There’s an old joke about how differently a chicken and a pig view the traditional ham & egg breakfast: The chicken may be interested, but the pig is committed.
That’s how we here at PublicWatchdog view the ongoing debate between those who want a PADS homeless shelter in Park Ridge, on one hand, and many of the parents of St. Paul of the Cross school children, in whose gym the homeless will be housed on Sunday nights. The PADS supporters are interested in helping the homeless, but the parents are really committed to the health and safety of their children.
The parents see the shelter as one night a week of comfort for 20 transient homeless versus the health and safety of 700+ school children from our community. Cast that way, it’s hard to justify putting the shelter at St. Paul or any other school, especially knowing that there are other available sites in town for homeless shelters even if not all of them satisfy the PADS “model.”
But we’re not just dealing with the health and safety of 700+ St. Paul school children. Because a PADS shelter will attract homeless from outside Park Ridge who might otherwise have stayed away, this is a civic issue that impacts the whole community. And that’s why the whole community should get the chance to vote on the issue via referendum this coming April.
Not surprisingly, that’s not what the Park Ridge Ministerial Association (“PRMA”) and the pro-PADS crowd wants. They’d prefer not to hear what the voters think and, instead, have Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark and his Alderpuppets hurry up and adopt the zoning ordinance text amendment recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission (“P&Z”) that permits homeless shelters as “special uses,” but only after they eliminate the recommended restriction on any homeless shelter locating within 500 feet of a nursery or elementary school.
But to make that happen, the Council will pretty much have to ignore a number of provisions of the zoning ordinance.
For example, the purpose of the zoning ordinance [pdf] is to address 19 separate criteria, none of which at first reading appear homeless shelter-friendly. Item “O” identifies one of those purposes as being to “[p]rohibit uses, buildings or structures incompatible with the character of the districts in which they are located.” We see nothing about St. Paul of the Cross’s zoning district that reveals a “character” compatible with temporary transient sleeping accommodations in an elementary school gymnasium.
Similarly, the purpose of a zoning amendment [pdf], such as the one P&Z recommended to the City Council, is “to permit modifications in response to changed conditions or changes in City policy.” It should be noted, however, that amendments “are not intended to relieve particular hardships or confer special privileges or rights upon any person or party.” [Emphasis added.] Such language would appear to disfavor a homeless shelter as one of those “special privileges” for both the transient homeless and the PADS supporters.
And because we are dealing here with a text amendment that will permit homeless shelters as a “special use” [pdf] that is not currently provided for in any of the classifications for existing zoning districts, it requires “consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses upon neighboring land and of the public need for the particular use at the particular location.” [Emphasis added.]
An April advisory referendum may not be the absolute best way to discern the “public need” for a shelter at St. Paul, but we can’t think of a better way. And it’s far more meaningful and objective than counting the number of white shirts at City Council meetings, or counting the names on competing petitions.
It should also be pointed out that even a quick reading of Section 4.8.D-4.8.E [pdf] and “Table 1: Standards for Zoning Amendments” [pdf] makes it pretty clear that a text amendment like what is being proposed for the PADS shelter cannot be adopted by the City Council without consideration of nine separate public policy criteria, three of which (Table 1, at Nos. 1, 2 and 6) stress the general welfare of the City as a whole over “just [the welfare of] the applicant, property owner(s), neighbors of any property under consideration, or other special interest group.” (Table 1, at No. 6.)
We’re still waiting for the PRMA, the pro-PADS crowd, or Mayor Frimark to make a plausible argument about what benefits a PADS shelter brings to the whole city, and how it promotes the general welfare of our entire community.
In fact, a homeless shelter may not satisfy any of the other six “text amendment” criteria, either, unless something in the City’s “Comprehensive Plan” (which we could not find on the City’s website) encourages zoning amendments that facilitate the establishment and operation of temporary homeless shelters in Park Ridge. Frankly, we doubt that’s the case.
But this isn’t really a zoning matter. It’s a political matter that’s being driven by Mayor Frimark’s rumored assurances to the increasingly politicized PRMA and its supporters that he could get them a PADS shelter using a City Council packed with a majority of his Alderpuppets and a P&Z Commission whose compliance was expected because every member of it was either appointed or re-appointed by Frimark.
But, remarkably, seven members of the nine-member P&Z actually stood up for school children and the community as a whole (over Frimark and the PRMA) when they voted last month to recommend the text amendment that contained the 500-foot restriction. And the two who voted “no” did so not because they wanted a more liberal amendment but because the proposed text amendment was not restrictive enough.
So with P&Z’s refusal to rubber-stamp Frimark’s decision, the mayor is reportedly scrambling to come up with some kind of “compromise” that might keep the 500-foot restriction but limit it only to times when children are in school. Maybe we’ll hear about that at tonight’s (October 6) continued City Council Committee of the Whole meeting, currently set to begin at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. The White Shirt brigade, fresh from yesterday’s pro-PADS rally at St. Paul, is expected to show up in force. Will they bring their bagpipes?
After having created this divisive issue with its secretive and heavy-handed conduct, the PRMA has now turned to staging political rallies and flexing its political muscle to get its way – without any accountability to the majority of our residents who will be impacted by this special-interest project. Apparently “playing politics” is also a kind of “ministry,” at least when the PRMA does it.
But if the PRMA wants to “play politics,” it should do so the most honest and fairest way – by taking its chances at the ballot box with an April advisory referendum instead of by cutting deals for the benefit of one special interest while ignoring the rest of our community.
22 comments so far
PD:
I am in complete agreement with your position of a referendum vote.
Sometimes an argument reaches a level of stupidity on both sides that going forward to find any common ground is an exercise in futility. The positions on both sides of this issue reached that point months ago. What ever bridges there were have been burned and there is no room for compromise.
So the way this is going, no matter what the ultimate result you are going to have a serious rift in this community. A referendum will not mean that the side that does not get there way will be happy, but at least they will know that the decision was a result of a majority vote of their fellow Park Ridge community members.
Watchdogs, I agree with your calling for a community vote on the PADS homeless shelter. Unlike Anon above, I see the stupidity belonging to the side that stupidly wants to increase the risks on the health and safety of our children and the entire town so they can put on a big public show of how charitable and christian they are. Not one thing has kept any of these christians from taking in a homeless person and having personal contact with some needy person. Why won’t they do that? If we have all these homeless people in Park Ridge who need handouts for help then do it before you bring in more homeless people. We do not have such a big homeless problem in Park Ridge that requires a homeless shelter be set up anywhere let alone in our school gym, but if you build it they will come! The entire idea is a stupid one. It’s like buying a bunch of buckets to catch the rain through a leaky roof instead of fixing the roof. That is the stupidity that I see.
The PRMA and the PADS-aholics will never agree to give the voter any voice in this – unless the voter shows up at a City Council meeting in a white shirt.
Hey, we all agree on wanting a referendum!! I am happy about that!!
What are the steps to get this issue put on the April ballot?
It is our understanding that it can be put on the ballot either by a City Council resolution or by a citizen-circulated petition with the necessary number of registered voter signatures (we don’t know that number at this time).
There are specific laws and strict requirements (including filing deadlines) for this citizen petition process, so anyone interested in mounting a petition drive should consult an attorney knowledgeable in election law to avoid doing it incorrectly.
Great idea for the referendum! The PADS issue would pass for sure. Just look at who attended the meeting at Maine East–pro-PADS had the most members of “the greatest generation” while the anti PADS folks had lots of St. Paul parents who don’t even live in Park Ridge. Bring it on!
To Somebody’s Mom: Eliminate the folks in white shirts imported from Niles and DesPlaines (which I have first hand knowledge did indeed happen) and you are on a even playing field. Glad to hear you support a referendum too. Tell your pastor.
From soemone who was involved with this from the beginning I can tell you this.
It has become quite political and the PRMA is losing track of what the best thing to do for PR is. They should be more open with the community as a whole and not just their own congregation. COme up with a solution together – you can’t just offer up a community to do something like open a PADS shelter without asking for the community involvement. Shame on them for trying to pass this by without engaging people. Same for Fr. Carl when he tried to pass it over us in a note. Yes I am a parent of a daughter at SPC, yes I am against it being hosted in a school, yes I am against PADS.
I think there are other things we can do as a community as a parish. If there are people locally that need help, let’s help them. Try to help people keep their houses! Help feed them, help babysit. These are OUR OWN neighbors. Let’s reach out to eachother right now and give each other a hand. Use our resources, our talents, our local bank, our local food providers.
The PRO-PADS has to look at PADS with a clear eye. Sure they provide a meal and a warm dry shelter for one night. Which is certainly human. But can’t we as a community go beyond that with our own?
The PRMA has resorted to bullying and political garbage. Frimark is a freaking joke of a mayor how he was elected in the first place I will never know. (was before I came into town)
Referendum sounds great – but from a parent as part of the parent group trying to find a resolve to this, there are no parents left to take up this cause to the degree it needs! We have spent a ton of money, a ton of time and a ton of resources. We have jobs, kids, homework and are barely keeping our households together ourselves. Right now we need the city council to do their part, do what they were elected to do, to what they are paid to do, and keep uor children safe.
somebody’s mom, with your ‘tude i can only imagine you are the lamest of wannabes who hasn’t gotten off her ass to actually help the homeless once all these many months.
i ‘don’t even live in park ridge’ but my kids go to st paul, i have more of a vested interest in not having a shelter at st paul than ridiculous public school would-be PR snobs like yourself. this isn’t the northshore, hinsdale, river forest or even glenview- get over yourself. then get off your butt and do something for the downtrodden
As I mentioned earlier – ” reached a level of stupidity on both sides of the argument…….”
A10:24,
Of course, that’s an easy opinion to form and position to hold when you aren’t giving your attention to the issues and arguments surrounding a debate.
I’m interested in hearing your own discussion of the elements of regulation surrounding the opening of a homeless shelter in Park Ridge. You certainly have offered your opinion of the people participating in the debate. You certainly have offered your opinion on their styles of debate. How about you take the time to offer your opinion on the elements of the debate.
Hey somebody’s mom, I sure feel sorry for you child.
Alpha:
I have offered my opinions on many different areas of the debate including answering your questions about regulation in a previous thread. As I said in that post, I am far from an expert in that area. While I think it is fair to say that we agree on many things, we sometimes get there in a different way.
I guess I owe an apology in that my stupid comment could be interpreted as calling the people in the argument stupid – that was certainly not my intent!! When an argument festers as this one has for many months and no minds are changed, the frustration and anger of the sides involved continues to build. I am guilty of this myself. The argument often is no longer about the issue but instead about the people on either side, like who at what meeting was from what town and what color shirt they were wearing. I guess it makes for interesting blog posts but I am not sure what it accomplishes.
Which takes me back to what I said in reply to PD’s post. I am for a referendum. In this way as much of the crap is removed from the process as possible. There is no “who was in whose pocket” or “who did Howard/PRMA have in their side”. It is a vote by the PR citizens. I may not like the results but in a senario like that I can live with them.
anon 11:28 –
You are right – too much has gotten put into this big mix – it is no longer helping the homeless, it is no longer the question of is PADS the right program we want, it is no longer taking into account who’s health, safety and property values are important. It has turned to your run-of-the-mill politics on ALL SIDES.
On Frimark, his goofy Aldermen minus 3 that actually pay attention, his ridiculous attorney, and the PRMA bullying ! And even a few rogue anti-Pads members. But the majority of those that want the restrictions of the 500ft. rule have at least kept to the facts, kept to the process, and are reiterating the need to work together and do whatever we can to provide any extra safety we can to our children.
I am disappointed at the constant banter from the PROPADS that this is strictly a ministry as obviously homelessness and shelters are much greater an issue than that. They can’t think single-minded on this – without the city and community being involved. This is a community wide issue and I agree shoudl go to referendum…
A11:28,
My mistake. I had presumed your fondness for repetition to be universal, and that you would not mind also repeating your opions on the different areas of the debate, but I see now that your fondness for repetition is selectively applied. Thank you for clarifying the issue.
I am pleased to see that you support a referendum on the topic of temporary overnight homeless shelters in Park Ridge, and that you are willing to abide by majority rule. Do keep in mind that such a referendum is only advisory, so if our elected officials disagreed with the advice provided by the voters, they have the power to ignore that advice and proceed in a way they believe best serves the community.
My personal guess is that most of our elected officials lack the courage to ask the voters directly for their opinion on the issue, because then they could find themselves in the difficult position of either having to admit they’d been wrong about what a majority of their constituents want, or they could have to proceed to establish a public policy in defiance of the expressed will of their constituents…and I’d be willing to bet my house and every last penny I have that none of them have the courage to do that.
A referendum is only advisory??? You mean we could have had new pools by now???
A4:27,
No. For home rule units of government, like the city of Park Ridge, referenda are advisory. For other units of government, like Park Districts and Schools, they are binding according to State laws.
Now that I think more deeply about it, there might be instances where home rule units are also subject to binding referenda, but I can’t think of those instances off the top of my head. wink wink.
I sent the following in an email to the city attorney and aldermen.
“I’m wondering if you and the aldermen have been keeping up with the news. If you have, then you’ve probably seen this item: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=241174&src=109
>>>Police say Palatine man could face murder charges in beating of buddy
A Palatine man will likely face murder charges Friday after he beat his buddy, who has died from injuries he received in a Rolling Meadows parking lot last month, police said.
David Greer, 48, 1140 E. Northwest Highway, had been charged with one count of aggravated battery for the beating of William R. Roman, 43, from Arizona. But Roman recently died, so those charges will be upgraded, police said. The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office will determine the nature of the new charge, but it’s likely Greer will be facing some kind of murder charge, said Joseph Waitzman, Rolling Meadows’ investigation commander.>>>click the link above for the full story.< << Would any of you care to guess what is at 1140 E. Northwest Highway in Palatine. Look it up on Google maps if the address of the service provider with a "proven process" doesn't ring a bell for you. I'm also wondering if the 4 "tree trimmer wannabes" in the news story are also part of the much ballyhooed "Lawn Service" run by the service provider in question? Not that anyone would ever drive around Park Ridge knocking on doors and looking for work...besides, our citizens...especially our seniors...never fall for those sorts of scams. And I'm sure any inquiry into the matter would be repelled with claims of "privacy rights" by the service provider in question. No need to respond gentlemen...I've no illusions about some of your (in)abilities to tackle difficult questions...and I'm sure acting Chief Swoboda would be quick to point out that the beating/murder did not take place AT a homeless shelter site run by PADS...which then leaves you all free to ignore the issue of the nature of the service provider's screening process and clientele. I simply wanted to share this fascinating story with you all." Jeannie K. Markech 2nd ward constituent
Jeannie:
Great catch as the article does not indicate or reference that he is a PADS shelter guest or homeless man at all. And for this reason is why it is more than just a PRMA issue, it is a community issue. Further solidifying why there needs to be regulations as much as possible. Helping is one thing, but if by helping you are hurting others has the great good been accomplished?
The arrest that Jeannie found leads to a question: How do shelter guests establish a legal address for voting, receiving government benefits, and giving to the police? Since the PADS guest in Jeannie’s arrest report used the HOPE Center at 1140 E. Northwest Highway, could a shelter guest use St Paul’s address?
Here’s another arrest where a homeless man uses a questionable address, this time in Arlington Heights:
Chicago Tribune, Feb 29, 2008
Man is held after 6th drunken driving arrest
Bail was set at $200,000 Thursday for an Arlington Heights man arrested on drunken driving charges for the sixth time and driving without a license for the 10th time.
Steven Salzman of the 400 block of South Forrest Ave appeared before Judge Kay Hanlon in Cook County Circuit Court in Rolling Meadows.
Salzman, 44, has been hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation since his arrest by Arlington Heights police, authorities said. He will be transferred to the psychiatric unit of Cook County Jail.
Salzman would face 6 to 30 years in prison if convicted. His license was revoked in 2001, Cossette said.
The online Chicago Tribune has write-in comments following the article: March 3, 2008 “CORRECTION: Steve Salzman DOES NOT live on Forrest Ave in A.H. as incorrectly published. He is a chronic homeless individual who does occasional handyman work for folks in the A.H. area. Apparently he used the Forrest Ave address to obtain a Link Card – which was the only form of ID he had on him at the time of his arrest – and he occasionally has been allowed to receive mail at that address as well. But, he does NOT live there, and I know this for Fact because I am directly related t the Forrest Ave resident so I should know.
Steve has NO family and has been a homeless handyman for decades the resident of the Forrest Ave address is outraged at the false reporting and is demanding a published correction. The A.H. police press releases are WRONG – and despite previous phone complaints to the department. The A.H. police have not corrected their records and they are still giving our FALSE INFORMATION to the media.”
There must be other arrest reports of homeless people that are hidden by using deceptive addresses.
Anonymous, 9:15,
In answer to your first question, the Illinois Election Code is as follows:
(10 ILCS 5/3?2) (from Ch. 46, par. 3?2)
Sec. 3?2.
(a) A permanent abode is necessary to constitute a residence within the meaning of Section 3?1. No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent homeless individuals from registering to vote under the provisions of this Act.
(b) A homeless individual must have a mailing address in order to be eligible to register to vote. For purposes of this Act, a mailing address shall constitute a homeless individual’s residence for voting purposes. A mailing address of a homeless individual may include, but is not limited to, a shelter, a day shelter, or a private residence.
Election authorities may by reasonable rules limit the place where voter registration of homeless individuals may be taken and the class of deputy registrars who may take the voter registration of homeless individuals.
(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer upon homeless individuals any additional privileges or benefits other than the right to register to vote and to be qualified to vote in an election under Articles 4, 5, and 6 of this Code. (Source: P.A. 87?1241.)
Regarding police reports with *deceptive addresses*, my guess would be there are probably plenty.
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>