I would suspect the local papers haven’t been doing well in reporting stuff from what’s been posted here and PRU.

I even suspected something was not right when they began proposed all this redevelopment and not very many complaints on it in the Letters To The Editor section.

It suprised me because over the years there have been many proposals by city leaders on redevelopment which never got off ground often due to residents speaking against it.

Question No. 1: Should the City pass through to residents all costs it incurs to third-parties for services provided to residents (e.g., the increase in water costs imposed by the City of Chicago) at 100% of the City’s cost?

Yes, otherwise the city is providing welfare to users and it isn’t even based on need.

Question No. 2: Should the City continue to run budget deficits rather than increase taxes?

No because we will pay for it at some point and we have a better chance of paying less as we go than having to borrow down the road. I would like to see more program cuts first though, not just increases in taxes. The facade program and hobby group contributions come to mind.

Question No. 3: Do local political parties (e.g., the old “Homeowners Party” or the new “Citizens for Non-Partisan Local Elections”) help or hurt the local political process?

Hurt because on the best of days there maybe are two or three people on a slate that can think their way out of a paper bag and the rest are just go along rubber stamps, and as I said, this is on the best of days.

Question No. 4: Does the General Caucus really improve the quality of the members elected to the District 64 school board?

Hard to say since there’s nothing to compare their candidates to.

Question No. 5: Do the two local newspapers – The Journal and the Herald-Advocate – do an acceptable job of reporting local news?

The job they do seems to be acceptable to their advertisers. On the other hand, as a citizen I haven’t been impressed. The meetings I have gone to don’t get reported on very well and the blogs have helped increase information but there is nothing like being an eye witness.

Question No. 6: Should the cost of all Park Ridge Recreation and Park District services, including Community Center membership, be “free” to residents (i.e., paid totally by property taxes, which would need to be increased for that purpose)?

No.

Question No. 7: Should the City acquire private property whenever it becomes available and “bank” it, even when it has no immediate, concrete plans for its use (as in the Courtland property immediately south of City Hall)?

Double no!

Question No. 8: How much more per year are you willing to pay in property taxes to the City for some form of meaningful, city-wide flood control?

If any plan presented could guarantee that flooding would be eliminated, not just lessened, I’d be willing to pay up to $500 more per year.

Question No. 9: Should the City continue its new practice of Committee-Of-the-Whole meetings or return to separate, individual committee meetings?

I liked the shorter smaller meetings the Council used to have but that maybe is just what I preferred. I think the meetings I’ve seen now are way too long and everyone looks wiped by 10pm.

Question No. 10: Should all of our local governments videotape and post the videos of their meetings on-line?

Absolutely yes.

speaking of the papers, I woner how come the PR Journal
s online edition hasn’t been updated?

Question 11. Should the council return to 14 alderpersons to provide better representation to the citizens or stay at the current 7?

anonymous on 08.07.09 1:15 pm,

As one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, opponents of Howard Frimark’s (and Steve Huening’s and John Kerin’s and Amy Sullivan’s, et.al.) referendum to cut the council, I will tell you that quantity NEVER can be equated with quality.

It may appear that the number of fewer Aldermen has given Park Ridge MUCH to worry about, and if one is fair, one might take a look at the immeidate past 14 member council and say there was less to worry about as infrastructure spending increased and, when that council had TOTAL control of a budget, it booked a very modest surplus and NEVER voted to pass a city budget in deficit. Also, if one is inclined to be fair, one will admit there were plenty of missteps too…and not the missteps of inspiring the hanging of purple ribbons on parkway trees (in violation of city ordinance, I might add; but it was firmly believed by the very TARGETS of those purple ribbons that free speech was a more important principle to be upheld than the city ord. covering placement of “things” on the public parkway, so put that in your Republican empty heads and smoke it.) The biggest mistakes I see the previous council having made was its failure to deep-six Tim Schuenke when it had the chance. Additionally, the passage of the action plan for a new police station was absofreakinlutely the DUMBEST thing (policy-wise) that “my council” ever did.

Further, pure speculating but…if “my council” had been seated during the PADS debate, it is likely SPC would be hosting the homeless every Sunday night during the winter months.

However, until folks are willing to get over the silly idea that “party politics” actually has a thing to do with LOCAL governance, or that any one party will provide something more than mediocrity often inspired by mere friendships or mutual interests, you will continue to be offered a slate/plate full of crap…because as the second commenter in this thread noted, “on the best of days there maybe are two or three people on a slate that can think their way out of a paper bag and the rest are just go along rubber stamps, and as I said, this is on the best of days.”

For all the reasons I opposed cutting the council to 7, I would prefer to see it returned to 14, but not because more people necessarily guarantees “better representation”…but rather, simply because you’ve got a “better chance” at representation/contact/response by having more people and minds to appeal to.

Make sense?

I think District 64 is the worst run of the four main local gov’t bodies serving Park Ridge – City, Park Dist., Dist. 64 and Dist. 207. And since all of its board members are Caucus choices, I will give the Caucus the discredit for that situation.

At first I laughed at Question No. 6 (Should the Community Center be free?) But then after I thought about it for a while I would use it if it was free.

I would raise the price of all the other programs they offer to pay for it – no new taxes.

Park Ridge pre-school is 1/3 the price of anywhere else, which is why people line up starting at midnight to sign up.

anon 4:13:

I am confused. Maybe I need another cup of coffee. If you want to use anything at the community center you have to pay. Membership at the center is $800 for a family of four. So in affect the community center is free but all you can do is sit in the lobby. If you want to do anything you have to pay for it. So what are you saying? Raise the prices for all the other programs (pools, nature center, soccer etc) and have all the programs at the community center be free??

I hope there was some sarcasm in question number 6. The idea that many on the blogs would be up in arms about subsidizing Brickton to the tune of what?? 12K and would even consider a completely tax subsidized park district with no fees is amusing.

Anonymous @ 4:13….

From the Park District 2008 Budget (which can be found at http://www.prparks.org)

Outdoor Pools
Total Revenue: $337,450
Total Expense: $535,783

Community Center:
Total Revenue: $1,999,875
Total Expense: $1,716,252

You are not going to balance that revenue shortfall on the backs of pre-school.

Pre-School is not that much of a bargain.

With those two elements only…you’d have to find $$2,252,035 in revenue that is not there currently. The only place to go for that is increased taxes.

If residents wish to use either of these ammenities…they should pay a user fee, and at the pool it seems like they should pay a higher user fee.

Pricing is always a balancing act. As an example, for my family the current fees for the outdoor pool for the summer are a bargin and we would have no problem paying more. Of course someone from my family is at that pool about 5 days a week. If you look at the number visits versus the “membership” price it is extremely reasonable. Having said that, if you raise the price I am sure there will be some families who choose to pay per visit rather than become a member. If that is the case, raising the price might not bring the revenue increase that you would expect.

Mr. Haney makes good points, and he doesn’t even consider the lost revenue from facilities like Oakton ice rink and the driving range. If he’s right on the pools, its discourging that they’re still losing $200,000, most of which probably from Oakton. It looks like the only thing they’ve figured out how to operate properly is the Community Center.

Jeannie on 8/7 @ 2:15
You are right on as usual. I didn’t support the move from 14 to 7 either. Chief reason for not supporting it? Because Frimark wanted it too badly. As I see it, it simply hasn’t worked in the best interest of the citizens of Park Ridge.

It would appear to make up the pool shortfall they would have to raise fees by 38%. That would assume zero growth or loss in current membership. Everyone OK with that??