Nice job: a well-reasoned, common-sense (and entertaining) treatment of this matter. This is the kind of thing the Chamber should have been doing the moment the city stopped the funding. The idea of kids and parents doing the decorating on a continuing basis may hve made some people feel good about themselves, but it ignored reality.

My oh my what a screwed up town. We raise taxes (it’s only $70, right Mel) to buy additional Park land that the majority of PR taxpayers will either rarely or never use (and yes I know the majority of those who showed up to vote voted to do it)and yet it is somehow wrong for taxpayers to pony up what would equate to less than one cup of plain ole’ starbuck’s coffee for Christmas lights that you state are appreciated by all and bring joy to the holiday season.

By the way BNONYMOUS, your comment about those who put in the time and effort to organize and execute the volunteer project to put up the lights (may have made some people feel good about themselves) is nothing but a snide bunch of crap!! First you bitch about the job the volunteers did and now you want someone else to pay for it. Give me a break.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We oh we, what a screwed up Madigan-ocrat you are! Mock a government investment in land that the taxpayers actually voted for but then propose stealing the taxpayers’ money, without any vote, to buy seasonal decorations. Give the taxpayers a break.

Love the post pubdog. You never cease to entertain. But if you care so much about the issue why not show up to council and voice your opposition (just kidding I was still poking fun at “mmmm” from your last post and how much certain anonymous comments got his panties in a bunch)
But seriously (of course joking again) you remind me of Mr. Potter but slightly better looking and maybe not as personable.
Your post is spot on. What does subsiding holiday lights get us? I’ll tell ya. It gets us a discontented lazy rabble rather than a thrifty working class. And all because of a few starry-eyed dreamers like aldermen Shubert and Moran stir them up and fill their heads with a lot of impossible ideas.
merry early Christmas pubdog. 🙂

EDITOR’S NOTE: There are no “starry-eyed dreamers” in local government, or elsewhere in government.

But it seems sad that you and Anon 3:47 would think so little of your fellow Park Ridge residents that you need City government to indirectly squeeze holiday lights donations out of them; or think so little of the Chamber and its members that you don’t trust them to lead a holiday lights fundraising effort.

Who pays for all the beautiful flowers planted around town? The city? If yes how is this any different than paying for lights during the Christmas holiday season. Aren’t holiday lights just the flowers of winter?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Interesting point.

We aren’t exactly sure what you believe to be “all the beautiful flowers planted around town,” but we suspect that the sidewalk planters on Prospect might be part of the City’s commitment to the Uptown TIF. Nevertheless, a quick check of the City budget turned up nothing under “Landscaping” or any other term that would suggest it applied to the flowers and other greenery.

4:47:

May I say Bingo!!!! Perfectly on point and, frankly this is what drives me nuts about PD. Something he disagrees with and it is unnecessary and stealing the taxpayers money and yet there are similar things all around. Your example about flowers is a good one. While PD could not find a line item in the budget you can be certain that our tax dollars paid for it. How about the various flags they put up on light posts? To be clear, I have no problem with any of these things.

By the way, if the majority of the elected council approves including lights and/or flowers in the budget it is most certainly not stealing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Holiday lights aren’t “necessary,” nor are flowers and the little black faux-“iron” fences around them, nor banners flying from the lamp posts.

But every time we spend tax dollars on things that aren’t “necessary” – on dessert instead of the main course – either taxes need to go up or dessert becomes the entree; i.e., infrastructure gets neglected for cosmetics.

That’s why Chicago is beautiful and broke, and why the state capitol got new $700K copper clad doors while it was carrying $6.1 billion in unpaid bills on its books, and was $100 billion behind in public pension payments.

Yes the planters in uptown and not just on Prospect. Plus the triangle by the Pickwick etc. Again the city can pay for these flowers-which are appreciated, beautify the city and probably most people in town support-so why not pay for the Christmas lights. Aldermen who read this blog-who pays for the flowers planted on city property and how much is it? How do you differentiate this cost from that of holiday light?

easy way to got it looking professional by having volunteers do it is to have them just wrap the tree trunks tightly with the lights from the base to about 4-5 feet in height. Don’t bother with the limbs and such. Have one tree red, another green and so on. It looks nice this way and other communities have done it. It’s easier, faster and safer for the volunteers. Similar to this http://blog.christmaslightsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/Candy-Cane-Tree-f5.6-0136.jpg

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t believe that’s the “Bedford Falls” look Alds. Moran and Shubert are going for. But if the Chamber would prefer to be MIA on this, again, that might be better than the two strands on the bottom half of the branches.

I wonder how many of these commentators are Chamber officials or members who just don’t want to organize something like this, or pay their $200 donation? Letting a bunch of car owners park in the LIbrary lot once a month is not the same as collecting $45,000.

Seeing Ald Moran advocating on a fb post that the a fake 20 foot tree, at a cost of $7500, would look nice in the triangle outside the Pickwick.

Yeah…it might look nice. But where’s that money come from Alderman?

EDITOR’S NOTE: A “secret Santa”?

I try not to get into bickering with other commentators, but the comment by Anon 07.22.15 3:47 pm makes me think he/she is one of those volunteers who half-baked the decorating in the first place. Poor baby.

If the Chamber (or any other private entity) took on the organizing of a holiday lights program, I would gladly donate. But from your whining, 3:47, I’m betting you wouldn’t.

I believe the Uptown plantings would be in the Public Works budget in grounds maintenance / general contractual. It’s a $50,000 line this fiscal year that covers the entire city for the entire year.

I don’t know what is specifically allocated for the plantings Uptown. You ought to come to a meeting and ask the Public Works Director.

And I’ll say this and you can like it or not. The City installed the planter boxes as part of the Uptown streetscaping, so the planter boxes are planted each year, really without much of a debate (any?) as I can recall since I’ve been following things or been an Alderman.

The City installed light poles and trees but, IMO, not with the specific purpose of hanging lights from them each holiday season or ever.

Allocating expense for holiday lights failed twice during the budget process. When the issue came back recently there was really no new information or a way posited to pay for them. So they failed again. This should have surprised no one so I am not sure what the to do is all about.

And holiday lights are not the flowers of the winter. What’s that even mean?

Thank you, Aldermen Moran and Schubert, for being brave enough to take a stand for Christmas lights on trees located in the public sector’s tree lawns and Library lawns. People are laughing at us and shaking their heads in pity because almost every community has struggled with the recession but they still work to inspire their residents with traditional spirit and support their retail areas. Your penny-wise, pound-foolish approach is anything but conservative, as it derides the values our local taxpayers hold dear. Holiday lights ARE the flowers of winter — lovely turn of phrase — and the fact that certain elected officials have eyes but don’t see does not change that. Perhaps Moran and Schubert will be the start of something more reflective of local community values. Meanwhile, I’m sure Park Ridge’s tiny business sector and homeowners would ante up as they do for the Independence Day Fireworks, but I would hope the City would kick in some professional help and equipment we all pay for in taxes, so that the lacy bare branches are what is lit, not just part of the trunks. And if Moran and Schubert decide to hold a bake-off or BBQ to benefit Holiday Lights, that could be the start of another wonderful Park Ridge tradition.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We like Alds. Moran and Shubert, but only somebody as out-to-lunch as you, Class Warrior, could equate their pitch for holiday lights with a profile in courage. Not only are you likely a former alderdunce, but these kinds of comments make you also sound like a Chamber of Commerce member with a handful of “gimme” and a mouthful of “much obliged.”

If “Park Ridge’s tiny business sector” would be willing to ante up for holiday lights, the Chamber would have been leading that effort long ago – and grabbing every bit of credit imaginable. But as we have seen over the years with the Chamber’s support of follies like the Uptown TIF and the “façade improvement” giveaway, and its most recent lights “research” contained in the memo embedded in this post, the Chamber seems a whole lot more enthusiastic about milking the taxpayers than putting the arm on its own members.

As for the annual fireworks show, donations through the City’s water bills barely yield $15,000 towards a show costing around $27,000. So even if that entire $15,000 came from the Chamber’s 350+ members, they aren’t even kicking in $50 apiece to celebrate our nation’s indepedence.

But riddle us this, Class Warrior: If holiday lights really are so “reflective of local community values,” why has the “volunteer” lights program gone from modest to pathetic over the past several years?

Sorry, the government should not be involved in setting up Christmas lights. There is separation of church and state, Christmas lights put up by City employees during the holidays is crossing that line. If business organizations want to work together and foot the cost, that is appropriate. Not the City, not the taxpayer!

Second, the independent groups that did help put up lights yearly should be given credit, not criticized or vilified for their efforts.

Third, a $100 contribution per business owner, driven by the Chamber of Commerce, to put up lights on trees that may or may not be near their business sounds like a ploy to extract dollars to pay to play. If a business owner says no, for whatever reason, peer pressure and / or negative press is going to force them to contribute. What negative press you ask? When the Chamber publishes who contributed and your business is left off that is negative press.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s why they’re “holiday” lights rather than Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus, Alban Arthuan, etc. lights.

Nobody’s “villifying” anybody. But we also don’t consider mere activity the equivalent of achievement: a strand of lights tossed on a tree doesn’t constitute a holiday decoration. Apparently Alds. Moran and Shubert don’t think so, either, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

And who says the Chamber has to publish the names of the lights donors? If all those overly-generous Chamber members also want to be overly-humble and remain anonymous, bully for them!

In reviewing the city’s general ledger dated October 2014 detailing invoices paid by the city for 2013/2014, it appears the city spent just over $53,000 on flowers/landscape design/plantings.

Based on what the late mayor and his supporters lead us to believe, the recession and the fiscal obligations of the TIF meant the city had to eliminate unnecessary spending so goodbye holiday lights and financial support to social service organizations. The taxpayers of PR were lead to believe there was no money for these types of expenditures.

The reality is that the city spends over $50,000 a year on flowers. This presumably does not include the cost of the PW employees who do the work and water the plantings, nor does it include the cost of the water needed when Mother Nature does not provide the water naturally.

What could the city of done with this $53,000+ per year instead. Certainly there is failing infrastructure around town to repair or replace. A pension obligation to be funded. Liabilities to be paid down. Salt to buy for clearing the snow and ice from the streets in the winter. But no the city bought flowers.

So it seems a bit hypocritical to rail on the need for austerity and that there is no money for unnecessary expenditures when apparently there is money-but only for flowers?

As stated previously, the flowers are beautiful and add life and color to our city. They brighten the landscape and are welcoming. Money well spent. This is what putting up holiday lights would do for the otherwise dark and dreary days of winter. But the city leaders have chosen not to spend this money making the city seem less beautiful and welcoming during the holidays.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, anonymous commentator, we can’t find whatever it is you’re referring to – so feel free to provide a link before we give that part of your comment any credibility.

We don’t know how “[t]he taxpayers of PR” could have been “lead [sic] to believe there was no money for these types of expenditures” when, under the late mayor and the recent Councils, the City was posting operating SURPLUSES; a/k/a, un-spent money after operating expenses paid.

As for “[w]hat…the city [could] of [sic] done with this $53,000+ per year instead” of the landscaping/plantscaping you allege that money was used for, we don’t recall anybody showing up at any of the last several years’ budget hearings to complain about that item in the budget, or to advocate for including holiday lights.

And it seems a bit hypocritical for you to rail about the City Council appropriating money for “flowers” instead of infrastructure, etc. while at the same time arguing that it should appropriate even more money for holiday lights – especially when the Chamber could provide them, with professional installation, for less than $150 per member.

Unless you’re one of those members who approach government with a handful of “gimme” and a mouthful of “much obliged” – and who want to privatize their profits while socializing the costs of making their shopping areas more attractive for the holidays.

I grew up in the near west suburbs almost 30 years ago, and our Chamber, with the financial support of the downtown merchants, paid for all the downtown lighting (except for the electricity). The Chamber leaders and merchants were proud of their “gift” to the community, and the residents responded with loyal patronage of their businesses. Kind of like Bedford Falls. But reading the Park Ridge Chamber’s website and member comments, it sounds like just a networking club.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Networking club” sounds about right. If you check out the “Testimonials” section of the Chamber’s website (http://www.parkridgechamber.org/testimonials/) that’s pretty much the theme of all of them, typified by former alderman and park district commissioner Mary Wynn Ryan’s testimonial:

I went to a Business After Hours and not only learned about a new bank, I discovered a pizza parlor I’d never tried had great food! At just about every Chamber event, I meet someone who is a good prospect for my marketing communications services, and I’ve also found several important vendors through the Chamber. My membership has paid for itself, and quicker than I ever thought possible.

Which would explain her outspoken defenses of, and her many alibis for, the Uptown TIF, the giant multi-million dollar sucking sound it is producing, and such similar crapitalistic diversions of tax dollars as the stupid “facade improvement” program that appears to have done absolutely nothing to benefit Park Ridge taxpayers.

You raise a good point, PW. Putting lights in Uptown and South Park clearly makes those shopping areas more attractive for customers. So why shouldn’t the individual merchants light their own trees, using the city’s free electricity? Or per your idea, the Chamber could do it comprehensively and charge its members (or accept donations).

Budget has a hefty amount for reforestation too. While different than flowers or holiday lights it seems under PD’s cries for austerity PD should be denouncing such expenditures too.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You seem to be confused. We haven’t issued “cries” for “austerity.”

What we HAVE issued “cries” for are things like H.I.T.A., greater efficiency, intelligent prioritizing of expenditures, responsible borrowing, not privatizing profits while socializing costs and debt, achievement over mere activity, and not mindlessly doing things just because some other community does it.

And only an environmentally-ignorant moron would even attempt to compare “reforestation” with “flowers” or “holiday lights.”

Not sure how the $53,000 number was cobbled together from the referenced report but, as stated previously, the budget for grounds maintenance is roughly $50,000, was for FY16 at any rate, and that’s for grounds maintenance for the ENTIRE city.

To infer this is $50,000 spent on flowers is plain stupid. This covers grounds maintenance for all city owned property.

So, if you prefer the city save the money by not maintaining its property spread throughout the roughly 7 square miles that make up Park Ridge, then drop the cloak of anonymity, show up at a meeting and let the elected officials and staff know you prefer the city to spend this money otherwise.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Do you have any idea where this $53,000 number is coming from, Alderman? Because we can’t find it.

Sorry-I will try this again. Ignore the last post if it went through.

Here is your site-

http://www.parkridge.us/assets/1/Documents/FY14_1_CheckbookPOSumm_5_15_13.pdf

Here is what I found and it totals just over $56,000 for FYE2014.

Lurveys $3,134
Milieu Design $9,175
KGI Landscaping $38,736
Pesches $5,141

And I am not a shop owner either or looking to privatize profits like the Koch brothers. I am also not a “gimme” “much obliged” taxpaying voting resident you are suggesting I am. Merely a 23+ resident of PR who finds it hard to believe that the city leaders who don’t want to spend money on anything they think is unnecessary are spending over $56,000 on flowers etc. (and thank you the city is better for it). Yet when asked to revisit the issue of holiday lights the acting mayor/alderman and some members of the city council are taking such a strong stand against the holiday lights.

And I am not railing against anything merely pointing out that there does appear to be taxpayer money available to spend on unnecessary things without having to cut anything necessary from the budget.

The city leaders from the mayor’s office and the city council adopted “austetity” in response to the consequences of the financially underperforming Uptown TIF. The message was sent over and over and over and over that in order to keep tax increases at a minimum and deal with the TIF, spending had to be cut.

This blog has stated that when money is spent on unnecessary items like holiday lights, then necessary items like infrastructure maintenance etc will be sacrificed.

Just last winter when people were commenting on how bad snow and ice removal efforts are in Park Ridge compared to other towns around us and which lead to ice covered unsafe streets, this blog stated that if more money was to spent on snow and ice removal ($133,465 in the FYE2014 G/L site on materials only), then either taxes would have to be raised or something would have to be cut from the budget. Perhaps PW could have used some of the flower budget.

When the library was closed over a reported $20,000 shortfall in funding, 40% of the flower money could have kept the library open.

But the city leaders lead us to believe there was no funding available for these items. What it appears happened is that the city leaders chose flowers over safer streets, infrastructure needs, a library opened on Sundays -anything else?

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s the problem about being “anonymous”: you have no credibility when you claim to not be “a shop owner”; or someone “looking to privatize profits like the Koch brothers”; or a “gimme”/”much obliged” person; or “a 23+ resident of PR.”

But we are impressed with your ability to pull those 4 numbers out a 497-page document that, frankly, we can’t seem even to find on the City’s website!

Saying those 4 dollar amounts were “flowers etc.” may not be accurate, however, since both KGI Landscaping and Milieu Design provide a variety of services that include, in addition to “flowers”: trees, tree care, design, pavers and stone work, retaining walls and irrigation. That means as much as $48,000 of that $53,000 total could have been spent on things other than “flowers” – including snow removal if they were any of the independent snow plowers the City sometimes hires in emergencies.

As for all those other City Council “choices” which you claim you don’t have a problem with, even as you criticize them, nobody showed up at any budget hearings disputing those choices, or arguing for different ones. Nor did we read any letters to the editor of our two local newspapers questioning those choices. And nobody showed up at any Library Board meetings asking that “flower money” be obtained from the City to keep the Library open Sundays last summer.

So for someone with all this sudden vim and vigor, and the ability to find and scour 497 pages of obscure reports, where were you until now – whoever you are?

How could you not find the G/L of the city for fye2014 when I provided the link? It is on the city’s own website under financial information. A detailed income statement would have been better but could not find one so the g/l has the details.

And no alderman Knight nothing was “cobbled” together and I am not STUPID-by the way always good to call a voting member of your ward a non-shop owner and 23 year resident STUPID.

And if some of the $56000 is for maintaining the town’s landscaping why isn’t the PW department doing that? Isn’t outsourcing this work the same as privatizing profits?

If the flowers in the uptown area including on the library property are just for the betterment of the shop owners as you seem to be suggesting because it beautifies the area then you should also be advocating PD that the shop owners or CC pay for the flowers.

It is just amusing that this comparison between holiday lights and flowers is so hard to grasp.

The point of my bringing up the flowers many posts ago was to ask why spending money on flowers during a time of necessary “austerity” is viewed differently by the city leaders than holiday lights. It appears there is no explanation at all.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Even a self-proclaimed (but-unproven) “non-shop owner” “23 year resident” of the 5th Ward – who also cannot prove that even $10,000 of “$56,000” of expenses was actually spent on “flowers” – should be able to grasp how “outsourcing” expenses is NOT “the same as privatizing profits,” especially since City government doesn’t make a “profit.”

The City Council, after numerous open-session budget hearings and meetings, passed the current budget and previous-years’ budgets in which it chose “flowers” (and/or trees, planters, irrigation, concrete, or snow plowing) over holiday lights. You and anybody who thinks like you – but also has the cojones to express such views in their own names – should have shown up to advocate for holiday lights and/or against “flowers.”

You snoozed, you losed. Too bad you’re such a wimp and a whiner about it.

How mature to resort to name calling. Still no answer as to the question posed how are expenditures for flowers different than those for holiday lights.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, but sometimes we choose to play down to the level of our competition when it insists on hiding its irresponsibility, stupidity and/or ignorance behind the cloak of anonymity.

But if that scares or offends you, feel free to go over to the “Park Ridge Concerned Homeowners Group” Facebook page and kvetch about bratty kids occupying lounge chairs at Centennial water park. Oh, wait…no anonymity over there. Never mind.

Anon,

I didn’t call YOU stupid. I said the inference that $50,000 was spent on flowers was stupid. Big difference and I’ll stand by it.

Mark your calendar for the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe when we will take up the FY 2017 budget. Come advocate for lights over flowers or flowers and lights or whatever. Your input will be welcome.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There you go again with those nuances, Alderman! This is a poster crowd, not an etchings crowd.

Some people are concerned about the lack of appreciation for flowers, holiday lights and anything else the value of which is not quantifiable. There are robots among us, to be sure. Many of them smart. But what most people here object to is the flaming hypocrisy of pretending that seasonal decor in summer is somehow quantifiably more justifiable than seasonal decor in winter. One hesitates to even bring it up because it may have been just an oversight and next week we’ll hear the androids have decided to pave over all the beds and planters to save upkeep. But worst is your disingenuous(and by disingenuous I mean utterly untrue) statement that you are not a zealot for austerity for its own sake. C’mon. We may be a poster crowd, but we can read the writing on the wall. And it ain’t pretty.

EDITOR’S NOTE: C’mon, Class Warrior, out yourself so that all those Park Ridge residents who allegedly want all the same things – and all the spending – you do can know you and rally around your ideas. You owe it to the community.

Blooming in the snow is right. Pub dog you constantly complain (without attending a council meeting to do so) that money should be saved on all kinds of items that make this town a more pleasant one in which to live. take away the frills and we will eventually become a suburb with less character less attractiveness and less uniqueness. None of us want that to happen…even you? Unless you truly are Mr Potter and are trying to turn Bedford falls into Pottersville. WHERE IS CLARENCE when we need him most!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Gee, we don’t recall complaining about the trees and flowers that folks like you want to foolishly equate with holiday lights.

And we don’t have to go to meetings because (a) we have this blog that people in local government read, and (b) those people know who writes it – unlike folks like you who neither show up at meetings nor sign their names to their comments.

It’s not about me. It’s about the clash of civilizations. You’d like to make it about me so that you could focus on my hairstyle, my rug, or something else you might not like and take the focus off what I’m actually saying. It’s a damned hard job for any elected official to figure out what matters to the voting public, not just to you; and how to do it with the money we have. I apologize for calling the current crop androids; I must be catching what you have. I’m sure they are doing their best. What people here have been trying to say is that, in a $55 million budget, finding $40K to support the holiday spirit when the populace needs it most should be considered. I once said that you are the kind of person who, when you’re late on a car payment, decides to save money by not buying your wife an anniversary card. I hope the council members ask their wives and take the feedback.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for demonstrating once again, Class Warrior, just how clueless you are about this stuff, and why you hide out here anonymously instead of showing up at meetings and spouting ideas you’d like people to believe are majority views when you know they’re not.

It DOES matter if you’re some disgruntled former City official (like the one-and-done clowns who fled City Hall without a trace after they gave us the Uptown TIF and gave mayor Frimark the ability to pass his referendum to cut the Council; or Frimark’s own one-and-done alderpuppets, who didn’t have the cojones to battle Mayor Dave), or some what’s-in-it-for-me Chamber networker looking for taxpayer handouts, or some property owner angling for a lower assessment or facade money.

And good public officials don’t have “to figure out what matters to the voting public” – because they told that voting public the truth about themselves and their beliefs when they ran and won; and they conduct themselves in office by the code of Honesty, Integrity, Transparency and Accountability. They are principled, not finger-to-the-wind types that you obviously favor.

And they know that you can’t buy, or even rent, “holiday spirit” for $40K, or $400K, of the taxpayers’ money

Unlike you.

So pubdog is doing his civic duty through this blog (where he can control the give and take) rather than showing up in person at meetings where others can take his comments and either support or counter them openly and transparently. So if the anonymous commenters discuss their viewpoints with their elected officials isn’t that the same as you blogging on here and allowing elected officials to read your blog?
Just because those that comment don’t want to play in your sand box by giving you their name so you can attack and hide behind your blog or censor or cut off those that get the upper hand on your rhetoric is no reason to denounce all anonymous comments on here.
The reason your blog has so many that comment is because you allow it to be anonymous. Try the experiment. Require everyone to post only if they identify themselves and you will see this blog will fail and only the Facebook conversation will remain. You will go the way of Park Ridge underground.
So celebrate your anonymous comments because they keep you standing pubdog.

EDITOR’S NOTE: More tough talk from an anonymous commentator whose published comments prove that we don’t “censor or cut off” anybody, no matter how nonsensical the comments.

But anytime you want to come out of the closet and debate any Park Ridge issue(s) face-to-face in a live public forum, let us know.

…”clash of civilizations”? Really??

…”when the populace needs it most”… Really? What happened? Did I miss something??

This really isn’t that dramatic.

This will be my last comment to this particular post because I already have exceeded my personal limit, but I was just reading the string of comments to the holiday lights post on the Park Ridge Concerned Homeowners Group Facebook page when it struck me how many of those commentators were talking about helping put up holiday lights or donating (theoretically, but no public commitment of $20, $50 or $100). If these people are so gung ho, why have we had nothing close to the professional lighting we had pre-2009 and why have the last couple of years been as lame as they have been?

I think your idea is the best: let the Chamber of Commerce be responsible for doing it. If they want to collect $100 per member and accept non-member donations for the rest, great. But the fact that all the talk is about putting them in our Uptown and South Park shopping districts rather than in the parks or neighborhoods shows that the lights are intended to enhance the city’s retail areas. And retail is supposed to be the Chamber’s principle focus, right.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Over the weekend we heard that at least one Chamber member has offered to chair a Chamber “lights” committee (IF the Chamber leadership approves) to raise funds to hire professionals to do the holiday lighting up right. We also heard that the member has pledged a tidy sum to start the ball rolling.

But we just checked out that Facebook page to which you refer and, lo and behold, we found a comment from Mary Wynn Ryan, a Chamber director and long-time OPM (“Other People’s Money) addict, about how “[t]he Chamber does not have $40K to pay for this City project” – nobody said it did, only that if it collected $100 per member it would acquire over $35,000 – and then trying to direct the focus AWAY from the Chamber with her “[a] buck per resident would give us $37,000 and perhaps the City could kick in the other $3K?” and her “Now, what can the City do to support the holiday spirit?”

Hopefully her comments are not indicative of how miserly the rest of the Chamber leadership will be in responding to the suggestion of a Chamber-led holiday lights campaign. Keep your fingers crossed.

Your own tenure as an elected official left facilities in disrepair, staff with toxic and inept leadership, and more. Much more. Fortunately, others with far higher standards than yours invested the personal effort in going beyond your one-and-only focus, not spending money. So your soapbox has at least as many holes as those of the elected officials you disparage here. And if you knew the first thing about your average smalltown Chamber, you’d know that $100 is not chump change to any of them working 7 days a week and taking home less than your fave paralegal. And what about all the members who are professionals like you, without storefronts? In your “what’s-in-it-for-me” world, why should they donate $100 a year?You’re supposed to be the pro-business guy, right? If a retailer wants to light his or her own storefront, that’s smart, but why should they have to light the trees on the public tree lawns and public greenscapes? I know it’s hard for you to comprehend, but holiday lights don’t just exist to boost holiday sales. They exist to proclaim that winter will not beat us, and so much more. Retail has always tapped into the community effort, not the other way around. And by “community” I don’t mean “tired dads and little kids.” Did you read Mr. Thillens’ painstaking explanation of the complexity of recruiting and deploying volunteers for holiday lights in the Concerned Homeowners page on Facebook? If you did, you’d get why, first chance they get, every hamlet, burg, town, village and city turns it over to the professionals. Just like policing and firefighting and city managing and teaching and….Yes, of course, we could go back to the survivalist mode for all of these. Park Ridge tried it for a number of years on the holiday lighting project. No one could have done a more efficient, effective job than the Holiday Lights Coalition of volunteers to replace the City function, and most of them believe in small government, BTW. And yet….It’s a lot more work to do it well and consistently than people like you ever give credence to. THAT’s why everything isn’t done by volunteers. Elected officials need to make sure the work goes to the lowest responsible bidder or, if done by staff, at the lowest-paid level that can do the job right. That’s a long way from hoping OPT (Other People’s Time) will replace public funding for holiday lights.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, Class Warrior: more like “Pro-your wallet, pro-freeloader.” So why don’t you just end the suspense, disclose your former elected-official (times 2?) self, and then sit back and bask in the glory and adulation your what’s-in-it-for-me, sock-the-taxpayers attitude might generate?

If you had been paying attention during this editor’s 8-year tenure (1997-2005) on the Park Board, you would know that the Park District back then required almost full-time triage/damage control due to years of fiscal irresponsibility under then-director Steve Meyer and previous rubber-stamp boards – exacerbated by boondoggles like a Community Center whose multi-million dollar, non-referendum bonded debt we inherited AFTER tax caps were imposed. Servicing that Community Center debt gobbled up funds needed for proper maintenance, repair and renovation of other facilities like Hinkley Pool which, consequently, had to be closed for an entire season and rebuilt because of SAFETY concerns!

And while the fact that user fees now exceed tax revenues suggests that the Park District may be better managed today, it’s boneheaded “investment” of almost $8 million of non-referendum bonded debt in a second-rate, 3 month-a-year Centennial water park – when it could have gotten a much better 8-12 month-a-year facility for an additional $4-5 million – proves that stupidity and shortsightedness haven’t been completely eliminated at Park District H.Q.

Any Uptown or South Park business that can’t afford – as opposed to merely being too cheap or selfish to spend – $100 a year for holiday lights is either ineptly run or just somebody’s hobby; and the same goes for any other business that can afford to be a Chamber member. If holiday lights weren’t primarily to boost traffic in our retail areas, they wouldn’t be concentrated there – just like if they were intended for something as ridiculous as “proclaim[ing] that winter will not beat us” they wouldn’t be called “holiday lights” because they’d have to be up by November 1 and stay up until April 1.

But silly arguments are what we’d expect from a Chamber member who’s been hooked on OPM for over a decade now.

Right, Class Warrior?

Ahhh, the old it’s only $1 per resident. Never gets old. Since its ONLY that, maybe she can chip in half a sawbuck for me?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yep, although we just don’t quite see her going door-to-door for 13,000 households to pick up that $37K, one dollar at a time; or talking 3 year olds into busting open their piggy banks for their own dollar donations.

But make no mistake about it: If Ms. Wynn Ryan had her way the City would be kicking in the $37,000 instead of just “the other $3K.”

Absolutely hilarious and gut wrenchingly funny that most residents want Christmas lights “Bedford Falls” style but no one wants to pay for it. Some suggest the city pay for it; others suggest the Chamber pay for it but the Chamber suggests that everyone donate $1 towards the light fund. The one thing everyone agrees on is that the ‘free’ lights were terrible.

Personally, I grew up in a nearby suburb with many non-christians and no one ever complained about the lack of lights.

And I also think the money spent on flowers is a waste too. I’d rather have the $1.25 in my pocket than the flowers that I never ever noticed were there.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nobody knows what “most residents” want – whether it be in the way of elected officials or anything else – because less than 50% of the 24,000+ registered voters have voted in our municipal elections for most/all of the past 20+ years.

The argument above is exactly why Park Ridge is what Park Ridge is.

Everyone is soooooooo cheap and bullheaded, so everyone agrees to be UNHAPPY. It’s a win (loss) for everyone in their minds.

Jeez, we spend $4k-5k out of each household for little brats to go to District 64 without accountability, but we can’t have anything nice in the town such as NICE facilities, MODERN parks or anything similar towns have.

We are arguing about lights or flower, which amounts to about…..$3 per citizen of Park Ridge. Yes, for $3 per citizen you can have holiday lights and FLOWERS!! I’d even go $4 and get the XL version.

Is that how small we are?????

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE. Have some pride in our city. Does anyone leave and see how nice other suburbs are?????

They actually INVEST in themselves.

But in the end…we end up with no (or low) lights, and another apartment building, because no one can execute a G.D. plan or quit being so ideological.

Park Ridge is embarrassing. Thanks to John and Roger for speaking up and having some pride in this city.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s see now…

Are you complaining about “spend[ing] $4k-5k out of each household for little brats to go to District 64” or only about D-64 failing to provide any “accountability”?

What “facilities” aren’t “NICE” enough for you, and what “parks” aren’t “MODERN” enough for you?

So you’ll “go $4” for “holiday lights and FLOWERS”? Wow, big spender, a measly $4 is all the “pride in our city” you can muster, and all you are willing to “INVEST” in our town? Jeez, how “small” are you?????

And while we’re at it, where’s YOUR “G.D. plan”?

Could. This. Get. Any. Sadder?
Can you imagine what this town would look like and function like if everyone valued a dollar and twenty-five cents more than seasonal plantings in the public areas? I truly don’t know why some of these people live here when they could find so much cheaper, uglier environs that would suit them so much better. You know you are full of yard waste, and so does everyone else. It’s sad when someone very smart and well-intentioned goes completely off the rails into the mire. You have successfully separated the City from the taxpayers who make the City, as if one were the enemy of the other. I know that’s your ideological stance and you will stick with it to the bitter, bitter end. But if there were a referendum on whether a majority of taxpayers/voters wanted to pay $1 per person in their household, once a year, to restore holiday lights tomorrow (aren’t you glad there’s no time before this holiday season?) you would once again be shocked, shocked, at what matters to people in Park Ridge.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Class Warrior. Could. You. Be. Any. More. Disingenous?

You sure sound a whole lot like a certain former alderman who didn’t trust trust the taxpayers with a referendum for the proposed new $18-20 million Library back in 2002, and who didn’t trust them with a referendum for a new $15 million-plus police station in 2007 – before fleeing the Council for the Park District after only 1/2 term when then-mayor Frimark succcesfully cut the Council in half by referendum. And who, as a Park Board member, didn’t trust the taxpayers with a referendum for the $8 million Centennial water park in 2012.

So if anybody has tried to “separate[] the City [and the Park District] from the taxpayers…as if one were the enemy of the other,” it has been you. And your suddently wanting to go to referendum for a measly $37,000 of holiday lights is as stupid as it is dishonest, but totally in character for a current Chamber of Commerce director who has always preferred using OPM for their personal economic, political and social advantage.

And you can claim NO, repeat NO, credit for the vastly improved management at the Park District, BTW. Another widely known fact you think you’ve ducked.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Wrong again, Class Warrior. If not for the financial crises that were averted while this editor was on the Park Board – along with now-Acting Mayor Maloney – there would have been nothing for Directors Ochromowicz and Mountcastle, and their respective boards, to have built upon in getting the Park District to its current level.

Class Warrior’s idea of collecting $1 from 37,000 residents rather that $100 from the 350 or so Chamber members reminds me of that PW post about Everybody, Somebody and Nobody. Everybody will never donate $1 because they will expect Somebody else to cover their contribution with a contribution of $5 or $10. When we can barely get 10,000 voters for a local election, getting 37,000 residents to donate $1 each for holiday lights is not going to happen.

I can see Class Warrior being a Chamber member who does not want to dig into his or her own pocket for the $100 and want the City to turn it into an involuntary donation through taxes, like it used to do with those community groups. As you have pointed out many times before, that kind of attitude has already ruined Illinois so we don’t need any more of it here in Park Ridge.

The Chamber should step up to the plate on this because it is their members who benefit most from the holiday lights, so it should be their gift to the city.

I love how all the sob sisters whine about the volunteers being dissed by other commentators when even in the first year of the volunteer lights it was not close to being as good as the professionals. Ive been told that there are over 1000 Indian guides, scouts, princesses, whatever. If that figure is correct, $50 from the parents of each could have paid for the pros and saved all the time and effort that some of the volunteers are now whining about. And if the Chamber of Commerce takes over the lights this year, just $10 from the families of thsoe scouts etc. woudl add $10K to the $35K pot the Chamber members could come up with.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly. It’s not just about lights and a cherry-picker, it’s about pros who know the densities and patterns for stringing the lights on particular size and shape trees to get the desired result that the best of intentioned parents and kids wanting “service hours” can’t match.

The math is pretty simple for a $50,000 project: 350 Chamber members kick in an average of $100 per member = $35,000. 1,000 scouts/guides/princesses families kick in $15 each = $15,000. And with that kind of commitment by the Chamber we’d bet that another $5-10-15,000 of donations would come in from ordinary, unaffiliated folks like this editor, our public officials, and all those fans of Bedford Falls.

Just a question, why would the Chamber and its members spend money for holiday lights? What does the city do for its businesses? It’s probably the most hostile town to operate a business in, with high taxes and no services.

What facilities/Services aren’t modern?
Community Center
Almost every Park
Lack of park district inside facilities.
Library
Police Station / City Hall
Maine South Facilities
Lack of Salt in Winter
No street lights….on and on…what is actually modern, besides our WONDERFUL and successful new Centennial Pool.

So, like I said everyone agrees to be unhappy, and we just get apartments and condos shoved down our throat because no one wants to take a chance and build a commercial development here. Result—we beg for money from businesses since they are soooooooo lucky to have a business here.

Park Ridge people think they are “elite” but waste all that money all on average schools so every other facility/service sucks. I’m done sacrificing my whole property tax bill for the schools. I’ll be more than happy to throw $200 more for better services and facilities. Just not towards the money sucking schools.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Wow, that’s a whole lot of bitterness for one comment! (“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host.” Maya Angelou)

Unfortunately, your bitterness appears to be exceeded by both your ignorance and/or fatuousness, starting with your baseless conclusion that the City is “hostile” to business, and continuing with the fact that if the Park District hadn’t wasted almost $8 million of its non-referendum bonding power on a second-rate, 3-month/year Centennial water park, it could have renovated the year-round Community Center – undersized and under-equipped at the time it was built without a referendum in the early ’90s – and maybe also improved a couple of its year-round parks.

In 2002 the voters overwhelmingly rejected spending $20 million on a new Library; and in 2009 the voters overwhelmingly rejected spending $16 million on a new cop shop. So you’re out of touch on those projects, too. But as proof that even a blind squirrel like you can find the occasional acorn, we agree that taxpayers are overpaying for underperforming schools. Unfortunately, that leaves your batting average at worse than the White Sox’s.

No wonder you don’t sign your name to this tripe.

And you are volunteering to collect and coordinate all, yes? How many more contortions do you plan to suggest other people go through before the obvious hits you? The reason the taxpayers in 99% of communities in the United States delegate this type of task to the public sector is that it is set up to do it. I cannot understand why you see only two choices: Have it(and everything else)done in a piecemeal, unsustainable way by volunteers or turn a blind eye to irresponsible public employees who are not held to account. That is a false choice, but it’s not the only choice. Just the only one you can imagine. And yet to hear you tell it, you wrote the book on holding office in a way that made government accountable and cost-effective. Why can’t you imagine the current city council could do the same? Especially since a majority of them lend you an ear 24/7 and certainly take your coaching? Holiday lights should be put out for RFPs just as trash collection and tree-trimming are. Lowest responsible bidder gets the work. You could even set a not-to-exceed of $40K. It’s not impossible unless you want it to be.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Class Warrior, once again you demonstrate your cluelessness and elitist, anti-democratic (small “d,” not your Big Blue Democrat “D”) view of local government.

Our elected representatives on the Council voted 6 years ago to dump the holiday lights and other amenities when they realized that even raising taxes at double the rate of inflation couldn’t cover the increasing deficits being produced by the boneheaded Uptown TIF foisted on the taxpayers without a referendum. by previous mayors and previous alderdopes (like yourself?). And even as taxes continued to increase – in large part to cover the increasing deficits from the boneheaded Uptown TIF – the Council decided that there were other and better uses for the $50K than holiday lights – like trash collection and tree trimming, to name the two you cited.

Since we’ve seen the volunteers – although NOT the Chamber – try and fail on the holiday lights, it’s time the “What’s in it for our members” Chamber stopped making excuses for its non-leadership on something that benefits its retail members most of all.

8:08:

You want somebody (the Chamber) to pay for the lights so everybody can appreciating the joyous quality those holiday lights (used to) bring to the Uptown area each year. You want to put pressure on the Chamber to “dig into their pockets” and if they don’t we can all count an a great big scrooge post around Christmas time from PD blaming the Chamber for the lack of holiday lights.

Someone asked a few weeks back why there are so few posts on school related threads and so many on posts that do not have nearly the financial impact on our taxes. This post is an example. I get the feeling there some long time battles here and very old scar tissue.

I find it hysterical how 8:17 finds it so easy to “do the math about” $50 and 100$ amounts yet 1 buck a person is so damn offensive.

Your idea is let’s pressure the indian princesses families for 50 per family and if they don’t they are cheep. The lights are for ALL PR.

EDITOR’S NOTE: But “ALL PR” hasn’t turned out at any of the 6-7 budget meetings since 2009 arguing for the City to spend $50K on holiday lights.

Love the idea of putting the lights up Nov. 1 and keeping them up until April 1. It would certainly help amortize the cost over more days of public comfort and joy. And make Dark Ridge a little brighter for you and the other commuters getting on and off the Metra train in the dark. Good idea, PubDog!

EDITOR’S NOTE: An even better reason for the Chamber to lead the private fundraising for this venture, “Mary” Class Warrior.

1. I do not know of anyone “whining” about volunteers being dissed. It is just that you argument seems to be “you indian scouts did a shitty job with the lights so all of you should ante up 50$ so we can have it done right”.

2. “kids wanting “service hours” can’t match”. Kids wanting service hours?!?!?! Really?? Snide and cynical as usual!!

Out of touch on those projects?? Gee PD, how do you know that??

After all, “Nobody knows what “most residents” want – whether it be in the way of elected officials or anything else – because less than 50% of the 24,000+ registered voters have voted in our municipal elections for most/all of the past 20+ years”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Because the vast majority of those residents who chose to do their civic duty and vote on those referendums said so – and their votes remain the best evidence we have for determining what the people of this community want, even if those voters represent less than 50% of the 24,000+ registered voters from among 37,000+ residents.

The majority of the public has not shown up at the budget meeting so make the Indian Scouts pay for it?? They were stupid enough to volunteer to do it so now they are on the hook financially?? Brilliant!!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, we’re just fine with the 350+ Chamber members each ponying up $140 and covering the whole $50K.

OK….so you are saying that the subway restaurant over in village green, that is not even near uptown and will not benefit in anyway should pony up $140??

EDITOR’S NOTE: You mean the Subway whose annual dues to the Chamber go toward the Chamber’s costs for “Winterfest,” its car show(s), and other Chamber activities that aren’t held at Village Green?

The chamber of commerce “350 +” is a distracting argument.

Many are dentists, chiropractors, auto-repair, plumbers, churches, civic members (Such as Park Ridge Orchastra), Politicians, and even includes “The City Of Park Ridge”….so if they did chip in, I guess we’d still be on the hook!!

To use that number is disingenuous. Just say this:

“I do not want to pay for anything that I do not believe I will enjoy or benefit from” Because that’s a lot of words in all of those comments above to just re-phrase the above sentence.

You believe Dick Ponds or some business may get some benefit so you think they should pay. Well to be honest, I enjoy the lighting up for a small period of time in a very dark dark town. I enjoy the trolley (paid for by chamber) before Thanksgiving. I’d like to see some lights.

I’d like the community to enjoy the great city we have. That’s all.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As we understand it, the Chamber uses the dues from those “dentists, chiropractors, auto-repair, plumbers” etc. for activities such as “Winterfest” and the car shows from which those members don’t get a direct benefit, either. And this blog will gladly pick up the City’s $140 assessment so the taxpayers don’t have to – assuming (a longshot, it appears) that the Chamber would actually display even a modicum of civic mindedness and public spiritedness by stepping up and leading this effort.

As for the rest of your comment, your repeated examples of what “I enjoy” and “I’d like” says exactly what we have contended about a vocal minority of Park Ridge residents like yourself: You’re basically freeloaders for whom “community” means nothing more than what’s in it for them.

But thanks for showing your true colors, albeit anonymously.

This thread has officially jumped the shark.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ald. Milissis already owns that phrase on this blog.

Wow. If there was this much emotion brought to a D64 meeting, we might be able to return our schools to a top 25 district in Illinois. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. D64 spent more than $ 50,000.00 in the time it took me to post this, and that doesn’t include the pension obligations we are on the hook for. SMH.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Then stop wasting your time posting comments to what you think is a meaningless post and start attending D-64 Board meetings.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, we’re just fine with the 350+ Chamber members each ponying up $140 and covering the whole $50K.”

Of course you’re just fine with someone else paying for the lights i.e. Other People’s Money. In this case you want the Chamber to pay for it. But this is where you’ve been intellectually dishonest throughout the entire thread.

Asking the Chamber to pay (i.e. Other People’s Money) because might increase business is no different than asking the taxpayer to foot the bill because it will increase their home values The Chamber suggested the cost be paid by the greater community, which you scoffed at – but by suggesting the Chamber pay for it, you engaged in the same cost shifting argument that she did. Any distinguishing between the arguments is just a hollow attempt to justify your cost shifting argument on to some other entity.

Just come flat out and declare:

“I want lights in Park Ridge but I don’t want to pay for it. I suggest that the business owners i.e. Chamber members of Park Ridge pay for it so I don’t have to.” Because quite, that’s the most intellectually honest interpretation of your position. And I’d be OK with that, because if you learned from my posts, I’m all about spending other people’s money and I don’t like to spend any of my own. how else did I come to afford to live park ridge? It wasn’t by frittering my money away paying for public pensions for people who no longer even work for the government.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re pretty sure you won’t understand this, Serf, but we’re going to explain it anyway in the off chance that it might cause even a few of your many dormant brain cells to fire.

We agree with the City Council’s decision not to spend money on holiday lights. And we’re okay with its decision to spend money on flowers. Apparently you’re not. C’est la vie.

Then again, we’re not the ones crying about no lights, no Bedford Falls, and blaming the Council for not nicking the taxpayers so that we can have what we want on the TAXPAYERS’ DIME – the only “OPM” we care about.

But to mollify all you whiners and OPM addicts we came up with the idea of having the Chamber do something more than just run its glorified networking group: leading a fundraising effort for professional holiday lights, since it is many of its members who get the most direct economic benefit from those lights. And because we didn’t think the City should have to use taxpayer money for something the Council already voted down, we offered (as we noted in response to anon 07.29.15 5:23 pm’s comment) to pick up the City’s full Chamber membership share of $140 even though we don’t belong to the Chamber, and even though $140 is way more than whatever additional charge the holiday lights would add the property tax bill if we let the Chamber off the hook in order to put the taxpayers there.

So much for your beef about our “intellectual dishonest[y].”

If you’re really interested in a “flat out” factual declaration, try: “Park Ridge Serf is a freeloader.”

I understand dawg, and I’m not trying to pick a fight with you; but let’s be honest, nearly everyone (except me) here likes and enjoys the lights and no one wants to pay for it. The lights look amazing – that’s a fact.

But OTOH, park ridge RE taxes are a bit lower compared to other similarly situated suburbs (I understand that my tax bill is not all the city but various other entities) but the overall result is tax savings.

I have a friend in Buffalo Grove with a house of less value than mine with a tax bill in the five figures! i could link to dozens of PR homes for sale with lower tax bills than similarly priced suburbs.

The tradeoff though is a lot of little things – no lights in park ridge; a community center that is too small for 38,000 people, three trollies too few during winterfest, D64 schools that don’t have soundproofing or air conditioning, unsalted and unplowed streets, etc. It’s the culture that permeates the town. And it’s why I live here.

But at the end of the day, it’s perfectly OK to want someone else to pay for the lights, and I’m really hoping some rich person in the country club makes a $50,000 donation to install park ridge lights this year, so that I don’t have to pay my $1.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you really are being “honest,” Serf, then you really don’t understand.

Otherwise you wouldn’t keep spouting nonsense like “nearly everyone…likes and enjoys the lights and no one wants to pay for it [sic].” Judging from how the voters voted since holiday lights were discontinued in 2009 – re-electing Mayor Dave by a much bigger margin than in 2009, electing and re-electing aldermen who shared Mayor Dave’s philosophy of City government – the voters don’t care enough about holiday lights to want to be taxed for them, nor were they sufficiently inspired by the “volunteer” lighting effort since then.

And you wouldn’t proffer your silly conflation of “a community center that is too small for 38,000 people” (Park District facility) and “three trollies too few during winterfest” (Chamber) and “D64 schools…” (D-64) and “unsalted and unplowed streets” (City) in order to fabricate some fictional “culture.”

But thanks for that parting shot about the Country Club donor and your $1 that confirms you’re a freeloader. Say it loud and proud, Serf!

Embarrassing, the only word that comes to mind to describe our holiday lights display. And spare me the cry of the kids and volunteers who are responsible for this disgrace or saying all the flowers planted uptown are a different story. I get it….not every household makes 300k, but not every household makes 30k either. I applaud the aldermen who supported this issue. Don’t give up, you have more support than you think. People in PR are getting tired of the penny wise pound foolish council philosophy. Hopefully next election will prove that point!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Do you mean the “[C]ouncil philosophy” that stopped the City from running annual operating deficits of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that replenished the depleted General Fund balance so the City didn’t have to borrow from its dedicated Water Fund just to make payroll? The philosophy that stopped the slide in the City’s bond rating so that our bonds wouldn’t end up as “junk” with our taxpayers paying junk-bond interest rates? The philosophy that encouraged the hiring of TIF consultants to determine just how dysfunctional the Uptown TIF is, and to recommend the bond refinancing and renegotiation of past councils’ bribery deals with the other three local governmental bodies? The philosophy that deterred the Council from paying a multi-million dollar tax-sharing bribe to the developer of the Whole Foods property, and is responsible for slowly returning the City to fiscal sanity after more than a decade of penny foolish, pound ridiculous irresponsibility?

Yeah, we thought so.

On July 24, 2015, I sent the following email to Gail Haller, the Executive Director of the Park Ridge Chamber of Commerce:

—–

Hi Gail.

I have been reading all of the back and forth about the holiday lights situation with great interest. If you and the Board are amenable to this, I would like to form and chair a committee on behalf of the Chamber, to raise funds from the community for the holiday lights.

As a Park Ridge Chamber member with a business located outside of Park Ridge, my law firm has little to gain in me taking on this task. However, as both a passionate resident and elected official in Park Ridge, I want nothing more than to see this program be an ongoing success for our community now and into the future.

My plan would be to open an account at a bank in town under the auspices of the Chamber, and put together an army of folks who will help solicit funds from community leaders, businesses, Chamber members and residents alike. This proposed committee will then take the lead in working with the City and Park District to select a professional lighting vendor to install and take down the holiday lights.

To show my commitment to the task at hand, and to put my money where my mouth is, my firm will make the first $500 donation to this cause if you and the Board approve the proposal set forth herein.

As summer is nearly over, time is of the essence, if we want to have this done in time for the holiday season. As such, I would ask for your consideration on this matter at your most earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Rick Biagi

—–

If any of you who have posted here (supporters and naysayers alike) would like work with me to be make this a reality, I would welcome your assistance.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Finally, a Chamber member who actually walks the walk instead of just talks the talk. And one who doesn’t even have a business presence in Park Ridge.

Put us down for $200, Mr. Biagi. And let us know what else we can do to help.

Class Warrior/Mary Wynn Ryan; Park Ridge Serf; and all you other all-foam-no-beer freeloaders like anon 7/30 at 4:34 pm; anon 7/29 at 5:23 pm; anon 7/29 at 9:27 and 11:02 am, 3:52, 4:20 and 4:57 pm; et al. – time to put up or shut up.

Whatever you say Robin Hood!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Better than raising taxes on the commoners, Prince John.

I’ll donate to the light fund 😉 Post the bank’s name and I’ll make a donation in the name of my business too.

But in all seriousness, there currently is a culture of fiscally sound decisions that permeates the city. Others deride the conservative spending habits as being “penny wise, pound foolish (11:51)or frugal, miserly or or cheap. The extreme opposite of our fine city’s stance on fiscal issues are our neighbors, Chicago & Rosemont, both of which are anything but cheap, and have debt up to their eyeballs they may never be able to repay.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Every anonymous commentator donates to every project and fund, right?

I believe I understand what the Editor thinks the PRCC should be. And let’s assume that I agree. The reality is that the Chamber’s 350 members mostly aren’t located in the major retail areas, and most of them benefit no more than any other resident from a holiday lights display. “The Chamber” is a 501c6 nonprofit professional organization, with a total annual budget of only about four to five times the cost of professionally lighting Park Ridge’s Uptown and South Park business districts. It’s an organization with 2 FTE employees. And while the Holiday lights issue certainly draws a lot of attention on both sides, it has never been the responsibility of the Park Ridge Chamber. The PRCC budget and staff are currently fully committed. If the staff or budget are going to take on this project, something else must give.

I understand that some (many? could it really be most?) don’t want the city to spend public money on lights. But how does it come to pass that so many believe they know best about what the Chamber–a nonprofit organization–should spend its resources on? If you’re a Chamber member, you should be offering that advice to Gail Haller, the Executive Director. And if you’re not a member, should you really be dictating what the Chamber should do? I happen to be a Chamber member and resident, and I would gladly donate to fund the lights, but my business doesn’t benefit from lighting Uptown, so if the Chamber redirects resources to that effort, my Chamber membership becomes less valuable to me.

EDITOR’S NOTE: While current Chamber members Rick Biagi (who’s business ISN’T even in Park Ridge) and John Moran (who’s business IS in Park Ridge, but nowhere near the Uptown or South Park business districts)offer to lead a Chamber “holiday lights” committee, and each pledge $500 to that cause, you – who claims to be a Chamber member – cobble together every lame alibi in the book.

This isn’t about the Chamber’s non-profit status, or its annual budget, or the size of its staff, or whatever self-aggrandizing activities it traditionally has undertaken. The holiday lights project is not intended to be some “for profit” event with the lights money coming out of the Chamber’s budget. And Messrs. Biagi and Moran, not the Chamber’s staff, have offered to run the committee and its fundraising. So why are you throwing up all that smoke and all those mirrors?

You sound like a what’s-in-it-for-me OPM addict, so it’s no surprise that your primary/only concern is how “less valuable to [you]” your Chamber membership might be if the Chamber put the arm on you for a lights donation.

Thanks for the object lesson in shamelessness, selfishness and greed.

If Biagi and Moran are going to do all the work and take on all the fundraising responsibility from here on forevermore, then again, why are we discussing the chamber at all? It’s clear that you don’t think much of the PRCC anyway, so why would you want them to have anything to do with a project you’re investing your money in? Perhaps publicwatchdog.org should hold the money and take over the project. I mean, if the chamber wouldn’t need to devote any resources to the project, then neither would you.

But of course the chamber WILL need to devote resources to it. And anyone who has ever worked on perennial projects (public OR private) knows that eventually a batch of volunteers loses interest (or retires, or moves away, or becomes unable for some reason to carry on). Who will you blame then?

Also, thanks for confirming that you have no interest in a rational discussion with respectfully posed questions. This is your blog and you may run it however you wish. If attacking the character of an anonymous but polite commenter is what passes for editorial around here, then this clearly isn’t a venue worth anyone’s time. Unless, by chance, they precisely agree with everything the editor says and are looking for an echo chamber.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Chamber enjoys a special status with the City, which is why it gets to commandeer the Library parking lot and part of Summit for its First Friday events, at what we hear is at no charge. It’s only fitting that with such special privileges come special obligations, like leading the holiday lights project.

We have no respect for the shameless, the selfish and the greedy – no matter how “polite” they fancy themselves; and even less for the anonymous shameless, selfish and greedy. So if “this clearly isn’t a venue worth [your] time,” by all means depart and do not return. Or identify yourself so that the other readers can know exactly who the shameless, selfish and greedy alleged Chamber member really is.

Ad hominem attacks? Classy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Or maybe ad feminem?

Shamelessness, selfishness and greed aren’t entitled to “classy.”

I know Ald. Moran but don’t know Commissioner Biagi (although I voted for him twice), and I’m not a Chamber member. But I applaud those two gentlemen for being the leaders it looks like the Chamber lacks in offering to chair a holiday lights committee, I agree with PW that the Chamber should be taking the lead on civic projects like this that provide direct benefit to the Park Ridge business community.

What bank are donations being accepted?

EDITOR’S NOTE: No bank account has been set up yet because, now that the Chamber has refused to create a holiday lights committee, Messrs. Biagi and Moran need to organize a 501(c)(3) corporation to open a bank account and accept donations.