Definition of asshole in the dictionary applies to you.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mitch, you got your own computer? Dude! You’re off the parasite list.

“That sense of duty became even more honor-bound when, just this past Tuesday, those taxpayers conscientiously and graciously voted to tax themselves even more to keep our Library open, operating and improving”.

So you are saying that the money as provided by the council for the library prior to the referendum was not enough to keep it “open, operating and improving?”

EDITOR’S NOTE: No. But the more money the taxpayers entrust to the Library Board, the more extensive our obligation becomes.

Politicians constantly tell us they are concerned about us taxpayers. We just got done with two months of being bombarded with that message, 99% of it lies. But I respect you for what you say and what you and the library board are doing. Thank you.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We dislike most “politicians” and don’t consider anybody on the Library Board one of those creatures. But thank you for the compliment.

Sorry PD. I appreciate all that you do but I have to agree with Mitch.

To paraphrase what you said about Thillens, in your personal life you may be a very fine fellow, but in your public life you are an asshole. You wrap your self in this fighting for good government and throw in a few Jefferson quotes to justify it but the truth is there are people all over PR, Illinois and this country who care about good government and our future just as much as you but do not feel the need to name call and degrade as you do. Hell, neither the Mayor or Dan Knight, who are in your general realm even define people in the terms you do. Doing that does not make you some sort of freedom fighter for democracy….it makes you an asshole.

Honestly sometimes I cannot figure out if you are really in this for advancing policies or just to pick fights with people. A 60+ year old man referring to people as parasites. A library board member who relishes getting in blog fights with library employees.

The plan was to lower library funding and push for a move to fee based services. The voters said no. So what did you do….jumped from the freeloaders to the parasites.

By the way, if you scroll down in the Webster online dictionary you referenced, under synonyms you will find the word freeloader. So all you did was come up with a different word for what you have been calling people for years…..congrats!

EDITOR’S NOTE: We might take your name-calling about our name-calling more seriously if you had the stones to identify yourself, but you don’t. So we won’t.

We’re not afraid to call a spade a spade, or a parasite a parasite – which we did BEFORE the election and before its results were known.

For future reference, we use “parasites” to designate non-resident freeloaders.

Sorry but if you have a fiduciary duty to the library, it is to all users of the library residents and non residents. Kids use the library, they don’t pay taxes. Don’t you have a fiduciary duty to them as well? I think your definition of fiduciary duty is too narrow. If you accept that you have a fiduciary responsibility for the operations of the library, it is to the institution and all of the users. You can’t pick and chose which users of the library you are responsible too. If you view your responsibilities only to tax payers and residents, you should resign. We need individuals who understand the whole picture, not green horns who don’t understand what a fiduciary responsibility is.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You are correct, and my fiduciary duty extends across all those interests.

The reason I emphasize my duty to the taxpayers, however, is because it’s the taxpayers’ interests – and especially those of the non-user taxpayers – that are consistently disregarded and ignored by staff and by certain board members whose concerns run exclusively to users and employees. That’s why they run programs that apparently are so lacking intrinsic value that they can’t bring themselves to charge for them, even as the Library is deficit spending by hundreds of thousands of dollars that the taxpayers have to pick up. Worse yet, those staff and Board members even screwed over USERS – summer Sunday users, to be exact – for the benefit of weekday users and Library employees.

And they so distrusted the taxpayers (a/k/a the voters) that the City Council had to force a November binding referendum on them because they didn’t want it and wouldn’t request it.

Finally, if by some bizarre chance you happen to be Illinois’ former governor, “Big Jim” Thompson (I.D. required), your 14 years in public office beat my 11 years in public office – 8 years elective (Park Board, 1997-2005), 3 years appointive (Library Board) – and you have earned the right to call me a “green horn.” If not, you haven’t; and you’re just little Jim.

Please read the names of the commenters on Herald. Several are politically bipolar or completely disingenuous. You will see the same names pop up and say “my taxes are too high”. Or, I want “more flood control”. Or, “I don’t want to pay fees for my children’s $10000 free school use”.

So, for the bipolar (or just morons) that continue to pop off and complain about everything, please understand that if you get “free” things from government, that someone has to pay for it…and if you live in Park Ridge, it’s YOU! As the saying goes “Sh** costs money”

Over the last month on social media, I’ve seen the most insane comments about local government. It’s like the forum has been handed to 2nd graders with no accountability. It’s scary that these people walk amongst us.

For the record, I voted “Yes” for the library. It’s very clear that I will pay higher taxes, and I’m happy to do it in that instance. So to me, it’s best of both worlds. People pay for usage on top of the fact that library is funded more properly. I want a nicer library, since Park Ridge is supposedly a “nicer” suburb.

Can we put a dollar amount (or near one) as to how much the library spends on each person like you do on the school dist so we can hear you cry about that? Seriously, I’d like to know how much is spent vs it’s users. Maybe the library can charge $300 a person in user fees like D54 does to offset its lack of Benjamins.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t put any dollar amount on what D-64 spends: that figure comes from the state report card, and in 2014 it’s $14,886/student – up 28% since 2010.

The Library doesn’t have a fixed enrollment, so its attendance can’t be measured like D-64’s enrollment. And the attendance/visit figures the Library does keep are virtually worthless because the Library doesn’t count “unique” users: i.e., its roughly 40,000 “visits” each month might be 10,000 unique visitors showing up 4x/month, 5,000 unique visitors showing up 8x/month, or any other mathematical permutation that totals 40,000.

And the Library staff and certain Board members don’t even want to try to implement ways to keep a more accurate count because 40,000 – even if it’s a totally bogus number – looks so impressive, especially when our total population is only around 38,000.

Weird, on the Tribune site, Asshole claims no library employees are parasites. Yet in a comment here he lambastes several of them as basically that. He’ll play smantics like the Asshole Lawyer he is, but fact remains he’s basically accusing them of stealing money from taxpayers by creating programs for out-of-towners, making them the very parasites he hates.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Weird, but either you can’t read or you can’t reason. Too bad that new computer can’t help with either of those problems. Just when you made it off the parasite list, you put yourself on the idiot list.

You are absolutely correct that few public officials, elected or appointed, stand up for the ordinary taxpayer. The special interests who use more resources than they pay for are far more vocal and provide far more employment opportunities for the politicians and public employees to exploit.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Math is an unforgiving thing. If you use more than you pay for, somebody else has to pick up the difference. Too many public officials don’t seem to get that, and the freeloaders and parasites want to keep it that way.

So which board members were against the increased tax for library? And why against it? Apparently the library. The youth campus and dare I say our schools need to be well taken care of well funded so that our town remains a quality town that people want to live in. It’s as simple as that. So those who degrade people as freeloaders or parasites should apparently revisit not only their classless name calling but also their logic.

Just saying pubdog. Apparently two referenda so far show that you are not in touch with what the voting populace of PR want for this fine city.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We never took a position supporting or opposing either referendum because: (a) we thought there were legitimate arguments on both sides of each issue; and (b) the voters were getting the vote they deserved, irrespective of the outcome.

As for what Library Board members were against the referendum, none that we know of – unless you want to count those who didn’t even want the question to go to referendum?

Important discussion despite the detention-earning name-calling. This is the first time you’ve explained that you focus so intensely on the needs of non-Library-users who are taxpayers because you feel that nobody else is doing so. You’ve perhaps overlooked that, by significantly reducing Library’s annual funding over the last five years, the Council has obviously prioritized non-Library-users’ needs. However, you feel your mission on the Library Board is to continue and confirm the Council’s priorities, and while I think they’re more than covered, at least this rationale is not just “get off my lawn.” I also thank everyone who weighed in on the “shared resources improve life for all of us” side of the argument. Interdependence doesn’t mean Joni Ernst has got at ya. It’s how independence gets and keeps its sea legs.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What the heck are you talking about? The City Council significantly reduced all sorts of funding besides the Library’s, even as it increased property taxes by over 3% to deal with increased costs and the increasing Uptown TIF debt. So you cannot legitimately argue that it “prioritized” anybody’s needs.

My concern for the taxpayers is to be contrasted with: (a) those certain parasitic non-resident users, as discussed more fully in the post; and (b) and those freeloader resident users with the entitlement mentalities.

And if you want to discuss Joni Ernst, find somebody from Iowa who actually gives a rat’s derriere about that senatorial race – because we aren’t and we don’t.

For god sake stop saying we…..say “I never took a position”. If there are really others as you would have us believe why don’t they “have the stones to identify themselves”. You continue to throw that at anon posters yet let thmes “elves” hide.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, there really are “others” who are essential to the functioning of this blog – by providing information, contacts, research, analysis, ideas, even some writing. Some are current elected and appointed officials, some former officials, some local business people and some just plain ordinary citizens. The price of their anonymity, however, is voluntarily paid on a daily basis by this editor – who DOES have the stones to identify himself.

If you’ve got a beef about that, we’ll start taking it seriously if you ever grow a pair and start making these kinds of comments in your own name.

It will be interesting to see what Trizna says in what he thinks is private since he is so nasty in public. A FOIA request or three will enlighten us.

EDITOR’S NOTE: FOIA away.

And if you think that’s “nasty,” time to put on an extra layer of bubble wrap, Kevie.

I’m a Park Ridge taxpayer (20 years). I rarely use the library but I voted for the referendum. But last year my computer went on the fritz (I pretty much work from home) so I went to the library to use one of the computers because I had work to do. I wasn’t educating myself or expanding my knowledge, I was generating income for myself, and it cost me nothing to do so.

At the time I didn’t think anything of it, and I haven’t been back to the library since. But this blog post and your comments got me thinking about it and in retrospect it now seems wrong that I wasn’t charged for something that didn’t benefit the library or my fellow taxpayers, just me. That non-residents could be getting the same kind of benefit seems even more wrong because they don’t even have the same investment in the library and those computers that Park Ridge taxpayers have.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yep, that’s pretty much it.

I’m a bit concerned for your cognitive function, Pubby. You’ve gone on record being against both the Youth Campus purchase and the Library funding restoration, although you were not against them being brought to referendum. Why would you deny this now? Just because you lost? If your position was correct to begin with — i.e. the Youth Campus takes property off the tax rolls and the Library doesn’t need the money if it would charge more fees — why deny it now?

And as to the Castration-Happy Harridan, I don’t think she ran for the Iowa state government. She ran for a position in the federal government. So her Bachmann/Palin brainpower will affect everyone in the U.S. of A. And we have enough rats and enough derriers there already.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve “gone on record”? Don’t think so, but chapter and verse would help.

The Youth Campus has never BEEN on the tax rolls, so that argument fails; and last time we did the math, $60,000 from computer usage and $35,000 from programs doesn’t add up to anywhere near the money that the referendum provided.

If you’ve got the time and the energy to worry about who Iowans send to Washington, you lead a charmed life.

I wonder how many of these comments come from non-residents with an axe to grind, and how many come from staff members whose jobs might depend on keeping the attendance numbers up irrespective of where the visitors come from?

EDITOR’S NOTE: So long as they comment anonymously, we can’t tell. But we suspect there are some of each – as they would have the most at stake in this debate.

of course 9:45’s comment was completely invalid because he/she did not have the stones to sign their name, right?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The observation/opinion/reasoning expressed in the 2d paragraph is what it is, as valid as any other opinion.

On the other hand, whether the commentator’s 1st paragraph set-up – that he/she is a 20-year Park Ridge resident who “rarely” uses the library but voted “for the referendum” and used a Library computer for his/her business purposes – is true or not is unverifiable.

What’s the reason the library has XBox and playstation games? What does this bring to the community? These games to purchase are $60 each. The library has an extensive collection of them, I don’t get it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Neither does this editor. But Staff is sold on them because they appeal to a particular constituency that might not otherwise use the Library, so it’s a way to increase the number of visits and circulation.

Mr. Editor – I, for one, want to thank you for performing your fiduciary duty to the taxpayers and residents of Park Ridge. Someone needs to be looking out for our interests.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re welcome, although we now have several newer Library Board members who seem to be concerned about the taxpayers. And the mayor and a majority of the City Council act and vote like they share that concern.

Unfortunately, only one or two Park Board members appear to understand that concept. And the boards of the two biggest spenders among our local taxing bodies, D-64 and D-207, don’t have one between them – although D-64 Board member Dan Collins did cast one vote this year that was clearly pro-taxpayer and against his own economic interest, such a monumental rarity for that Board that we made special mention of it in our 07.21.14 post.

Well it would appear that the library related concern that the council was addressing on behalf of the taxpayer was completely misguided or, to use your words, they were “second guessed” and “found wrong”. Actually not just wrong but VERY WRONG……a 15% margin with a higher total “yeahs” by far than the park referendum.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Not exactly.

First of all, the Council invited the voters to “second guess” them by voluntarily putting a binding referendum question on the November ballot so that, if successful, the additional funds could be part of this December’s levy and the Library could start receiving the extra money in 2015.

Not surprisingly, that was contrary to the wishes of the then-Library Board majority and Staff, who didn’t want a referendum at all; and who grudgingly would accept one only if it were advisory and held in April 2015, which would apply to the December 2015 levy and deprive the Library of the additional funds until 2016.

The Council also knew that November elections have far bigger turnouts than April ones, as was demonstrated once again with last week’s turnout of 15,081 of 25,586 registered voters (58.94%), compared to last April’s 9,372 of 28,456 registered voters (32.94%). Even the Library’s “no” votes (6,271) were over 1,000 more than the Youth Campus Park’s 5,118 “yes” votes in April 2013. So the Library referendum vote would appear to have more legitimacy than the YCP referendum, even though they both are equally binding on the taxpayers.

wonder how many of these comments come from non-residents with an axe to grind, and how many come from staff members whose jobs might depend on keeping the attendance numbers up irrespective of where the visitors come from?

REALLY?! no one but a relatively small group of park ridge residents read this blog. Don’t kid yourself. Staff if they live in town maybe but otherwise many staff and non staff park ridge residents don’t even know of this blogs existence.

Pubdog is always championing user fees for all aspects of government to keep his taxes low. He doesn’t realize (though two referenda support) that many in town are willing to pay more taxes to fund amenities like parks and libraries or public schools – it builds bolsters and solidifies COmMUNITY.

EDITORS NOTE: We have over 500 “regular” readers (i.e., at least once a week) who visit at the rate of about 200/day.

We love user fees not so much because they help keep taxes lower but because they promote quality and value over quantity, especially for amenities. And that makes them fairer and less likely to be abused by the greedy.

But we have no problem with ANY tax increase that the people vote on by referendum, even if less than 32% (Library) and 18% (Park) of the registered voters actually voted “yes” despite two well-organized vote-yes campaigns and no formal opposition.

I was going to ask if you or the Mayor or the council take any message from the vote. I mean you all claim that you are doing these things on behalf of the taxpayer and yet the vote clearly indicates that was not the case at all. It appears all the bickering and back and forth and pontificating were a waste of time and the voters would rather have you fund it in the first place.

I would curious to hear if the Mayor or any council members have any thoughts on that. We their actions related to library funding truly a reflection of what the taxpayer wanted (turns out no) or more a reflection of what their own group wanted.

Your thoughts are clearly defined in your answer to the previous post. You have “no problem” with it but clearly do not consider it a true reflection of anything and are already trying to diminish any “message” that might be taken from it.

All I can say is that if there really all these people out there that you accurately represent as taxpayers I wish they would get off their asses and vote.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What “message” would you expect from an election like this, other than that the Library will be getting more money because the referendum passed?

The “message” of any election is generally nothing more than what person/side won because that’s all an election is designed to do. Drawing larger inferences from that are rarely valid because rarely, if ever, is the turnout so large and one person/side so dominant that the outcome could not theoretically be changed if all (or even a sizable percentage) of the non-voters had actually turned out.

But if you want a “message” from the vote totals themselves, try this one: approx. 32% of Park Ridge’s registered voters wanted their taxes raised a specific percentage for the Library, approx. 24% of them didn’t, and nobody has a clue what the other 44% of them – over 11,000 registered voters – want.

And if that’s not enough of a message for you, try this one: Over 19,000 Park Ridge adults have “active” Library cards, so less than 45% of those active Library card holders voted to raise their taxes for the Library.

None of that changes or invalidates the outcome, it just makes inferring some grander “message” pretty darn speculative.

But we have no problem with ANY tax increase that the people vote on by referendum, even if less than 32% (Library) and 18% (Park) of the registered voters actually voted “yes” despite two well-organized vote-yes campaigns and no formal opposition.

Interesting. Now that the voters have spoken (and spoken contrary to your views that we shouldn’t fund schools or parks or libraries bc of your concern for “freeloader” (aka residents) now you take a swipe at the “validity” of the referenda bc only a certain percentage actually voted. Wow I guess you only truly champion referendum questions if the result is what you want (people to reject higher taxes and instead pay user fees whether it be for computer use at the library or chrome books at our schools). Referenda are actually a way for elected officials to be weak and not stand up for what they believe in. Instead they can sit back and say the voters wanted this I cant contradict the voters. Pubdog champions referendum questions for everything – if we asked the voters to answer a referendum question on all major issues – why do we need elected officials? Simply for the mundane day to day and not for the weighty decisions of how much tax we should pay for the library our parks or our schools.

Seems the last two referenda have really shown that pundits views of cutting taxes at all costs and let the user (library park or school) bear the brunt of the financing are not what the citizens of pr want.

I’m sorry. I guess we should discount these referenda results based on the percentage that cared enough to read to the end of the ballot and vote their conscience

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ll try to keep it simple for you:

1. The Library and last year’s Youth Campus Park referendums are completely legitimate and valid expressions of the will of the people and we are fine with their results for that reason.

2. Asking the voters what they want is NEVER “weak,” but what truly IS “weak” to the point of cowardice is for public officials to insist they know so well what the taxpayers want that they don’t need to have those taxpayers prove it with their votes – like the City did in 2004 with the Uptown TIF and like the Park Board did last year with the Centennial water park.

3. We want referendums for things that: (a) are controversial; (b) are very costly; and (c) will involve substantial long-term debt and/or will have a significant and lasting effect on the community.

4. “[R]ead[ing] to the end of the ballot” is totally irrelevant when we’re talking about over 10,000 registered voters who didn’t read any part of any ballot.

But we have no problem with ANY tax increase that the people vote on by referendum, even if less than 32% (Library) and 18% (Park) of the registered voters actually voted “yes” despite two well-organized vote-yes campaigns and no formal opposition.

So if those low percentage lend less credibility to the opinion voiced by the voters that voted yes – what does the 500 “visitors” to pubdog website out of 25,732 registered park ridge voters say about the validity of the opinions expressed by pubdog blogger? 1.9% hasn’t meant the difference in park ridge of any recent election or referendum question.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Your question assumes an invalid premise: that this blog is somehow intended to represent the views of anyone besides the editor and at least some of the “elves” who help keep it operational. It’s not, otherwise we’d engage in those stupid things newspapers and Facebook do, such as include “Like” icons for people to click on, or tack some half-baked survey question onto every post.

Thanks for keeping it simple s—id.
I’ll reciprocate
1. Pubdog belows for referenda because he claims voters do not want higher taxes for things like parks or libraries or school because of alleged freeloaders or parasites who are greedy and not concerned about their fellow non user taxpayer
2. The two most recent referenda (and even some comments on his own blog about I don’t use the amenity but I’m willing to pay for it bc it has and will continue to add value to my community despite that some benefit from it more than others) proves him wrong.

Makes your cry for more referenda less effective.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Guess we didn’t make it simple enough for you. Sorry.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Your question assumes an invalid premise: that this blog is somehow intended to represent the views of anyone besides the editor and at least some of the “elves” who help keep it operational. It’s not, otherwise we’d engage in those stupid things newspapers and Facebook do, such as include “Like” icons for people to click on, or tack some half-baked survey question onto every post.

LIKE!!!!!
LOL
TTYL

As a Park Ridge resident and taxpayer I can understand why Park Ridge taxpayers would want a better library and would be willing to tax themselves to pay for it. But why would any Park Ridge taxpayer actually want non-residents to use the library we pay for?

If every non-resident stopped coming to the library today and never set foot in it again, how would we Park Ridge residents and taxpayers be harmed?

EDITOR’S NOTE: We can’t think of one way that should really matter to residents/taxpayers.

Okay, I’ve been reading these comments for two days now and I want to make sure I understand one thing about the editor of this blog, and I am putting it in the form of a “yes” or “no” question:

When you use the term “parasites” are you referring to ALL NON-RESIDENTS or just those non-residents who have stopped coming to the library because they object to being charged for computer use and programs?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe you inadvertently dropped a word somewhere, or we’re missing something; but this is not a “yes”/”no” question.

Nevertheless, the answer is: “just those non-residents who have stopped coming to the library because they object to being charged for computer use and programs.”

“Your question assumes an invalid premise: that this blog is somehow intended to represent the views of anyone besides the editor and at least some of the “elves” who help keep it operational”.

Seems like the entire premise of the library funding by the council was exactly the same…..based on the views of the editor and at least some of the “elves”. Not voting public

EDITOR’S NOTE: We realize this may be a challenging concept for you, but the views of the “voting public” can’t be known until AFTER an election is held and the votes are counted. And as we’ve repeatedly pointed out, it was the Council that insisted on the binding November referendum that the Library Staff and the former Library Board majority did NOT want and argued against.

That is why I said “seems like” as in now that we have this new information. Your comment about not knowing until a vote is correct (in part) which is why I asked earlier whether you, the Mayor or the council took any messages from this vote.

You gave your answer above which is to diminish anything to do with the vote while at the same time saying you support it.

By the way, the EXACT same argument and statistics you use about the validity of the referendum can be used about the last Mayoral election.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The numbers are the numbers, and they don’t lie. The Library refendum passed, as did the Youth Campus Park referendum. That should be enough for everybody, because all that matters in an election is who/what won. We support the referendum process and accept the results without question.

But you weren’t content with that and wanted to turn the vote into some kind of broad public policy “message,” then didn’t like the one we provided so you claim we are trying to “diminish” the outcome when all we did was the math.

But at least you got something right: the same argument and math can be used to formulate a “message” about the last mayoral election, and virtually every other election. So your point is…?

We love user fees not so much because they help keep taxes lower but because they promote quality and value over quantity, especially for amenities.

Anything — at all — to validate this bit of ideology?

EDITOR’S NOTE: You mean besides the fact that a number of parasites no longer come to the Park Ridge Library to use the computers because said parasites apparently don’t think an hour of computer use is worth $3.00?

You said:
“The “message” of any election is generally nothing more than what person/side won because that’s all an election is designed to do. Drawing larger inferences from that are rarely valid because rarely, if ever, is the turnout so large and one person/side so dominant that the outcome could not theoretically be changed if all (or even a sizable percentage) of the non-voters had actually turned out.”
This makes last Tuesday’s disaster far more palatable. Thanks.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We were focused on local elections.

If you’re talking about disasters on a larger scale, last Tuesday’s Illinois statewide election – in which the voters gave the Prince of Darkness (Madigan) and his Apprentice (Cullerton) two more years of veto-proof majorities in Springfield – probably can be taken as a sign that incompetence, graft and corruption are so institutionalized in state government that nothing short of a total financial collapse, including domino debt defaults, will shake some sense into the masochists who have enabled State Dems to ruin Illinois for the past 30 years.

You said: “we now have several newer Library Board members who seem to be concerned about the taxpayers. And the mayor and a majority of the City Council act and vote like they share that concern.”

When you have a majority of the funding entity (the City) now joined by a majority of the funding use decision-makers (the Mayor-appointed Library Board), that, in and of itself, constitutes a very powerful formal and organized opposition to the Library referendum’s passage. Add to that the Mayor’s eloquent attack, in the public’s own deliberative body, on the pro-Library position and your own equally stirring jerimiad in your blog. I wouldn’t call either of those informal or disorganized opposition to the Library referendum’s passage. Yet pass it did.

You don’t have to be sweet. You don’t even have to be fair. But at least be honest.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t do “sweet.” Honesty – as in truthfulness and factual accuracy – is our stock in trade. And fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

That being said, it would appear to take a paranoid or delusional mind to characterize the quintessetially democratic act of letting the taxpayers vote on a specfic tax increase for a specific purpose by putting it to referendum as “organized opposition to the Library referendum’s passage.” No surprise, then, that such a mind would characterize the mayor’s and our criticism of similarly paranoid or delusional (and factually inaccurate, to boot) 11th-hour criticisms of both the Council and the referendum question itself by a former alderman who later served for years as paid City propaganda minister.

Why are so many offended by someone OUTSIDE of the taxing district getting charged fees for using resources INSIDE the taxing district????? Talk about strange ideology.

Also, to be honest, if I want to go use the Park Ridge library, I’d rather not have to wait in line behind someone using the resources that I pay for.

Lastly, stay tuned: City tax reckoning is coming to a theater near you this month. Just announced by Mayor—-all while some in Park Ridge demand 100 year flood protection on top of the TIF debt that has been continually kicked down the road.

These folks will be REAL $$$$$ that effect us…not the library pennies.

I hope people start paying attention across all of Park Ridge. Big decisions or giant cuts are coming.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly. And let’s not forget our two biggest taxing bodies, D-64 and D-207, which together grab around 70% of our property tax dollars but seem to always be able to fly under the radar.

5:29 a.m. and 3:57 p.m. raise a common question that your critics do not seem to want to address: What benefit do we residents get from any non-residents using our library, for free, that would motivate any Park Ridge resident to either defend or encourage that use with the vigor they are displaying?

Yes, so let’s do something useful and focus on that 70%, not on the low-hanging fruit at the City level. Just because the City CAN whack mini-cost-centers doesn’t mean it should flatter itself that this solves the larger problem of too much tax for too little result. But if the City is really so anxious to tackle our financial problems, how about less emphasis on saving money by hurting people and more emphasis on making money by collecting a million bucks in tickets? If a hole that big has flown “under the radar” for this long, God only knows what other money-making ventures have been ignored because pursuing them or neglecting them doesn’t affect City employees’ own pocketbooks. Let’s go fishing where the fish are, OK?

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you agree that we should “do something useful and focus on that 70%” of property tax dollars consumed by D-64 and D-207, why are you focusing on the City? Let’s hear your ideas on controlling the school districts’ taxing and spending, or at least improving the measurable performance.

Anyone have any idea of what Kevin DuJan and Megan Fox’s agenda is regarding the Park Ridge library? Based on their comments in this blog entry and the H-A article, they seem very interested in FOIA requests. I’d encourage readers to perform a Google search of these two individuals.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Assuming commentators “Megan Fox” and “Kevin Dujan” are the Orland Park Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan tag team, their most notable crusade is fighting to limit access to online pornography at the Orland Park Public Library – a pursuit which was enhanced by their ability to obtain, through FOIA requests, documents arguably embarrassing and damaging to the OP library board and staff.

If anybody wants Park Ridge Library information that isn’t readily accessible online, they SHOULD FOIA the Library. We need more transparency in government, and that’s one way to get it.

5:29 a.m. and 3:57 p.m. raise a common question that your critics do not seem to want to address: What benefit do we residents get from any non-residents using our library, for free, that would motivate any Park Ridge resident to either defend or encourage that use with the vigor they are displaying?

Reciprocity is one motivation. Public service another. Often neighboring towns will help each other out with various public services.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Fair enough.

But “reciprocity” presumes that a significant number of resident Library users or resident non-users actually want to use other towns’ libraries, a fact not yet in evidence because – except for inter-library loans – the Library has no way of telling how many of our residents use other public libraries.

“Public service”? What does that mean vis-a-vis providing Park Ridge Library use for non-residents?

As we understand it, inter-governmental cooperation/assistance (e.g., emergency firefighting) is done per written agreement, not by ad hoc, catch-as-catch-can happenstance.

OK….this discussion has caught my interest. Exactly how much expense will we reduce by not allowing non-PR users to use computers or, how much will we gain in revenue by charging them?? Is it diddley or squat?? Perhaps it is both!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, your eight previous comments suggest this discussion caught your interest almost from its commencement.

Last fiscal year the Library booked over 60,000 computer log-ins, but since it didn’t charge for any of them it appears that no effort was made to track how many users were resident v. non-resident. Without knowing how many of them were non-residents, there is no baseline measure of how much more or less revenue is being produced by the current $3 non-resident fee.

DuJan and Fox have been sued for libel due to their actions against OPPL. PRobably not a good idea to encourage them to repeat said actuons at PRPL.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since truth is an absolute defense to a libel claim, we feel we’re on solid ground with our Merriam-Webster definition of “parasites” as applied to non-residents who previously used our Library’s resources when they were free but have departed since the Library began charging for them. We bid them a fond adieu and encourage them to use as many free resources of other communities as they can.

As for FOIA requests, we look forward to the day when all government information and documents will be made available on-line in real time so that FOIA requests and their related expense effectively become unnecessary. But until then, if anybody – even folks from that far off land called Orland Park – wants to make them to obtain information about how Park Ridge Library business is conducted, it’s their right to do so.

One of your readers asks, “What benefit do we residents get from any non-residents using our library, for free, that would motivate any Park Ridge resident to either defend or encourage that use with the vigor they are displaying?”

Take out the word “library” and substitute any other shared, taxpayer-funded public good or service, and you have the question being debated across this country in every venue and sector imaginable.

The notion that we all do better when we all do better — that wide access/low barriers to learning, inspiration, health care, fitness, etc. benefits our country as a whole — is either sentimental nonsense or pragmatic genius. Your readers decide every time they vote.

So thanks for providing a forum for this essential discussion.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re welcome.

As we’ve said in response to similar comments, however, a library cannot be equated to police or fire protection – unless you can provide us with the names of municipalities that have a library but no police force or fire department.

Your comment also seems to be conflate, problematically so, societal functions with governmental functions (“shared, taxpayer-funded public good or service”) and opportunity with outcome (“we all do better when we all do better”).

The first conflation was addressed in one sense by Madison’s observation, in Federalist No. 51, that “[i]f men were angels, no government would be necessary.” If Park Ridgians were “angels” they would voluntarily donate enough money to the Library so that no tax would be needed to keep it operating; and non-resident “angels” using the Library would voluntarily defray the costs of the computers they used. But that’s not the case; and, hence, the reality of the situation begot this “parasites” post.

Your second conflation suggests both an aphorism popularized by Pres. Kennedy in a 1963 speech (“A rising tide lifts all boats.”) and a quote from the Dodo in “Alice in Wonderland” (“EVERYBODY has won, and all must have prizes.”). We can’t think of any diverse society in which those two concepts have combined to provide long-term (e.g., 100 year) success and stability.

lived in PR over 40 years. sometimes when dropping off grandkids at daycare in des plaines will stop in that library and use computer to check an email, maybe see a book or game the grandkids might like. sometimes in niles when shopping at home depot, stop by that library and do the same. Under your definition I and many other park ridgians would be labeled parasites.
except I do pay taxes on that purchase at home depot to niles. and I do pay taxes on the food purchaded in des plaines on the way back from the library at their macdonalds.

You claim you protect taxpayer interest and I am sure you will argue that the taxes mentioned are not applicable for your myopic safeguarding efforts.

It is however the larger dynamic of reciprocity that allows our communities to coexist.

You seem to have difficulty with that concept. that difficulty would not exist if you had your own gated community on an island somewhere.

In all sincerity, I respectfully suggest you find that island and that gated community and go live there.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have no “definition” for Park Ridge residents who use other communities’ libraries, or any other facilities and services. If that’s the way you want to roll, God bless.

And if Des Plaines or Niles wants to give you three dollars of computer usage in return for your 30 cents of Des Plaines or Niles sales tax on your $30 Home Depot purchase, or 3 cents on your McNugget Happy Meal, God bless them, too. What those communities and their libraries do with their taxpayers’ money is no concern of ours.

And comparing fiscal responsibility and user fees to help achieve it to a “gated community” is either stupid or silly, take your pick.

How you can think that all boats being lifted equates to all boats winning the Mackinac Race is contorted, even for you. Your equating President Kennedy and the Dodo says it all.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Guess we misunderstood your conflation of “shared, taxpayer-funded public good or service” with “we all do better when we all do better.”

The Dodo is an allegorical character whom Lewis Carroll used to satirize politicians and their inept processes – particularly appropriate to Illinois politicians because the Dodo declares every race contestant a “winner”; he takes all of Alice’s candy to give to those “winners” as prizes; and then, when Alice has only a thimble left, takes it and then gives it back as her prize. By that standard, our General Assembly is nothing but Dodos.

But if you want to take the literalist approach, have at it.

Um, your “explanation” of the Dodo’s philosophy and how akin you feel it is to President Kennedy’s only reinforces my earlier contention. If you don’t step over, or preferably on, any bodies underfoot on your rush to winner-take-all, you’re a fool who thinks everybody should be the winner. Wha? Rather a reach, wouldn’t you say? But it’s all part of the scare tactics. If we give a mouse a cookie, as I think you’ve said before.

Or perhaps you rearranged the words and meant only to object to the idea that contestants of every race are winners? Just kidding. I hope.

Your refusal to conflate societal and governmental resources is key. In democratic societies pre-Citizens United, society allocates resources to government to perform functions widely desired by that society. As you yourself admit, men are not angels; if they were, you’re correct: An occasional buck in the plate on Sunday would do the job. Absent the credible and widespread threat of hellfire, the churches are having a hard time getting donations to meet human needs, and don’t even start on the charities per se. Government was and is how our society gets its shared functions handled, including everything it buys from the private sector at costs established by the private sector. Somehow you’ve gone from “government must do our bidding more efficiently and cost-effectively” to “government is ipso facto THE parasite.”

So…buy your own gun as well as your own books. And make sure your own garden hose is hooked up to your own self-dug well. May you and your money live happily ever after.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Not sure we understand your first paragraph, other than it seems to be a tacit endorsement of the latest political fashion of demonizing success – because successful people must “step over…bodies” in their “rush to winner-take-all.”

As to your second paragraph polemic, it would be inconceivable to the Founders that our various goverments could grow so much that their combined (fed, state, local) spending would constitute 40% of GDP, and especially that 1/2 of it would be by a federal government which – as Madison set out in Federalist 45 – was supposed to have only “the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution…few and defined.” At the beginning of the 20th Century all government spending combined represented only 7% of the GDP, with a full 4% – more than half – spent on the local level.

But from the sound of your comments you’d like to boost that 40% to 60-80% of GDP. Which is what happens when people thing government is the solution to every problem, the proverbial hammer seeing everything as a nail.

As for us, we’ll stick with TJ’s “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.” First Inaugural Address, 1801

Thank you Thomas Jefferson and thank you PD for sharing that.

Where ARE the kin of the Founding Fathers? Today’s current political crowd? No, thank you, for the most part. The vast most part.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The cumulative brain power, patriotism and public policy expertise of every elected and appointed official currently in Washington D.C. wouldn’t match that of just Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Hamilton…on their bad days.

On the other and, we suspect any random five of the current denizens of D.C. could certainly over-match those five Founders in faux self-esteem and talking in sound bites.

And what if, as happened in your ideal time period, the start of the 20th century, private powers take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned? Oh, that’s OK, as long as it’s not the government doing it.

Success as you define it doesn’t need my demonizing. Those teensie horns and tail are pretty visible without my saying a word.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We never said our “ideal time period” was back then, nor can we think of any other “ideal” time period.

But to the actual substance of your point, YES, the Founders were so distrustful of “government” that they greatly preferred leaving men “free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”

It’s obvious you don’t agree with that, but you should at least try to understand it.