So you are saying the governing body of the library decided on its own that intervening to help a private business is something it can and should do. The private business owner came in response to an article makes no difference he still asked for the governing body of the library to provide him and other similar situated PRIVATE businesses the intervention/protection of the library’s governing body. Guess none of the 5 of you that voted to intervene and give a private business help/intervention/protection believe that government (i.e. The governing body of the library) should govern least and let the market dictate which businesses or charities survive. Yet you were against the city council giving help to a private charity, you are against the city government helping private citizens clear their sidewalks or bus stops of snow purportedly because you are a conservative thinker when it comes to government. In other words you and the others that voted in favor are faux conservatives or have some undisclosed motivation to help a particular private business that should be figuring out what he and his partner can do to make their tiutorung facilities compete with others who are lawfully using public resources without complaint by (and based on petition with support of) the public . If he can’t figure that out by giving better service or some other market driven incentive to his customers without the governing body of the library stepping in to assist maybe his business shouldn’t survive. Aren’t you Mr “let’s put things out to referendum” rather than imposing something on the public without public input?
Next step-let’s charge the nannies for using the library or public parks while with their customers children. Brilliant- the liberals in Washington would welcome you and your aye saying cohorts with open arms.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, the Library Board determined on its own that a group of freeloading tutors were exploiting their free access to monopolize scarce space for hours on end for their personal profit to the detriment of other non-commercial users.

Of course, if you were actually serious about referendum you’d take us up on our suggestion of asking the Council to put a repeal referendum on the November ballot. But since you’re likely a freeloader yourself, you don’t even have the guts or the integrity to sign your name to our rimshots, or show up in person at City Hall.

Do “The People” Matter To Park Board, Staff?
12.19.12
“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.” Thomas Jefferson.

For those of you who like your “rulers” feeding you amenities funded by the rest of us taxpayers, without us taxpayers having a real voice in the decision-making process, tomorrow night’s meeting of the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District Board of Commissioners meeting (7:30 p.m., Maine Leisure Center, 4801 Sibley) should warm your holiday hearts.

Substitute “library board” for “park board”
Why not ask the people before taking the vote that you did?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Because the Library Board, unlike the Park Board, did not just put the taxpayers on the hook for over $7 million of long-term bonded debt to pay for an $8 million, 3-month/year water park. We simply charged freeloading tutors $10/hour – at no cost whatsoever to all those non-freeloading taxpayers not trying to run their private businesses out of the Library.

No wonder you don’t sign your name.

I agree with your argument and with the policy, but only up to a point. With that Mission and Vision, how can this Library Board allow tutoring or any other other businesses at all?

EDITOR’S NOTE: It was a compromise decision, with the consideration for that compromise being payment of fees that would generate revenue for the Library while providing tutors who claim the Library is so well suited for their business and their students with that forum.

simply charged freeloading tutors $10/hour – at no cost whatsoever to all those non-freeloading taxpayers not trying to run their private businesses out of the Library.

So your policy will cost nothing to the taxpayers in terms of staff policing the tutors or enforcing the sign in or collecting the fee. Are you saying the voice of the people does not matter for such decisions …but what you can’t be saying that bc that would make you a hypocrite as to all you belly aching about the park district board or the school board etc …or just dishonest?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Enforcement of the policy can be accomplished by staff as part of their normal duties – not $7 million plus interest, like the Park District’s water park.

And when “the voice of the people” comes from a few dozen handfuls of greedy, self-serving tutors and their equally greedy, self-serving customers, this editor happily ignores it.

: No, the Library Board determined on its own that a group of freeloading tutors were exploiting their free access to monopolize scarce space for hours on end for their personal profit to the detriment of other non-commercial users.

Really? Hmmmm. If you go back to local newspaper articles it seems the effort to charge tutors only took on steam after the private business asked for government intervention for his private business. Guess government intervention into private business is a good thing?

And the board didn’t “compromise” by not singling out just tutors..come on you guys DID single out tutors BUT the city attorney told you “big government let’s intervene to assist a private business types ” that would likely be an invalid act.

Since you seem so hell bent on government helping out the private sector I hope you go back to city council and invite them to again start contributing to the center for concern bc your actions in the library board helping a private business is consistent with such an ask from council.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Just because it “seems” that way to a greedy freeloader doesn’t make it true.

The legal opinion you refer to was totally baseless, from an attorney who no longer represents the Library.

What we did is stop the Library from favoring one special interest segment of the private sector, just like the City Council stopped favoring certain other special interest private sector entities. Too bad you’re too greedy and specially interested to recognize or admit it.

monopolize scarce space for hours on end for their personal profit to the detriment of other non-commercial users.

To back up your statement above I’m positive the library board has statistics of how many patrons of the library complained of tutors “monopolizing scarce space” right? Would you be kind enough to share that information , if it exists? Bc the numerous petition signatures against the measure would contradict your assertion.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you would have showed up last Tuesday night and listened to the architect talk about the Library, you would have heard that the Library is only 2/3 the size it should be for a community this size with higher-than-average visits. But ignorance probably becomes you.

The “numerous petition signatures” were based on a fraudulent proposition ginned up by greedy tutor-propagandist Caroline Vengazo, who asked the City Council to “Keep the Park Ridge Public Library a FREE Public Space for Everyone” – when what she really meant was to keep the Library OVERHEAD-FREE for herself and her fellow tutors.

You have lambasted staff and admin for decreased usage and circulation time and time again and now it is “scarce space”!! I have lived here and used the library for 14 years. I have seen tutors on many occasions but I have never seen it create a space issue. It is not like people are lining up for tables.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, this editor has simply pointed out all those decreases, NONE of which measure the number of freeloader tutors monopolizing tables for 2-3-4 hours at time.

“What those of us on the Board considered, however, were a variety of facts that suggested the answer to all three of those sine qua non questions was “no” – including the Library’s own reports showing: (a) a consistent decline in Library visits to their lowest level in 10 years; (b) a decline in Library circulation to the lowest level in six years; (c) a decline in Library program attendance to the lowest level in 9 years; and (d) even a slight decline in the number of Library card-holders and the number of cardholders actually using their cards to check out items”.

Scarce Space??!?!?! Your own argument and statistics clearly show that there was/is no scarce space. Care to bet those numbers now go down even more??

EDITOR’S NOTE: Tutors who monopolize tables for several hours have no positive effect on visits and, arguably, could deter other visitors. Meanwhile, they hve no effect on “circulation” or “program attendance.”

But if greedy tutors and their greedy customers want to go elsewhere rather than pay their $10/hour, that’s their choice.

How are Park Ridge tax payers parasites and freeloaders? You sir should not be on any board with your hateful propaganda. Since the mayor apparently appointed you he is to blame as well. Libraries are for communities, every town/city has one. Being a lawyer I’m quite sure you have used a library before. Does that make you a parasitic freeloader? It must, you are not above anyone else. In fact the majority of lawyers are parasites just like yourself. Karma will get you and we’ll all sit back and laugh when it does.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And you, sir/ma’am, should be grateful we let cowardly idiots like yourself take your silly potshots in gutless anonymity.

As we’ve made clear in at least one prior post, freeloaders are “those residents who are always looking to leverage maximum benefits for themselves, their families and their friends by shifting the costs of those benefits onto the backs of their fellow taxpayers.”

Fortunately, freeloaders are a minority in this community, even if they make a disporportionate amount of noise when defending their greed…and dodging the “Karma” that is coming their way.

PD:

“Tutors who monopolize tables for several hours have no positive effect on visits and, arguably, could deter other visitors. Meanwhile, they hve no effect on “circulation” or “program attendance.”

As always you miss the point. My point is not how tutors have a + or – affect on attendance or circulation. My point is you now claim there is a condition of “scarce space” when you (see above) have gone on about decreases in all measurable areas. Now we have higher than average visits??? So when it has to do with paying those who work there everything sucks….attendance down…circulation down…. But now we have scarce space and no we have “higher than average visits”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If your point “is not how tutors hav a + or – affect [sic] on attendance or circulation, then why did you bring it up – other than defending your greedy freeloading?

Unlike the vast majority of individual patrons, tutors monopolize multi-person tables for hours at a time – without contributing significantly to any of the numbers that reflect performance.

If you’ve got a beef with the space and visits analysis, take it up with the architects at the upcoming public outreach meetings.

Anonymous at 1:34 pm doesn’t understand the difference between a taxpayer and a freeloader.

A taxpayers pays taxes, either directly as a property owner or indirectly as a renter, and receives in return the services provided by those taxes to all residents.

A freeloader takes those services without paying for them. Tutors are referred to as “freeloaders” because they profit from the library, which was built with, and continues to be funded by, taxpayer money. In other words, we work, earn money, have some of that money taken by taxes, and the freeloader benefits.

Not sure I really like the freeloader terminology, but I can follow the line of thought. Some of the commenters here may disagree with the line of thought, but they really need to come up with more compelling responses and rationale than we read above.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Fair enough, FWT. But according the the Merriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/freeloader) the definition of “freeloader” is: “a person who is supported by or seeks support from another without making an adequate return” – exactly like the tutors who get FREE business space and overhead from Park Ridge taxpayers without making an adequate return through payment of a user fee.

Merriam-Webster also lists the following synonyms for “freeloader”: “bloodsucker,” “leech,” “free rider,” “hanger-on,” “moocher,” “parasite” [which we’ve reserved for non-resident freeloaders], “sponge” and “sponger.”

You can take your pick – but, after “freeloader,” our next favorites are “leech” and “moocher.”

So how many people complained to the board or staff about “scarce space” to make this an issue in the first place? You keep avoiding the question.

Or did the across the street private (now government protected business) have friends/republican township contributions in the past that swayed at least two of the yes votes??

EDITOR’S NOTE: This DIDN’T become “an issue in the first place” solely because of patron complaints, but several Board members received them directly; and some of the ones the Library received in response to the Library’s in-house 2015 survey under the section “Q6 What improvements would you like to see in the Library?” were the following:

“No tutoring business. My kids have come to the library a number of times and have no tables available to work on school projects because of all the tutors. Not only are they taking up space, they are very loud.”

“I strongly believe that tutoring should NOT be permitted in the library. I find it very distracting and find that the tutors’ use of the second floor is becoming greater and greater. Reading should be the main focus of the library and the tutors and their students negatively impact reading. I HOPE that the library board will do someting about this soon!!!”

“I would like to hear more about keeping costs down. I think people who don’t live in Park Ridge, should pay more in fees. I don’t like the fact that tutors are running a business in the library and not paying for the space.”

“[C]harge the tutors who use the library professionally.”

“Eliminate the free use of the library by paid tutors. One suggestion would be to allocate two special rooms for tutors. This would be the only area tutors could use. The open areas of the library would be off limits to tutors. When trying to read or study tutors are very disruptive.”

“Eliminate private tutors in quiet areas.”

“Get rid of fee tutorials…makes too much noise in reading room.”

“Dedicated space for tutoring so they don’t disrupt other patrons.”

But we are pretty certain that means nothing to freeloader tutors and customers like yourself.

The architects should wait until the tutor tariff is enforced and re-assess space needs. It will likely save the library money once you realize you chased away regular users of the library. Though the size is small for a community our size if those that used it regularly and most often stop attending because of the tutor tariff you will be left with plenty of space to celebrate your big government King george tariff. You guys that voted yes are the anti-tea party-ers. Congrats!

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Library’s current configurations were not designed specifically to accommodate freeloaders and deadbeats, so there’s no reason to delay any re-design that wouldn’t specifically accommodate them, either.

People (including those who attended the meeting) are well aware of the renovation plans, not oblivious or disinterested as you paint them to further your us vs them narrative. But they are understandably wary about whether they’ll result in any meaningful changes because they know it’s history of acting on behalf of anyone’s interests but their own. How can you possibly think people would believe that you care about the longevity of this library when everything you’ve said and done seems to be undermining it to the point where it’s a shambles, a joke. Thank goodness for the staff who continue to work so hard on behalf of the community they love. Unlike you they understand the value of this resource to our community.

EDITOR’S NOTE: How can anyone believe that YOU, an anonymous coward without portfolio, care about the Library when you’ve said and done nothing other than advocate for freeloading tutors and their freeloading customers?

But if you ever grow a spine and become willing to come out of the closet and own up to your anonymous comments on this blog, this editor will gladly match his record of community service and his principles against yours any time and any place.

t several Board members received them directly; and some of the ones the Library received in response to the Library’s in-house 2015 survey under the section

It’s a simple question. How many people complained about tutors? You cited 7 comments to “several board members”. Wow. 7 complaints to an unspecified number of board members. Is that it?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The current Library Board isn’t like past boards who didn’t have the common sense or fiscal responsibility to even think about the non-policy of giving freeloading tutors overhead-FREE space, and who gave thousands of tax dollars away on the Food For Fines program, and who neglected Library infrastructure while irresponsibly deficit spending to the point were the Library was closed down on summer Sundays in 2014.

So THIS Board didn’t need even those 7 complaints to realize allowing freeloaders to game the system as they’ve been doing is fundamentally wrong.

The Library’s current configurations were not designed specifically to accommodate freeloaders and deadbeats, so there’s no reason to delay any re-design that wouldn’t specifically accommodate them, either.

If the only problem causing “scarce space” was the tutors then of course you should delay and not waste taxpayer dollars for a non existent problem -or go to referendum.

If you continue without asking the people you are as bad as the park board you complain about.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s not the only problem, so why say such stupid things?

Because this current Library Board has the good-government, fiscally-responsible principles that the Park Board lacked when it borrowed $7 million on an $8 million, 3-month-a-year water park without going to referendum, you can be quite certain that – if this editor has anything to say about it – there will be no renovation without a referendum.

It’s a simple question. How many people complained about tutors?

EDITOR’S NOTE: And it’s a simple answer: More than 7.

If you are not willing to answer how many complaints were received about scare space being caused by tutors…maybe you can answer the other question you are dodging:
did the across the street private (now government protected business) have friends/republican township contributions in the past that influenced if not swayed at least two of the yes votes??

EDITOR’S NOTE: See answer posted in response to your previous comment.

If you want an answer to your second question, name the “at least two of the yes votes” you’re referring to – there’s no need to be coy when you’re too gutless to sign your name.

In light of the Mission and the Vision, along with the attitudes expressed by the tutors and their customers, I should think the library board would simply ban any tutoring or business activity altogether. Let them rent commercial space, work from their homes, work from the students home, or hang out at Starbucks, Panera, Chipotle, etc.

This has turned into a classic case of “give a mouse a cookie,” but with really ungrateful mice.

Thanks for your reply to my comment at 8:30. Predictably vicious and immature. The hypocrisy you reveal
In these comments is also predictable. You blast the staff for its lack of measurable data on a number of fronts yet you made your decision on the tutor “problem” based on approximately 7 comments.

And now after claiming the library is an underutilized resource you’re listening to professionals who tell you it’s too small? The staff has been saying that for years, but what do those greedy public employees know?

EDITOR’S NOTE: You should be grateful we even post your cowardly anonymous freeloader comments at all. But if you don’t like it, go back over to the “closed” Park Ridge Virtual Chatterbox and Park Ridge Citizens Online FB pages.

And if what you mean by “blast the staff” is questioning whether they’ve earned raises (or bonuses) when the few objecively measurable criteria are down even though the Library hasn’t gotten any smaller over the past decade, them you’ve actually guessed right for a change. But if you and/or staff want a new bigger Library, at a cost of probably $25-30 million (Aurora’s new 92,000 square foot library cost $28 million), ask the City Council, or collect signatures yourself, to put a referendum question on the ballot and let the voters vote on it this November.

Or is that too challenging for you, precious?

Thank goodness they 5 yes vote board members are here to speak up and guard the interests of the 8 people that answered a survey (I bet the number of survey responders was staggering and took you days to sort through *sarcasm*) you are all so brave. Did you research to see if the 8 complainers included the 2 owners of the across the street business? Or if duplicate responses from the same people were made. Ah reminiscent of the park district swimming pool survey -wasn’t it you who thought such surveys were horse maneur?
With this type of lack of consistency you should soon be advocating for other private businesses to receive government intervention to help them be more profitable.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You should know, since you sure sound like one of those greedy private tutors who has been the beneficiary of “government intervention” in the form of FREE “rent” and overhead at the Library for years – which would explain why you’re too gutless to sign your name to this tripe.

, ask the City Council, or collect signatures yourself, to put a referendum question on the ballot and let the voters vote on it this November.

WHY? If it’s the right thing to do we should disregard what the public wants -at least that is your argument for voting on the tutor issue without getting an accurate opinion of what the majority of the public (or even just the voting public) wants on the issue.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In the Board’s opinion the policy WAS “the right thing to do.” So if you don’t like it and believe “the majority of the public (or even just the voting public)” disagrees with the Board, prove it via a repeal referendum question.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You should know, since you sure sound like one of those greedy private tutors

When I disagree with you about school board you call me a school board member
When I disagree with you about the park district you call me a park district board member
When I agree with you -you give me a “right on fellow taxpayer”
Lol
Now you call me a tutor for disagreeing with you.
Do you enjoy bring so wrong all the time? Or has it become so routine you don’t even notice it anymore?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since you don’t have the courage to even identify yourself, we can’t be sure who you are so we’ll call you whatever we want…and, always, “coward.”

Man, a whole lot of words in this one, Bob. You lost me about the time you started in on the attendees’ lack of interest in the architect’s report. It seems to me that a disinterested group, not listening and anxious to get on with their part of the meeting, probably would not have erupted in applause at the conclusion of his report.

I wouldn’t have bothered posting this observation , but for the fact that many of the people reading this were not at the meeting and have only your post from which to judge the relative interest of the group in attendance in the betterment of the library for the entire community. In my judgement, the attendees were far more enthusiastic about the matter than was the board.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for commenting under your own name, Matt. And, obviously, you’re entitled to your own opinion.

But the audience I observed is what I described in the post. And if not for the enthusiasm of the Board that wholeheartedly supported hiring architects to look into the first renovation of the Library in decades, there wouldn’t have been that presentation Tuesday night – to which several Board members asked questions or made comments.

Finally, “the people reading this…and have only [this] post” from which to judge what went on last Tuesday night need to also know that you have been an outspoken critic of the tutor policy, including speaking against it Tuesday night and on Facebook. So they can judge the motive of your swipe at the Board’s enthusiasm in the light of that anti-tutor policy bias.

I have read many of the comments on the local Facebook pages ripping the tutor policy, and the more I read those the more I think the board’s policy is right and that the tutors are as greedy and selfish as you portray them. For a couple of years I ran my own business out of my house to save the cost of overhead. I would never have considered camping out in the library, which is why when I had to hold meetings I held them at the Starbucks on NW Hwy.

My apologies for any apparent “swipe” at the Library Board. I was not questioning their enthusiasm. In fact, I even alluded to it in my comments to the Board that evening. My comparison here of the audience’s reaction to the Board’s reaction was intended to point to the high level of enthusiasm of the former not any lack of enthusiasm of the latter.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No problem, Matt, although I stand by my observation so we’ll have to agree to disagree.

That being said, the true measure of “enthusiasm” will be (a) how many residents show up for the public input meetings on the renovation; and (b) how many voters approve whatever taxing, borrowing and spending will be needed for that renovation.

To the commenter at 5:57, it’s pretty unfair to say the tutors camp out at the library. And do you really think Starbucks is an ideal venue for tutoring?Come on. Most tutors do their work I a variety of settings, just one of them being the library. Because it’s a safe place that’s conducive to learning.

I’m not a tutor but I have to defend them because many of them don’t charge much more than the $10 the library wants to take from them. Seven people supposedly complained? If that was the case on an issue that Public Watchdog opposed, he’d have nothing but ridicule for such a trumped up rationale.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, lady/mister, but this editor/board member has personally observed tutors monopolizing tables for over 3 hours at a crack while his/her customers came and went.

Please provide documenttion of your contention that “many of them don’t charge much more than the $10 the Library wants to take from them” – because we’ve been told even high school kids charge $20/hour, which is the low end of the tutoring fee scale and more than most college kids make at their summer jobs.

The Board didn’t base its decision merely on 7 complaints but on a freeloading sitution that had several implications, only one of which was reflected in those 7 written and other complaints.

Disclaimer??!?! Why a disclaimer now?? Or maybe it is better to ask why no disclaimer before??

EDITOR’S NOTE: Because the stupidity and ignorance demonstrated by the freeloaders and their sycophants such as yourself suggests that it might actually be necessary.

Necessary?? It was not necessary ever before and “stupid” people like me (and others) have been commenting here for a long time. Along with that I would ask necessary for whom?? You don’t care less what we think.

Perhaps some of the elected officials you are connected to (on committees or my appointment) are starting to realize that your comments and methods just might rub off on them.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re right: This editor couldn’t care less what cowardly anonymous freeloaders think.

And if elected officials are intimidated by the sniping of anonymous cowards, or freeloaders of any stripe, then they don’t deserve the positions to which they were elected.

I think these tutor people are embarrassing themselves because they stand only for themselves. Republicans want to be your dad, telling you what to do. Democrats want to be your mom, taking total care you. Both parties believe totally in government intervention. Money tutors claiming they should be able to do whatever they want in the library are really taking a more Libertarian standpoint, saying there should be no rules. But libertarians who hate big government are STILL not against laws which require certain things. There should be rules. You can’t discriminate.You can’t talk loud. You can’t go shirtless. These rules are doing good things that an open market cannot do on its own. This is because people WILL act selfishly, and such actions WILL negatively impact everyone else’s rights. We have to protect our public commons. The open market does not work when selfish use of the commons limits its availability to another person. Throughout America’s history, there have been instances where government intervention is needed to protect the commons and keep selfish people from destroying it. This protects everyone’s freedom. Tutors for money say that they want their freedom and no rules. Would any of them be camping out at a table each week were it not for the payment they will eventually receive for their services? I think not. That is the reason they are in the library, and it is not the mission of the library to create office space. It sounds like there are people who have been turned off because of noise or space or what have you. tutors, you do have a right to camp out at a table all day if you are enjoying the library. But when you are taking up space only for the purpose of making money and another taxpayer is uncomfortable due to your behavior, it is unfair. Please look in the mirror and admit that you are only at that library table to make a profit, and you really don’t care enough to try to imagine how others might feel. And, tutors, you aren’t really for any political party. you are only for the party of YOU and your own bottom line.

The idea that a casual reader might mistake your personal views for those of library staff is nearly as laughable as your insecure compulsion to get the last word on every Tom, Dick, and Harry that looks at you sideways on the Internet, but hey, safety first and all that.

EDITOR’S NOTE: So are you a Tom, a Dick, or a Harry…in addition to being a coward?

A quick Google search for park ridge tutors shows an avg rate of 14.25 per hour – the poster was right not much more than 10/hr and now with the tutor tariff you are pushing the rate down below minimum wage. For shame the 5 yes votes.
I think “more than 7” people have complained about getting a new police station, or donating tax dollars to the center for concern, or building/buying more park land. By pubdog’s metrics such complaints should warrant action! Liberal government interventionism into private business. The 5 bobble head yes votes should resign their conservative credentials – though at least half of them provable aren’t wise enough to realize the hypocrisy of their vote against their professed conservatism.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Your “quick Google search” appears to have been one-stop shopping at the Care.com site (https://www.care.com/tutors/park-ridge-il) – where that “avg rate of 14.25 per hour” appears to be the average of tutoring and babysitting. But if those $14.25/hour tutors don’t want to pay $10/hour to the Library, they can avail themselves of the free market by going elsewhere. Fee avoided, problem solved.

That Care.com site has most tutoring at $20-50. Plus it looks to be just a Craig’s List with no vetting or quality control

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s what it looked like to us.

The ten most dangerous words in the English language are “Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

RONALD REAGAN

The library board should stop offering to help in the fashion it thinks it did.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Library Board didn’t “help” anybody. It simply corrected an inequity a prior board created by its negligence, lack of oversight and acquiescence.

CHECK YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILLS.
–The library got almost $400 of my taxes for one building that my family hasn’t walked into in 5 years. BUT HAS VIRTUALLY NO USER FEES
— The Park District got $575 dollars of my taxes for several parks and pools that sooooooo more used than the library, but they have a user fee model. (and much more is needed, like a nice gym…or destination field!!)

— SCHOOLS $7900 !!!!!!!!!!!

— CITY – $1400
The library is one building and one parking lot.

The Park District services (someone can answer the number) more people, has way more employees, saves green space and beautifies our community.

I am so sick of the “progressive” moronic posts by the same 10 people, including elected Park Commissioner progressive Grau. Nothing is worse than opening Facebook and seeing a stumbling, low informed post by Meade, and her 6 friends who comment. It’s sad entertainment.

When KPM’s union bought and paid for people post garbage non stop, please keep where your money goes really in mind. (Yes, of course her husband is on the payroll)

EDITOR’S NOTE: The figures that throw us the most are that D-64 spends about the same amount to educate 4,500 kids – around $70 million – as the City spends to operate a community of 37,000, and then constantly gets smoked in the rankings (those based on objectively-measurable test scores) by a number of schools that spend less per pupil and pay their teachers and administrators less.

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
Ronald Reagan

The self proclaimed conservative republicans should take note of the great communicators words …unless of course they are RINOs or conservative where convenient.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Library went beyond its limits in providing free space to greedy, opportunistic tutors who didn’t want to work from home or spring for an office. Guess you missed that part of your equation.

The wrong-ness of expecting to run a private, for-profit business with your overhead covered by the taxpayers should be obvious to any reasonable person, unless you’re blinded by your own greed and sense of entitlement.

And you are right about these tutors not wanting to touch a repeal referendum because they know the results would prove them spectacularly wrong.

You are a schyster for the mayor, an ass-hole and generally a butt-head. you couldn’t possibly know anything about what it means to be a librarian and how librarian’s impact people’s lives. You are a destroyer of people. You don’t build, you tear down.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Opinions vary.

You’re an anonymous coward, but there’s probably somebody who’ll have a drink with you…if you buy.

In the words of Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon.” Trizna, that is. He should be in Oregon with the Bundy group. Ass Hat!

EDITOR’S NOTE: First you’re “Seen folks like you,” now “Poor not welcome” – better have your doctor re-balance your schizo meds.

your wife and kids must love you. I’d am sorry you have so much hate inside. You need help.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And now “Klinker”…can you just cut to the chase and sign yourself “Sybil”?

Actually, this editor loves everybody – but when it comes to freeloaders and parasites who demand welfare for the well-off, it’s TOUGH-love.

You missed one point. The city has a budget about 70 mil and still has to pass the hat for Christmas lights.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You must have missed the press release and promotional materials, because the City doesn’t “pass the hat for Christmas lights.”

And while D-64 has a budget about $70 mil, it still charges around $300 per kid as an unspecified student fee.

Businesses offer space, money to Park Ridge tutors after library announces fees – Park Ridge Herald-Advocate

Read the article. It is a shame when private citizens have to step up where government should be acting BUT at least there are people that care that are willing to right the wrong that the 5 bobble head yes votes on the library board have imposed based on “more than 7 complaints”. This Edison park business and park ridge business should be commended for wanting to make sure there is a free place for tutors. The greed of the land based tutor to maximize his profits apparently found a welcome home in the 5 bobble head minds.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We thought we adequately explained to you (in response to your comments at 6:40 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. yesterday) that the role of government is NOT to give FREE office space and overhead, at taxpayer expense – as the Library had been doing for certain tutors – just because those tutors are shameless and greedy freeloaders (i.e., residents) or shameless and greedy parasites (i.e., non-residents); or just because their customers don’t want to pay the $10 fee those shameless and greedy tutors will pass on to their customers.

And those two businesses that were given the opportunity by the Library Board to get some free (Cafe at LeFlour) or low-cost ($500/mo. by North Suburban Vision Consultants) publicity don’t even need to say “thank you.”

It is horrible what the library board is doing.

Thankfully good citizens exist that will hopefully keep the tutors and kids engaged. Maybe the tutoring business that complained should reconsider its pricing rather than counting on the library board to do his dirty work. The library board should be concentrating on real issues not made up ones.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Unlike previous library boards, THIS Library Board concentrates on ALL Library issues, not just the easy ones; or the ones that gave previous board members the warm-and-fuzzies from deficit spending, closing the Library’s doors on summer Sundays, neglecting infrastructure, and twiddling their thumbs with no transparency or accountability.

You’re welcome.

Can you make it a standing agenda item at every library board meeting to have a report on the total fees collected from tutors for the time period from the last meeting?? How about you have a tote board?? Just a suggestion.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Why?

And why are you concerned only about the fees collected? Wouldn’t it be valuable to know how many unique tutors used the Library each month as their principal/only office; and for how many hours those tutors used the Library; and how many of those tutors claimed to be tutoring for free v. how many admitted to doing it for money?

Hey dog, is there a reason why you’re ignoring to highlight the issues surrounding this apparent P&Z Commission snafu?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/park-ridge/news/ct-prh-talcott-appeal-letter-tl-0128-20160121-story.html

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey anonymous, we’re too busy highlighting the new Library policy and addressing the carping of the freeloaders and parasites who are losing their overhead-free office space and being required to record their in-Library tutoring hours.

Jeez, reading the “progressive” hate filled comments above is disgusting. Liberal elites are such phony’s. It’s their playbook.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, cut the “progressives” some slack – they’re bisexual: they get almost as much pleasure from giving away other people’s money (“OPM”) as from RECEIVING it.

Crony capitalists, on the other hand, only like receiving OPM.

You got your tax, Bob.

In an age where income inequality is playing a role in politics, you’ve done your part to address the “expense inequality” that some businesses have to endure here.

Congratulations. You’ve invented taxation without representation by charging “freeloading” taxpayers twice for the same overhead.

Dave Schmidt used to say that liberals never saw a tax they didn’t like. But you’ve invented one! Well played, Mr. President.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Josh:

A “user fee” is a specific sum of money paid by an individual to access a particular service or facility that he/she chooses to use. A “tax,” on the other hand, is a specific sum of money imposed upon and paid by the full complement of taxpayers unrelated to their use of the particular service or facility.

So…that part of your RE tax bill you are forced to pay for the Library irrespective of your use is a “tax,” but the 10 cents a page you pay for the photocopies you choose to make at the Library is a “user fee.”

I’m sure you understand that distinction…it’s just that it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative on this issue.

And Joe Egan is the Library Board’s “Mr. President.”

Hey dog, is there a reason why you’re ignoring to highlight the issues surrounding this apparent P&Z Commission snafu?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/park-ridge/news/ct-prh-talcott-appeal-letter-tl-0128-20160121-story.html

This could take up a whole other post – but it appears the snafu came from city council because one alderman made a statement that he favors appealing the decision because “strategically” it might help -implying delay favors the city and not the developer. What he meant -I hope- is that the judge missed or was not submitted a full record of discussions and that there are legal issues and factual issues that could or should have been decided the other way. The ordinance was vague but the developer was trying to fit a square peg (aka a 99.9 % residential building) into a round hole (aka B-2 commercial zoned property). The judge missed the fact that her interpretation would allow a residential building to be built on commercial zoned space so long as it stayed under 30 feet high and included any sized commercial space even of nominal size. If aldermen are going to be so flippant about comments without realizing the potential negative consequences of their comments ( the developer lawyer cited in the letter that he viewed the city councils comments and based on those it appears city doesn’t believe it ha good legal reasons to appeal but is doing so just to delay -apparently a no no under attorney disciplinary rules that can warrant sanctions) maybe they should utilize closed session instead of sticking a foot in their mouth that gives opposing counsel fodder for a threatening sanctions letter. Hopefully the new city attorney’s will give some training on such matters to that alderman?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hiding stupidity and ignorance in closed sessions is what D-64 and D-207 have mastered: no need for the Council to go down that anti-transparent, anti-accountability road.

As best as we can tell, the Zoning Code permitted this structure; and the City had no good grounds for appeal in the first place. So while the alderman’s statement may have been injudicious it does not appear to be an actual factor in this matter.

Here is my question. Who planted this idea of strategically appealing the decision?? How was that “plan” introduced? I mean most of these guys are not lawyers and yet the decided to appeal against advice of council. As you stated above, the appears to be no grounds for appeal. Yet the voted to do so, apparently for “strategic” reasons.

How did the quoted alderman get this idea?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The aldermen can be found at City Hall pretty much every Monday night starting at 7:00 p.m., so you might consider stopping by and asking him.

On occasion one public official or other will find it difficult to tell a vocal special interest group “no,” especially if a number of them are there in person and demanding action.

Calling a user fee a tax reminds me of that story about a dog having only four legs even if you call his tail a leg because calling it a leg doesn’t make it one.

I recall seeing somewhere on social media that Mr. Kiem’s wife and his daughter are teachers. Might they also be tutors who use the library as their place of business?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Lincoln told that dog story.

We don’t know what Mr. Kiem’s wife does, but we understand his daughter teaches at Emerson. We also don’t know if she tutors, at the Library or elsewhere.

PD:

This was not just a case of “one public official or other” (Milissis). Moran, Shubert and the Mayor joined him in this foolishness.

So we have 40+ posts on the library decision and you all feel like you accomplished something for the community. Meanwhile the council may be giving it all away by chasing this windmill. How many years in tutor fees do you think it will cost in legal fees including any judgment for damages against the city??

EDITOR’S NOTE: Anon (whoever you are):

So…show up at City Hall and ask all four of them, assuming you’re serious and not just trying to distract the discussion from freeloading tutors.

A 12.15.15 H-A story reported that the cost of appeal was estimated “at $5,000 to $7,500.” And in a H-A article dated 07.16.15, Craig Elderkin of the Park Ridge Tutoring Center admitted to typically having “30 separate meetings with students each week” at the Library. Do the math and you get: 30 meetings/wk. over 52 weeks @ $10/meeting = $15,600.

So the revenue from just 1/2 year of Elderkin’s use alone – revenue the Library has ignored for years – would cover the cost of the appeal. With half left over to pay one of the Library’s many part-time employees.

Next!

My daughter does teach at Emerson. She does no tutoring. My opinions are my own, as she is wont to remind me.

You are double charging taxpayers for access. You’re not providing additional heat, light, space, or staff as a service. If anything, you’ve restricted access to a smaller footprint than what they’ve already paid for.

A “user fee” is a fee for a service rendered. Since the only service the library is rendering is the invasion of the privacy of the patrons, combined with the collection of $10, I think the definition of “TAX” is well supported.

Besides, as the library board has naming rights, (so you’ll do whatever you want) I think the “Trizna Tutoring Tax” has more pizzazz than the “Bob’s Toss Out The Freeloaders Fee”, or “Bob’s Business Buddy Bailout”, but that’s me.

(I do respect you and thank you for your contributions of time and dedication to our community, in all seriousness. I believe we can disagree and keep a sense of humor about it.)

EDITOR’S NOTE: First of all, some tutors are not even from Park Ridge and, therefore, are NOT “taxpayers” to the Park Ridge Library – so they aren’t being charged at all under the current system.

The special “access” tutors are getting from the Library that the general, non-freeloader taxpayers do not get is a safe, clean, well-lighted, warm and quiet (except for the tutors and their students) space – filled with the books and materials many of them say they need for their students – from which to run their private one-on-one businesses. THAT’s why the tutors are so insistent on tutoring at the Library rather than at their homes, or at Starbucks, or Panera, or Maki Sushi, or an Edison Park bakery.

The tutors also get an extra bonus: the CONVENIENCE of being able to monopolize the same table in the same place for hours on end while seeing 2-3-4 or more students, rather than having to drive around to each student’s home. That probably saves them 10-15 minutes of wasted time per hour of tutoring.

You’re welcome, greedy tutors.

Such user/access/convenience fees are no more a “tax” than the Library’s 10 cents per page copy charge, or the $1.50 parking fee along Summit, or the vehicle sticker charge, or the daily user fees at the Community Center – things that everyone doesn’t use, or doesn’t use relateively equally, and that are susceptible to individual charges.

If you want to name the new Policy the “Trizna Tutoring Tax,” I’m guessing $5,000 should get it for you. And I’ll agree to pay the same amount if I decide I want the Policy called the “Freeloader Financial Fix.” But you can’t name it “Bob’s Business Buddy Bailout” even for the $5,000 because it would be fraudulent to label Mr. Giovannini my “buddy” when I’ve only communicated with him twice, and then only in the course of his appearances at the August 18 and September 15, 2015, Library Board meetings.

Settle a bet for me, Mr. Dog. Is it, in your opinion, the proper role of government to maintain, at taxpayer expense, a public library?

Yes or no will suffice.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you want to impose rules, start your own blog.

Since government derives its authority only from the consent of the governed, building and/or operating a public library is the “proper role of government” only to the extent a majority of the governed say so.

“Since government derives its authority only from the consent of the governed, building and/or operating a public library is the “proper role of government” only to the extent a majority of the governed say so.”

So… how many more than 7 would that be?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Based on our republican (small “r”) form of government, 5 of the 9 Library Trustees – as the lawful representatives of the people of Park Ridge – is all it takes.

But if you want the more democratic (small “d”) model, you could say 4,592 – 50% + 1 of the 9,182 votes cast in the last City-wide election in April 2013. Or, if you’re a real stickler, it could be 13,166 – 50% + 1 of the 26,330 registered voters (as of April 2013).

“Based on our republican (small “r”) form of government, 5 of the 9 Library Trustees – as the lawful representatives of the people of Park Ridge – is all it takes.

But if you want the more democratic (small “d”) model, you could say 4,592 – 50% + 1 of the 9,182 votes cast in the last City-wide election in April 2013. Or, if you’re a real stickler, it could be 13,166 – 50% + 1 of the 26,330 registered voters (as of April 2013).”

The small-d example is much more accurate. 75 ILCS 5/2-6 concerns the procedure for disestablishing a public library. A simple majority vote of the board of trustees is, thankfully for the freeloaders of Park Ridge and their associated parasites, not it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You didn’t ask about “the procedure for disestablishing a public library,” so you should have said so.

Looks like you need some tutoring in asking questions.

Great answer to messages 53 and 54.

What the freeloaders don’t get is that 40-50 people in a room or less than a couple of dozen trading bitches on fb don’t constitue a majority of the community.

What this one gets less is that it is a simple majority of the Library Board that makes decisions based on ALL input they get…not just that from the 40-50 at a meeting or two or from those on fb.

Democracy. What a concept.

Spoken like a true lawyer, Bob. Your combination of aggression and slipperyness does credit to weasels everywhere.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Written like a true coward, anonymous.

12:54(not a freeloader):

May I ask you a few questions since you are so happy about ALL the input the library board received?

How many people did they talk to?

What exactly were the responses?

Was it a representative sample?

If these responses exist were the published for all to read?

Did they weight responses from some people more than others?

If there were so many people for fees why is it that the vast majority of those who took the time to show up at the meeting were against fees?

and so on……and who thinks questions like these are important?? PD does, or at least he has in the past.

See all these questions and more are what PD would be saying if a board did this and he was against it. He has done so countless times about the schools doing surveys or gathering data. He has done so when different bodies (police comes to mind) form advisory boards. If he disagrees his strategy is to attack the “lack of transparency” or non-representative sample and call for a referendum.

It appears that as long as he is a part of the governing body making decisions he has no problem behaving in the exact same way that he has so passionately criticized in the past.

On the one had he says they should have ad a referendum but when he is on the board they ram it through and he says if you don’t like it get a referendum.

We parents refer to that as “do as I say, not as I do”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: 12:55 (Not A Freeloader) can respond for him/herself should he/she choose.

But as to your criticisms of this blog and its editor, most surveys are crap because they’re designed to be crap – with skewed questions designed to elicit preferred responses; or outright dishonest questions like Caroline Vengazo’s Change.Org tutor petition that asked to “Keep the Park Ridge Library a FREE Public Space for Everyone” when what she really meant by “Everyone” was her and her for-profit tutoring cronies.

As for our complaints about a “lack of transparency,” most of those are directed at those twin Star Chambers masquerading as D-64 and D-207, whose boards run into closed session like scared mice every chance they can for any reason they can – such as concealing their discussions of the performance and compensation of their respective CEOs.

Meanwhile, the Library Board had NO -count ’em, ZERO – closed sessions related to the tutor policy discussion while allowing any and all interested persons the right to speak, even to the point of extending the public comment portion of the Jan. 19 meeting to 3x the 1/2 hour length prescribed in Library policy 1 A 14, and letting Mr. Van Metre fillibuster well beyond policy 1 A 14’s 5-min individual max.

We call for referenda when a governmental unit is spending a boatload of taxpayer bucks, undertaking a boatload of debt, or taking some action that will have a major long-term effect on the character or operation of the community as a whole; e.g., on an $8 million water park, a $30+ million Uptown Redevelopment, a $20 million new Library, etc., but not for charging a few handfuls of greedy tutors $10/hour for their Library office space.

And we’re pretty sure parents like you also say “Gimme, gimme, gimme” whenever you think you can get a free-ride on the backs of your fellow taxpayers.

Thanks, Bob. LMAO.

As for the tutors from outside Park Ridge, I’m inclined to agree with you, unless their students are residents. (By definition, most students are freeloaders, anyway.)

I will consider your naming rights offer, although I would suggest a modification of your proposed Freeloader Financial Fix to The Freeloader Financial Fix Is In, though let’s be clear: I don’t want to imply I am impugning you or the board’s character or ethics….

Always a pleasure.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you’re from outside Park Ridge – especially from that corrupt and bankrupt Chicago – and want to make money off Park Ridge public venues, you’re a parasite no matter whom you’re tutoring.

And isn’t it funny how those students so eagerly freeload on the public sector but pay hard cold cash when slurping those double-shot kandy-kolored Frappuccino-flake whipped cream baby drinks at Starbucks, or pounding down those Quarter Pounders, with or without cheese.

See all these questions and more are what PD would be saying if a board did this and he was against it. He has done so countless times about the schools doing surveys or gathering data. He has done so when different bodies (police comes to mind) form advisory boards. If he disagrees his strategy is to attack the “lack of transparency” or non-representative sample and call for a referendum.

It appears that as long as he is a part of the governing body making decisions he has no problem behaving in the exact same way that he has so passionately criticized in the past.

SPOT ON!

EDITOR’S NOTE: More tough talk from another anonymous coward.

But in case you missed the “transparency” discussion, D-64 has closed sessions at every/almost meeting while the Library Board has…wait for it…NONE.

if u count the yes votes (plus White) for the policy – six board members – and assume they each talked to only 10 people each who were in favor of business/tutor fees, that’s 60 people. add on the survey commentors, and you’ve got many more people who like the policy than the people who showed up and complained. easy math, people. no one in favor of fees wants to come to a meeting and get ridiculed

EDITOR’S NOTE: Freeloaders always show up to argue for their freebies.

“But in case you missed the “transparency” discussion, D-64 has closed sessions at every/almost meeting while the Library Board has…wait for it…NONE”.

Wonderful!!!! So you had open transparent meetings where the vast majority of people who took the time to show up were very much against fees. So you completely ignored them but you did so in a “transparent” way…..LOVELY!!

Why did you ignore them?? Well because of all this other feedback you apparently received…..fo course we cannot se how many, who, or what they said. Now that is transparency!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nobody “completely ignored them” – a majority of the Board, representing all 37,000 residents, disagreed with them.

And the disagreement was based on a number of factors, including not just other opinions but also basic principles of government like public interest over greedy special interest. We don’t expect you to understand that last concept, but you still need to hear it.

And that process was more transparent than ANY you’ll see at D-64 or D-207.

It seems like everybody who wants more and bigger government hates referendums. And we can understand why. Referendums demonstrate by counted votes what the public wants or doesn’t want. And most folks who want more and bigger government, or more fiscally-irresponsible government, don’t need or want that kind of objective, measurable evidence of public opinion.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly. And that’s why they won’t ask for a tutor policy repeal referendum.

Never in Doubt posting:

Well Watch Puppy, you finally got the anti-free-loader policy passed. You must be very proud. Unfortunately, I can only give you a “half-wag”, as you like to say. If securing revenue from groups of two or more is good, then why leave so much revenue on the table by exempting the free-loading singles? Why is it OK to let the attorneys, accountants, real estate brokers, etc. continue to feast on the Park Ridge taxpayers? I’m certain your answer will be that you “went as far as you could” and “did as much as you could” and that “baby steps are necessary”, blah, blah. I call Bull$h!t.
Reality check: there is no “half-measure” in this policy. You took it as far as you wanted to; because you’re really after D64 & D207. You never had, and have no future intention, of actually holding the free-loading parasites accountable and protecting the PR taxpayers. Despite your whiny protestations to the contrary, you are not at all interested in maximizing revenue (or the policy would apply to “singles”, too) and you don’t even mind screwing over the PR taxpayers in the passing of this policy, so long as you can week your juvenile revenge on educators who help inflate the performance scores of 64/207. Intelligent readers of your blog (you know: the ones you are always insulting) already know that you’re a disingenuous hypocrite who is actually not interested a whit in lowering taxes (at least, not when you can use your position to seek your personal revenge and have the City pay for it).
Still, I’m thrilled that you have started to follow my advice (so smart of you) and include the nannies with the tutors (and any “two or more individuals meeting in the Library”) and achieve some measure of consistency in your policy. Consistent, but not comprehensive. Even that small measure took some rare courage from you and your Board to do; admittedly, I did not expect it.
I look forward to your predictably boring riposte accusing me of being a freeloader or Library Staff member (intelligent readers can see the truth; why can’t you?) or some such nonsense. After all, it is much easier for you to cowardly demagogue your opponents than to post a thoughtful, well-supported argument to support your position of half-measures motivated by personal greed, rather than a genuine interest in helping taxpayers.
And to head off that argument, posting your name does not make you brave, and remaining anonymous does not make me a coward. Quite the opposite. So go ahead: pick one point of my post and flame away while hiding in your basement and hoping concerned citizens don’t see though your pathetic act.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Wow, so much tough talk from somebody afraid to sign their actual name.

Nobody has to “cowardly demagogue” you – you do that well enough yourself. Because while signing one’s name does not automatically make one brave, ad hominem sniping anonymously from ambush is the height of cowardice. And you know that, even if you don’t have the courage to change that.

if u count the yes votes (plus White) for the policy – six board members – and assume they each talked to only 10 people each who were in favor of business/tutor fees, that’s 60 people. add on the survey commentors, and you’ve got many more people who like the policy than the people who showed up and complained. easy math

I hope that was sarcasm…”assume” each yes vote spoke to 10 people and “assume” each of those ten were in favor of the policy?! Really?! (Add the survey comments…you mean the whopping 7 that no one confirmed were duplicates or self interested competitors?)
Ok. Let’s then also each of the no votes spoke to 40 people each against the policy and add the commentators who filled out the survey against the policy but couldn’t turn it in because a family member died, lil Johnny got sick or the dog ate it. Wow with “simple math” like that we apprently should be encouraging more tutoring in town.
I heard an alderman say that over the past few weeks alderman were receiving a lot of communications from citizens complaining about the then proposed now passed policy even asking the council or mayor to intervene. If we “assume” each alderman and mayor received 20 such communications the “simple math” is over whelmimgly against the policy.
Thank you. I’m going to assume now that the last posted is convinced of his/her faulty reasoning with which pubdog so quickly agreed.

EDITOR”S NOTE: No, our response was: “Freeloaders always show up to argue for their freebies.”

If you want this to be purely a matter of counting yeahs and nays, ask the Council to put a tutor policy repeal question on the November ballot; and, if it wins, you will have proved your point.

So how about it, anonymous toughie?

It seems like everybody who wants more and bigger government hates referendums. And we can understand why. Referendums demonstrate by counted votes what the public wants or doesn’t want. And most folks who want more and bigger government, or more fiscally-irresponsible government, don’t need or want that kind of objective, measurable evidence of public opinion.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly. And that’s why they won’t ask for a tutor policy repeal referendum.

ACTUALLY that’s why the bobble head yes votes on the board did not put it out to referendum.
Private business government intervention at its best. You guys are heroes.

EDITOR”S NOTE: You’re being a little too kind: making freeloading tutors pay a little overhead for their heretofore free office space isn’t quite heroic, just good honest government.

But if you want the policy repealed, tell the Council and they’ll put it on the November ballot for you. OR you can collect petition signatures and put it on yourself.

public interest over greedy special interest.

The private tutor across the street that guilted you bobble heads into voting yes is being greedy. Rather than offering discounts/incentives to use market forces to strengthen his business he instead sought out government intervention and apparently too easily received it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You mean that “private tutor across the street” whose costs include rent and other overhead that his freeloader competitors get free from the Library funded by the taxpayers – one of whom is that same “private tutor across the street”?

: You mean that “private tutor across the street” whose costs include rent and other overhead that his freeloader competitors get free from the Library funded by the taxpayers – one of whom is that same “private tutor across the street”?

Yes exactly THE one that apparently cannot survive without you bobble heads taking action.
I hear Barnes and noble is going to approach you crowder head yes voters to force the library to force residents to buy all books because their rent is going up. I’m sure you faux small government conservatives will jump all over it. Or are they not chummy enough with a few of the yes voters?

EDITOR”S NOTE: He’s survived and prospered for years. But if his greedy competitors need free rent, there’s always that bakery in Edison Park.

Some cowards don’t sign their real names on blog comments.

Some cowards refuse to state publicly whether or not they, personally, support the idea of taxpayer funding for the organization they’ve been charged with governing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Every year they pass a budget that’s almost totally dependent on taxpayer funding. And three of the four most senior Trustees on this Board asked supported the Council’s putting a referendum for additional funds on the November 2014 ballot.

You people keep talking about how fearful library supporters are of referenda while conveniently omitting the fact that residents approved a referendum for the library despite your conviction that no one would care enough to do so. You were dead wrong and clearly it’s gotten to you so much that you’re now intent on punishing library staff and users any way you can as a result. This library board makes a mockery of its own institution it’s charged with overseeing. It’s a sad era for the community under this regime.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The “residents” wouldn’t have had the chance to approve anything if it wasn’t for the City Council putting a BINDING Library funding referendum on the ballot – against the wishes of the Director, a majority of the then-board, and the staff, all of whom preferred to deficit spend and then whine publicly about how the Council wasn’t giving them extra money.

And neither that previous board nor its predecessors made any effort to explore a renovation of our dated facility.

He’s survived and prospered for years.

Since he has and is surving it appears it was pure greed that brought him to the library board seeking to have government intervene rather than let the free market operate. He should thank you and his other comrades on the library board for feeding and enabling his greed.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nice try, but only you and your greedy tutor cronies have lived off the government subsidy of free office space.

Please stand by your decision without name-calling.
I do not know you but clicked on this blog to hear the board’s side of the story. The tone of your responses are very upsetting.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Then don’t upset yourself any longer, “Gretchen A.” – there are other local blogs to soothe your gentle soul. Go check them out.

Gretchen:

Don’t be upset. See this is what’s called “healthy debate”. If you don’t understand that just as Mayor Marty. See he is the one that said that. He sits back and says nothing so apparently he approves of every comment by PD. There is no doubt that he reads this blog and is very aware of what is said here.

Meanwhile he votes against advice of council to appeal against a developer to essentially attempt to bleed the developer dry so he will go away.

EDITOR’S NOTE: So why don’t you run against the Acting Mayor in 2017. Oh, wait…you’d actually have to identify yourself to be a candidate. Never mind.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nice try, but only you and your greedy tutor cronies have lived off the government subsidy of free office space.

Yes. And now that you chowder head comrades have had government step in -the private businesses you are chummy with are getting taxpayer supported protection and taxpayer paid library police enforcers to make sure his business is propped up by the governmental action he came hat in hand requesting. Putin, no Khrushchev/Castro would be proud comrade.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Should you deadbeats pay your $10/hour, that will more than pay for the “library police enforcers.” Or you can go tutor at the Edison Park bakery.

If I remember correctly some of your predecessors did explore renovating and expanding the library but were shut down by you. Your lack of honesty and integrity as a steward of one of our important community institutions is mind boggling.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Not surprisingly, you DON’T “remember correctly. NO renovation was seriously discussed by a library board in at least 20+ years, and that was in connection with an “addition” to the Library back in 1991 which went to referendum and lost. And in 2002, that library board wanted to knock down the current Library and build a $20 million new one about double the size – and the voters rejected that plan by 8,948 (60.73) to 5,786 (39.27%).

It’s your lies that are mind boggling, no-name.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Should you deadbeats pay your $10/hour, that will more than pay for the “library police enforcers.” Or you can go tutor at the Edison Park bakery.

BIG GOVERNMENT PUBDOG! Or is it RedDOG?

At least the Edison park bakery are true capitalists and have a heart.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Enjoy your donuts, deadbeat.

Do svidaniya! To you and the other comrades that voted yes.

This shall be remembered next time you or any other township or park ridge self proclaimed “Republicans” speak of conservatism
President Reagan would never cast a boneheaded vote like you bobble heads did.

EDITOR’S NOTE: President Reagan wouldn’t speak to public issues in cowardly anonymity.

AMF back atcha.

I’ll take your refusal to address the issues and continued insults as both an apology for your failure to exercise your fiduciary duty by leaving money on the table (only targeting parties of 2 or more) and an admission of your intellectual laziness.

And your pathetic “disclaimer” is another joke. You speak as a member of the Board and for the other members of the Board of Trustees. No getting around that, counselor.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Take it any way you want – you haven’t been right yet, so it would be a shame to break that string.

With all the yammering, gloating, and name-calling you do, I’m shocked you only have one win.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Gee, “Mitch,” we rarely “yammer,” we never “gloat,” and what you label as “name-calling” we consider “describing in painful detail.” But we can understand how you might be confused.

Freeloading is a powerful force: just look at all the support Feel the Bern has been getting for his socialist “‘entitled’ is the new ‘earned'” philosophy. So we’ll take 1-0.

And, historically, Cub fans start talking World Series every time the Cubs are 1-0.