City Council 12-6-2010 Video!

For the viewing displeasure of our faithful PRU readers!

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

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

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

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

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

Thus concludes our PRU civics lesson for today.

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

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

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

Enjoy the rest of the show!

To The Gills!

Hello PRU readers -- we apologize for the delayed posting today and appreciate your patience.

In today's online Herald-Advocate, we read 'Commission suggests changes for Touhy condo developer'. The article begins --

A developer looking to construct a 32-unit condominium building in Park
Ridge received some advice from the city's Planning and Zoning Commission.

The commission on Aug. 25 asked that Hoffman Homes, Inc. consider
reducing the height and "softening" the look of the building, which is proposed for three properties from 1963 W. Touhy Ave. to 1975 W. Touhy. Commissioners also said the density of the building should be examined, and the project (.pdf) should meet parking requirements under the city's Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed height of the building is 42 feet, which exceeds the
40 feet allowed for under R-4, high density residential, zoning. Plans call for eight fewer parking spaces than the Zoning Ordinance requires, and 32 units are proposed although the density allowed for the size of the property is just 12 units.

Everybody got that? 32 units on a site that currently contains 3 single family homes, but even with a zoning change, the maximum allowable density would be 12 units.

Think think. Think think.

Why would a developer believe he could ask for and expect to receive a zoning variance of that magnitude? Precedent, perhaps?

The zoning code does allow the city to grant variances for certain public amenities. If you're interested, you can read about all those amenities in the zoning code -- Section 5 Planned Developments (.pdf)

It could be possible that the public amenities the developer plans to offer are --

6. Community amenities including plazas, malls, formal gardens, places to
congregate,outdoor seating, public art, and pedestrian and transit facilities.

But the PRU Crew feels it's more probable that the public amenities the City of Park Ridge will be offered will be --

11. An affordable housing set-aside of twenty percent (20%) or more of all units as either rental or for-sale, according to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) guidelines.

Okay, everybody got that? From 3 single family homes to a building 42 feet high with 32 units -- in exchange for the public amenity of having 6 more affordable housing units in the City of Park Ridge.

Be still our beating, bleeding hearts!

Remember this PRU post? Density. Density. Density.

And who is the great guy from Hoffman Homes who will offer Park Ridge this great public amenity? President and owner of Hoffman Homes Inc., Mr. Norman Hassinger.

The PRU Crew read about Mr. Hassinger here. Doesn't Mr. Hassinger sound like a real great guy?

Be still our beating, bleeding hearts!

Avast, mateys!

The PRU Crew missed "Talk Like A Pirate Day" but decided to go marauding anyway. Our discussion today is an idea we pillaged from a comment we read in a post on the Pub-dog's blog.

Our regular readers may recall one of our early posts on the subjects of Journeys from PADS to Hope, HUD funding, and the State of Illinois' plans for affordable housing; we titled our post "The HUDdled Masses and More." In that discussion we told readers that --

"In a 2004 report released by the Illinois Housing Development Authority, Park Ridge was listed as one of the affordable housing community slackers (.pdf), right there on page 4. But what caught the PRU Crew's attention in that report was the section:

Local Control is Maintained

“One of the important provisions of the law is that local decisions remain with the local government and that all developments must meet the standards of the local community,” explained Dibble. “The community can tailor its own plan for its own needs and concerns. And once they have their plan in place, the community is in charge of its own destiny.”

"Communities also have the option of choosing one of three planning goals. They can adopt a plan that requires 15% of all new developments to be affordable; a plan whereby the community will increase its overall percentage of affordable housing by three percentage points; or a plan whereby communities will increase their overall percentage of affordable housing to 10%."

"The type of development – rental or for sale – as well as the type of buildings – detached single family, attached townhomes, condos, etc. – are all completely under the control of the municipality. Also, the population that the community intends to address is completely flexible and under the control of the municipality. Communities with aging populations may consider rental developments for seniors, but others may plan for a homeownership program for teachers, hospital workers, or other municipal employees. Still others may develop a program to retain the young families who grew up in the community, who are otherwise forced to find homes in other communities."

And that right there, our dear fellow Park Ridgians, means developers. Campaign contributing developers, along with whatever else those developers may deign to bestow upon a politician who may then look favorably on a new development.

Because what will happen is that any developer required to set aside some portion of a development for "affordable housing" purposes will then have a substantial reason to ask for......can you guess......that's right......increased density. Density. Density. Density."

What caught the PRU Crew's attention in the comment on the Pub-dog's website was a link to a pioneer press article and a reference to an Arlington Hts. task force, known as "ACT, an acronym for the Appropriate Conduct Task Force." Arlington Heights Village Manager Bill Dixon is quoted in the article as saying the task force has been asked to, "make sure our village resources are being used to the best they can be" and "He expects the task force to report its findings by the end of the year." And we were reminded of our cautions about how we here in the City of Park Ridge could find ourselves dealing with issues surrounding low income housing and a host of tangent issues and fallout from that.

So we went looking to find the promised "ACT" report on the Village of Arlington Hts. website. We couldn't find the full report, but we did find a set of village board meeting minutes.pdf (item #6 on the agenda) that discusses cameras at the Arlington Hts. train station and also some of the findings of the "ACT" report. It appears to us that considerable time, effort, and expense is being spent by the village of Arlington Hts. on the issue surrounding homeless loitering, though we note with general amusement each board members careful avoidance of actually mentioning homeless loitering as a problem. We also note Village President Mulder's references to seeking grant money.

We also found that the Village of Arlington Hts. has a Housing Commission and "Multi-Family Affordable Housing Policy" which demands "Developers of multi-family residential housing must now submit information to the Village concerning how they intend to address the Village Board's goal to promote affordable housing in the Village. The provision of affordable housing will be one of the issues examined when deciding whether to grant new Planned Unit Development of amendments to Planned Unit Development for multi-family residential housing."

The PRU Crew is wondering if the very visible homeless population that likes to hang out in Arlington Hts. has had anything to do with why the Village so eagerly promoted and adopted the "Metropolitan Mayors Caucus’ “Housing Endorsement Criteria” that include promoting transit oriented and pedestrian-friendly development projects, encouraging an array of quality housing options throughout the community including housing at various price points, giving preference to mixed-income developments, promoting good design in order to ensure the long-term contribution to the improvement of neighborhoods." We're willing to bet that any inquiry to Village President, Arlene Mulder, would be met with some variation of, "We simply responded to a community need that we saw. The PADS programs run by our churches have never been a problem."

But we all know, this is Park Ridge, our elected officials would never bow to developer demands for zoning variances for height and density just because developers cry poor-mouth. And our elected officials would never bow to those demands because developers may cry poor-mouth about being required in the future to set aside a portion of their developments for low income and subsidized housing. No way. That will never happen here.

We're sure there's no connection or correlation whatsoever between homeless shelters, increased numbers of homeless people, adoption of affordable (read low income and subsidized) housing policies, and developers. And surely there's no connection or correlation whatsoever between politicians and campaign contributions from developers. No way. That only happens in Chicago.

And as Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan (5th Ward) offered in his statement read by Mayor Howard at the last City Council C.O.W., "there is a need in the Park Ridge community" for homeless shelters.

If The Shirt Fits! Council Recap!

Attorney Terry Ekl -- Ekl Williams

Once again, we thank PRU readers for their patience.

As most of you know, last night the City Council had two meetings scheduled: A 6:30pm workshop, and a 7:30pm regular council meeting. The purpose of the workshop was for council members to be able to ask attorney Terry Ekl, of Ekl Williams infamy, questions about his investigative procedures and notes, and his final work product -- the police department audit.pdf.

After Mr. Ekl arrived nearly an hour late, Mayor Howard opened the council workshop with a statement saying that everyone had read and analyzed the report and that it is...wait for it...wait...time to move forward!

Alderman Don Bach (3rd Ward) then began by asking Mr. Ekl about travel charges for which he billed the City of Park Ridge. Before Mr. Ekl could answer the question, Mayor Howard intervened to suggest the question was not appropriate for the workshop.

Alderman Frank Wsol (7th Ward) was next and greeted Mr. Ekl and jokingly remarked, "I hope you aren't billing us for this time." to which Mr. Ekl is said to have tersely replied, "I am." Alderman Wsol then responded with, "Then you can stay as long as we need you to answer questions." Mr. Ekl responded by saying he would stay as long as he is asked appropriate questions in the interests of the city. Which leads the PRU Crew to wonder who exactly gets to determine the "interests of the city", the members of our City Council or Mr. Ekl?

Then the exchange between Ald. Wsol and Mr. Ekl got really really interesting. Ald. Wsol asked Mr. Ekl why he (Ekl) had named several officers in his report but had not named any elected officials? Mr. Ekl's answer to that question was, "What are you asking? Where in the report are you referring to? It is not in the city's interest to assess any blame." Ald. Wsol responded that he was not asking Ekl to assess blame, and he repeated his question. Mr. Ekl again asked Ald. Wsol "which part of the report" he was referring to. Alderman Wsol stated that throughout the report several city employees were named and that what he was asking Mr. Ekl is not to change his report, but to simply explain why he had done the report in this way, and then Ald. Wsol again repeated his question. Mr. Ekl then informed Ald. Wsol that he was "not articulating his question -- he was not asking intelligent questions -- he is pandering to his constituents."

At that point, we are told Ald. Wsol kept his seat and did not get up and slug Ekl in the nose. We are also told that the other Aldermen, and particularly Ald. Bach, did not have anything close to a positive reaction to this exchange. We're also told some members of the audience were betting on whose face was redder -- Ald. Bach or Ald. Dave Schmidt (1st Ward). And during this exchange between Ald. Wsol and Mr. Ekl, Mayor Howard remained silent.

Here the PRU Crew would like to interject a note for the benefit of Mr. Terry Ekl and any other interested parties; We think Mayor Howard and most of the Park Ridge City Council are often assholes. But make no mistake about it, they are our assholes. We hope that's understood.

Alderman Wsol then went on to ask Mr. Ekl several questions about several sections of the audit Mr. Ekl had prepared. Our sources tell us that each response from Mr. Ekl was as vague and evasive as his previous responses, but without as much piss and vinegar.

Alderman Robert Ryan (5th Ward) then interrupted the questioning to ask Mayor Howard what the "pro-cess" is for having Aldermen ask questions; apparently because the previous half hour had not illuminated the "pro-cess" for Ald. Ryan.

Then Alderman Rich DiPietro (2nd Ward) cited the municipal code stating the schedule and times for which the council is to hold their regular meetings. Ald. DiPietro used that citation as a lead in to motion to continue the question and answer jousting between Aldermen and Mr. Ekl to October 6th at 6:30pm. The motion was seconded by Ald. Bach, and passed unanimously.

After a break, Mayor Howard then began the regular City Council meeting.

Former 2nd Ward Alderman John Benka was reappointed to the Library Board and had several gushy statements of praise for the work of the board, the services at the Park Ridge Library, and particularly board president, Shlomo Crandus.

After proclaiming October Toastmasters Month.pdf, Mayor Howard offered some gracious remarks about city staff and aldermen regarding their efforts during the past weekend's deluge, noting that the city did a "great job" of communicating with residents. The PRU Crew applauds the city's better than the past efforts at utilizing its web site and the reverse 911 system, but we aren't too sure the delayed and somewhat confusing calls received by residents would fall into the "great" communication category. However, our appreciation of the people who make up the network of our city employees remains unchanged.

Under the City Manager's report on the agenda, Library board president Shlomo Crandus wowed everyone with a power point presentation about the results of the June phone survey the library conducted.

Next up, were some zoning changes for Fifth Third Bank, and a variance for some hapless resident with a garage that was originally built .88 feet from the rear lot line of his property.

Alderman DiPietro offered an amendment to the zoning change for Fifth Third Bank to include cost-sharing between Fifth Third and the city for alley paving at 10 N. Cumberland, with the city's share to be $20,000. Mr. Dan Shapiro, representing the bank, agreed that the bank would pay. Mr. Shapiro also asked that the council wave a second reading of their ordinance approval for this, but the council declined to do that.

The zoning variance was for a resident who is looking to replace a dilapidated garage with a new garage to be built in the exact same location it has always occupied. Sounds easy, right? Wrong. Ald. Ryan was "surprised that we are doing this" and wanted to know if this kind of variance is "normal". Ms. Carrie Davis, acting Director of Community Development, replied that the Zoning Board of Appeals had found this to be a valid hardship. The resident did finally get what he was looking for, with the exception of having also asked the council to wave a second reading of the ordinance approving the variance.

We're not sure, but maybe sloshing through flood water is exactly what some of our aldermen needed! Seems to have rinsed some of the cobwebs out of their heads!

The next item of business was to approve a warrant payable to Ekl Williams in the amount of $52,381.25. And it was Ald. Don Bach who led the charge against paying the bill at this time to Ekl Williams. As a grim faced Ald. Bach phrased it, "not one more dime."

Of course there's a pooper at every party, and Alderman Jim Allegretti offered "a different perspective", noting that he is not unhappy with the audit and believes Ekl should be paid now.

Alderman Wsol offered an amendment to the motion to approve payment by including the condition that payment would be made "provided the City Manager receive all background information supporting the submitted report."

The Council then debated the merits and demerits of the amendment at some length, with Mayor Howard asking if the background information would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Substitute City Attorney, Kathy Henn, responded that "maybe parts" of the information could be subject to FOIA. Ald. Wsol then asked if, according to the FOIA law, names could be redacted from the materials. Ms. Henn replied that names could be redacted, but the content could not.

Alderman Schmidt stated that he thought the Ekl report was "flimsy" -- he had asked for the background information and wants to see it for himself. Ald. Schmidt offered that he agreed 100% with Ald. Bach and that Mr. Ekl should be reminded of "who works for who."

Alderman Bach then reiterated his disappointment with the report and noted that Ekl was an hour late in showing up to the council. Ald. Bach also strongly challenged Ekl's accusation that Ald. Wsol is pandering to constituents, saying he believes council members are responding to constituent's concerns. His final comment likened the Ekl report to "Swiss cheese".

Mayor Howard attempted to defend the late arrival of Mr. Ekl by noting that Ekl did, in fact, call the City Manager to say he would be arriving late. Sources tell us Mr. Ekl was coaching a kids football game. We're guessing Mr. Ekl's team lost, which may explain his surly behavior toward the City Council.

Mayor Howard, Aldermen Allegretti and Ryan all tried to persuade their council peers that the Ekl bill should be paid now, with Ald. Ryan noting that he "understands people have mouths to feed and he hates to delay professional service fees."

But get ready for this one folks -- it was Alderman Tom Carey (6th Ward) who demonstrated the greatest clarity of thought and reality-based thinking by offering that it seemed best for the council to defer payment of the bill until Ekl returned on Oct. 6th to continue answering the council's questions about the audit; noting, in as diplomatically stated terms as he could muster, that Ekl may decide not to come back to answer council questions if he's already been paid.

~~~THUD~~~

Holy wow! You think????? Rock on solid, Alderman Carey!

And after some further discussion, and a motion to "substitute for the whole" Ald. Carey's recommendation, the council voted to defer payment of the Ekl Williams bill until Mr. Ekl returns to the City Council to answer questions about the audit.

Finally, the City Council voted to increase ambulance fees and approve the proposal from Disclosure Video Systems to install and upgrade security cameras at City Hall, the police department, and our two train stations.

Under "New Business", we are told council members babbled on about various subjects and that those interested in the process for licensing of temporary homeless shelters should watch the council schedule carefully for upcoming meetings.

Never a dull moment!

Kafka? No! Kopkaesque!

We've never seen anything like it! The speed! The agility!

Last week we posted a letter to the editor from Mr. Steve Kopka, who was protesting the plan to put another drive through bank in Park Ridge on the old Napleton parking lot near Uptown, and a CVS pharmacy on the site of the old Napleton Cadillac dealership.

Today we read in the Journal and Topics that the bank in question, CenTrust, is backing off of their plan.

JT73008CenTrust - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: JT73008CenTrust

In the Journal article today, CenTrust Chairman and CEO Carl Vander Wilt says that zoning variances and the process are too risky for his bank to go through. -- O.K., stop that! Really! That's enough laughing! -- But that's not what Mr. Vander Wilt was saying just a few days ago.

In an online Herald-Advocate update, Mr. Vander Wilt credited "concerns that residents in neighboring blocks had expressed about a bank at that location."

Also in the Journal and Topics article today we read that "some city officials...were not aware" of CenTrust's "recent change in plans" but that Mayor Howard was contacted personally about CenTrust's decision.

So what do you think, PRU readers? Think Mayor Howard isn't communicating with "some city officials"? Or, was Mayor Howard denying knowledge of the change in plans to the local press? Is anyone else willing to describe the current administration of Mayor Howard as "Kafkaesque"? And why is Mr. Vander Wilt now singing a different tune?

Is it possible that Mr. Kopka's letter to the editor and the efforts of other area residents that have produced one of the most rapid responses to citizen concerns that we've ever seen is viewed as threatening by the Kafkaesque Mayor Howard?

The PRU Crew can't say for sure. But from now on, whenever the concerns of citizens of Park Ridge are met with this kind of rapid response we're going to be calling it Kopkaesque!

The Banty Cock Crows!

Shortly before the Holidays, the citizens of Park Ridge were treated to another round in the continuing saga of Kemerer v. Schmidt (Pub-dogs post 12-20-07)

Mr. David Kemerer, known 'round PRU as the self-titled "Cousin Dave", wrote yet another letter to the local rags; this time, defending all things Benedict Alderman Ryan (5th Ward). The PRU Crew is beginning to think Ryan may be as illiterate as Mayor Frimark, since he hasn't taken the time to write any of his own letters, communicating his own position and defending his own vote before the citizens of Park Ridge - many of whom believe Ryan is doing everything EXCEPT representing them.

The Pub-dogs note that Ryan did indeed hold private discussions with one (or more) of the investors in Norwood's Park Ridge 2004 LLC, whose request was then pending before the council. We believe that investor was Mr. John Chipman, who was eager to have Ryan's affirmative vote for approval of the density variance Norwood was seeking for their condo project at Executive Office Plaza. And Chipman eventually got that affirmative vote.

Mr. Kemerer has spent considerable time on the subject of Executive Office Plaza, as well as considerable time on researching and discussing the issue of a recall ordinance for local elected officials that has been proposed by Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg (1st Ward).

Mr. Kemerer treated PRU readers to some lengthy discussion of the topic of a recall in his "Cousin Dave" comments (#21, #24, #27) in our Worse Than Kool-aid! post. Noting specifically in one comment that we had better "buckle our seat belts" because he had to "throw a little law" at everybody.

And now it appears we may know why Mr. Kemerer has had so much valuable attorney time to dedicate to stumping for Norwood, defending the "honor" of Benedict Alderman Ryan, and attempting to provide Alderman Schmidtzkrieg with etiquette lessons...


ARDC Lawyer Search Results

The ARDC's website notes:

REMOVAL FROM AND REINSTATEMENT TO THE MASTER ROLL OF ATTORNEYS

Supreme Court Rule 756 provides that on February 1 of each year, the ARDC must remove from the master roll the name of any lawyer who has not registered for that year. The rule also provides that any lawyer who practices law while not on the master roll engages in the unauthorized practice of law and may be held in contempt. ARDC sends a Final Registration Notice in January, warning unregistered attorneys that they will be removed from the master roll if they do not register. Shortly after the removal, ARDC sends notice of an attorney's removal to the attorney and to the Chief Judges and Clerks of the circuit courts in which the removed attorney was registered.

If you have been removed from the master roll for failure to register, you can be reinstated by registering and paying the registration fee and any penalty due.

Mr. Kemerer may we suggest, the next time you "throw a little law" at anybody, that you make sure you are authorized to do so? Or give folks a heads up about your lapsed registration status? After all, you must know that those hearing and reading your words are doing so under the presumption that you are an attorney, authorized to practice law. Letting folks know you, in fact, are not seems like the polite thing to do.

Thanks.

Tip of the Iceberg.

First we read a story in the Journal & Topics about Local House Foreclosures Continue Nasty Climb, which included some stats for Park Ridge. The article reports that "according to this latest information, Park Ridge's foreclosures increased by 147%, going from 32 to 79."

Tell us again how increasing density for new condominium projects is good for Park Ridge?

Then we read two articles in Crain's: one about the Foreclosure wave builds, and another about the Wave of need bleeds charities.

Maybe people can pick up an extra box of Mac-n-Cheese to show some thanks to Kraft foods for their charitable efforts, then deliver that extra box to Emergency Food Pantry - General Assistance - Maine Township.

And just in case anybody thought the Average Joe was going to catch a break, burbcopschicago put up an article to wish everybody a Merry F---ing Xmas From BGPD. They get it because they are out there every day seeing it. The working stiffs get stiffed from every direction.

The PRU Crew still hopes the good and blessed people of Park Ridge can dig a little deeper this Holiday season and give a little bit more to those less blessed, both within and without of our community.

Worse Than Kool-aid!

The games have begun! In today's issue of the Journal & Topics, we read two interesting items. The first is an article about the amazing disappearing council agenda item regarding council decorum:


click on above photo for larger view

It seems the city council has more than one whiny cry baby occupying a seat. It appears the 5th Ward's Benedict-Alderman Ryan went running to the Mayor to wail about a personal email from the 1st Ward's Alderman Schmidtzkrieg that he didn't like, and the Mayor was willing to place the item on the city council agenda for public discussion. We understand that Benedict-Alderman Ryan isn't used to being strongly challenged either publicly or privately, but we had no idea he was such a remarkable cry baby.

According to Mayor Fri-nocchio, he pulled the item from the council agenda because he was afraid the meeting would last too long. Since that entire city council meeting was about 30 minutes in length, we feel Mayor Fri-nocchio must have pulled the agenda item for other reasons. And we are digging in to find out why.

The second item of interest is a letter from 1st Ward resident Dave Kemerer:


click on above photo for larger view

Mr. Kemerer accuses Alderman Schmidtzkrieg of having a "penchant for loose rhetoric." It appears to us that Mr. Kemerer has a penchant for "loose truths." As an attorney, Mr. Kemerer should know better than to declare something unconstitutional before a court has declared something unconstitutional. But we feel the crux of the matter for Mr. Kemerer is not necessarily the truth involved with the constitutionality of a recall ordinance as much as it may be his desire to spin the message and provide his pals with cover.

It appears to us that Mr. Kemerer isn't any better with numbers than he is with his treatment of the truth. The final vote to approve the density variance for Norwood's condominium project was 4 to 3. Schmidtzkrieg was joined in voting "no" by Aldermen Wsooooolman and DreadBach. So, in fact, "the rest of the council" did not "conclude" that the density variance was justified.

Mr. Kemerer also seems extremely concerned that Alderman Schmidtzkrieg may run for mayor - something Schmidtzkrieg himself has said he is not doing, much to the PRU Crew's disappointment.

We wonder what Mr. Kemerer is "running" for?

In any case, what is going on here is that the Usual Suspects Club is cranking up the smear and spin machine. It's of vital importance that a representative with populist appeal gets knocked down and dragged around so that the politically connected can have their way with public policy.

It's nothing more than absolute bullshit.

The Tao of Traffic Calming.

The city council's Public Works committee has been discussing many issues of importance. Seriously! The Public Works committee decides the philosophy of why, how, and when the largest portion of the city's more than $50,000,000.00 budget will be spent.

The Public Works committee recently discussed revisions to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy. Careful consideration is being given to implementing policies that are governed by "sound engineering judgement", while at the same time satisfying the desires of residents.

The Public Works committee minutes from 9/17/07 contains the following:

"Alderman Ryan stated that he agreed with #8 of the Engineering Criteria that requires a resident petition to have 75% support prior to implementation of a traffic calming measure, though he noted it was a philosophical issue."

And for multi-unit condominium developments with variances beyond the zoning code? What is Alderman Ryan's philosophy on resident support for that?

A Space Odyssey.

Last evening's city council meeting was nothing if not a resounding display of how tightly sealed the pod bay doors have been shut in the minds of some council members on the condo project commonly known as Executive Office Plaza (EOP).

Alderman Dave Schmidtzkrieg (1st ward) made a determined effort to see to it the interests of Park Ridge residents were addressed; particularly residents living in the neighboring 5th ward. After all, somebody has to represent the folks in the 5th ward. Benedict-Alderman, Robert Ryan, sure isn't doing that even when he does manage to make it to a meeting!

Alderman Schmidtzkrieg attempted to amend the zoning map ordinance by offering his fellow council members a motion and opportunity to consider the more transitional and less dense R-4 zoning district.

5th ward residents Carla Owen and CURRB's Judy Barclay both spoke, and urged the city council to give thoughtful consideration to discussion of the R-4 amendment as well as the precedent-setting nature of the decisions before them.

Then, in case anyone was lost, 1st ward resident Dave Kemerer informed those in attendance that they are not living in Colonial Williamsburg, and that there is nothing so unique about Park Ridge that it must be preserved. Don't tell the Pickwick owners he said that, their feelings might get hurt.

Mr. Kemerer also questioned the wisdom of a "stable housing base", opining that we need to add more housing units in order to produce more tax revenues to off-set the costs of increased services, implicitly suggesting that the taxes from those new units will pay for services not only for their own residents but also for the rest of Park Ridge. Mr. Kemerer offered this suggestion without any supporting data. Mr. Kemerer also insisted it was unfair to make a motion for a less dense R-4 district "at the 23rd hour" after having "led the developer way down the road".

We're not sure what roads Mr. Kemerer travels, but we are sure he's lost the map for this trip. Mr. Kemerer, we'd like to suggest that just this once you pull over and ask somebody for directions.

Norwood's attorney offered that the motion before the council was not proper. He was roundly ignored. Norwood's attorney then went on to say that the R-4 zoning district "doesn't advance the development potential of the site". That's lawyer talk for "doesn't provide my clients with the potential level of profits they want."

Resident Herb Zuegel then addressed the council in support of Norwood's plan. Mr. Zuegel must have forgotten to print out a copy of his recent email on the subject so he could have read it to the city council. Mr. Zuegel's remarks before the council were far less strident and lacked his email's wildly speculative questions about the motivations of CURRB's Judy Barclay and others opposed to the density and height variances for Norwood's condominium project. Tsk tsk, Mr. Zuegel. CURRB and Judy Barclay have been opposed to a number of questionable zoning variances for the last 12 years. It is silly to now speculate that CURRB's or Ms. Barclay's motivations have anything to do with her having lost the election to Benedict-Alderman Ryan.

Schmidtzkrieg's R-4 zoning district amendment lost by a 4 (Allspaghetti, Lord of the Manor, Benedict-Alderman, Carey the unfriendly Ghost) to 2 (Schmidtzkrieg, Wsoooool man) vote.

Alderman Wsoooool man did make note of the fact that Guido Neri, a developer and resident of Park Ridge, had a project to build 25 townhomes on an adjacent parcel approved as planned.

Shortly thereafter, the city council voted 5 to 1 (Schmidtzkrieg) to adopt the R-5 zoning map amendment.

The next item on the agenda was final consideration of the ordinance to allow Norwood's Park Ridge 2004 LLC project to be approved. An ordinance for this type of a project is referred to as a PUD (Planned Unit Development). We think this one should be referred to as a DUD!

Norwood's Park Ridge 2004 LLC again insisted they have made every effort to adjust their condominium plan, and that they are "amenable to further discussions" on the issue of senior housing. No one has reported they saw any of Norwood's people with their fingers crossed behind their backs. Still we are pleased to hear the Lord of the Manor motioned to defer consideration of final ordinance approval until such time as a covenant, ensuring that senior housing be maintained on the site, is written into the final ordinance. What a concept! Get it in writing first!

Additionally, the Lord of the Manor had an enumerated list of conditions that would have to be met prior to the council's final consideration of the ordinance on October 15th; one significant item was the inclusion of an on-site Registered Nurse to provide consultation and care for those living in the senior housing units.

We still object, we strenuously object, to the characterization of the 50 senior housing units as senior housing units. What Norwood and Presbyterian Homes is offering the Park Ridge community is nothing more than age-restricted condominium units with a sprinkle of ordinary services offered by most insurance providers, local libraries, community centers, park districts and churches.

In response to the Lord of the Manor's motion to defer final consideration, most of those in attendance became aware that Alderman Allspaghetti's personal power grid had shut down, and his internal digital clock was flashing 12:00. Alderman Allspaghetti urged the council not to defer final consideration of the DUD since the matter had "already been deferred for a year". Alderman Schmidtzkrieg helped Alderman Allspaghetti reset his clock to the correct time by reminding him that the matter had only come before the council last August...not quite two months ago.

Benedict-Alderman Ryan, described by Herb Zuegel in his email as having "done his homework" on the Norwood - Presbyterian Homes project, said he "won't dictate the need for an on-site Registered Nurse; he doesn't know enough about it". Between his absences and incomplete homework, we fear we will have to give Benedict-Alderman Ryan a first quarter failing grade in Alderman 101!

We thought we heard that the Ghost of the 6th ward was present in the room, but we can't be sure. He made no attempt to communicate with the living.

And with that the pod bay doors opened and the motion to defer final consideration was voted upon.

Can you guess the outcome?

Daddy, I Want A Variance!

Veruca Salt

Developers must reduce condo project to build

"A developer seeking to construct four condominiums in Park Ridge's Executive Plaza will be allowed to do so -- as long as the project follows rules set in the city's new zoning ordinance." (emphasis added)

Full story: http://www.pioneerlocal.com/parkridge/news/522239,pr-execplaza-082307-s1.article

So, no golden goose egg for Norwood or any other partners in Norwood's Park Ridge 2004 LLC.

Several sources report that the developer is really pissed!

We would be pissed too if we'd made campaign contributions to Mayor Frimark, and the Citizens for Strong Schools committee headed by Mayoral friend and supporter, former 5th Ward Alderman Steve Huening, and all we got (so far) was a lousy zoning map amendment! We're willing to bet this will be a topic of discussion between Mr. Huening and his friend, current 5th Ward Alderman Robert Ryan, on one of their walks.

Norwood is purported to have fired their attorney, insider and zoning-guru, Mr. Jack Owens. We can't say for sure, but we suspect the "guru" part has something to do with the "insider" part.

Sources also tell us any revised plan presented to the city council will completely nix senior housing, underground parking, dedication of Touhy Ave. frontage, and the community park.

In other words, "Take that! Hmmph!"

That's known as throwing a temper tantrum...or as we like to call it, being a Veruca.

We won't belabor the issue but,

• The "senior housing" portion of the plan simply wasn't...




• The underground parking was a selling point for buyers, who are likely to be familiar with the delights of midwestern winters, as well as allowing the developer to "bury" one story of each of the buildings underground.




• The dedication of land along Touhy Ave. was moot, as the State can take whatever portion of property it deems necessary if Touhy is widened...




• While the "community park" was likely to be just the community of condo. residents' park.

But rest assured, we're pretty certain the 55-and-over set may make up a significant portion of buyers for units in a redevelopment of this nature; maybe as many as 50 out of the 160+/- units to be built? And the condo. association can always pass out brochures on behalf of Presbyterian Homes; the same brochures that the on-sight Presbyterian Homes sales office would have had if the plan were approved as, well, planned.

There's still one more council reading of the ordinance to go. We hope the council doesn't cave to the pressure that is probably being applied at this very moment. Though we think it's safe to assume nobody is dropping off any boxes of meat at city hall and saying "thank you for your time".

Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you will listen to me


Who do you blame when a project is slowed
Too dense and tall for the zoning code?
Blaming the council is a crying shame.
You know exactly who's to blame:
The greedy re-developer!


Oompa Loompa doompadee dah
You thought Jack was the variance czar
But now you know that it is not true
Like the Oompa Loompa doompadee do