More COW Bell!

The ding-a-lings we call our elected representatives will be holding another COW meeting this evening at City Hall, beginning at 7:00 pm. The agenda (.pdf) for tonight's meeting covers Finance and Budget, Public Works, and Public Safety.

The first item of business, under Finance and Budget, is an action item -- a. City Manager's Employment Agreement (.pdf). For those of you paying attention, you will remember this item of business was deferred from the last City Council meeting, in keeping with Council tradition. The PRU Crew feels the contract is more than fair for a City Manager position in a community the size and type of Park Ridge -- but we must admit, we're not sure there's enough money in the world to compensate anyone having to deal with our current crop of elected representatives.

Under the Public Works portion of the agenda, the PRU Crew cannot wait to hear the discussion which will take place regarding item 1. Parkway Tree Removal Policy (.pdf) -- and the PRU Crew is wondering what the hell the amount of $167,438.94 is supposed to reference in the cover memo.

The most recent installment of "Meatgate" was covered in one of the local rags here and here. Tree preservation and the Bonita Drive Bunyans were originally discussed on our blog here and here. We are particularly interested in hearing when and how a mere policy overrides a City ordinance, in addition to learning when and how the new City Forester Mr. Tony Gliot can override settled Council policy in particular cases. However, the PRU Crew does have to give a big old tip of our lumberjack hats to the Bonita Drive Bunyans who clearly live by the standard that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again! Two Mayors -- two City Managers -- Two Public Works Directors, and three City Foresters! Third time's a charm!

The last portion of tonight's COW meeting will cover Public Safety and the PRU Crew's favoritest subject, Red Light Cameras. B.O.H.I.C.A.!

And finally, the PRU Crew are very very very proud of ourselves for not making any tasteless jokes here about Police Chiefski's Pig Roast report!

We Are All $6,672 Safer!

Various news outlets and the Chicago Tribune are reporting today that the Mayor of Chicago has issued a one day suspension to a bureaucrat for circulating an email memo "warning police supervisors that the city was on track to fall far short of this year's "targets" for parking ticket revenue." The unfortunate bureaucrat broke the cardinal rule of bureaucracy -- never tell the whole truth.

When it comes to things like parking tickets and red light camera citations, the bureaucratic script must be diligently followed -- parking tickets are written because a parking law has been broken and red light cameras are all about safety at intersections. Everybody got that? Politicians are not, repeat not, interested in revenue generation from things like parking tickets and red light cameras. They are only concerned with public safety and enforcement of the law.

The bureaucratic script, demanding discussions of public safety and enforcement of laws, are particularly important when discussing the use of red light cameras and the potential for installing more.

So any local news story or memorandum (.pdf) that includes and emphasises the amount of revenue generated by the use of red light cameras should not leave readers with the impression that there's any truth beyond your local government's concern for public safety and enforcement of the law.

Everybody got that?

Freewheeling PRU Briefs!

item #1 -- "The only thing experience teaches us is that experience teaches us nothing." -- André Maurois

You don't have to have a kid in one of Maine Township District 207's high schools to have a legitimate interest in the budget cuts being considered by the District 207 School Board. So we strongly urge everyone who's got the time to show up to the public meeting set to take place tonight in the Maine East school auditorium, beginning at 7 p.m.

And to the teacher's union we offer the frequently used, WTF???


item #2 -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer

The PRU Crew still hates red light cameras. We feel they're a fraudulent public offering on the issue of traffic safety -- nothing more than revenue-generating ventures for cash-sucking municipal governments. And as soon as Commonwealth Edison gets around to turning on the power for the new red light camera at Oakton and Northwest Hwy., we'll all begin to hear that old familiar sucking sound, but we're sure the ball-less will feel perfectly safe.


item #3 -- "The treatment process does reduce the liklihood of recidivism." -- Dr. Jesus Padilla

In today's Journal & Topics on page 3A we had the displeasure of reading a small article titled, "Ald. Allegretti Refutes Story, Will Run Again"

In the article 4th ward Ald. Jim Allspaghetti denies being unhappy in his role as an alderdunce and claims he will seek re-election in 2011.

In other words, Ald. Allspaghetti promises to be a repeat offender. The PRU Crew feels the appropriate treatment process is for voters to have the opportunity to elect somebody else and send Allspaghetti back under the rock from which he crawled.


item #4 -- "You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions." -- Naguib Mahfouz

The Pub-dogs post today asks "the following question for Messrs. Ryan and Wsol: Why did you vote to make the City the appllicant for the zoning ordinance amendments to permit billboards, especially where doing so allowed GGI to avoid the disclosure requirements of the City’s ethics ordinance that are designed to combat kinky deals?"

If the Pub-dogs get any answers at all, we expect they will be very clever answers.

Back in the Saddle!

We hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving with lots of leftovers!

Tonight's City Council agenda (.pdf) is full of fun! The items of particular interest to the Crew are 1st Ward Alderman Dave Schmidt's resolution for a referendum on the question of building a new police station, the agreement to let PRC Partners lease space to another service business that doesn't generate retail sales tax revenue, and an agreement that will allow Red Speed, the red light camera company, to line their pockets at taxpayer expense.

We hope to be able to publish a recap tomorrow!

Attempting A Municipal Mobius Strip Trip!

Mobius Strip


Our source reports have come in and here we go, PRU readers! A council recap for your reading pleasure!


As most of you know the City Council met last night at Washington School. After the usual niceties of roll call and pledge of allegiance, the council got to work.


First up was a proclamation in recognition of the Rotary Club Fruit Day; the citrus variety.


Next, Mayor Howard reported on this past weekend's Strategic Planning meeting. According to the mayor, the city staff and council met on both Friday evening and Saturday to formulate their grand plan -- 12 formulated goals for Park Ridge to "move forward" in the upcoming years. Mayor Howard assured everyone that a report of the meeting would be available in the near future. We can hardly wait to see what this bunch of spendthrifts has planned for us now!


Then Mayor Howard repeated his prepared statement about respecting all points of view and that the audience has generally been respectful and he wanted that to continue. The Mayor went on to say that while a site for a homeless shelter was no longer being considered the council would still have to amend the municipal code to address the issue of temporary homeless shelters in Park Ridge. The Mayor also reminded those present that speaking time for members of the audience would be limited to 3 minutes.


Alderman Frank Wsol (7th ward) then offered a nice remembrance for the recent passing of Dr. Martin Doot of Lutheran General Hospital. Dr. Doot was a member of the Community Health Commission and instrumental in that commission's founding.


The City Attorney's report was next on the agenda. Buzz Hill, as required by ordinance for the responsibilities of the City Attorney, made a disclosure for Acting Director of Community Development, Ms. Carrie Davis. Park Ridge Plaza LLC is a petitioner to the city and Ms. Davis' husband works for the architectural firm that represents the petitioner; therefore, Ms. Davis will not participate further in the applicant's petition for consideration from the city.


The City Clerk, Betty Henneman, then informed the assembly that the recent referendum to stagger the terms of aldermen passed by nearly 70% of the vote. The staggering of aldermanic terms will begin in the year 2011.


City Manager, Jim Hock, then began his report. The first item of business was final approval of the ordinance regarding licensing regulations for temporary overnight homeless shelters. Mr. Hock clarified language in the ordinance regarding medical care -- "medical care, nursing care or clinical services may not be offered as a regular service at any temporary overnight shelter." Some exceptions apply to seasonal vaccinations, non-prescription drugs, emergency medical attention, and routine, non-invasive treatments.


The ordinance was motioned for consideration by the 2nd ward's Lord of the Manor, Rich DiPietro. Mayor Howard then asked the council if they had any questions, and we are pleased to report that none of the aldermen were dumb enough to admit it if, at this point in time, they did. The Mayor then moved to comments from the audience.


Ms. Jennifer Conlon, the champion of all things ministerial, rose to speak. Our sources report Ms. Conlon tried to finagle longer than a 3 minute limit on speaking time but, to his unusual credit, Mayor Howard denied that request. Ms. Conlon then read a prepared statement that repeated the same old, discredited positions held by the Park Ridge Ministerial Association and the PADS homeless shelter supporters.


Ms. Conlon then asked the council to vote against the ordinance, or to table it. And that is where the idea of a municipal mobius strip trip comes in. In the Crew's view, what Ms. Conlon and her cohorts -- each addressing the council to ask that they vote against the licensing regulation or table the ordinance -- were attempting to do after what has been a long, twisting, and arduous trip down the municipal process path, is to attempt to begin at the beginning again. Doesn't that sound like fun? Wouldn't everyone like to go through this all over again? Wasn't it fun? Everyone who's taken this trip could just take one more step and find themselves right back where they started! Rockin' good time!


Next Ms. Margaret Gallagher Smythe picked up where Ms. Conlon's 3 minutes ended, and she too repeated, for 3 minutes, the warn out arguments of how Journeys from PADS to Hope has been done wrong!


Next Mr. Joe Garvey continued in the shared statement, offering his 3 minutes to ask if Park Ridge wants to be a town that only "writes checks" to charities? As far as the PRU Crew is concerned, that sounds fine by us. But we are wondering which self-righteous charities will now begin turning away cash donations being offered by the generous residents of Park Ridge? Maybe Mr. Garvey should put together a list and let everyone know which charities don't want just our checks any longer.


After Mr. Garvey spoke, Mrs. Garvey rose to offer her portion of the endlessly shared 3 minute statement. Mrs. Garvey informed all present that she's lived in Park Ridge for 38 years and that after all the meetings it's very sad that there won't be a homeless shelter in Park Ridge this year. Jeeze, Mrs. Garvey, have you been sad about that for the past 38 years? Or did it take you 38 years to notice Park Ridge doesn't have a homeless shelter?


Mrs. Garvey took particular aim at Alderman Dave Schmidt (1st ward) and "his band of anonymous bloggers" who had "entertained" everyone and treated this issue "like a Saturday Night Live skit!"


-- The PRU Crew will pause now and take a bow! --


Though we were hoping to be more like "The Onion" -- we like this one too -- we'll settle for comparisons to Saturday Night Live! Knock, knock Mrs. Garvey -- Candy gram!


Mrs. Garvey went on to speculate on whether Ald. Schmidt was the source that revealed the nasty email from Fr. Carl Morello in which he accused those opposed to a PADS homeless shelter of "racial and economic bigotry." For the record, the PRU Crew states that we also received copies of Fr. Carl Morello's email, and Ald. Schmidt was not the source. If we'd gotten it a day sooner, we would have scooped the Pub-dogs!


Then Mrs. Garvey decided to sling some serious dirt and stated that Ald. Schmidt told a news reporter the PRMA was staging a protest march. We do not know if Ald. Schmidt did that, but we will say we believe we were the first to publicly characterize the PRMA's "Bellowing for the Homeless" as a protest march through Uptown Park Ridge, because march through Uptown Park Ridge is exactly what they did. These folks are really radicals! (editor's note -- paragraph content corrected)


Mrs. Garvey concluded her remarks by saying that Ald. Schmidt's actions may not be illegal but they have been unethical and "he deserves sanctioning from the citizens and council."


Well, Ald. Dave -- at least she didn't threaten to condemn you! But we do feel that if you run for Mayor you may want to skip knocking on the Garvey's door, unless you're delivering a candy gram! And you can take comfort in knowing that, even after having lived in Park Ridge for 38 years, Mrs. Garvey still only gets to cast one vote. Democracy is funny that way.


Then, on a roll call vote, the council voted 6 (Carey, Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro, Bach, and Allegretti) to 1 (Ryan) to approve the final reading of the ordinance regarding licensing regulations for temporary overnight homeless shelters.


Next came a motion for final approval for the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary overnight shelters, creating a special use permit process.


Alderman Bach offered an amendment to attempt to limit shelter operations to Friday and Saturday nights to "protect kids" and make sure there would be "no Monday morning overlap." Our sources tell us that they truly believe that this amendment was offered with conviction and sincere consideration for the school children and concerned parents, and that the PRU Crew should be nice to Bach today, which is why we aren't going to call him Bachtard for the rest of our post today.


Again it was Ms. Jennifer Conlon who rose to speak, and ask that all the "evidence" presented by the homeless shelter supporters on September 23, 2008 be included in the record. We don't remember a public meeting taking place on that date, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a meeting held with homeless shelter -- PADS supporters or that they didn't submit "evidence" to city officials on the subject. Ms. Conlon went on to say that there is no evidence to support claims that the homeless pose a risk, that there is no evidence that this will apply anywhere else children are present, and that this is discrimination against the homeless in violation of city ordinances.


Alderman DiPietro said he would not vote for Bach's amendment because he felt they have "talked this thing to death" and the amendment was "over the top." Alderman Schmidt refuted Ms. Conlon's claims of lack of evidence of the health and safety risks that homeless shelters may pose.


In a roll call vote the amendment failed in a vote of 3 (Carey, Schmidt, and Bach) to 4 (Wsol, DiPietro, Allegretti, and Ryan).


Then it was Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan's (5th ward) turn to try his hand at offering an amendment. Ryan wanted to add language that "parking for temporary overnight shelters be entirely on site, or immediately adjacent to, or directly across the street." Ryan was inspired to offer this amendment because several people had concerns about the homeless congregating in the area of a shelter and that St. Mary's did not have enough on-site parking.


Alderman Wsol asked if it was more appropriate to follow past parking regulations and would this apply to any other entities? Acting Director of Community Development Carrie Davis said "the regulations used typically satisfy parking for the use of the property", which should now make that issue clear to everyone.


Alderman DiPietro said he felt the current, relevant language "gives staff broad leeway to incorporate what Ald. Ryan is proposing." The City Attorney said the current, relevant language gives the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to fashion the special use.


When it was time for comments from the audience, everyone's favorite homeless shelter pusher, Ms. Jennifer Conlon rose again to address the council. After hearing the audible groans from other members of the audience, Ms. Conlon prefaced her remarks by saying, "Someone has to speak on behalf of the people who are cold", which we are told by our sources prompted the Herald-Advocate reporter to leave her seat and turn off a giant fan whirring in one corner of the room. Ms. Conlon went on to say that she thought Ryan's amendment was ridiculous and she asked whether the next regulation would be to have the homeless "wear little aitches (h)?" Now that you mention it, Ms. Conlon, that's not a bad idea -- it would make it easier for all the super duper do gooders to identify those in need and take one or two of them into their own homes, one night a week or 365 nights a year; your choice, and bonus! no regulations!


When it was again the council's turn to speak, Ryan took umbrage at having his parking amendment called "ridiculous", and DiPietro said he understood the intent of the amendment but that the language under the special use is there now.


In a roll call vote the amendment failed by 2 (Bach and Ryan) to 5 (Wsol, Schmidt, DiPietro, Allegretti, and Carey)


But Benedict Alderman Ryan was not deterred and offered another amendment to change language that would require application for special use to be made by the owner and operator of a homeless shelter, if the owner of the property were different from the operator. The motion for this amendment died for lack of a second. Still, Ryan felt the need to explain that he wanted to change the language so that the PRMA would be considered the operator and he felt there was no need for co-applicants, that the language as it now stands is onerous, and would discourage helping those in need.


On a final roll call vote, for final approval for the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary overnight shelters, creating a special use permit process, the council voted 5 (Schmidt, DiPietro, Bach, Allegretti, and Wsol) to 2 (Ryan and Carey) to adopt the ordinance.


At this point a member of the audience tried to ask Mayor Howard if she could address the council because many members of the audience had thought they would be given a chance to speak to the main motion just passed by the council but that Mayor Howard had not asked the audience for comment. Mayor Howard denied her request.


And the Crew would again like to repeat segments from one of our earlier posts on this subject --


"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. 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."


And we sure hope none of us is given a reason to have to talk about PADS or the PRMA for a long while.


In other council business, Ald. Schmidt refused to authorize another payment to the law firm of Ekl Williams, who our souces tell us has now billed the city for a total of approximately $100,000.00 -- 33% above the original bid for the police department audit. Ald. Schmidt said Terry Ekl had billed the city $2,000.00 to appear before the council and stonewall elected officials in answering questions. Schmidt attempted to amend the motion to approve the warrants -- payments of city bills -- to exclude the Ekl Williams bill, but the amendment died for lack of a second and the council voted 6 to 1 to approve the warrants.


The last items of business on the council agenda were approvals for an IDOT resolution to indemnify the State of Illinois for red light camera equipment placed on IDOT property, authorization for the city to enter an agreement for red light cameras, and to approve the placement of one red light camera at Oakton and Northwest Hwy. These three first reading motions were each approved on a unanimous voice vote of the council.


Finally under New Business --


1. -- Alderman Schmidt professed to having a "brain cramp" and said he had intended to vote "no" to the main motion to adopt the text amendment to the zoning code regarding homeless shelters. He reminded the assembly that the ordinances do not prohibit homeless shelters in Park Ridge, they only regulate them, and he urged all citizens interested in the issue of homelessness to rally behind the Park Ridge Center of Concern.


2. -- Alderman Schmidt said there is a difference of opinion regarding the building of a new police station and that to address this difference he would introduce a resolution at the next city council meeting, asking the council to approve a resolution for a referendum vote on the issue. PRUdos to Ald. Schmidt!


3. -- Resident John Humm asked the council about any follow-up report on the flooding issues and whether the Sibley Pump Station had been repaired yet. Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim said the pump would be repaired tomorrow. Ald. Bach told Mr. Humm he has asked the City Engineer for a report, and also if Mr. Humm would be willing to participate in meeting with himself, the Mayor and various government muckety mucks to see if they can find a solution -- "solution" being "government speak" for money -- to the flooding problems.


With that, the council adjourned the meeting.

Solutions Seeking Problems!

photo credit: pissedpoet pics; artist, Henry Bateman

Or, bait and switch, if you prefer.

The PRU Crew feels today's post title perfectly captures the essence of one of the meetings set to take place tonight.

First up will be a Special Public Safety Committee meeting whose members, Chairman Frank Wsooooolman (7th ward), Don Bachtard (3rd ward), and James Allspaghetti (4th ward) will take action to "APPROVE IDOT RESOLUTION AGREEING TO INDEMNIFY THE STATE OF ILLINOIS FOR PHOTO ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO IDOT FACILITIES."

If nothing else, government bureaucracy is exceptionally good at finger pointing.

In the cover memo (.pdf) for tonight's meeting we read that "IDOT does not allow Red Light Cameras at intersections interconnected with railroad crossing signals"; the Oakton and Dee intersection, that was originally recommended for a red light camera by Red Speed. We wonder if the consultant, Mr. Liebert of Red Speed, knew about the IDOT regulation the first time his company studied and then recommended that intersection in Park Ridge? He's an expert in this area, isn't he?

It is also interesting to note that the intersection now being recommended for a red light camera, Oakton and Northwest Hwy., was not among the intersections initially recommended by either of the red light camera companies asked to do studies. According to the August 7, 2008 Public Safety meeting minutes (.pdf) Mr. Liebert's Red Speed company studied 5 intersections and recommended 3 intersections for red light camera installation: one camera at Oakton & Dee, Summit & Touhy, and Cumberland & Devon. Red Speed didn't study the intersection of Oakton and Northwest Hwy.; that was probably left to the other red light camera company, Red Flex.

According to the July 17, 2008 minutes (.pdf) of the Public Safety Committee meeting, Red Flex did not find enough violations at the 5 intersections they studied to justify installation of red light cameras. And according to acting Chief of Police Swoboda, the "top ten intersections" in Park Ridge were studied by these red light camera companies. Anyone care to guess whether or not the intersection of Oakton and Northwest Hwy. was among the "top ten intersections" studied?

So now, since IDOT won't allow installation of a red light camera at the intersection originally recommended by Red Speed, all the red light camera fans can all take comfort that another study was done and, voila! There now appear to be enough violations at the newly recommended intersection to justify installation of a city cash generator -- oh, sorry! We meant to say red light photo enforcement equipment.

And can anybody tell us why the other two intersections originally recommended by Red Speed weren't selected?

What's that sucking sound, you may ask? That's the sound of red light camera fans sucking up the "safety" koolaid while getting their taxpaying wallets hoovered. Just lay back and try to enjoy it.


And it will all take place tonight, along with another favorite topic -- "final approval of an ordinance regarding licensing regulations of temporary overnight shelters to be included in the Municipal Code, Chapter 12" and "final approval of an ordinance for Text Amendment TA-08-02 to the Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary overnight shelters, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission" -- that is, if the darkside forces can't manage to have the ordinances tabled, so that they can, at some point in the not too distant future, try again to circumvent the will of the people.

Just lay back and try to enjoy it.

To Secure The Blessings Of Liberty!

That's right, we're still on it!

We've told PRU readers about the discussions taking place to install Red Light Cameras at "dangerous" intersections; all one of them.

We've discussed the issue here, here, here, here, here, and here.

In today's edition of the Herald-Advocate, we read City may add cameras at RR depots.

It sure looks to us as if the City is willing to install cameras almost everywhere!

Except here of course, as we again discussed here....because you know, it's not as if anything is going on here or there that is a threat to our blessings of liberty.

City officials are willing to discuss turning cameras on the citizens in public spaces, under the auspices of security and safety. So why aren't they willing to return the favor by turning those cameras on themselves?

A Spotlight On Private Citizen's Comment!

Yesterday, Private Citizen said...

"Who cares if "safety" is a ploy.

What's so bad about red light cameras?

They might keep people from blowing a red light which in
turn might make the streets safer.

Even if they don't do that, they'll generate revenue for the city.

I don't see the down side here".

August 27, 2008 10:47 PM

The PRU Crew says...

We care. We care because we've had a belly full of bullshit getting shoveled to the citizens. We care because we are sick of the bullshit that busy, distracted, and sometimes unthinking citizens seem willing to swallow from ploy employing bullshit artists. We care because we actually believe in concepts like "truth in advertising". We care because we have the right to demand that governments not just appear to be doing something, but actually produce results. We care because when a government tells citizens they are doing something for their safety, they better mean it and do it. We care because the consequences for failing to deliver on promises of increased safety for citizens can be very fucking serious. We care because claiming to provide a mechanism for increased safety that may actually produce some greater harm of unintended consequences can't be balanced out by any amount of increased revenue.

We care because the bullshit, cavalier, bureau-rat mindset of statements like yours, Private Citizen, are why there is so much waste in government and apathy among citizens who've grown tired of even bothering to fight the fight.

We care. That's why this blog exists.

Of Cops, Cameras, And Enforcement.

As you should know by now, the Ekl Williams report on the Park Ridge Police Department contained a rather lengthy dedication to the subject of elected officials who meddle in police enforcement matters; of course, without naming those elected officials.

Two examples of the pols interfering in enforcement issues were discussed: the zero tolerance law for underage drinking, and crossing the railroad crossing while the gates were down.

As you may recall, Aldermen James Allspaghetti (4th ward) and Don Bachtard (3rd ward) were the elected officials complaining of aggressive zero tolerance enforcement. We do not have confirmation of who complained about gate crossings.

As you may also recall, it has been Ald. Bachtard who has lead the charge to bring red light cameras to Park Ridge.

And as you may recall, we oppose red light cameras; observing that cameras cannot prevent accidents -- they can only record them. We will continue to maintain that it is the police who should be asked and then supported in the enforcement of the law.

As a glaring example of the above, we offer the below -- please dedicate a full 27 seconds to watching the video.



Just so we're all clear about the difference between what cameras can do and what officers can do.

It's For Your Own Good!

Last November we discussed the issue of Red Light cameras being installed at "dangerous intersections" throughout Park Ridge. Alderman Don Bachtard (3rd ward) was reportedly prompted into action on this idea because "a driver running through a red light broadsided the son of one of his constituents at Oakton and Greenwood Avenue."

We criticized the idea as being more about revenue generation for municipalities and less about safety than either elected officials or the red light camera companies are willing to admit. But Ald. Bachtard has pushed the idea forward.

We respect Ald. Bachtard's professed concerns for safety. We expected that after his remarks about safety, and his push for two red light camera companies to conduct studies at various intersections around Park Ridge, we would be able to read about the studies and learn about the anticipated reduction in accident rates at those dangerous intersections, especially the intersection where the son of one of his constituents was broadsided; Oakton and Greenwood Ave.

But so far, we haven't been able to find much in the way of discussion of a hoped for increase in safety or estimated reduction in accident rates at the intersections only one of the two red light camera companies studied and recommended for camera installation. Neither the July 17, 2008 Public Safety Committee meeting minutes, nor the documents available on the city web site for the upcoming Public Safety Committee meeting on Thursday, August 7, 2008 talk about such issues as estimates for reducing accident rates at intersections with red light cameras. And the two companies that conducted the studies did not recommend that cameras be installed at the intersection of Oakton and Greeenwood; the intersection where the T-bone accident happened that has spurred Ald. Bachtard on in his quest to install red light cameras in Park Ridge.

However, we were able to read, in a Herald-Advocate report on the issue, about the maximum amount of fines allowed ($100), the fact that the city can keep a percentage (how much?) of the fine, the monthly maintenance fee charged for each camera ($1500), and that there is also a processing fee (how much?) charged for each violation.

But in a report in the Journal & Topics on this subject, Alderman Frank Wsooooolman (7th ward) did manage to work in a quotable sound bite on the subject of safety and "minimizing the number of accidents". After all, the Wsooooolman is the Public Safety Committee chairman.

Addendum: Freewheeling April 15, 2008 -- reader recommended links on red light cameras.

Freewheeling - April 15, 2008

As we indicated in a previous post, we welcome PRU readers to ask questions of each other and discuss what's on their minds.

One topic that seems to be on the minds of some of our readers is the issue of Red Light Cameras being installed at "key intersections" in Park Ridge. PRU has covered the topic here and here.

Here's a list of recently recommended resources from readers:

1. Red light cameras too good for their own good?

2. Red-Light Cameras' Success Produce Financial Headache For Dallas

3. Effects Of Red-Light Cameras

4. Red-light camera monkey business may be a national trend

Some 411 from BCC

Last November, we told you about an article in one of the local rags that discussed 3rd Ward Alderman DreadBach wanting to revisit the idea of Red Light cameras; our post was titled Say Cheeeeeeeeeese!

One of the PRU Crew's favorite blog spots, BurbCopsChicago, has posted about this issue. It may be worth your time to read what our police officers have to say about it.

Please remember people, it's a blog for coppers. We haven't asked and we don't think they would mind much, but if you aren't a cop consider that it's their party before you jump into the comment pool.

Say Cheeeeeeeeeese!

In an article in last week's Journal & Topics, we learned that 3rd Ward Alderman Don DreadBach wants the Public Safety committee to Revisit Red Light Camera Idea for various and presumably dangerous intersections in Park Ridge.

According to the article, Ald. DreadBach was prompted into action because "a driver running through a red light broadsided the son of one of his constituents at Oakton and Greenwood Avenue." The article did not say if anyone was injured, and we hope nobody was. We would like to point out though that accidents are called accidents for a reason; nobody intends for them to happen. And personal experience alone or even along with anecdotal "evidence" is rarely if ever a good basis for determining public policy.

Setting aside for the time being our own visceral reaction to the continual surveillance of citizens, and serious constitutional questions about due process...

We'd also like to point out that red light cameras may reduce accidents according to some studies, but have also been shown to increase rear-end collisions in other studies where red light cameras have been installed. And we'd sure like to know exactly who is doing which studies and coming up with which findings. However, we feel it's safe to say that red light cameras cannot prevent accidents, they can merely record them. So while the Public Safety committee gets busy talking about ________ (fill in the blank with your buzzword of choice: risk-reduction, risk-mitigation, risk-management, risk-avoidance) be assured accidents can and will continue to happen.

The last time the Public Safety committee reviewed the issue of red light cameras was in February, 2007. Alderman DreadBach said he read the Public Safety meeting minutes 2/1/07 - pdf and "found several inconsistencies in the (minutes)." We are hoping that Ald. DreadBach can point out the inconsistencies he found - we have no idea what he could be referring to. We also hope he's read the excel traffic study, which appears to indicate the type of accidents that most often occur at the intersections studied are rear-end collisions; the second highest number of accidents involve turning vehicles.

We appreciate that Ald. DreadBach has stressed that his interest is strictly a matter of making Park Ridge streets safer - that red light cameras are not intended to be revenue generators. However, many if not most of the vendors who market their products and services to municipalities are far more shameless in their promises of increased revenue. Of the three red light camera vendors previously discussed by the Public Safety committee, one of those vendors, RedFlex promises to "deliver the most innovative, and comprehensive turnkey public safety programs that provide substantial benefits for our customers year-after year." Since municipalities are the customers, not the drivers, that sounds a lot like promising revenue generation.

The Journal & Topics article goes on to report that Ald. DreadBach "is not in denial or unhappy that the plan could do both" - reduce accident risks and generate revenue for the city. DreadBach goes on to say, "If it's going to add revenue to the city's general fund and make the streets safer, I'm not going to apologize for that," he stated.

Alderman DreadBach, you don't have to apologize for that, you just have to be honest about that.