Does the Senior Center count as a “social service” organization?

KaiserSosay,

I would say, to a smaller degree than is usually thought of, the Sr. Center does “qualify” as a “social service” organization.

Though I would not say that the bulk of their mission is to provide for “human needs”; their focus is decidedly more “recreational” in nature.

Let’s see if the majority of the council will actually take the high road and pass a “funding” budget that may satisfy most of the people, or take a sour grapes approach just to override a veto out of spite.

One approach would certainly have the appearance of a Council and Mayor working together, as opposed to those at odds.

Two things come to mind. First, this whole “social service” criteria really boils down to personal opinion. One can look at the senior center as a bunch retirees taking advantage of our money (damn it!!!) or one can look at as provides a place to go and a service for seniors (at least some) who would be otherwise rattling around the house. They are all social services to some degree. Some of them are just social services that some people do not think are worth it.

Second, On a Sunny Day, the council not over riding the veto will not satisfy most of the people – at least I hope not. It sure as hell will not satisfy me. Congratulations – we just found 39K…..Yipee!!! We are still 2 mil in the hole. Now let’s get to the real money – like the great suggestion about the project by the train station/library.

I think the whole point here is to make a decision about what is necessary and what isn’t necessary for social services, which goes well beyond only someone’s opinion.

Providing social services like food and housing assistance to those that don’t have it or enough of it is not at all the same thing as giving seniors a place to hang out and recreate. That is a fact, not only an opinion.

I think the other point here about the veto is to try to get the aldermen to stop adding to the budget deficit that we already have.

anon 1:24:

No, it is completely opinion. You stated yours in the above post. Your opinion is that the senior center is nothing more than a place to hang around and recreate and you see that as unnecessary.

Others will have a different opinion of the value of the senior center – there is that opinion word again. There are even those out there who would not want to support food or housing assistance. That would be their opinion.

I do find it ironic that this now becomes this huge issue. It is my understanding that the senior center center has been around for over 25 years – all of them supported by your tax dollars I am sure. I also must point our that 4% of your property taxes go to support the Park District – a place where people hang around and recreate. That seems to be fine with everyone.

For you anon, because you seem unable to understand the difference between a want and a need, or an opinion of value and that which is factually necessary:

1nec·es·sary

Pronunciation: \?ne-s?-?ser-?\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English necessarie, from Latin necessarius, from necesse necessary, probably from ne- not + cedere to withdraw — more at no
Date: 14th century

1 a: of an inevitable nature : inescapable b (1): logically unavoidable (2): that cannot be denied without contradiction c: determined or produced by the previous condition of things d: compulsory

2: absolutely needed : required

Of course, I presume you will offer that the above is only Merriam-Webster’s “opinion” of the definition of “necessary”

Gee thanks Alpha! While I might not have used those exact words and I will admit to not knowing the Latin root, I think I had a pretty good idea of what the definition of the word necessary was.

Now that you have cleared that up this should be easy. After all there is no gray area on what is “absolutely needed and required”. Every Park Ridge citizen would be in complete agreement on this list.

Anon,

You’re very welcome.

It is possible (though unlikely) that “Every Park Ridge citizen would be in complete agreement on this list.” However, if such a possibility were to exist, you would likely be the sole exception because you are perpetually incapable of telling the difference between wants and needs, and hopelessly unable to make a judgement of value between one opinion and another.

I suspect the vast majority of people can tell the difference between the “social services” provided by the Center of Concern and the “social services” provided by the Park Ridge Senior Center.

It is a fact that this community has decided to support “social services”. That is not opinion. That is fact. In so doing, even the perpetually doofy Aldermen have waxed long-winded about providing for “human needs”. I seriously doubt even one of our extremely doofy Aldermen wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between providing weekly pinochle card games and homeless prevention assistance.

The Council has a serious financial crisis they must deal with as our representatives. I do so hope the majority of them aren’t mired in the paralysis by analysis that plagues you.

Anon 1:24 here,

Alpha Female has covered things. Thanks!

anon 1:12,
You missed my point, and if it was that hard to disect, explaining would be a waist of time.

Carry on….

Anybody can look at anything any way they want, but that doesn’t mean the taxpayers have to pay for their perspective or myopia.

The Senior Center is one of those things that is a frill and a luxury for a relatively small number of people. And it’s unacceptable to think that the taxpayers have been subsidizing it to the tune of so many dollars for so many years just so that small group have some place to go instead of “otherwise rattling around the house” is goofy.

If you’re old (or young, for that matter) and want to play cards, invite some people over to your house and play in your living room!

DiPietro’s idea is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We’re $2 million in the hole, people! Spending $38,000 more is unacceptable, but cutting only $38,000 is equally insignificant.

Does anybody have anything close to a clue?

I just wonder if while we look back on things we have funded in the past, and the things we will continue to fund in the present, why no one ever brings up the impending disaster the casino is going to bring to Park Ridge? The way I see it, we will have increased crime, traffic and infrastructure liabilities.

Anonymous on 06.04.09 11:47 PM:

The casino was approved by the Illinois Gaming Commission last year. City government and pretty much all the residents of Park Ridge – including PublicWatchdog, we must confess – slept through that process until AFTER the decision had been made.

Then, and only then, did we wake up. Then, and only then, did some folks start complaining. Then, and only then, did then-mayor Howard Frimark appear before the Gaming Commission and make his pathetically inept and sometimes ridiculous arguments against the casino, which justifiably fell on deaf ears as too little, too late.

As for characterizing the casino as an “impending disaster,” that kind of hyperbole is factually unsupportable by any objective research on the subject. But even if it were true, the window of opportunity for raising that issue closed a while ago.  So, rather than wasting time on something that we can’t do anything about, let’s focus our attention and effort on things that can be done.

How did you mannage to sleep though it?

They wanted a casino for sometime with Rosemont originally being the first choice.

I don’t know how Watchdog managed to sleep through it, but I know that a good portion of Park Ridge citizens (including Mayor Frimark, the Aldermidgets, and most of Park Ridge’s clergy) spent much of 2008 dealing with that nonsensical PADS shelter, or with other hi-jinks and diversions perpetrated by Frimark and Company.

And speaking of PADS, I heard that Nan Parson and Sue Bell recently resigned from the Park Ridge Fair Housing Commission, supposedly because that Commission didn’t have enough authority. See ya!

Characterizing the casino as an “impending disaster,” is not hyperbole or in-factual. Do a search on the computer to find supporting research on the subject. And on a personal level I can tell you there is plenty of crime associated with casinos. I have a very dear niece, who at this time is incarcerated in Texas. I love her dearly, and tried for years to get her help with her gambling addiction. I can tell you first hand that there are very seedy and scary type of criminal element hanging out at these establishments. And, beleive me they also spend time outside of the casino, sometimes in a drug induced stupor, sometimes looking for quick cash, and sometimes looking to punish someone they see as more fortunate, for their misfortune. I’m not saying all the patrons, but enough to really scare me.

I don’t wanna make you feel bad about your niece and I myself have been agaist the cesino from that beginning but you need to realize we’re all responsable for our actions and it’s her own fault that she’s in the mess she’s in.

Mike@8:25
I agree that we are all responsible for our actions. My niece deserves to be where she is. My only point is that I have come to know first hand some pretty creepy people, and these particular creepy people were casino dwellers. They don’t want to make a living in the conventional way, and think they can make easy money at a casino. When that doesn’t happen they hit the streets looking for easy money, be it prostitution, drugs or theft. And some of these people are violent with no regard for children.

anon 5:22:

I will start by saying that I am not pleased that a casino is going up so close by. There are a variety of things that make me uncomfortable. What pisses me off the most is that we will get none of the financial benefits the casion will provide.

Having said all that, and while I am not an expert on law enforcement, I do not believe that the crime statistics of similiar casinos and their affect on their neighbors would support your “impending disaster” fears. Perhaps I have overlooked some information so please feel free to point our where I am wrong. I am very sorry for what happened to your niece. The fact is there are people who have gambling addictions just as there are alcoholics. Gambling and alcohol are vices that society as a whole seems to accept considering they are both legal. I would also point out that some of these “creepy” people can already be found in the bars and clubs that operate in the suburbs and city right next door.

Anon 9.34 Creeps are everywhere, that’s understood. The surrounding neighborhoods don’t currently have any 24/7 drinking gambling establishments. Creeps with no jobs and no means of support also have no concept of time. They stay at the casino for 20 to 30 hours and then hit the street drunk and pissed off, 3:00 in the afternoon is the same as 3:00 in the morning to them. But for me 3;00 in the afternoon is when my kids are walking home from school.

google casino crime. you’ll find some interesting links, including some claiming no increase in crime due to casinos, and many more debunking those claims

Hey, guys/gals, it’s over. The casino will be coming to Des Plaines, whether you like it or not. So all your whining and fear-mongering is for naught, because you can’t stop it. Too late. As Watchdog said, too many people spent too much time trying to get a PADS shelter in Park Ridge and didn’t pay attention to the casino. So blame the Park Ridge Ministerial Association for distracting too many people with its ridiculous plan to bring homeless to Park Ridge for a night.

So the casino that hasn’t been built is old news, but the Pads that never happened is relevant news?

The casino that hasn’t been built has already been approved. The PADS shelter was never approved. BUT…while the PADS shelter took center stage with the Park Ridge Ministerial Association and Mayor Frimark, the PRMA and Frimark ignored the casino hearings where we could have expressed our concerns BEFORE the casino was approved.

If you don’t get that, you’re either too stupid or don’t want to. I’ll go with “don’t want to” until you conclusively prove yourself to be “too stupid.”

ANON 8:32
Apparently your concerns are the only valid ones, even those that are ancient history, but since you choose to keep crying over what almost happened in the past you can’t worry about preventing something that does not necessarily HAVE to happen in the future. I won’t call you stupid, just ignorant.

anon 6:50/8:32:

You are correct. There is no doubt that the Casino is the fault of PRMA. You forgot to mention many other things for which they are to blame. Airplane noise, pot holes, the price of gasoline, AIG, the war in Iraq, Dutch Elm Disease, the Blackhawks not winning the cup, the weather……..

Very humorous, 7:30 a.m. But if the casino is such a horrible threat to life as all 37,000 people in Park Ridge know it, why wasn’t the sainted PRMA spending its time and effort opposing that instead of pushing for a PADS shelter for 20 homeless people 1 night a week for 6 months a year? In fact, can you or one of those PRMA “reverends” tell us why, and where, was the PRMA hiding on the casino issue?

And anon 06.09.09 @ 5:23 pm, if you say the casino doesn’t have to happen, please share your plan for how Park Ridge is going to stop it now that the Gaming Board has approved it and Des Plaines is already counting the millions of dollars that it’s going to generate? Answers, please

anon 8:53:

First of all, I do not believe that the casio is the “horrible threat to the life of 37000 PR residents”. Second, The PRMA would never ever want me as their spokesman but it would appear that they do not believe gambling in and of itself is not immoral or evil – ask anyone who has attented BINGO night. The PADS debacle was a horrible, misguided adventure for the entire community. However, as I have said many times here before, this is what churches do. All one has to do is look at any church literature (try the chicago catholic church website) to see that they have shelters, soup kitchens etc. and have for years. It is a part of their mission.

The idea that you now take this and assign blame to them for a casino is beyond hysterical. You may have found my previous post funny but you completely missed the message. You take a prosess of identifying and approving a location for a legal gambling establishment that should have been monitored by our government officials (with input and feedback) and you lay the blame at the feet of the PRMA – a non-government entity. It is not the churches responsibility to be our government.

In terms of where they were hiding, I cannot give you a perfect answer for that. They were probably with you and I and the rest of the people of PR – they missed it. But if you are relying on them to protect the city of PR from legal business that you do not like then you are out of your freakin’ mind.

I agree that our elected officials totally dropped the ball on the casino. But excusing the PRMA for their PADS diversion is wrong.

First of all, bingo nights aren’t casino gambling, so even raising that issue is silly. And the PRMA has to take full responsibility for the whole PADS debacle, because they are the ones who sponsored it without regard for what the community might or might not support, even with the PRMA playing the “God card.”

And saying “this is what churches do” is also wrong, because the PRMA members didn’t need PADS to help the homeless, as shown by the Sunday night suppers at St. Paul – which itself is an easier substitute for actually finding shelter for the homeless once PADS walked away from Park Ridge rather than submit to reasonable City regulation.

I’m not saying that the people of this community would have been paying attention to the casino if not for the PRMA’s PADS fiasco, but it can’t be reasonably doubted that a lot of people (inclduing the mayor and the council) would have had a lot more time to pay attention to the casino if they weren’t occupied for most of 2008 with the PRMA-sponsored PADS.

{heavy sigh}…..Ok, then it is the PRMA’s fault that we have a flooding problem. After all, if it were not for the entire PADS issue all of us, included our elected officials, would have had so much time to focus on the flooding issue.

Ladies/gentlemen:

We believe people have a right to own casinos, as well as to spend/waste their money in them. Although we don’t particularly want one in Des Plaines, the fact is that the Illinois Gaming Board has approved it; and we have heard no reasonable plan for overturning that approval, or for satisfying Des Plaines’ desire to have a casino within its borders.

It’s also a fact that the PADS shelter debate and meetings consumed the better part of an entire year. A lot of people, on both sides of the issue, put in hundreds/thousands(?) of hours advocating for and against that shelter.  To the extent that the PRMA precipitated that activity and debate with its PADS shelter plan, the PRMA directly or indirectly contributed to that particular commitment of time and effort.  And since we all only have a finite amount of time and attention span, whatever time and attention span is consumed by one thing is deprived of another – whether it be the casino, flooding, or gypsy moth infestation, to name just three. 

Those are facts, which are neither good nor bad.  We’re not playing any kind of “blame game” but simply acknowledging facts which, we believe, most people are willing to acknowledge whenever they actually stop and think about them in an objective, non-partisan fashion.

We would still be interested, however, in hearing about any reasonable plan for de-railing the Des Plaines casino at this stage of the process.

I understand there is a guy in Des Plaines, I beleive his name is Jim Blue, who is looking for support in stopping the whole thing. But how did the police station get derailed?

The Park Ridge police station got derailed because it was a purely Park Ridge issue and a bunch of residents put the issue to referendum, where it got trounced. But a Park Ridge referendum that Des Plaines can’t have a casino will mean nothing. But if Mr. Blue wants to run a Des Plaines referendum against the casino, he should have at it.

Both Jan Schakowski and Dan Katowski’s office said almost no one from Park Ridge has expressed any concern about the casino. It seems they will only act on complaints supported by more than one or two people. Apparantly there have been instances around the county where casinos have been prevented from being erected too close to residential areas. But it takes the support of the entire community.