The mayor’s comments at the meeting last Monday also discussed SB 16. The concern I have is that it has not been addressed by School district 64. Not only have the parents and other residents not been made aware, it appears that members of the School Board are lacking any knowledge of the affects this bill will have on the education of the children, the affect on the resident property taxes and the constraints placed on the City Council to put forth a Budget. This Bill was voted for by Senator Kotowski and Senator Mulroe. They appear to have voted for something adversely affects their constituents.SB16 will take over 2 million dollars from our schools and re-allocate to other school districts.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have started to crack down on off-topic comments, Mr. Maloney, but your willingness to sign your name has saved ye. At least this time.

We would suggest that instead of lacking knowledge, the members of the D-64 Board – and the D-64 administrators – are intentionally keeping information about SB16 as quiet as possible because the last thing they want are taxpayers becoming concerned about the District’s spending and finances, especially with teacher contract negotiations coming up again next school year (2015-16). As we’ve seen in the past with D-64, it loves to manage by crisis – preferably crises it creates but can blame on somebody/something else.

So continuing to borrow and spend in an unfettered fashion while the threat of SB16 hangs overhead will allow D-64 to blame the General Assembly for any ensuing catastrophe should SB16 be passed. But you can expect them to give a pass to both our Democratic state senators, Kotowski and Mulroe, in the hopes of getting some special deal(s) from the same two officials who have spent their careers in the pocket of the teachers union.

Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) is schedule to be discussed by the District 64 BOE on November 17th. This notice was first posted on the D64 website on Friday October 17th in the BOE Reports section of the website. It is found under the Oct 20th Report, page 3.

http://www.d64.org/boe/board-of-education-meetings.cfm

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for that information, Mr. Berkowitz. We look forward to seeing how D-64 will deal with SB16, and we would like nothing more than to have to retract our criticsm of the D-64 Board because it actually takes a fiscally-responsible position in connection with the potential loss of funding.

Now enough with the off-topic commments, please.

You mentioned that the City took away all of these funds from the Library to pay for the boondoggle known as the Uptown Tif.

I understand that the City has to manage its priorities based on the revenues that come in.

My question is did the Library’s funding get cut more or less than other city services. Is the pain of the f’d up Tif debt being equitably distributed, or is there another method of prioritization?

My other question is that you as a Library Board member, where do you fit in with advocating for monies from the City?

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t know if the Library’s funding got cut “more or less than other city services,” although that would suggest that Library funding is entitled to the same priority as police, fire, sewers, road paving, etc. Is that what YOU’RE suggesting?

This editor was not appointed to the Library Board for the purpose of “advocating for monies from the City.” The last paragraph of the post explains how he sees his duties to the Library.

Library funding is entitled to receive the necessary appropriation that it needs to carry out its mission.

You mentioned months ago that the City was giving monies to the school district and park district in relationship to a Tif agreement.

You also mentioned that this agreement may not even be a contract and that the City does not owe the other governmental bodies these monies. So the question is, did the City give monies away for the Tif agreement that could have or should have gone to the library?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Says who? The statutory funding allocation is .15%, meaning the State of Illinois deems that amount necessary for the Library to carry out its mission. If the taxpayers of Park Ridge wish the Library to get more of their tax dollars, they will vote for the referendum and the Library will get those funds because the referendum is BINDING rather than advisory, so the Council has no discretion in the matter. That’s something this editor advocated for as a Library Board members.

As for what you say we said about the TIF agreements between the City and the other local taxing bodies, we don’t believe we said any of that. So unless you want to provide quotes – and the chapter and verse of where you got them – don’t waste our time.

Both PubDog and Mayor Schmidt said, the former in public and the latter in writing, that they would not comment on the library referendum. I guess they meant “unless somebody said something encouraging about supporting the referendum that the public might agree with.” And the mayor then used his bully pulpit to trash the pro-library referendum position in passionate detail, and then allot a few cursory comments about why he was doing what he said he wouldn’t: Basically, that mean Mary Ann Irvine hurt the widdle aldermice’s feewings. The nerve of that former aldergal! Where does she think she is, America? And if that weren’t enough, the mayor then just happened to go on for awhile about the spectre of less-than-totally-local funding for schools. All as a rationale for not restoring funding for that budget-friendly bastion of lifelong learning, the Park Ridge Library. I’d love to see my taxes lower, but I’m not fool enough to think the $12,000 or so I pay a year in property tax will be meaningfully lowered if I don’t have to pay another $80 a year to have a fully functional Library. That’s beyond stoopit. The library takes, what, 2.7% of our total tax bill? That’s less than three pennies out of every tax dollar! If we got half as much from the big taxing bodies as we do our little library, we’d be very lucky. And despite y’alls panicky blather, Ms. Irvine was correct: The current Park Ridge levy is NOT the state minimum levy for libraries, because Park Ridge has never given the Library minimum support — before you, anyway. So the referendum wording is misleading at best. Anyone who can think straight will vote in favor of the Library referendum. God knows with all the other taxing bodies chewing us alive, we need our Library’s movies, books, job-hunting and professional search services, etc. etc. etc. more, not less, than ever. I spell Library B.A.R.G.A.I.N. See you in the stacks!

EDITOR’S NOTE: The mayor can speak for himself, and already has. And as this post indicates, we agree with him.

We reiterate that the City Attorney proposed the first paragraph of the referendum question to conform with state requirements for a binding referendum. If you or Ms. Irvine had a problem with that language, you could have shown up at any of the 5 meetings this summer at which it was discussed, but you didn’t and she didn’t. Or you could have sued to knock the question off the ballot, by you didn’t and she didn’t.

We’ve been listening to people like you and Ms. Irvine for over 25 years, and your song is always the same: “Give me what I want because that’s what everyone wants, but don’t give them a chance to vote on it because I know they want what I want; and you were elected to give it to me…uh…I mean them.”

The voters will decide whether they want to pay extra taxes in order to give the Library extra money. And that’s the way it should be.

Love the little signs in people’s yards around town saying “Vote Yes for the Library Referendum”. If it were honest advertising, it would say “Vote Yes for the Library Tax Increase”.

But then, little about this whole campaign has been honest. Ms. Irvine’s protestations are just the latest example.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There are legal requirements that dictated how the referendum issue – or at least the first paragraph of it – had to be framed. There are no legal restrictions on how the supporters of the referendum wish to express their support.

The bottom line is that, unlike the Park Board’s $8 million water park boondoggle, the taxpayers will get to vote on the Library tax increase.

True, PW…yet somehow the smiley faces for the Youth Campus and the Library come across to taxpayers as “just another $75 per year”… and the taxpayers don’t realize a yes vote to just another $75 per year comes across to local government as “oh goody, they want to keep adding more taxes and spending.” If the Library referendum passes, folks, remember this principle when it comes time for the teachers’ contract and another attempt at a D-64 tax increase. They will assume we’re all for it. Because we keep letting it happen.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If that’s what the taxpayers vote for, who are we to deprive them of the consequences of their vote? You don’t want to fall into the Mary Ann Irvine brain-trap, shared by many elected officials, that the voters are brilliant when they vote for the official, but become unqualified idiots when it comes to voting for individual issues – especially ones that the official does not support.

Yes 648, this is America. And that means I have the right to call out a former alderman when she accuses the current aldermen of being dishonest and deliberately trying to mislead the public when she has ZERO basis for saying so and would have known that if she bothered to show up at a meeting to see how it all unfolded.

And as far as “trashing” the referendum, show me one, just one, statement I have made where I even telegraphed whether I was in favor or opposed to it, let alone the “passionate detail.” You cannot.

Fair point, PW…perhaps the real point is that most taxpayers don’t vote in our little local elections and then wonder why their property tax bills keep going up.

If you don’t vote, your complaints about high taxes will sound a little hollow.

EDITOR’S NOTE: But it won’t stop the non-voters from beefing.

Geeeeeez Mayor Dave!!!! I have been coming to this blog for a long time and have see things written here and accusations made here with zero substantiation about citizens, elected officials and appointed (some by you) officials. I know that you read this blog as well and have seen what has been written. I have NEVER seen you “call out” anyone here, least of all the blog master. Now you get all huffy about this??

It seems to me your position is clear not so much by what you say but by what you have not said over the years.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Once again, Mayor Dave can speak for himself, but he didn’t “call out” anyone via this blog: we did, by republishing his commments as published in the Park Ridge Journal, and Ms. Irvine’s reply.

To quote you chapter and verse:

“Here is where you indicated questions about the intergovernmental agreement:

Judging by City Mgr. Shawn Hamilton’s latest missive to D-64 Supt. Phil Bender, a May 22, 2014 letter, we’re still not sure.

The letter points out some of the boneheaded terms of the existing intergovernmental agreement between the City and D-64 which our City officials back in 2003-04 were only too happy to sign off on in order to lock in the TIF Bribe – which it sounds like the City is trying to renegotiate.”

So according to you the City is paying D64 a TIF Bribe.

Should that money have gone to D64 in the first place? If not, that money could have been used for Library, Police, Fire,etc.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, it was a “bribe” – albeit a legal one in the form of a contract between the City and D-64 that D-64 is insisting is legally enforceable. And while it looks like D-64 may have played a little fast-and-loose with the City re how much D-64 should be paid, we have seen nothing to suggest that the contract is not enforceable.

So if you don’t like that, go to a D-64 Board meeting and demand that it renegotiate the TIF contract so that the City has more money for the Library. But don’t take offense if we don’t hold our collective breath waiting for that to happen.

I early voted AND I voted in favor of the library referendum. I’m sure in your eyes that makes me a heretic but here me out.

In Cook County, and further statewide, there’s not much of a choice in elections. Sometimes there is an illusion of choice – but more often than not, the districts have been so gerrymandered that it doesn’t make any difference who you vote for. IT doesn’t matter if I vote early, or late, or whenever, its the same (D) names on the ballot who will nearly always receive 60% or more of the vote.

That being said, all politics are local, and I voted for the library referendum. The fact of the matter is that Park Ridge is a nice town and funding the library is a necessity. Flood control is a necessity too. The new pool, although not a necessity, is a nice perk of living in Park Ridge, and it was used heavily by all age and income demographics in park ridge this summer. The youth campus will be a nice draw for young families in the future. Eventually I or my estate will need to sell my house, and I’d like a buyer to pay top dollar for my house because of the amenities park ridge has to offer, rather than moving to Glenview or Northbrook instead.

I generally consider myself a fiscal conservative, and government is definitely prone to wasting money; but fiscal conservationism doesn’t mean the lack of spending – it merely means spending wisely and conservatively. I would have vote against the TIF, and probably would have voted against a $20,000,000 library expansion, and I’m extremely proud that park ridge didn’t build a Taj Mahal of a police station like so many others in the NW burbs did (ahem…..the 4 story arlington heights castle, the niles fortress, Mt prospect, glenview, etc.). But funding our dumpy little library at a level that meets inflation? that’s a no brainer…

EDITOR’S NOTE: Most “no brainers” are exactly that.

We’ve always considered “fiscal conservatism” as being spending wisely AND within one’s means. As we’ve seen over the years, however, one person’s amenity is another’s necessity; and “within one’s means” can cover quite a broad spectrum.

Apologies in advance for being off topic, but this is so ground breaking I couldn’t resist. How do we get the same opportunity in the next election cycle for 64 and 207 ? Thanks, enjoy the day.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/hinsdale-clarendon-hills-oak-brook/ct-district-86-referendum-hinsdale-tl-1030-20141028-story.html

EDITOR’S NOTE: Try lobbying your school board members to vote to go to referendum on it, like the Hinsdale folks did – and barely succeeded by a 4-3 vote. But don’t bet the ranch on getting 4 members of either the 207 or 64 boards to go along with it.

And the question should have been: “Shall the Board of Education of Hinsdale Township High School District 86 continue to offer eligible teachers the opportunity to earn any salary increases over and above the contractual step and lane increases in each of four (4) school years prior to retirement?”

Spike increases simply exacerbate this state’s pension problems, so it’s not surprising the school boards that Mark Twain rightly mocked boneheadedly give them out.

But we’re saving that discussion of another day. We will print no more comments about that topic.

“But then, little about this whole campaign has been honest. Ms. Irvine’s protestations are just the latest example.”

5th Ward taxpayer, clearly you hate the fact that this even came to a referendum, but that’s the way it goes. Can you be a little more specific on what you mean by “little about this whole campaign has been honest”? Are you suggesting otherwise? Can you back this up in any way?

Let me help you out Anon @ 443. Over the years I have occasionally written on this blog in an effort to correct some misconceptions, not to berate someone’s opinion. I generally let everything else go, because everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if they have no basis for it, although it is completely fair to challenge those people for the very reason that they have no basis. I leave that for the editor and the other participants on the blog.

But all that aside, the Irvine issue was a different animal completely. She took to the press to accuse the aldermen of deliberately misleading the public and drafting a resolution which was pre-destined to fail. Both of those claims were purely false and quite obviously politically motivated to stir anger against the aldermen, make them scapegoats and build support for the referendum. The fact that they came from a former alderman who is a respected member of the community and who invoked her former service with the City convinced me a direct response was appropriate and necessary.

So it is being “politically motivated” and stirring anger” that bothers you Mr. Mayor???? Now THAT is funny!!!!!!! That happens here all the time, and sometimes even by former elected officials and even appointed people.

Bottom line is that if you agree all these tactics are fine but if you don’t suddenly you use the bully pulpit.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s exactly how the “bully pulpit” – with “bully” meaning great or wonderful, as in “bully for you” – is intended to be used.

PD:

I have no problem with that, although I think I might also use the other meaning of bully a time or two. Let’s just no pretend it was a unique situation involving the press, and politically motivated and stirring anger. The Mayor let’s all that go with a wink and a nod (maybe even more that that, who knows??) when it is to his advantage.

Has he ever gotten all huffy with you even once with all the accusations to various aldermen over the years???

EDITOR’S NOTE: Then let’s not pretend that Ms. Irvine was engaging in anything other than a cheap political stunt that was either disingenous or simply stupid and misinformed.

Mayor Dave and this editor have often exchanged words that should not be spoken in the presence of children or of men and women of the cloth.

To say that refusing to restore the library’s modest 2008-level funding is a step toward making up for the mega-millions in deferred (long before the Uptown TIF, by the way)maintenance and upgrades to our infrastructure makes as much sense as not buying your wife an anniversary card because you’re behind on your car payment. Ideologues have no sense of proportion,and that renders them incapable of making cost/benefit analyses that make sense to the normal taxpayer who can make such distinctions. The library gets less than 3 pennies out of every tax dollar you pay. For what it provides? C’mon.
Even English majors can do the math. Can you?

EDITOR’S NOTE: By the end of next Tuesday night we should know what distinctions the “normal taxpayer” is ready, willing and able to make – by actual vote totals instead of speculation, intuition and rhetoric. And we will have no problem accepting it.

Will you?

I pretended no such thing!!! I made no defense of her statements at all.

My response was to the Mayor’s explanation as to why he “called her out” compared to so many others who have made politically motivated anger stirring statements that have been made by elected and/or appointed officials or just people in a public forum where he said nothing.

As I said before….It seems to me your position is clear not so much by what you say but by what you have not said over the years.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Using your own “logic,” your criticizing the mayor while saying nothing about Irvine’s statements makes YOUR position clear.

by the way, still waiting to hear from Thillens on this issue.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Why?

(Responding to the anonymous commenter yesterday at 8:54 a.m.)

You asked me to be a little more specific about my contention that “little about this whole campaign has been honest.”

Three points. (1) The initial play for more money was to hold the library hostage by closing it on Sundays — and as noted in library board meeting minutes, the aim was explicitly to make the community feel pain so they would magically rise up and demand more funding. This was dishonest because they could have economized in other ways that affected services far less. (2) The yard signs carry the anodyne message of voting yes for a referendum, not a tax increase. (3) The library just sent out a mailer to all households, at taxpayer expense, that gave a one-sided argument in favor of the tax increase.

You are wrong to say that I “hate the fact that this even came to a referendum” — actually, it’s the library staff that hates having a referendum, as Ms. Irvine seems to argue. My only concern is that referenda in Park Ridge take advantage of low voter attention and turnout, allowing small segments of the population to vote “yes” so the entire city has to pay for their dalliances.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Turnout – or, more accurately, fear of big turnout – is why proponents of most local referenda try to put them on the April ballot rather than the November ballot if timing is not otherwise crucial. You can always count on several thousand fewer votes in April.

638, pay attention. This is the first time I can ever recall a former alderman effectively calling the current aldermen liars and deceivers. THAT was unique, and it called for a unique response.

Two things Mayor Dave:

1. How nice it is not to state your position before the election? That way you can so convincingly claim that you with the majority later.

2. Mary Ann Irvine is only wrong because she misses the point of you and the Aldermans true intention which is to put a controversial referendum on the ballot to drive up the vote in Park Ridge (Republican) and please you and this blogs author new best pals Voss-Eggleman and Sweeney.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mary Ann Irvine loves to spend Other People’s Money – preferably without giving them a direct vote on doing it – which makes her almost always wrong. And when she’s stuck with a referendum, she’s one of those who wants a small turnout because it’s easier to pass referenda when less people vote.

This Editor, on the other hand, has always advocated for big turnouts at every election, irrespective of candidate or question. Which is why he prefers referenda on November ballots rather than April ones, but supports April ones where the issue can’t wait for the next November election.

Mayor Dave:

How about a former PD board member (elected official) and current appointed library board member calling……well you pick one. That is why I pointed out that you read this blog. Aldermen, city employees and just plain ole’ citizens have been accused of all kinds of things here including deceit. At times even criminal acts have been implied. Hell by his definition most of us are freeloaders. All this and not a peep from you. So you are saying that what she said was somehow worse than what has been said over the years here? Or is it that her past position is somehow different that his?

The difference is simple. In one case you say “everyone is entitled to their opinion” and in another you get all huffy. If it is someone or something that you agree with you sit on the sidelines while accusations fly and names are called and tactics are used but if it something you do not agree with suddenly these same actions are wrong.

Bottom line is your the Mayor and you have a right to your opinion as well. That includes voicing your opinion whenever you like (including giving election advice in a city document paid for by tax dollars). Just do not pretend that there was something said or done in this case that is somehow out of bounds or different than what you have let often let pass.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The irony of your comments is that they don’t challenge the substance of the mayor’s positions but just the motives behind them – which you can do only because he identified himself while your hiding in anonymity prevents anyone from challenging YOUR motives. How tough and courageous of you.

As for this editor, he has always been willing to take on all comers – including the many anonymous ones like yourself who make unfounded claims such as “by his definition most of us are freeloaders” when just the opposite is true; The vast majority of Park Ridge taxpayers AREN’T freeloaders, which is why the real freeloaders and freeloader-enablers like Irvine don’t want to let those taxpayers vote on tax/borrow/spend referendums.

Again with the comment about anonymous posters. Of the 24 posts on this thread, 19 are posted as anonymous or with a fake name. If you do not like it change the rules.

The Mayor, who has been observing and occasionally posting here for at least as long as I have, knows this as well.

People post here anon all the time (on this thread) yet you only bring up when it is against your point. Kind of like the Mayor. He has observed comments that are ” politically motivated and stirring anger” by former elected officials and people he appointed and never said a word so long as he agrees with it. This is not about her tactics somehow being offensive to him.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, “again” with the criticism of anonymous posters…especially when they are clearly trying to leverage their anonymity to make character or motive attacks against people with the stones to identify themselves.

From Day One we have permitted anonymous comments because we believe honest discussion of issues sometimes involves taking unpopular positions with which some commentators might be uncomfortable being identified. And we don’t intend to change the rules just because a few anonymous goofs choose to abuse the privilege, although we will not miss an opportunity to call them out on their abuse.

Ms. Irvine’s letters have made it sound like the referendum question was purposely drafted to elicit a “No” vote by aldermen who want a “no” vote. From what the Mayor and PW have written, and which neither Ms. Irvine nor any commentator to this post has refuted, the referendum question was written to conform to state law and approved by the City attorney. So I have to assume the question is legitimate and not drafted to fail.

As for the motives of the aldermen, what do they have to gain from the referendum’s defeat? If the taxpayers want to pay another $70-80-90-etc in taxes expressly for the library, why should the aldermen care?

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s the way we see it, although that seems to have escaped Ms. Irvine and her defenders.

Anon @ 305, I have to say you brightened my morning with those hilarious statements. First, I will be with the majority on the referendum precisely because they are the majority. That is how a binding referendum works, and I will honor the result. But I suspect that will not satisfy you. So I suppose I could write down how I cast my vote (yes ‘Dog, I voted early because I’ll be OOT) on a piece of paper and place it in a mayonnaise jar to be set on the front steps of Funk and Wagnall’s and opened the day after the election. Even then, I suspect you would accuse me of switching mayonnaise jars.

Your second point about the Council’s motives is the most absurdly comical thing I have heard in quite some time. It would certainly come as news to Ald. Knight and Ald. Maloney, both of whom worked hard to get the referendum on the ballot, and neither of whom I am guessing would be remotely inclined to purposely drive up GOP turnout. Where do you come up with this stuff?

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re excused, because your early vote was the equivalent of an absentee ballot.

Love the “switching mayonaise jars” analogy, as well as the Carnac the Magnificent homage.

“This stuff” is just political campaigning. You should know that by now, Mr. Mayor.

You and the mayor will recall that not long ago, in a galaxy not far away, a certain bunch of residents raised name-calling to a new level when addressing then-aldermen of the “Anderson Nine” era. (It’s why City police installed the sign in City Hall warning citizens not to go into the horseshoe area.) “Dishonest” was the least of what those folks said to, and about, sitting aldermen. But that was then, right? Many can dish it out; not all, apparently, can take it.

It may be true that there’s better turnout in November, which should work against a referendum, but one can’t help wondering why the Council rushed the Library referendum onto November, giving its proponents only a scant few months to mount a campaign. They’d have had a lot more time to gather support if the referendum had been announced last June for the April ballot. Coincidence?

As to the confusing/misleading referendum wording, it would be too sad to conjecture why five meetings and legal advice yielded referendum wording that said the current levy is 0.150% when it clearly is 0.29 (or, for easier comparison, 0.290). NOT 0.150. Even in your 1984 world, 1 is not 2, and saying it is over and over won’t make it so.

Many of us do appreciate your commitment to making the Library as cost-efficient as possible. Some of your directives to Library staff make sense and are fair, such as seriously chasing down those who don’t pay for books they lose. Other directives violate the very intent of Library- endowing Andrew Carnegie — no lefty, he! — such as charging for use of Library computers. (Personally, I’d rather forgive a few bucks in computer time to a job-hunting or student non-resident than pay a ton of bucks to maintain them on public aid or in prisons, and even my self-professed Tea Party friends agree.)

Some of us think you’ve gone past the fat, into the muscle and maybe even into the marrow when it comes to cost containment. But no matter how the election turns out, fans of the Library can thank the City Council and its like-minded Library Board majority for reminding residents how fragile these shared treasures are that we take for granted.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Don’t get this editor started with the “Anderson Nine,” whose foolish and ham-handed efforts to gratuitously screw with newly-elected mayor Howard P. Frimark were so inept they actually handed Frimark the opportunity to squeal that “They’re stealing my powers!” – and emboldened him to put his nutty cut-the-council referendum on the November 2006 ballot that a majority of voters endorsed because the “Anderson Nine” couldn’t even muster a cogent message in opposition. And then after botching all that, 7 of those mopes didn’t even have the stones to run to hold onto their seats.

The Council “rushed” the referendum onto the November ballot because, if it were to pass, the new tax rate could be incorporated into the December levy and help prevent the Library from further cutting into its depleted fund balance with more deficit spending – rather than waiting to put it on the April ballot and losing a whole tax year of higher levy. And if the tax increase is such a good idea, are you saying the voters are so stupid or selfish they need 9 months to be convinced of that good idea? Puh-leeze!

The wording of a binding referendum is a LEGAL issue for which a legal opinion was properly sought and received. But just like we said about Ms. Irvine and all the other current grumblers about that wording: Where were YOU and YOUR beefing during the 2-3 months the wording was being discussed at open meetings and reported in the newspapers?

Finally, don’t misrepresent Andrew Carnegie’s philanthropy: he didn’t even buy books for the libraries he built, believing it was a community’s responsibility to fill a library with the materials the community valued. So we’re confident Andy wouldn’t be railing against the Library’s charging fees for computer usage or anything else, especially if it meant the Library wouldn’t be closed summer Sundays by folks who just wanted to annoy Sunday customers for purely political purposes.

If “better turnout” works against a referendum, a candidate or anything else, then it was not meant to be. “Better turnout” in an election is a GOOD thing. The more people involved in a decision, the more likely the general public will be invested in the outcome. The opposite is unfortunately true, and it is one of the reasons this state has gone to hell in a hand basket. Fewer people vote, the general public becomes less invested in the outcome and their government in general, and the bad people end up running things while everyone else complains about how government sucks. Wake up people! Vote!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly right, Mr. Mayor. If you believe in our form of government, then the bigger turnout the better – no matter who is running and/or what referendum is on the ballot.

“Three points. (1) The initial play for more money was to hold the library hostage by closing it on Sundays — and as noted in library board meeting minutes, the aim was explicitly to make the community feel pain so they would magically rise up and demand more funding. This was dishonest because they could have economized in other ways that affected services far less. (2) The yard signs carry the anodyne message of voting yes for a referendum, not a tax increase. (3) The library just sent out a mailer to all households, at taxpayer expense, that gave a one-sided argument in favor of the tax increase.”

Three responses:

I think the public will notice the consequences of reduced funding one way or another if the referendum fails, whether it be closing on certain days, fewer services or materials, more fees for everything, firing staff, or whatever will be done too cut costs.

It’s an exaggeration to suggest that a citizen’s group hoping for a positive result on the referendum is somehow being dishonest by using the phrase “referendum” vs. “tax increase” on a yard sign, which by its nature is a marketing tool.

Finally, what mailer are you talking about? The newsletter? It provided information on the referendum so that the public could make up its own mind. Is that another example of what you mean by “dishonest?” Really?

EDITOR’S NOTE: We suspect that the mailer in (3) is a reference to a mailer titled “All. Together. Now. Vote Yes, Library Nov. 4!” – which expressly states that it was paid for by Citizens Supporting the Library Referendum.” But maybe not.

While the postcard mailer was an advocacy tool and a thing of beauty, it was paid for by a few dozen residents (not tax deductible by them.) The “mailer” paid for by the public was the usual Library newsletter, and it contained only the same general message and charts that already appeared on the Library Board-approved Library website and handouts. If it seemed to lean toward passage, that’s because the efforts already made to save money, the skimpy percentage of your tax bill that goes to the Library, and the lost services to come are facts, Jack. There were no pro-referendum messages published with public funding.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The “lost services to come” are NOT “facts, Jack” – because the Library Board and Staff have yet to decide what they will do if the Library referendum does not pass. Those “lost services” are merely possibilities that the Library Staff suggested, and could be substantially reduced, if not eliminated, by a combination of user fees, reductions in hours, reductions in staff, etc.

This editor is not advocating for all of those, just pointing out the inaccuracy of that part of your statement.

Wow. Here’s the crux of the schism: You genuinely don’t understand that “user fees, reduction in hours, reductions in staff, etc.” themselves constitute or directly cause “lost services.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Spoken like a true bureaucrat or big-government apologist.

We’ll consider taking this nonsense seriously when you show up to assail the Park District for “lost services” because it charges user fees; or the City because it charges parking fees or water fees; or Maine South for charging a fee to watch a football or basketball game. Or when you want to come out of the closet and, in your own name and voice, argue that having to wait an additional 30 seconds to check out a DVD because of staffing reductions represents unacceptable “lost services.”

Hi folks, I’m now responding to the recent comments about what I see as “dishonesty” in communications in favor of the Library tax increase.

To the comment, “II think the public will notice the consequences of reduced funding one way or another if the referendum fails”, yes, I agree — but the Library staff explicitly ignored other, less noticeable cost-cutting measures because they wanted Sunday closings to incite public sentiment. Instead they could have chosen things you listed: “fewer services or materials, more fees for everything, firing staff, or whatever will be done too (sic) cut costs.” The community must choose between reduced services and more taxes. It’s pretty simple. But the “Sunday closings” tactic was deceiving because it implied that the budget situation is worse than it is.

That brings us to the mailer. Yes, I am referring to the taxpayer-funded “newsletter”, not the postcard. I agree that it listed “facts”. But again, it arranged those facts in a way that implied a “no” vote means a list of nasties when in reality it should mean an honest attempt by the Library Board and the Library Staff to rejigger the budget — just as households all over Park Ridge have been doing in a slow recovery.

Finally, on the subject of the yard sign: I can’t blame the people wanting to force the entire community to pay for a cushy library budget to explicitly call it a “tax increase”. I only hope that the community realizes that saying “yes” to this, to the Youth Campus, to another raise for the already-overpaid teachers and administrators, only encourages bigger property tax bills.

If you vote “yes” — or if you don’t vote at all — and the referendum passes, you lose credibility if you ever complain about high taxes. I gladly pay my share — but worry that my share seems to go up automatically every year. It’s right to question the continual demands made by public servants.

5th Ward Taxpayer — The library did reduce services and materials. They did fire staff. They’ve even started charging some fees. This is addition to the Sunday closings. You seem to imply that there has been no attempt by the library and staff to “rejigger” the budget, but the facts don’t support that.

I’m with you about keeping property taxes down. I feel that directly, too. But when I think of waste and hubris, I don’t automatically think of the library — I think primarily of the Uptown TIF fiasco. Heads should have rolled for that one, and none did.

Finally, I hope the next library budget is “cushy” enough that they can get new carpeting.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What specific reduction(s) in services and materials meaningfully and adversely impacted the Library’s service to this community? And if you’ve got an objection to charging user fees for things like computers, DVDs and programs, please say so – and explain why charging for photocopying is categorically different.

No heads “rolled for that one” because the clowns responsible for it packed up and fled City Hall before the chickens came home to roost. And some of them, like former ald/mayor Howard Frimark, will even blame the entire fiasco on a lawsuit by former resident Charles Baldacchino, even though Frimark and his then-14 member council fell all over themselves giving the Uptown developer’s lenders all the financial guarantees they asked for, as soon as they asked for them.

PD, I do get the impression you feel user fees should be charged for a lot of things. Can you then explain to the taxpayers what exactly their taxes pay for in terms of library services?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yep, we think one way to control taxes in a more fair way is to charge user fees.

We shouldn’t have to explain to anybody what their taxes pay for, but here goes: the Library building; the general overhead (heat, light, A/c, janitorial); the books and materials; staff for non-value add services.

And you still didn’t answer the questions we previously asked you in response to your 11:20 comment:

1. What specific reduction(s) in services and materials meaningfully and adversely impacted the Library’s service to this community? 2. And if you’ve got an objection to charging user fees for things like computers, DVDs and programs, please say so – and explain why charging for photocopying is categorically different.

Explain why you think charging for any resource is ok, when it definitely falls into the “materials” portion of what our taxes pay for. What programs should be charged fees? Are you seriously suggesting that toddlers, preschoolers, all the way up to high schoolers should be charged for programs that will only enhance literacy?? The library’s mission statement, according to their website states “The mission of the Park Ridge Public Library is to provide the community with access to information, recreation and enlightenment by promoting materials, programs and services.” I have NEVER heard of ANY library charging for the very services and materials they are promoting. And please spare me the usual song and dance comparison to the Park District. Comparing a library to a park district is rather like comparing apples and oranges. They are not comparable, because they are not the same. Public libraries are NOT businesses, they exist for the public good and to serve the community.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We believe that charging a fee is appropriate for any goods or services that have value, whether they be a necessity or an amenity. That way, it’s tougher for greedy and/or irresponsible users can’t take unfair advantage of the non-user payers. Why do so many freeloaders act like this concept is so difficult to understand – other than because it’s against their self-interest?

We don’t see the word “free” or the phrase “without fee or charge” in that Library mission statement. Nor can we find those words in the mission statements of the City, the Park District or the school districts.

Finally, does City-supplied water “exist for the public good and to serve the community”? If so, why does the City charge for it? And if you think that’s wrong, we’d love for you to show up at City Hall and demand that water be supplied for no charge to the users. But of course you won’t, because you don’t have the guts to publicly disclose either the stupidity or the greed that informs the views you can express here anonymously.

That was an idiotic analogy. If I were to make a comparison, it would be to public works, the police department, or the fire dept. Am I sent a separate bill whenever my street is plowed or when my garbage is picked up? No. Do I receive an invoice from the police or fire departments for calling them? Of course not. Those are paid for through my taxes. They are there to serve the public, just like the library is. Parking fees? Maybe to park my car in one place from morning ‘til night, but for the most part, there is free parking all over town, albeit with a time limit. Water? C’mon… that argument is just plain dumb. We’re not paying for JUST the water, we are paying to pump it, clean it, etc. Next, you’ll state that maybe we should be charged a fee for flushing the toilet in our own homes. The point is that any fee barrier in a library in inherently undemocratic, especially for an institution that prides itself on serving everyone equally. As Carnegie once wrote, “There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you you’re so concerned about all things “undemocratic,” where were you when the previous Library Board and Staff chose to close the Library on Sundays (the Library’s BUSIEST day, based on per-hour attendance) this past summer, the only day some people have to use the Library?

And if you really do equate the Library with police, fire, sewer and water, why weren’t you at City Hall last spring telling the Council to close the police station or one firehouse Sunday afternoons, or not to repave a couple of blocks of City streets, or not replace a block or two of antiquated sewers, and instead give that money to the Library so that it could stay open those summer Sundays?

We’ve scoured the Internet and can’t find any quotes from Andy Carnegie about free computer usage and free programs. Please provide them.

First of all, to my knowledge, the Staff had no choice in the library closings on Sundays. That was all on the Board. Second, where was I? Would my one little voice have made any difference whatsoever? If so, explain how the Kiwanis’ voices made no difference in the Food for Fines program? An entire organization had no effect. Get real, the Board makes the rules and decisions. Third, yes I do equate the library with the police and fire departments in the manner of which they serve the public. Not quite the same when it comes to public safety. Duh. As for repaving and sewers, kind of a necessity, don’t you think?
As for keeping libraries free? Here’s a Carnegie library letting their patrons use a 3D printer for FREE.
http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Pittsburgh-Magazine/July-2014/You-Can-Now-3-D-Print-at-the-Carnegie-Library-For-Free/
I “scoured the internet” looking for libraries that charge for computer usage and programs, and I was unable to find one, unless there was a paid speaker or materials were involved. Maybe YOU can provide one.

EDITOR’S NOTE: First of all, it was the Library’s senior “Staff” that recommended summer Sunday closings – and then argued against the suggestions by myself and trustees Egan and Foss-Eggemann that weekday hours could be reduced instead.

Second, the Kiwanis voices arguably DID make a difference on FFF last January, when the prior board chose to leave FFF in place. Only when two new Board members were seated did the vote go against FFF, and no Kiwanis members even bothered to show up that night.

Third, if you do “equate the library with the police and fire departments in the manner of which they serve the public,” we suspect very few Park Ridge taxpayers would agree with you. But opinions vary.

Finally, this editor would love to add a 3-D printer to our Library – and talked with the Carnegie Library’s assistant director about theirs almost a year ago. But unless we can get a grant with which to purchase and operate it, like the Carnegie did, then the Library should charge for its use. As for what other libraries do or don’t, I don’t care if they give out free sushi and ice cream; or whether they fingerprint and retina scan each patron. I took an oath to oversee the management of THIS Library, in THIS community – not in Pittsburgh, Niles, or Fargo.