If you spend any time around Mayor Howard “the Coward” Frimark, you are likely to hear him rail against “the evil blogs,” which for him means PublicWatchdog and Park Ridge Underground. Not surprisingly, several of Frimark’s Alderpuppets on the City Council share his opinion.
That’s fine with us. We believe that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Everyone, however, is not entitled to his/her own set of facts. And as no less an authority than John Adams noted, “facts are stubborn things,” which explains why politicians have such difficulties with them.
But we do, and should, expect more from our news media than we do our politicians. Which is why the editorial in yesterday’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate – “Wanted: leadership from City Council” (January 29) – is troubling.
Forget for a moment how that editorial schizophrenically jumps from one bald assertion to the next, without making any real point – unless the point is to insult the intelligence of Park Ridge voters by suggesting they are too dumb to understand the referendums on which they cast their votes. That’s the media’s equivalent of the politician’s “you elect us to make those decisions” rationalization for opposing referendums when they fear the voters don’t agree with what the politicians want to do.
But what we find more problematic than the editorial’s viewpoint is the simply incorrect presentation of some of the facts that form at least one of the premises for that viewpoint.
Let’s start with: “Consider the four conflicting library questions a few years back.” Okay, but can we start with something as basic as getting the number of questions right – as in only “three” library questions on the November 2002 ballot. C’mon, H-A…if you don’t have anybody on staff who remembers back to 2002, at least check the Cook County Clerk’s “elections” web page for the basic election info.
As for those three referendum questions being “conflicting,” that’s not factually accurate, either. The first question was about money (whether to spend $20 million on a new library); the second was a “use” question (whether retail structures should be constructed on the “library block”); and the third was a “location” question (whether, if a new library is built, it should be built someplace other than the “library block”).
Conflicting? Only if apples, oranges and bananas are “conflicting.”
But the editorial’s misinformation doesn’t stop with library referendum questions. It goes on to criticize “the series of questions over several elections from the Park Ridge Recreation and Park Board” without even attempting to distinguish between those questions which were “binding” – i.e., if approved, they would have mandated the appropriation of funds (and the issuance of bonded debt to provide those funds) – and those which were merely advisory.
But apparently because those referendums were voted down, the H-A editorialists seem to suggest that the voters must have been bewitched, bothered and bewildered by the questions. Of course, that’s yet another clever politician’s trick to explain away an unappetizing referendum result.
We wonder whether it ever occurred to the editors over at the H-A that maybe, just maybe, the taxpaying voters are fed up with our politicians and bureaucrats spending and borrowing far too much money – mortgaging our community’s future, as it were – for things we don’t really need, and that many don’t even want? Might it even be that the best sign the voters truly have been bamboozled is when they actually vote for one of those tax, borrow and spend referendums?
If the H-A editorial board wanted to point out an abuse of the referendum process, however, it should have checked out its own story about Alderpuppet Don “Air Marshall” Bach, who had hoped to have the Council, by resolution, adopt his advisory referendum question about spending up to $150,000 a year on the problems caused by O’Hare expansion (“No room for O’Hare question on crowded Park Ridge ballot,” updated 1/29). At the very least, the H-A editorialists could have opined on the common sense of putting a $150,000 question to referendum but not a $16.5 million one.
So while the H-A editorial board may be looking for some leadership from the City Council, we’d be content if we could count on factually accurate journalism from the H-A.
11 comments so far
Pub-dogs, this is outstanding stuff — “At the very least, the H-A editorialists could have opined on the common sense of putting a $150,000 question to referendum but not a $16.5 million one.” Yep, he sure is a Bachtard!
Great post!
Air Marshall Bach.
That would be so hilarious if it was not for the “Evil Blogs” saying it.
Excellent post. Most casual readers would not pick up on this sort of stuff…
While in total agreement with the editorial title: “Wanted: leadership from City Council”, the details are sorely lacking.
Jennifer Johnson, and you too Craig Adams, you really need to step it up a notch or two. Dig, dig, dig… report, report, report. Any way it goes, let the chips fall where they may. But PLEASE… give the readers of your papers and the citizens of this town the information they need to make an intelligent decision come April.
Monday Night Ms. Johnson leaves before the meeting ends.
Also it’s pretty hard to your job well when you play with your hair.
I’m not kidding she did that a few times durring the meetings Monday and Tuesday.
Would someone please post the exact wording of the 2 referendum questions?
The following two referendum questions, re: the police station, will appear on the ballot.
Citizen referendum question is:
“Shall the City of Park Ridge replace it’s current police facility with a new, larger structure at a cost of at least $16.5 million plus additional, but currently unknown, costs for the land on which it will be situated and bond interest?”
Alderman Wsol’s question in it’s final form is:
“In adopting a capital project to improve the administrative/public and police facilities, shall the City of Park Ridge require as conditions of issuing any bonds for such improvements that: the total spent, absent interest and operational costs be less than $16.5 million and the facility be located at 505 Butler Place on land already owned.”
The following referendum question was proposed by third Ward Ald. Don Bach, but will not appear on the ballot due to space constraints, as I understand it:
“Shall the City of Park Riudge expend funds to analyze and mitigate the effects on the environment, safety, and health issues pertaining to the expansion of O’Hare Airport up to but not exceeding $150,000 per year?”
A referendum question was approved for placement on the April ballot by Maine Township government, at the request of bi-partisan sponsors, including Sen. Dan Kotowski. I don’t know the exact wording of the question, but it is a question asking voters if they wish to continue the Cook County 1% sales tax increase that was pushed by Toddler Stroger.
In the article, Wanted: leadership from City Council, what is a “police station without any perimeters”? Maybe the writer means parameters. Any thoughts?
The editorial got one thing right: Smacking down Ald. Wsol for his “11th hour” “lengthy, somewhat confusing” police station referendum question AFTER the citizens petitions were filed.
The voters have to remember that Wsol has been a staunch supporter of a big new police station (a favorite of his 7th ward political sponsor, former alderman Larry Friel) since Wsol was running against Bob Kristie in 2007. Back then Wsol endorsed the 40,000 square foot, shooting range, workout room, enclosed parking version and had no problem with the city buying land to build it on. Only when it looked like Egan’s petition drive would succeed did Wsol come up with his referendum question saying that it would be built at 505 Butler place on land the city already owns. That’s his big concession to fiscal responsibility. What a joke.
But I do have a question: When the H-A editorial states that “The police department needs more space — that’s a given,” who/has anybody formally concluded that? The reason I ask is because the police dept. keeps winning awards and operating successfully out of the existing space, so I’m thinking it’s not “need” but “want” – as in me living for the past 9 years in a 2,800 square foot house with a wife and 3 kids and wanting more space but not wanting to pay the $150,000 that the addition I want will cost.
Thanks for the clarifiation Alpha, those are the questions to be on the ballat as I understood it as well.
So… not only are we a Task force happy council, but a referendum happy one as well.
We don’t want (or need) resident input on something as important as spending money on a new police facility, but need (or want) resident input on whether or not to spend money fighing O’Hare.
We need to turn City Council into an appeals body when someone gets turned down at one of our fine boards or commissions, but Council needs a Task force to “look over” and ordinace that would send a resident to one of those boards or commission to uphold. Kind of makes our head hurt doesn’t it?
Looking for absolute control without the leg work or input from anywhere.
Scarey!!!
waddayathink on 01.31.09 1:32 pm… I do believe you meant:
Looking for absolute control without ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR input from anywhere.
waddayaexpect from a mayor and a majority of the council who look at their constituients as “uninformed” – as alderman allegrhetti calls us.
One other thing about the Herald-Advocate: What happened to all the letters to the editor? In the same edition you posted about — great post, by the way — there were two short letters and that was it. No other citizens commented on the police station or anything else? Not even a Jack Spatafora rumination?
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>