Our property taxes are soaring. Mortgage defaults and foreclosures on Park Ridge homes are occurring in alarming numbers.
Meanwhile, our basements keep flooding, our streets and sidewalks need repairs, our electric power is dependably undependable, we’ve got a $1.7 million hole in last year’s budget and another similar budget hole is already expected for this year.
And, oh yeah – the country’s in a recession that the “experts” are predicting will take years to climb out of.
So why in the world has the City Council’s Public Safety Committee placed a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) for a big new police station on the agenda [pdf] for tomorrow night’s meeting?
Ask the chairman, Ald. Frank Wsol (7th Ward), or his fellow committee members, Ald. Jim Allegretti (4th Ward) and Ald. Don Bach (3rd Ward). After all, they’re already on record as supporting the construction of a big new police station, with Wsol displaying his brand of fiscal conservatism (?) – as reported at Page 4 of the Draft Minutes of the October 2, 2008, Committee Meeting [pdf] – by talking about limiting the cost of the project to no more than $16.5 million (if located on property currently owned by the City), along with additional interest (of $5-7 million?) over the roughly 20 year life of the bonds the City will issue to finance it.
The RFQ [pdf] is being designed for the 37,000 square foot building (v. the current 9,000 square foot facility) and 12,000 square feet of “secured or underground parking” that was recommended by those hired-gun consultants who have never seen a police station or other public building that couldn’t be bigger and more expensive.
Unfortunately, this is one of the back-door ways public officials try to give these kinds of projects traction – before the taxpayers start paying attention. Is it sneaky? Of course it is. Is it a waste of time? Of course it is, unless the City is actually going to go ahead with the project. Is it intended to get big and expensive new cop shop built without consulting the taxpaying voters? Absolutely!
Wsol, Allegretti and Bach need to understand that fiscal responsibility is living within one’s means – or, more accurately, the means of their constituents who actually pay the bills for the “toys” these aldermen buy. Maintain and repair needs to take precedence over expand and replace.
But since these three gentlemen don’t seem to understand that concept, the City Council should put the cop shop issue to advisory referendum in April to find out what the voters want before embarking on this sneaky and fiscally irresponsible frolic.
9 comments so far
You know Allegretti and Bach are going along with this just because Frimark is telling them to do it, but what’s Wsol’s problem? Did he sell out to the cops on the new station for their support against ex-cop Kristie?
To all who read this posting:
If you agree that we should not proceed with a new police facility at this time, please write an e-mail to the members of the Public Safety Committee. Copy your alderman. Perhaps they will listen.
Thank you
There should be a referendum and teh City Council should propose it through a resolution so the citizens don’t have to conduct another petition drive.
Fred is right. The taxpaers deserve a vote on whether they want to spend that kind of money on a new police station. But neither the mayor or the aldermen (except for Schmidt, I’m guessing) have the balls to actually ask the voters by putting a referendum on the ballot. Or if by some chance they do decide to put it on the ballot (I’m not holding my breath), watch them put it on without any dollars mentioned so they can improve their odds of getting a “yes” vote.
Referendum? Heck, yeah. Don’t, however, overlook the anonymous post suggesting a letter to the public safety commission and aldermen. They need to feel the pressure. In fact, what about a petition? And where does Frimark stand on this? Perhaps he should be pressured to state clearly his preference, yes or no, before the April vote. Regardless of how we communicate our points of view on this, I can say this: The main reason for my “no” vote on this would be that we just can’t afford it right now. If there really is a need, it will have to wait. Sorry but that’s the reality and I have the tax bill to prove it.
May I ask what should be the criteria for something going on a referendum? Should it be associated with a certain dollar amount? a certain issue? What? Perhaps there are already criteria I am unaware of.
I have only been here 5 years but I remember the referendum on pool improvements(unless I am mistaken this was based on petition). I have heard a call for referendum on the PADS issue. Now a referendum on the police station.
I have no problem with a referendum – it appears on a ballot and I vote. What a concept!!
Having said that, where is the line? Do we have a referendum for anything that anyone disagrees with? I believe the city just spent about 25% of the projected budget shortfall on trucks. Should we have had a referendum on that??
This is what happens when we have no trust in government. When we vote for someone we are giving them the ability to make decisions. Perhaps instead of a Mayor what we need is a pencil pusher to print out the ballots. We could set up a booth at Starbucks and just vote on everything as we wait for coffee.
Well with the fact it’s gonna cost us and all the other stuff that was mentioned, I can understand why some wish to put this to a referrendum though I can see why one would question something like this since it is important that our police & fire departments have decent work facilities.
What I really wish is is they would explain why a bigger building is needed.
I spoke with one officer this summer at the National Night Out and he mentioned not enough storage space but not much else.
I probably should of taken a tour of the staion which was open to the public at the time.
But there’s so much else that’s not explained.
While the staion has existed there since 1962 which is a long time ago but knowing some thing about PR past, if there has been any growth in population it probably hasn’t been very much and if the facility was never suitable in the first place why after all these years is it now thewy finally want a new building?
The police dept. and city need to be more accountable to the residents and expalin more about these changes.
Mike:
What exactly do you want them to explain? If I am not mistaken, their position is fairly clear about why a new station is needed, what the space will be used for etc.
It seems to me the issue here is not so much a lack of clarity on their part but rather that I, and others,do not agree with all of their positions and/or explanations.
I’ve been following the police station discussion for over a year, and what they have not even tried to explain is how the current police station has prevented criminals from being apprehended, crimes from being solved, criminals from being successfully prosecuted, or how it has compromised the safety of our citizens. THAT’S what I want somebody to prove to me before $15-20 MILLION!!!!! of my tax dollars go for a new police station (just because every other town is building one) while my basement keeps flooding and my street needs paving.
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>