The Napleton $2 Million Secret. According to the Park Ridge Journal’s Dwight Esau, the Park Ridge City Council is making sure the tax incentive deal it’s handing to Napleton Cadillac is “done right.” (“Still Hammering Out Napleton Deal,” Jan. 9) If you enjoy government giveaways of your tax dollars to one of Mayor Frimark’s political contributors [pdf], or relied solely on Esau’s reporting, you might even fall for that propaganda. That’s because nowhere in his story does Esau mention that the “deal” embodied in the recently drafted “Sales Tax Rebate Agreement”[pdf] can give Napleton as much as $2 Million in sales tax rebates over 15 years – in addition to the $400,000 of “Environmental Reimbursement” by the City for demolition and environmental clean up costs of the former Cadillac site at the corner of Northwest Hwy. and Meacham so that Napleton can sell a “clean” site to Park Ridge Corporation, LLC (“PRC”) for the construction of more multi-family (as in “higher density”) residential units.
Frankly, we don’t believe for a minute that Napleton would pack up and leave if it doesn’t get this $2.4 Million windfall. It’s already open for business at the old Tom Noe site, and the local identity and goodwill it has established in Park Ridge over the years has got to be worth more than that. But we can’t really blame Napleton and PRC for asking for, and accepting, the sweetheart deal City Mgr. Tim Schuenke, Mayor Frimark and his Alderpuppets seem willing to toss their way.
So is this deal truly being “done right”? Absolutely…if you’re Napleton and PRC.
Shrinking Violet? When she was sporting her purple ribbons and railing about those evil new “Democrat” aldermen back in 2005, nobody would have accused C.U.R.B.B.’s Judy Barclay of treating any of the local politicians who displeased her with kid gloves. So we were surprised that her letter, published in yesterday’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Citizens predicted traffic problems,” Jan. 10)[pdf] warning of the dangers of Uptown’s residential density creeping into the neighborhoods surrounding Uptown, failed to name the “elected and appointed officials…with the dubious distinction of having voted for all the [zoning] exceptions on all of the developments.” That sure doesn’t help in the never-ending battle to hold our officials accountable for their actions.
We applaud Ms. Barclay’s stand on increased density and share her concerns. But isn’t her failure to name names the same kind of political pussyfooting that not only seems to have rendered C.U.R.R.B. pretty much an ineffective paper tiger in curtailing the higher-density condo developments, but also failed to inspire the voters of the 5th Ward in her campaign for alderman last April against condo-hugging, density-loving Robert Ryan?
Which One Is It? As the City Council continues to hide out in closed session meetings while interviewing several prominent and expensive Chicago law firms to decide which one we will enrich for investigating the Park Ridge Police Department (before or after Chief Caudill is forced out the door by the mayor?), the City’s Community Information Coordinator (“Hey City Hall, how about some truth in advertising by calling it ‘Chief In-House Propagandist’?”) is reporting that residents “are responding pretty favorably to the police department” in a survey that has been sent out since September (“Public Safety Board To Examine Police Survey,” Park Ridge Journal, Jan. 9).
So…is it the survey that’s the waste of money, or is the investigation going to be an even bigger waste of money?
The Carousel Goes Round And Round. We here at Public Watchdog are huge fans of citizen involvement in local government, including the writing of letters to the editor. So we applaud Park Ridge resident Timothy Janes for writing a letter printed in yesterday’s Herald-Advocate (“Weigh the choices on possible lawsuits,” Jan. 10)[pdf], in which he appears to argue in favor of the City permits needed at the new site of Christie’s Carousel of Learning (Park Ridge Presbyterian Church) based on which of the parties to the dispute – Christie’s owners and customers, or the neighbors opposed to the relocation – stands to recover the most money in whichever lawsuit might be filed.
Frankly, Mr. Janes, we don’t have a dog (pun intended) in this fight. But basing government policy decisions on who might collect more damages if they file and win a lawsuit against the City seems pretty wrongheaded. And although we’re not municipal lawyers, we understand that something called governmental immunity would likely prevent the City from paying any damages at all for good-faith exercises of its legislative discretion.
But our suspicious minds cause us to wonder why, after 25 years, St. Mary’s Episcopal Church gave Christie’s the boot. We also wonder if there is any truth to the rumor that this dispute really boils down to money – the money Christie’s is saving by relocating to another church rather than a higher-rent commercial property, and the money its customers are saving through lower tuition.
9 comments so far
Good Kibble and nice Bits PW.
If the city insists on preceding with the “giveaway” to Napleton Caddy it seems there may not be much that can be done. That said then, let’s hope there are 8 competent folks out there (I am thinking of 7 new alderpersons and a new mayor) willing to step to the plate come the next election. If this Napleton deal goes through that will be just one of many reasons to clear out the whole lot of them.
Come on Judy… get down in the dirt. Who you talkin’ ’bout?
The secrecy going on at city hall and the closed session meetings that seem to occur so frequently are really troubling. First, there’s simply the question about why so much has to occur in these closed sessions? Is the PR citizenry not capable of handling the information being discussed or what? Certainly the merits of an open government have to outweigh the city council’s and Mayor’s desire to work under the radar. Second, don’t these guys get that all these closed sessions just look bad on their face? The stupidity for them not to recognize that this reflects poorly is another reason to boot them all.
Finally, with no dog in the fight either, I think the brew-ha-ha over this Carousel matter is ridiculous. Who cares if they are in a church, in a storefront, in a tree, in a box with a fox or what? It’s a friggin’ preschool. It’s another small bunch of kids, cars, etc. coming into an already crowded area. What? Oh my, we passed the tipping point? And the idiocy of arguing against the play lot is just dumb on its face. And, yes, everything is about money. If they can keep their costs down and provide their service at a slightly reduced price to their customers, then good for them. I just have a lot of trouble finding that there is something nefarious going on here. Call me naive.
The Napleton issue is disturbing to a lot of residents and I personaly talked to my Alderman about it and I am under the impression he is NOT in favor of any deals. Although if true will probably be in the minority as with any issue concerning resident concerns whether it be taxes or density or traffic.
As for the article in yesterdays paper. If more people would get directly involved and even offer support to people like Judy or C.U.U.R.B perhaps they would have even more of an impact than they do now, I been to a council meeting or two and I haven’t seen an aboundance of people there, but I have seen Judy. So maybe instead of standing back and criticizing after the fact get out and join the fight. Just wondering, Did you help support Judy in her campaign? Or is hind sight now 20/20.
Watchdog….you are too soft on Mr. Janes.
Applauding him for writing the letter without taking him to task with what was in the letter?
It’s clear Mr. Janes has a “dog in this fight” and he is trying to bluff the city into taking the path that would lead to less effective lawsuits, at least that’s what it seems he’s trying to do.
In this case, the City needs to take the course of action they deem the correct one, not the one that has the fewer legal perils. It’s also my understanding that any lawsuit against the city would get dismissed. Perhaps all those lawyers working pro-bono need to tell Mr. Janes that.
Thanks
Wondering: We didn’t mean to suggest anything “nefarious” about the Carousel’s move. We were simply pointing out that Christie’s relocation – and the essence of the permit issue, as we understand it – is about putting a commercial venture (a private pre-school) in a residential area for what are purely commercial reasons that benefit a very limited number of Park Ridge residents: Christie’s and its customers.
Always Watching: You raise the old chicken-egg argument of whether leaders create their followers or followers make the leader. But just showing up at meetings doesn’t translate into results. What specifically has CURRB accomplished in the last 5 years?
Kaisersosay: This is the first time we’ve ever been accused of being “too soft” on anybody. We must be losing our edge.
I’ll tell you what they have done. They were gullible enough to believe Howard Frimark and then work on his smear campaign by tying up purple ribbons all over town. And for what? So Howard could make a fool of Judy Barclay by supporting her opponent and yet she still fawns all over him. Judy should have more respect for herself then to be flogged in public like that and then thank her flogger.
Sounds like “Thank you sir, may I have another?” After almost five years in city government (2 yrs alderman, 2+ yrs mayor) Frimark still has people like Barclay fooled.
“Caucus'”
Some time ago there was some talk about having aldermanic candidates selected by the same type of caucus system that the school board uses. What ever became of this?
It appears as if the up-coming election slates 2 caucus selected candidates to fill 2 vacating positions. Some years ago my wife and a couple of other fine citizens ran as Independants for the District 64 school board. The existing board and their superintendent [Fred Schroeder] were so insulted that anyone would DARE challange the selections of the “Caucus” [a grouping of the city’s finest citizens]that they mounted a smear campaign and hit the lawns with their “Top 4 for 64” signs. This experience begged the question: Why doesn’t the “Caucus” of -fine, upstanding citizens- select at least 2 candidates to fill each vacant seat? This way more than ONE person needs to go to the polls and vote on election day. With only the exact number of candidates selected to fill vacant positions there is no CHOICE. This is very similar to judgeships and MSD board positions where the heading on the ballot says” “Pick 3” or “Pick 4” and there are only 3 or 4 names listed respectively. There’s no need for anything but ONE vote to seal the deal.
If Park Ridge ever goes to the Caucus method of aldermanic candidate selection I hope that this group of Select-Men [women] doesn’t insult our intelligence like District 64 does when they select only the number needed to fill the seats, eliminate all choice and smear all others who’d run outside the caucus system.
JBuckely: Why should there be a Caucus at all for any local government election? What has the D-64 Caucus done to make D-64 a better school district?
Since your wife’s race in November, 1997, only one D-64 Board member has not been Caucus-endorsed (Ted Smart, elected in April 2007), yet during that decade D-64 became such a financial mess that it needed a sneaky $5 Million non-referendum working cash bond issue in 2005 and, finally, a major tax increase referendum this past April just to stay afloat.
The simple fact is that the D-64 Caucus actually opposes “choice” and has succeeded in making School District 64 elections the least contested among all branches of Park Ridge government: Since 1997 a total of 18 D-64 Board seats have been up for election, but only 20 candidates have run for those seats, 18 of which were Caucus-endorsed.
And when the only winning non Caucus-endorsed candidate, current Board member Ted Smart, defeated Caucus-endorsed candidate Shlomo Crandus in April, Smart was vilified in letters to the newspapers and (we’ve heard) in calls to his home; and Park Ridge voters were criticized as being anti-Semitic, the assumption being that the voters rejected Crandus – as opposed to affirmatively choosing Smart – only because Crandus is Jewish.
In our opinion, the D-64 Caucus is an anti-democratic fraud on the voters, designed to keep control of the D-64 election process in the hands of a small group of un-elected people who have proven to be totally inept in choosing qualified candidates for the D-64 Board but very good in discouraging any competition for its slate. Any similar type of caucus for any other branch of local government, even if it were to nominate two candidates for each office, would likely be no better.
[…] Let’s start with.the Napleton/PRC fiasco. Even though the agenda for tonight’s City Council meeting shows that the Sales Tax Rebate Agreement is scheduled for a vote, the City/Schuenke have deprived the public of the ability to read and consider for themselves the terms of that agreement by not posting it on the City’s website (as of 12:01 a.m. today). Although PublicWatchdog published that agreement [pdf] on January 11 (“The Napleton $2 Million Secret”), that’s no substitute or excuse for the City Manager leaving it off the City’s website of materials related to tonight’s meeting – unless, of course, his goal is to keep the public in the dark. […]
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>