We're waiting on a couple of things and we'll have a recap ready for you in a little bit. In the mean time, we thank you for your patience and feel free to post your own report comments to this post.

Recap!

We've compiled the reports and sorted through notes and we've finally got a recap ready. We're going to try to cram 5 hours of discussion into a blog post here, but we do want to try to also provide PRU readers with a taste for the flavor of the meeting, so this is a lot longer than we would normally prefer our posts to be.

Again our sources report that Mayor Howard did his best to promote the interests of the Park Ridge Ministerial Association and PADS organization over the interests of Park Ridge residents and St. Paul of the Cross parents. By some miracle, Mayor Howard wasn't able to completely neutralize the ordinances regulating homeless shelters. Yet.

First to offer up changes to the zoning text amendment to allow homeless shelters to open and operate in Park Ridge was the 2nd Ward's Lord of the Manor, Rich DiPietro. DiPietro moved to amend the zoning text to allow not more than one shelter in each ward and not within 1000 ft. of each other. Audience member, Jennifer Conlon, spoke to the amendment saying that the council was talking about church property rights and that she felt it was wrong to tell one property owner what to do because of where they "live", and that the amendment is "arbitrary and deprives churches of their rights." We're not sure about anybody else, but the PRU Crew feels pretty strongly that churches have no more property rights than anybody else. And when churches start paying their fair share of property taxes to support the infrastructure provided to them, then and only then will we be willing to listen to anybody moan and groan about Church's property rights; especially when their desire to use their property for their pet social causes may bring harm to the rest of the community that does pay its fair share.

In a roll call vote, the amendment passed unanimously.

DiPietro then motioned to add language that would not allow shelters to operate more than one night per week from October through April.

In a roll call vote, the amendment passed unanimously.

Next up, it was the 7th Ward's Frank Wsooooolman's turn at bat. Wsol moved to add language to the area of the zoning text amendment regarding the 500 ft. restriction; Wsol left the 500 ft. language in the text but added that shelters may not operate "within 60 minutes of children being present." The ensuing discussion of this amendment was the longest of the evening, with Mayor Howard unable to directly answer a question about whether or not shelter "guests" would be prohibited from returning to a church property for services of the ecumenical variety. When repeatedly asked if shelter "guests" would be prohibited from attending mass with the school children, Mayor Howard kept repeating that "guests" would have to "leave the premises." The matter was later clarified by the City Attorney; shelter "guests" could not be prohibited from returning to church property to attend mass.

During discussion of whether or not to allow homeless shelters to operate inside schools, resident and city benefactor, Tony Svanascini, reported that he conducted an email poll of 380 St. Paul parents -- asking them to vote on whether or not they wanted a homeless shelter to operate inside their school. Half of those emailed responded, and the results showed that 79% of those who chose to exercise their right to vote, voted "no" to the question of allowing a homeless shelter in their school.

Many of those speaking from the audience also brought up the matter of Mayor Howard's Public Works Service Center compromise, discussed in a press release (.pdf) late last week, saying that they believed it was a good idea and that they didn't understand why the council would vote to nullify the 500 ft. restriction in the zoning text.

But when the question was called, nullification of the 500 ft. restriction is exactly what the City Council did. In a vote of 5 (DiPietro, Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, and Wsol) to 2 (Schmidt and Carey) ~~THUD!!!~~ Carey??? You betcha!!! PRUdos and thanks to Schmidt and Carey! Your votes on this matter won't be forgotten.

Next the Wsooooolman offered another amendment designed to clarify the matter of "significant support" being provided for shelter operations and require co-application for licensing. Wsol defined "significant support" as including security, health screening, and background checks. This amendment was clearly intended to make shelter organizations subject to licensing. This amendment brought Benedict Alderman Ryan (5th Ward) out of his reverie to offer that, from his perspective, the PRMA is the shelter operator. The audible gasps and grunts of disgust from audience members didn't seem to distract Ryan from his perspective. Again, audience member Jennifer Conlon spoke about the PADS franchise being only a provider of support for shelter operators. CURRB spokesperson, Judy Barclay, rose to offer the council a view of a PADS booklet detailing the business of providing shelter offered by the organization and said, "PADS is not merely a provider" of "support" for shelter operators.

During this portion of the discussion, Mayor Howard stated that in his view, if a shelter were to operate on city property, the city would be a co-applicant for the special use permit, the PRMA would be considered the operator, and the PADS franchise would be the consultant. To paraphrase the words of one audience member, the PRU Crew too is "dumbfounded" by Mayor Howard's twisted spinning of this issue.

Benedict Alderman Ryan asked if PADS would agree to be a co-applicant for a special use permit and license, to which many members of the audience shouted variants of "who cares?" and "so what if they dont?" Ald. Wsol responded to Ryan's question by simply saying that the question "isn't relevant." Ryan chose to then take a different angle of approach and said that he "trusts the PRMA to bring in the right people."

The PRU Crew will wait for everyone to stop laughing.

In a roll call vote on the amendment, the council voted 5 (DiPietro, Bach, Carey, Wsol, and Schmidt) to 2 (Allegretti and Ryan) in favor of the amendment.

Then it was Alderman Don Bachtard (3rd Ward) who offered still another amendment to the zoning text. Bach moved to limit the number of shelters that can operate simultaneously to two. Ald. Allspaghetti (4th Ward) asked why limit the number to two? Bach responded that his intention was to limit the number of shelters operating simultaneously and to limit the help being provided to helping those here in Park Ridge. Allspaghetti then said he "didn't get a chance to comment on Wsol's earlier amendment, but thought it was too restrictive." The PRU Crew believes Allspaghetti has been paying careful attention to recent political debates where candidates ignore a question or previous statement and babble on about something else they prefer to talk about, otherwise we have no way of explaining Allspaghetti's disjointed and unconnected response to Ald. Bach's statement.

Ald. Ryan insisted that the PRMA is "only interested in opening one shelter" and that for 30 years there has been "trust in each other" so "if they say one" we should all trust them.

During the audience participation portion of the discussion of this amendment, pastors Larson and Morello both spoke. Pastor Larson, from St. Lukes, reiterated Ryan's comment that the intention is to only open one shelter, he is concerned with the polarization in the community, he feels the process must be transparent, PADS is not a money-making franchise, Journeys is only part of the process and that it is Park Ridge that will be providing the volunteers, food, and care, and that PADS is concerned because no other community has required PADS to apply for a special use permit or license. For his part, Pastor Carl Morelleon, from St. Paul of the Cross, took great pains to remind those at the meeting that the "parish is first, then the school is part of the mission of the church." Most of the responses to this among Crew members are not fit to print, even on this blog! We will say, Morello pull your head out of your ass. You've proven yourself to be a dictator with very little concern for the school children you and others have attempted to use as pawns to bludgeon your parishioners. It is painfully clear that when it comes to prioritizing parish concerns and church missions, the kids take a backseat to everything. May your God have mercy on your soul.

In a roll call vote on the amendment to limit the number of shelters operating simultaneously, the council voted 4 (Bach, Carey, Wsol, Schmidt) to 3 (Allegretti, Ryan, DiPietro).

Next came what one of our friendly correspondents has described as Mayor Howard's "October Surprise". The mayor read a statement to the council wherein he proposed that the city enter into a written contract with the PRMA and PADS for use of the Public Works Service Center as a homeless shelter site. The PRMA and PADS would sign a contract with the city that waives the portion of the ordinances that would require either the PRMA and/or PADS to co-apply for special use permits and a license in exchange for agreeing not to file any lawsuits against the city for "x number of years."

Mayor Howard asked for a motion from the council so that his "October Suprise" could be added as language to the zoning text amendment being discussed. The Lord of the Manor obliged him.

Most of the aldermen, by nearly all accounts, looked stunned by this eleventh hour surprise. Bach asked if the city would incur any greater liability and what precedent such a scheme would set. Schmidt said he just didn't get this at all. Carey asked what value there was in eliminating the ordinance requirements and why a term would be set for a time limit. Carey went on to say that he found it "extremely suspicious" that this sounds like a "cloak for PADS" to avoid co-applicancy. ~~THUD!!!~~ WHO IS THIS GUY??? AND WHERE HAS HE BEEN HIDING FOR THE PAST 17 MONTHS???

As discussion of Mayor Howard's "October Surprise" continued, Ald. Bach said that he feels the Mayor has the authority to try to negotiate a contract with the PRMA and PADS but that he "doesn't see what a contract offers that the ordinances and co-application process doesn't." Mayor Howard insisted that he needed the council's authorization to mooove forward, at which point Ald. DiPietro asked the City Attorney if the mayor did, in fact, need the council's express authorization. City Attorney, Buzz Hill, stated that the mayor did not need the language to go ahead. DiPietro then withdrew his motion. Ald. Allspaghetti offered that he felt it was a mistake to withdraw the motion. Bach stated that this amendment has been "relatively undiscussed" and that the mayor should "go ahead" and try to negotiate a contract.

Alderman DiPietro then moved for the City Council to consider the zoning text amendment in its entirety. In a roll call vote on the first reading of the zoning text to be added to the zoning code the City Council voted 6 (Allegretti, Ryan, Carey, Wsol, DiPietro, and Bach) to 1 (guess who?) to adopt the code that will allow homeless shelters to operate in Park Ridge.

Then it was on to the licensing ordinance portion of the homeless shelter discussion! What fun!

Again, DiPietro was first up and moved to add language that would require the City Manager to issue reports on the number of shelters operating, the location, and any police calls. The additional language passed unanimously.

Ald. Dave Schmidt offered an amendment that would require the director of community development to make a recommendation to the City Council on the licensing of a homeless shelter and that the City Council be required to vote on the matter -- because he believes the issue is important enough that the City Council should not leave oversight to staff. After even more complaining from the usual suspects, the city council voted 5 (Carey, Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro, and Bach) to 2 (Allegretti and Ryan) to adopt the amendment.

Schmidt then offered another amendment to the licensing ordinance that the guidelines for shelter operation plans allowing entry of "guests" would include health screening, criminal background checks, and identification cards. Again, audience member Jennifer Conlon objected to the regulation saying that PADS allows first time shelter "guests" to access their shelters "temporarily" with a call to the police department. Schmidt responded that he wasn't talking about PADS. One of our sources reports that this is the first time "blabber mouth" was at a loss for words, but she did manage to recover and gripe on about this requirement in the guidelines. We don't have much respect for Ms. Conlon, ourselves. We also think she is a blabber mouth without much gray matter to back-up her statements. We do have to give her a nod though for taking part in this long process and for doing it somewhat more intelligently than her holy rolling brethren.

In a roll call vote, the council unanimously adopted the amendment to the licensing ordinance.

Alderman Bach then moved to amend the licensing ordinance to remove the word "may" and insert the word "shall" in mandating that, if any regulations were violated in the operation of homeless shelters, the director of community development "shall revoke a temporary overnight shelter license." Ald. Allspaghetti offered that he didn't think it was right to require the director of community development to revoke a shelter license for minor infactions and he wants to leave discretion for revoking licenses of shelter operators who violate regulations to city staff. In a roll call vote, the City Council defeated the amendment 5 (DiPietro, Allegretti, Ryan, Carey, and Wsol) to 2 (Schmidt and Bach).

Finally, Benedict Alderman Ryan took his turn at carrying water for the PRMA and their homeless legions, and attempted to amend the licensing ordinance by removing language that prohibits non-emergency medical care from being provided in temporary homeless shelters. Ald. Wsooooolman asked if the ordinance was written this way to avoid creating a "clinic atmosphere"? The City Manager, Jim Hock, replied that was "correct" and that the portion of the ordinance probably came from what other municipalities do, but it could be "softened" if the council wanted to do that. Ald. Carey offered that the section needed work, while DiPietro offered that since this was only the first reading of the ordinance, Ald. Ryan could work on his amendment and then "come back on the 29th" of October with a new amendment.

Ryan then withdrew his motion.

With that the City Council took its final roll call vote of the evening and unanimously adopted the first reading of the licensing ordinance for homeless shelters as amended.

There you have it people -- Your government in action.

The PRU Crew would like to add a special note here -- while we are disappointed that the council did not adopt the zoning text amendment as it was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and while we would have really liked to see at least one alderman offer a resolution to the council to have the matter voted on in a referendum, we could not be happier about the participation of so many Park Ridge residents and local church parishioners.

What you have done is no less than carry on the greatest tradition of democracy ever known. You participated -- deeply, consistently, and unwaveringly. You have stepped up, taken hold of the microphone and spoken your views -- more eloquently and ably than many of you give yourselves credit for. Without each and every one of you, even the people we feel have been totally stupid on this issue, there would be no democracy. Without debate and consideration there is no democracy. To those of you who so diligently did your homework on this matter, you should take tremendous pride in seeing that much of what you researched on the matter and demanded from your representatives has been made part of the legislation governing this issue. We agree that the most important demand, the 500 ft. regulation that would have kept homeless shelters out of elementary schools, is a tough and heartbreaking loss. Nevertheless, you should view this entire process as a win. You worked for it. You earned it. Don't let Mayor Howard's "October Surprise" thwart you. Continue to demand that your elected officials respond to your concerns and represent your best interests.

For the PRU Crew's part, we're damn glad to know ya.

For Mayor Howard's part, we think he's holding a hand full of aces and eights, politically speaking.

One of these things --

-- is not like the others. Can you spot the difference?


by: digitalgod.deviantart.com


Beginning excerpts from three letters printed in today's edition of the Herald-Advocate:

Ministers didn't plan to be near schools

If you've been reading the Herald-Advocate, you know that the Park Ridge Planning and Zoning Commission recently voted that homeless shelters cannot be located within 500 feet of a school. The City Council must now decide whether or not to adopt the P&Z Commission's recommendation.

Here's what you may not know - on Jan. 30, 2008, the Rev. Amity Carrubba, pastor of St. Mary's Episcopal church, sent a letter to the neighbors of St. Mary's. In it, she wrote: "The Park Ridge Ministerial Association (PRMA) understood the host parish needed to be selected WITH GREAT CARE IN PARTICULAR RULING OUT ANY CHURCH WITH AN ON-SITE SCHOOL." (all caps added by me for emphasis)....

M. Cohen Park Ridge

PADS should be a local discussion

At the Oct. 6 City Council meeting, Alderman Bach proposed that the 500 ft. distance between PADS and a school be replaced with a time separation. I believe TIME is a better separation. PADS guests should be required to leave the premises at least one hour before school starts, or whatever time span the council and Zoning Commission decide.

At the last Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission was asked "why 500 feet?" the answer was, "That's what others do." Must Park Ridge blindly follow others? Cannot we think outside of the box? Does that mean that a shelter could operate 501 feet from a school DURING SCHOOL HOURS?...

Roger Loeffler Park Ridge

Try Civil Behavior lessons on PADS

Thank you to the City Council for providing a forum on Sept. 29 for the Park Ridge community to further discuss the PADS issue. After hearing and reading the arguments on both sides, I strongly support a PADS shelter in Park Ridge. A PADS shelter in Park Ridge presents a real-life opportunity to demonstrate the District 64 Civil Behavior values and skills at work:...

Annalise Herman Park Ridge


That's right faithful PRU readers -- only the first letter writer actually understands the issues and questions before the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, and the Park Ridge community. PRUdos to M. Cohen! The second two writers don't get it. But we can't say for certain if their ignorance is willful or not -- we feel it probably is. They can't really be dumb enough to ignore the issues and questions of regulations in general for any and all homeless shelters and the organizations that operate them, can they? We wonder why that is.

Caveat Emptor!

Last week a PRU reader posted a comment (#12) and link address to a news piece, on our post "Oh, The Cow Goes...", discussing an unfortunate incident that has resulted in the death of one man and possible murder charges being filed against another man. The alleged offender gave his address as being 1140 E. Northwest Highway in Palatine, which many of you now know is the Journeys from PADS to Hope day center.

The commenter queried, "I'm also wondering if the 4 "tree trimmer wannabes" in the news story are also part of the much ballyhooed "Lawn Service" run by the service provider in question?" The PRU Crew is wondering about that too. We have no proof that the men in the news piece are in any way connected with the Journeys Lawn Service. But the following ad, featured in this past Sunday's St. Paul of the Cross church bulletin --



-- gave us pause, and a chance to once again remind Park Ridgians of the need to be cautious about whomever you hire to do work around or inside your home.

We did not find any business registration for Journeys Lawn Service with the Illinois Secretary of State office. In fact, the only mentions we've seen of the Journeys Lawn Service is on their web site and in the St. Paul bulletin.

We also do not believe the Journeys Lawn Service would be subject to licensing demands by the City of Park Ridge because they would probably qualify as a charitable organization under article 12.pdf of the city's municipal code.

The PRU Crew feels that trying to provide the homeless with "job skills, time management, cooperation and responsibility" are admirable goals. However, the questions about Journeys from PADS to Hope's screening process and background checks remain -- and whether or not the men in the news story were a part of the Journeys Lawn Service or just "freelancing".

We caution Park Ridgians to ask any business they engage for work on their property some very basic questions --

1. Is the business licensed in any way?

2. Is the business insured?

3. Are the employees background checked?

4. Are the employees bonded?

5. Is there an available list of references that can be checked?

Remember, caveat emptor.

More PRU Briefs!

The Aldermoorons meet again!



Tonight the City Council COW discussion among the aldermen will take place at City Hall beginning at 6PM. As PRU readers know, the topic is about the proposed text amendment.pdf and licensing standards.pdf to be added to the city's zoning code, which will allow for the opening of temporary homeless shelters in Park Ridge. Do note that the agenda for tonight's meeting says "The meeting will commence with discussion among the Aldermen, Agenda Item #4", which is a nice way of saying "comments from the audience will not be continued or accepted."

Look for the adlermoorons to contort themselves into pretzels in their attempts to justify compromising over the text amendment and licensing standards for any temporary homeless shelters. All that compromising will function as the lube designed to enable our local politicians to act as the lucky Pierres between the pro-PADS PRMA and the thinking portion of the Park Ridge community.

We also expect to receive reports about a certain cow on city staff who is expected to once again chew gum with her mouth hanging open while she feigns detachment at the goings on.


Bellowing for the homeless!



We hear the bagpipes were a big hit last night at the St. Paul of the Cross protest march held to bemoan the delay in opening a PADS shelter in Park Ridge -- we're going to call it a "protest march" because another source tells us there may have been between 300 and 400 people blocking traffic as they marched across the six corners intersection in Uptown. According to the news report linked above, 12 churches are promoting the PADS shelter for Park Ridge. 12 churches? 400 people? That's only an average of 33 people per church! Not quite the turnout the good shepherds may have hoped for from their faithful flocks.


Deadline Tomorrow!



Are you registered to vote? Tomorrow is the deadline to register and be able to walk into your polling place and cast your vote, or participate in early voting. There is a 14-day grace period to register, but there are restrictions.

More information can be gotten from the Cook County Clerk's web site.

Guest Essay -- Seeking Nessie!

Today we have the privilege of offering a guest essay from a PRU reader, Seeking Nessie, that takes a broader view of the process of public policy creation, as well as some of the legal foundations and guiding principles of tax-exempt organizations that engage themselves in political activity.

It's long. And we very much feel it's worth your time. We hope you find it as well researched and written as we did.



Dear All,

I write to you as "Seeking Nessie In Park Ridge." Like the famed Scottish beastie which exists solely in folklore (and, perhaps, in a few grainy pictures), sound city governance in Park Ridge, free of cronyism, back-room deals, and fiscal ineptitude, seems to be a mythical thing, hiding somewhere deep and unconfirmed in the back rooms of City Hall, or perhaps, in the dark waters of Murphy Lake. I'm still looking for it, perhaps - probably - in vain. I may be better off focusing my efforts on tilting at windmills. But for now, I remain Seeking Nessie.

First, a brief primer on the rules of what kinds of activities exempt organizations can engage in without endangering their exempt status. Lobbying by nonprofits is perfectly legal and supported by the Internal Revenue Service's regulations. There are several categories of exempt organizations, including those exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) (charitable, scientific, educational groups) and under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) (social welfare or action groups). Under IRS regulations, entities exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) - such as churches, and integrated auxiliaries of a church or of a convention or association of churches - have strict limits on the amount of lobbying they can conduct.

While there are treatises on exempt organizations that are tremendously dense and highly informative, one would surely have consumed a yearly supply of roughage by the time one digested even one of them. However, the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ("AAFCS") provides about as good of an explanation as any of what constitutes "lobbying" as is available for the general public:

The following excerpt from the AAFCS site (http://www.aafcs.org/PPToolkit/advocating.htm) is helpful:

"Lobbying Activities: . . . lobbying (or more precisely, "influencing legislation") is defined in Section 4911 of the Internal Revenue Code as:

"Any attempt to influence any legislation through an attempt to affect the opinions of the general public or any segments thereof; or

"Any attempt to influence any legislation through communications with any member or employee of a legislative body, or with any government official or employee who may participate in the formulation of the legislation.

"According to IRS regulations, a tax-exempt organization is attempting to influence legislation if it:

"Contacts or urges the public to contact members of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation; or

"Advocates the adoption or rejection of particular legislation.

"Section 4911 of the IRS Code also lists exceptions to the term "influencing legislation." These activities include:

"Making the results of non-partisan analysis, studies, or research available.

"Providing technical advice or assistance in response to a written request by a government body, committee, or subcommittee.

"Appearing before, or communicating to, any legislative body with respect to a possible decision by that body that could affect the organization's existence, powers, and duties, its tax-exempt status, or the deduction of contributions to it.

"Communicating with its members regarding legislation or proposed legislation of direct interest to the organization or its members, unless the communication directly encourages the members to become involved in direct or grass roots lobbying.

"Communicating with government officials or employees on routine matters."

NonProfitExpert.com (http://www.nonprofitexpert.com/political.htm) also provides some useful information:

"An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation."

Sound like something we've seen around Park Ridge lately? I thought so.

There is certainly a colorable argument that what the "Bully Pulpit Crew" ("BPC") is doing falls within the definition of "influencing legislation". The members of the BPC would be well-advised to look hard at the responsibilities they must shoulder when bestowed with the benefits of being tax-exempt. I would like to suggest that they take a moment to review a straight-from-the-horse's-mouth guide (where "horse" equals "Internal Revenue Service") which has been written at a reasonably readable level. The IRS's version of "Tax Exempt Organization Rules for Dummies" may be found at
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf.

I realize that "reasonably readable" is a relative term, but bear with me.

Now, let's talk about one of the horrible little hoops that the BPC's various organizations must jump through in order to maintain their tax exempt status.

Entities exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3), excluding churches and private foundations, can choose between two sets of guidelines for measuring whether their attempts to influence legislation constitute impermissible lobbying activities: a measure based purely on expenditures (the" Expenditures Test"), and a more facts-based "Substantial Part Test". The Expenditure Test is mathematical and set out under the Internal Revenue Code, Sections 501(h) and 4911. The Expenditures Test requires dividing the amount of funds used by an entity for lobbying purposes by the total budget of that entity to determine if the lobbying expenditures exceeds a permissible percentage. It also requires determining if certain types of lobbying exceed a permissible percentage of the total permissible lobbying expenditure.1

Fortunately for the purposes of this little foray into the world of exempt organizations, we don't have to look at the Expenditures Test, because after all, math is hard. Or at least one would surmise it to be for those who believe that the opinions of a few control the governance of the whole. But I digress.

Groups that do not - or can not - elect to use the Expenditure Test must submit to the "Substantial Part Test." As the name would imply, an organization’s attempts to influence legislation may not constitute a "substantial part" of its activities. The IRS measures compliance with the “Substantial Part Test" on the basis of “all the pertinent facts and circumstances of each case,” determined under a variety of factors such as the time devoted (by both paid and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted to the activity by the organization. Courts have interpreted this test in a variety of ways, from a 5% safe harbor (1955), to a ruling that percentages test are inappropriate (1972). Although the precise percentage of activities that rise to the level of "substantial part" has never been fully defined, the definition of lobbying under this test is not limited to expenditures of money. In other words, activities of volunteers to influence legislation must also be counted as lobbying.

While it seems clear that the BPC is attempting to "influence legislation", the harder question remains "Do the lobbying efforts of the various BPC entities constitute a "substantial part" of their activities?"

This I could not opine on - I simply do not know enough about any of these congregations, and as someone who once owned a t-shirt that read "I Survived Catholic School", I don't care to.

Moreover, while I am an attorney with more than a passing familiarity with tax law, I don't profess any particular expertise in the subtleties of exempt organizations. I have to imagine, however, in the great wilds of Park Ridge, there exists SOMEONE with enough expertise and experience in the matter to provide a reasonably informed judgment on the issue. Perhaps he or she is hanging out with Nessie.

I can tell you that the IRS has been focusing more scrutiny (and will continue to do so in the coming audit cycles) on the activities of exempt organizations. Exempt organizations as a group are undergoing far more scrutiny now on a number of fronts (excessive officer compensation, below-market loans to key company officials, and other interactions with officers placing the company in an unfavorable position). However, "political intervention" is an especially hot topic, given the pending election season.

A report issued by the IRS in 2006 (
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/2006paci_report_5-30-07.pdf) found a "disturbing amount of political intervention" by churches and non-profit groups during the 2004 presidential campaign. The IRS survey of 82 non-profits and churches found nearly three-quarters "engaged in some level of prohibited political activity." The IRS's Political Activities Compliance Initiative (PACI) will remain in effect for the 2008 election season.

Again, as to whether the activities of the BPC rise to a prohibited level, I am not qualified to opine. But they sure do tend to give me the cold and pricklies.
And finally, because I'm feeling particularly expository today, I note that the PADS issue can very easily become a very tricky electoral issue.

Without dismissing the importance of the numerous other issues to be considered in the next round of local elections, such as the pandering to "pay to play" campaign contributors (cum zoning variance seekers), the favoring of environmental cleanup dodgers, and the grubbing around in other financial boondoggles (the City is paying what for the Ekl report? the City proposed to spend how much on a feasibility study for the Frimark Memorial Highway and Underpass?), the PADS issue has proven its potential as a divisive, galvanizing topic. While one hopes that it will not be the case, PADS might - just might - have the potential of sneaking past - or at least running even with - pocketbook politics or kitchen table economics in the minds of voters.

Those voters who don't comprehend the fundamental wrongness of what the BPC and its minions are trying to accomplish, on both the "undue influence on government" front and the "imposition on the rights of the larger community" front, could easily seize on a mayoral or aldermanic candidate's stated opposition to permitting PADS to come rampaging into town as an unrestrained Godzilla (PADSzilla? with all appropriate imagery intact) as a basis to reject that candidate in the next round of City elections.

Obviously, there is a critical difference between "our city prohibits ALL homeless shelters" (with the subtext of "you bad, bad, uncaring, bigoted, and selfish people") and "our City chooses to regulate the location and operation of homeless shelters." For some, this difference presents a degree of subtlety that they are incapable of grasping.

I would say that (sadly) an unacceptably high percentage of residents in Park Ridge either (a) are not tuned in to the critical analysis of the issues offered by the PRU, PubDogs, or those individuals who have worked so tirelessly to craft sensible and reasonable regulations; or (b) are aware of, but actively choose to ignore, such analysis. These individuals are far more likely to take the easy and less mentally challenging route of voting for the pro-PADS candidate that their BPC leaders direct them - or coerce them - to vote for.

We can ill-afford to under-estimate the logistical and strategic concerns that will be faced by those current and potential leaders who actually understand the issues and the problems associated with PADSzilla in their bid to win or retain positions in the next round of City elections. But more importantly, as residents and social commentators (action item coming up!), it would be prudent to remind folks early and often that everyone can complain as loudly as they want to about the (in)competencies of certain of our elected leaders, but if one doesn't take the effort to campaign for, volunteer for, advocate for, or at the very least, vote for candidates whom one feels will do a better job, one becomes part of the problem.

Best regards,
Seeking Nessie In Park Ridge

Don't Live In The Dark!

Have a great weekend!


Addendum --

Check out the Pub-dogs today!

All you people opposed to opening a PADS shelter in a school or densly residential neighborhood, and daring to question the wisdom of your parish pastors? You know, all you people who've been called "unchristian?" Fr. Carl Morello has corrected that! You're not unchristian! You're "racists" and "economic bigots!"

Addendum 2 --

For our unhappy reader -- you are 100% right. Thanks, we very much appreciate your insistence.

Politics From The Pulpit!

Again the pastor at Mary Seat of Wisdom, Gerald Gunderson, is taking full advantage of the bully pulpit to engage in political organizing.

MSWGundersonPADSswill - Upload a Document to Scribd

Contrary to Gunderson's contention, not a single member of the PRU Crew -- and we suspect most other thinking people opposed to zero restrictions on homeless shelters -- has had an ounce of trouble sorting out anything on this issue. We're very clear on this issue. Your religious beliefs cannot be used to conscript the enitre community into assisting you in carrying out your faith. We're also very clear on this issue when it comes to the rights of the larger community -- health and safety first; personal do gooder deeds second.

We could agree that the current recommendation for restrictions on the location of homeless shelters in Park Ridge may make the task of providing shelter to the less fortunate not as easy as the do gooders would have liked, but it doesn't make the task anything close to impossible.

As many people have repeatedly suggested, the members of the PRMA and PADS supporters could easily house one, just down on their luck, homeless person in their own dwellings, as real guests, as many nights a week as they would choose to do. Of course, that may not allow for the public display of doing charitable works and the commensurate bragging rights a group homeless shelter provides, nor would doing that provide the PADS organization with more reason to try to suck up more public money, but those aren't the reasons for wanting to help the needy, are they?

However, there is one thing we aren't clear on; whether or not all this political organizing and lobbying for a particular public policy, on behalf of a secular organization, violates any of the rules governing tax exempt organizations. We suspect it doesn't, but we do hope our friendly correspondent of this morning looks into that.