Tomorrow night (August 7, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall) the City Council’s Public Safety Committee will have two issues on its agenda that deserve close public scrutiny.
The first is the long-awaited “Linkage Agreement” [pdf] proposed by that homeless shelter franchise known as PADS. All we can say is: What a joke! We can’t remember the last time we saw such a collection of warm-and-fuzzy nonsense masquerading as a legally binding contract. That the PADS operators can even present such a document to the City displays a level of chutzpah that we have come to expect from folks like Bill Napleton and those shameless real estate speculators and developers who think they are entitled to taxpayer handouts.
We can’t wait to see whether any of Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark’s alderpuppets have the nerve and/or the brass to step up and cheerlead for this meaningless piece of paper. We also hope the Park Ridge Ministerial Association and Fr. Carl Morello show up to give us their “Who Would Jesus Indemnify” viewpoint, especially now that the reports about violent attacks by homeless people seem to be increasing.
But that may only be the undercard. The more meaty discussion could involve the City’s ongoing pursuit of a big new cop shop. To that end, Public Safety Chairman Ald. Frank Wsol (7th Ward) has drafted a memorandum [pdf] setting forth a process for further exploration of this project. While it’s not a bad way to start, it does have a few shortcomings that should be dealt with sooner rather than later:
· “(1) Build a portfolio…” When discussing what our community can afford, we would like to see “hard” conservative numbers, not the kind of pie-in-the-sky, funny money projections that former City Mgr. Tim Schuenke was infamous for producing out of thin air when the previous (pre-reduction) City Council’s Public Safety Committee considered this issue in the spring of 2007. We would also like to hear an informed and detailed discussion of the effect financing of a big new cop shop will have on the rest of City operations and taxes for at least as many years as any bond issue will extend.
And because of how uncertain and speculative such projections become even 10 years out, we strongly suggest that the Public Safety Committee seriously consider a 10 year bond issue rather than the more common 20 year issue. Locking in long-term fixed and certain bonded debt obligations becomes increasingly dangerous when our ability to pay those obligations remains dependent upon sometimes wildly fluctuating economic conditions – including a potential property tax dilemma that could result from a combination of declining property values and the differing abilities of a home-rule taxing body like the City versus the non home-rule bodies like our school district and Park District to levy and collect more taxes.
· “(2) List all potential PD facility sites considered.” That’s fine, as far as it goes. But if we are looking at building a brand new building, why hasn’t anybody within City government – or even any of those high-priced consultants the City loves to hire – attempted to identify the optimal location in Park Ridge for that purpose? After all, a new cop shop is going to cost a lot of money and is intended to last us for the next 40 years. There has to be one spot in all of Park Ridge that would be the ideal location, based on: railroad track issues; access, distance and travel time to every area of the City; and whatever other factors the PRPD can identify as relevant to how it performs its services.
Until now, the City has spent all of its land acquisition efforts on what sites are “available” – which seems to mean which ones are on the market and just how well-connected (wink, wink) the owner(s) are. It’s time to identify the absolute best location for whatever new cop shop might be built rather than waste more time and effort looking at whatever site may be available and owned by somebody’s friend or political contributor.
· “(3)…It may be equally beneficial to re-visit a sampling of the previously discussed numerous weaknesses of the existing facilities….” That is exactly correct, but those “weaknesses” need to all be re-visited from the perspective of (a) space, and (b) how the proposed alternatives would substantively and practically affect crime prevention, crime investigation, crime prosecution, and overall community safety/security. Can anybody in City government, including the PRPD, answer this 4-part question: “If the PRPD had an additional 30,000 square feet of space like the ‘experts’ are recommending…
(a) what crime(s) that have occurred could have been prevented?
(b) what crime(s) could have been better/more successfully investigated?
(c) what crime(s) could have been better/more successfully prosecuted?
(d) how much safer and more secure would the average Park Ridge citizen be?
Until those questions can be meaningfully answered, further exploration of a big new cop shop, or even a major renovation/addition to the existing one, is a waste of time and money.
And before making yet another commitment to brick and mortar, how about figuring out what the human factors – the police officers and staff – still need and deserve in the way of salary, benefits, training and equipment. It’s those people – not a big building with a bronze plaque bearing the names of a lot of public officials – that keep us safe and secure on our streets and in our homes.
23 comments so far
PADS, along with Gunderson, Stone, Mozillo, Carrubba, have all put their names and reputations on the line – that their homeless shelter will be safe and a welcome addition to the city. They’re so positive of this that they tell us we should trust everything including our kids lives based on their judgment. They have vowed that the vaunted PADS screening process will keep anybody dangerous away.
So, if they’re so certain that this works, that they are willing to risk kids lives that it works, why does PADS need to be held harmless for anything their “guests” do? This document says “we’re certain that this is safe – so much so that we’re willing to risk your kid’s life; but we’re sure not certain enough that it works for US to risk liability!”
It really makes it clear what all of their priorities are. Sadly, it’s no surprise.
The following arrests reported by the Glen Ellyn Police Department support the view that PADS attracts some people who are safety risks into Glen Ellyn and are repeat offenders . . .
Arrest at a Glen Ellyn PADS site on Saturday, June 14.
From the Glen Ellyn Sun dated 6/27/08, page 16, under police report:
“Saturday June 14:
Resisting an officer:
James Joseph, 51, Addison; 8:35 p.m. at Covenant Church, 277 Hawthorne Blvd; charged with resisting an officer, disorderly conduct and public intoxication.”
People at the shelter called police after he became verbally abusive to them for being denied entrance.
From the Wheaton Sun dated 2/15/2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Public Indecency: James Joseph, 51, Wheaton (different address), 2:00 PM at the commuter train station, 501 Crescent Blvd., charged with public indecency.
Another Arrest at a Glen Ellyn PADS site–same person
From the Wheaton Sun dated 12/28/2007
Monday, December 16, 2007
Public Intoxication: James Joseph, 51, Addison (same address as the arrest in June), at 10:29 PM at the First Congregational Church, 535 Forest Ave., charged with public drunkenness.
In addition to these arrests a review of Glen Ellyn police reports shows that at least three other arrests for public indecency, aggravated assault, and public intoxication have occurred at Glen Ellyn PADS sites or in the same block since the end of April, 2008.
Contact the stakeholders listed below:
Village of Glen Ellyn
We know what their priorities are: Put a PADS in Park Ridge no matter what. As has been said many times, if all these holy hypocrites believed the crap they’re spouting, they’d put these homeless people on their own couches, or in sleeping bags on their own floors. But they don’t want them, either, although they sure can’t sell that to the sheep in their “flocks.”
Sure our police station is small and antiquated, but so was Mayberry’s. And Andy and Barney were able to keep the peace just fine with it. I think our police are doing just fine with this one. Pay them more money for the inconveniences they have to deal with and we’re all way ahead.
Reported in Pioneer Press Edison Park Police Blotter on July 31, 2008:
16th Districts Arrests
“A 56 year old man is accused of slashing an off-duty Chicago Police detective in the face July 22 in an attack at the shopping center at Devon and Nagle avenues. Gregory Sullivan, who lists his address in the 1700 block of Berkley Street, the same address and a PADS shelter , in Elgin…” Read the details http://www.pioneerlocal.com/edisonpark/news/1080300,ed-16thdistcops
Please spread the word that alot of Concerned Park Ridge Residents who have been fighting the Pads Shelter are currently out of town. If you are available we need everyone we can get to come out to the meeting and continue to demand answers about what this could do to our town.
7pm Mayors conference room, This is on the second floor of city hall, enter in the same way for city council meeting. Take the stairs or elevator to the second floor.
I like the symetry of this. Bring in more homeless so we have to hire more cops, which will justify us building the big new police station. Oh, wait. The homeless aren’t criminals or crackheads – they’re just down on their luck. Just ask the cop who got his face slashed, or any of the other victims of “down on their luck” homeless who will be coming here from other places. Where’s Todd Stull when we need him?
I like the idea of picking the best spot for a new police station. There have to be train and traffic factors that would impact that kind of decision.
It seems that we should get to vote on a $20MM+ expenditure for a new police station. Are the politicians afraid of the answer if this were put to a vote?
Anonymous on 08.06.08 3:35 pm,
I sure do agree with your comment. I feel the voters should be asked to vote on all big things, just like we should have been asked to vote on the uptown development before the City agreed to give the developer millions of dollars.
I think they are afraid of the answers from voters!
The politicians are always afraid of what the voters might say about how the politicians spend the taxpayers’ money. That’s why they don’t even want to go out for an “advisory” referendum.
Do you think Dist. 64 would have gone to referendum last year on that big tax hike if they were a home-rule body like the City and could have passed the increase simply by resolution?
Is there anything that is OK not to vote on?
Do you mean, not in referendum form? Sure. All the usual, day-to-day business that the various public bodies are charged with conducting, and voting to approve.
I am in agreement with that. It is just that based on many of the comments I read on this board there is no criteria for what would or would not requrie a vote.
Unfortunately al all levels of government there is such a lack of trust by the people they serve – they deserve this lack of trust. From what I see on this board anything that people disagree with they would want a vote on.
In the Advocate today, maybe you saw the article on page 3 regarding the building of a new police station.
Alderman Frank Wsol says he wants to, and I quote, “make sure the community at large – from every citizen on down to the businesses – supports it”.
I would suggest that Alderman Wsol’s desire for community support is a good one. Also, I would suggest that the best way to be assured that you in fact have the community support you seek would come in the form of a vote by the community.
I would further suggest that Alderman Wsol draft a resolution for the Council that will put the question of support for bonding and building a new police station in a referendum question to the voters on the April ballot.
Alpha:
I have no problem with your suggestion or your logic. It would seem to me that the criteria could be “questions where there are large capital expenditures involved should be put to a referendum”. This criteria was followed with the pool improvement and the schools (although that was a bit different) I am in!
But it goes beyond that. I have heard multiple times on this and other blogs that the whole PADS issue should be a referendum. This certainly does not fit into a large capital expenditure item. I know some will say that there will be increased expense for police but it certainly does not fall into the catagory of a large capital expense. It is more an issue where there is significant conflict about which direction this is heading.
The problem as always is that there has to be some agreement on under exactly what conditions an item goes to referendum and there will not be agreement.
What motivated my original question was a post that said we should be allowed to vote on all big things. How the hell are we ever going to reach concensus on that??
It is possible that you will get a poster here who thinks we are buying the wrong brand of plow trucks and want a vote on that.
There are two ways to put any question of public policy to a public vote.
One is by a resolution of the City Council, or other public body.
The other is by a petition drive of residents.
“Consensus”, as you seem to be using it and I’m understanding it, is not a pre-requisite.
I think they also need to explain more on why a whole new building needs to be built.
We hear about not enough jail space or separation of various sections of the facility which sounds odd especially the police station and City Hall have been in the same building since 1962 and after all these years they feel now they need a new building.
I was at the NNO Tues night and asked one of the officers and 1 did mention storage space and being cramped and that was about it.
It’s frivolous to equate putting a $20 million police station to referendum with putting the brand of plow truck to referendum. That’s the kind of bogus argument that the politicians and their stooges raise against referendums of any kind. But as Alpha Female correctly points out, if the citizens can get enough signatures on a petition to put the brand of plow truck to referendum, it goes to referendum – although I tend to recall that those referendums are merely advisory and aren’t legally binding on the City.
About 18 months ago, a regular member at the Community Center fitness area was circulating a petition to get the matter of a new police station on the ballot as a referendum. Does anyone know the status of that petition drive?
Thanks.
Here are a couple of suggestions on how to determine what should go to a referendum:
1. If the city has to issue a bond to pay for the item, analogous to committing the taxpayers to a long term mortgage that has to be paid off, the taxpayers should have some input.
and/or
2. Any capital (not expense) purchase over a certain amount (perhaps $5MM) should go to a referendum.
Any referendum should be worded so that the citizens only approve or deny the project; they should not have input on the project plan (ex. what brand of plow to buy). Once approved, the city employees should be empowered to do their jobs.
Alderman Wsol – this approach would determine if the citizens support this project or any other.
I am in agreement with both your comments. The point I was making was that, based on what I have seen on the blogs, people seem to want a referendum on anything they disagree with. You are correct in that the plow example is a far fetched example, but certainly not impossible based on what I have seen.
I have seen loud cries for a referendum on the PADS issue (I know if citizens get enough signatures it can and will be done) but this does not meet any of the criteria you suggested.
As somebody previously commented about comparing a police station purchase to the purchase of a plow truck being “frivolous,” it’s also “frivolous” to compare a PADS shelter referendum to a referendum on what kind of plow to buy.
But Anomymous on 08.08.08 5:48 am has stated some good guidelines for when a referendum should be mandatory.
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>