Not all that many years ago, when a new restaurant or store opened, it would stage a “grand opening” on its first day in business.  The recent trend, however, is that new businesses stage a “soft opening” days or weeks before the grand opening, often to work the kinks out or to build a customer base under the radar.

But it looks like the “soft opening” might be spreading to the local political realm, if the D-1 Statement of Organization of the “Larry Ryles for Mayor of Park Ridge” campaign committee that came over our transom earlier this week is any indication.  From the information on that statement, Ryles and campaign treasurer Paul Sheehan formed the Ryles-for-mayor committee on June 25th without even a whisper of publicity, much less any fanfare.  

So why would Ryles form a committee and file a D-1 without publicly announcing his candidacy?

The most likely answer is that he wants to begin raising campaign funds without attracting the attention and questions an announced candidate would receive.  An unannounced candidate can say, do, or not say or do a lot of the things that would draw much more scrutiny and speculation coming from a declared candidate.

But now that Ryles’ cover is blown, we look forward to his appearances at City Council meetings and hearing his views on City issues.  Presumably the local press will begin treating him as a candidate and do its collective best to inform the voters about his ideas, opinions and vision for our community. 

Ryles’ “soft” announcement contrasts sharply with then-Ald. Dave Schmidt’s announcement of his mayoral candidacy by press release on November 18, 2008, the same day he filed his D-1 statement; and with former mayor Howard Frimark’s announcement of his re-election bid on December 20, 2008, which was preceded 10 days earlier by an announcement of his upcoming announcement!

Four years before that, then-ald. Michael Tinaglia effectively “announced” his mayoral candidacy by means of a platoon of supporters clad in “Tinaglia for Mayor” t-shirts marching in the 2004 Memorial Day parade, while then-ald. Frimark announced his candidacy from the front of the Pickwick Theater while the theater’s marquee proclaimed his candidacy in lights.

Notwithstanding the oddity of his stealthiness, Ryles’ candidacy is a good thing because it ensures a contested race in the likely event Schmidt stands for re-election.  And we’re big fans of contested races, even on those occasions when our preferred candidates don’t prevail.  Whether Ryles’ early-but-“soft” declaration encourages additional challengers to Schmidt or pre-empts the field of potential challengers remains to be seen.

Also remaining to be seen is whether Ryles is the beneficiary of part or all of the $15,000 campaign fund bequeathed by the now-defunct Homeowners Party to the Citizens for Non-Partisan Local Elections, a political committee created by former First Ward HO alderman John English back in 2009.  

Ryles’ candidacy also adds the unusual element of a mayoral candidate who has never held elective office in the community, something that apparently has not occurred since before Marty Butler’s election in 1967.  Perhaps that will enable him to stress his military experience, or his post-military Kiwanis leadership, as his principal credentials.

In any event: Welcome, Mr. Ryles!  We look forward to hearing your goals, ideas and vision for Park Ridge between now and April 2013.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Monday night’s City Council meeting was the first demonstration of the significant difference between new Park Ridge 6th Ward Ald. Marc Mazzuca and his predecessor.

Former 6th Ward ald. Tom Bernick’s approach to City business, when he showed up at all, often consisted of a recitation of everything he had inspected and everybody he had talked to, culminating in several disjointed observations that usually produced more heat than light.  And, most of the time, no Council action.  

Despite being on the job less than a month, Mazzuca stepped up Monday night to challenge the water rate increase recommendations of the City’s water consultant, Baxter & Woodman.  He produced a five-page report promoting an amendment to the water rate ordinance that had already passed its first reading two weeks earlier, and even the consultant’s representative acknowledged that the report was very detailed and well done, even though it’s proposals defied conventional industry analyses based on the standards adopted by the American Water Works Association.

By the end of the evening, Mazzuca’s amendment was adopted by a vote of 4 (Alds. DiPietro, Smith, Knight and Mazzuca) to 2 (Alds. Sweeney and Raspanti, Ald. Maloney absent).  Which goes to show what even an inexperienced alderman can accomplish when he doesn’t mistake mere activity for achievement – to paraphrase an axiom of the late, legendary UCLA basketball coach, John Wooden.

That’s not to say, however, that we’re in agreement with Mazzuca’s conclusions, or the Council’s action in passing the rate hike with his amendment. 

As long-time fans of user fees and cost recovery, we most definitely applaud the Council’s water rate increase to the extent it passes through to the users the full cost to the City of the water it purchases from the City of Chicago.  We also applaud the City’s imposing an additional charge on that water to help fund the cost of maintaining and improving the City’s water-delivery infrastructure.

Where we differ with Mazzuca and the Council, however, is on the new “fixed charge” based on the size of the water meter(s) servicing local homes, businesses and institutions. 

Under that new fixed fee structure, accounts with meters less than 1” – characteristically smaller/older single-family homes – will be charged $8.94 per bi-monthly billing period, while accounts serviced by larger-sized meters will be charged from $21.64 for 1” meters to $865.43 for 6” meters.  That translates into a commercial property owner with a 6” meter paying the City $5,192.58 per year just in meter fees, irrespective of its actual water usage, while a residential property owner with a 3/4” meter will pay only $53.64 in meter fees, also irrespective of water usage.

Why such a big differential? 

Beats us, other than it might be more of a political decision than a policy-based one – a suspicion aggravated by our inability to find any hard data showing that a 6” meter is $5,138.94 per year more expensive for the City to maintain, repair or replace than a 3/4” meter; or that the 6” meter causes $5,138.94 per year more wear and tear on the City’s water infrastructure than a 3/4″ meter.  

And, sadly enough, we can’t seem to find one shred of evidence that anybody – the City staff, consultant Baxter & Woodman, or Ald. Mazzuca himself – considered, or even possessed, any such hard data to support these meter-based charges.  

That raises the specter of political pandering, especially when Mazzuca punctuates his report in several places with references to the “shifting” of those fixed water charges from one group of users to another as a “better, more equitable allocation of fixed costs” based on some unidentified “best practice”; and when Ald. Jim Smith (3rd) invokes the populist-sounding rationale that “[s]ome will pay more, but 81 percent will be paying less.” 

Given the significant changes contained in Mazzuca’s amendment and the fact that he completed it only 3 days prior to the meeting, we think the Council might have been wise to have deferred a vote on it for two weeks, to give the public a chance to read, digest and comment on its recommendations.  

Interestingly enough, however, the water users likely to be hit the hardest by the new rate structure – Lutheran General Hospital, the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District, the Park Ridge Country Club, and both local school districts – were notably absent from not only Monday night’s session but from the previous meeting at which the Council passed the first reading of this ordinance.  And as we understand it, only the Park District voiced its opposition to the increase via letter.  So expediting the vote on the amendment might not have been all that bad a decision.

Despite the apparent size-shouldn’t-matter arbitrariness and possible politicization of the meter size-based fees, this new water rate ordinance is a big step in the right direction of pay-as-you-go funding of water usage and infrastructure maintenance.  

And it also marks the new 6th Ward alderman as a potential force to be reckoned with on the Council.

To read or post comments, click on title.

The 2012 edition of Taste of Park Ridge (“TOPR”) opens tonight with one major change from past years’ events: Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”), the private corporation that has had a no-bid monopoly on TOPR since the summer of 2005, will be reimbursing the City of Park Ridge for all of the City services Taste Inc. had previously been getting for free.

Based on prior cost reports, this new arrangement could put between $10,000 and $20,000 in the City’s treasury, rather than costing the taxpayers that same amount, as in past years.

Four years ago (in “Time For A Transparent ‘Taste’,” 07.07.08), we began questioning how TOPR was being operated.  Since then, we’ve endured various slings, arrows and invectives from the Taste Inc. crowd and its supporters in response to our efforts to gain transparency and expense reimbursement of the City by Taste Inc., efforts Taste Inc. vigorously and successfully resisted while Howard Frimark was mayor and continuing while his alderpuppets remained on the Council following his re-election defeat in 2009.

That’s one reason why we take a certain amount of satisfaction from seeing those efforts finally produce a little bit of “conscience” in the Taste Inc. operators – even if that conscience had to be “coaxed” out of the Tastees by the City Council’s imposing a first-ever TOPR bidding process and a bidding requirement that the City be reimbursed for all its TOPR-related expenses.

While that’s a big step in the right direction, it still leaves a number of unanswered questions about Taste Inc.’s operations during those early years it claimed to be a not-for-profit corporation while actually being a for-profit one.  And it still leaves room for improvement in the areas of TOPR transparency and first-dollar profit sharing with the City.   

But progress is progress.  And $10-20,000 in the City’s treasury is better than a sharp stick in the eye.

Just to show there’s no hard feelings on our end, we wish the Tastees all the best when it comes to weather, turnout and revenue for this year’s event.  That’s because, according to the terms of Taste Inc.’s first-ever contract with the City, if TOPR generates more than $20,000 of profit this year – thereby boosting Taste Inc.’s bank account balance to a cool $100,000 – Taste Inc. is required to split that excess with the City on a 50-50 basis.

So we encourage our readers to have a great time at TOPR these next three days, secure in the knowledge that for the first time in 8 years you won’t be footing Taste Inc.’s bill.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Beginning on August 11, Park Ridge will be without the services of Acting City Manager Juliana Maller for the first time since 1996.  And barring any emergency hiring by the City Council, it also will be without the services of both a city manager and a deputy city manager for the first time in memory.

Maller, who has been in the “acting” position since Jim Hock was fired by a unanimous Council vote two months ago, also served in that capacity when Hock’s predecessor, Tim Schuenke, made his 2007 run for the border – the Wisconsin border, that is – in search of another public paycheck to supplement his Illinois public pension.  She is heading to Hanover Park as its new village manager.

Don’t be surprised to hear howls of concern from certain quarters about how the City is being left with no city manager or deputy.  And don’t be surprised if those howls are accompanied by finger pointing at Mayor Dave Schmidt and at least some members of the Council for presiding over a sandbox that bureaucrats don’t want to play in anymore. 

Frankly, in this economy we’re betting on multiple applications for both positions. And we are confident that quality replacements can be found in the public sector ranks.

But even if it turned out that public sector candidates were scarce, that could very well be a good thing.  With both top bureaucratic spots vacant, the City has an unprecedented opportunity to consider hiring from outside the bureaucratic ranks for both spots!  And by so doing, it would reduce the likelihood of tensions and conflicts between a new city manager from the private sector and a top subordinate mired in his/her public sector culture.

This gambit does not come without some risk, however.

Private sector managers are trained for, and driven by, the quest for profit.  Their public sector counterparts, on the other hand, are often stuck with activities and responsibilities (like infrastructure maintenance and social services) that are chronically, if not inherently, money-losers – which is one reason those activities and responsibilities are not private sector enterprises in the first place.

And while most private corporate boards of directors generally stay out of the way of a good private CEO so long as the company’s balance sheet remains solid, public “CEOs” like city or village managers must deal with more active political constituencies and competing interest groups.  Many management decisions, therefore, tend to require at least some form of approval from elected officials.

Unfortunately, one of Hock’s major failings – in our opinion – was his preoccupation with playing politics.  Consequently, his management “style” tended to be finger-in-the-wind rather than principled, which cost him the confidence of Mayor Dave Schmidt and, subsequently, of the “new” aldermen who took their seats at The Horseshoe in May 2011.    

One thing private sector managers can bring to City government is an appreciation of the need to streamline bureaucratic labor-management practices and rethink compensation policies, concepts that are too often foreign to public sector managers.  Public sector compensation systems, relying on longevity and equity instead of productivity and excellence, breed complacency and mediocrity.

Another benefit of private sector experience is the tendency toward more pro-active management practices, ones that constantly re-evaluate and re-positions the goals the enterprise is seeking to achieve; that identify and assess the resources the enterprise has (or can acquire at reasonable cost) to achieve them; that determine how that achievement can be accurately and routinely measured; and that redirect capital and revenue, whenever possible, from services of marginal desirability and/or value to more productive ones.  

What public sector managers can’t seem to grasp, or simply don’t want to grasp, is that money spent on unproductive and inefficient programs and practices is money that cannot be spent on the productive and efficient ones – at least not without additional revenues through taxes and fees.  Or a winning PowerBall ticket.

After 16 years of relatively lackluster management from the City’s high-priced “CEO”s that effectively has forced the mayor and the Council to extend themselves beyond their policy-making roles into more active managerial roles, more of the same old same old is not what the City and its taxpayers need.   Attempting to recruit a new city manager and deputy manager from the private sector is an idea whose time most definitely has come. 

Whether the Council can muster the courage to consider such a bold step remains to be seen. 

To read or post comments, click on title.

Normally we would consider it too early to start speculating on the April 2013 municipal elections, but we received several bits of unsolicited information “over the transom” in the last week that piqued our curiosity and which we have decided to share, if only for their entertainment value. 

Thanks to former mayor Howard Frimark’s successful 2006 cut-the-Council referendum, three aldermanic seats – in the 2nd, 4th and 6th wards – are up for grabs next April, with the main event being the regularly-scheduled quadrennial mayoral race. 

So it’s only fitting that the first entertaining bon mot is the rumor that Frimark, who recently relocated from the 6th Ward  to the 2nd Ward, did so in order to run for the seat that current Ald. Rich DiPietro is expected to be vacating after 18 years on the Council.

History tells us that the 2nd Ward trails only the 3rd Ward in voter apathy, measured by the number of uncontested aldermanic elections it has had over the past decade.  In the absence of any other identified heir-apparent groomed by Richie D waiting in the wings, perhaps Frimark figures he can count on an empty field and a blessing from his departing buddy to return him to The Horseshoe, albeit in a smaller chair than the one the voters took from him in 2009.

And in light of the recent four-way “contest” for the mayoral appointment to fill the last 10 months of the 6th Ward term by former candidate Marc Mazzuca, transplanted former 7th Ward ald. Jeff Cox, and former Maine Twp. trustee Peter Ryan, all of whom are potential candidates for a full term next April, Frimark may have figured that the easiest way back to 505 Butler Place is by the northwest passage.

Whether anybody challenges Ald. Sal Raspanti in the 4th Ward will likely depend on just how well he is perceived to be handling the demands of the office.  His elections to both the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board in 2005 and to the City Council in 2011 were uncontested and, therefore, he didn’t have a real opportunity to demonstrate his stump ability or his vote-getting prowess. 

He already has earned a couple of kudos from the fiscal responsibility crowd for his recent votes to cut off budget appropriations for the private community group corporations, and to deny a multi-million dollar subsidy for the developer of the Whole Foods property.   But 10 months can be a lifetime in government and politics, so it’s likely Raspanti will still have a number of opportunities to enhance or diminish that perception in the interim.

The real intrigue, however, will be related to the mayoral race.  We’ve already heard rumors of the active recruitment and/or endorsement of challengers to Mayor Dave Schmidt by Frimark, by anti-O’Hare activist/wing-nut Gene Spanos, by recent Niles immigrants Rob and Kim Biederman, and by an un-named former Park District commissioner. 

Frimark’s recruiting efforts are no surprise, given his loathing of Schmidt and rumors that he himself doesn’t have the stomach for another run.  Although we understand that Frimark is seeking a “seasoned” candidate with some prior Council or other elective-office experience, his inability to recruit such a candidate might cause him to fall back his unsuccessful 2011 7th Ward aldermanic candidate, Franklin Ramirez. 

Interestingly, Ramirez, who describes himself as a “community and youth activist,” has started soliciting $10 contributions for bumper stickers bearing his name and his Facebook page address.  So unless Ramirez is planning to move out of his parents’ home and into one of the 3 even-numbered wards with aldermanic seats up for grabs next year, his bumper stickers would appear to be either a novel commercial “branding” exercise or the precursor to a mayoral run.

Even more intriguing is the rumor that the Madigan-ista Biedermans and the RINO (Republican In Name Only) Spanos are already talking up 5th Ward resident Larry Ryles, although we haven’t been able to tell whether their respective efforts are joint or independent.

Rob Biederman spent 5 years as a key political operative for Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and 3 years as Atty. General Lisa Madigan’s strategic communications director, while wife Kim was a Niles village trustee and Niles mayoral candidate before their emigration to Park Ridge following her unsuccessful 2009 campaign.

Spanos backed Schmidt in 2009 but reportedly soured on the mayor because of Schmidt’s refusal to support a major City funding commitment to fight O’Hare expansion and to make the “Fly Quiet” program a legal requirement rather than the merely voluntary program it currently is.

Ryles has been very active in Kiwanis, which gives him a solid base of support among the Kiwanians.  And his position on the Police Chief’s Advisory Task Force gives him another discrete group of potential supporters.  Support by the Biederman’s might suggest a renewed attempt by state Democrats to politicize Park Ridge government in ways that the then-dominant Homeowners Party was alleged to be doing for state Republicans prior to the HOs’ disastrous performance in the 2003 aldermanic elections, when HO-endorsed aldermanic candidates were soundly defeated in five of the six contested ward races. 

Whether Ramirez, Ryles, and/or other candidates actually take the plunge in 2013 remains to be seen, but we think the smart money is that Schmidt definitely will have at least one challenger.

And speaking of money, campaign cash should be available to one or more Schmidt challengers.

The Citizens for Non-Partisan Local Elections, which was formed in January 2009 as a de facto successor to the now-defunct Homeowners Party, is still sitting on the $15,000 it “inherited” from the HOs.  That would serve as some decent seed money, although that committee’s chairman/treasurer, former 1st Ward HO alderman John English, has not made any public comment on that committee’s intentions since it was founded.

And if we understand the tax code correctly, private 501(c)(6) corporation Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”) may draw on its $80,000+ bank account to campaign for or against candidates for public office, since its running of the Taste of Park Ridge event makes such campaign funding ancillary to its primary bread and circuses exempt activity, thereby providing legal cover for any political or “lobbying” activity.  

All in all, the 2013 municipal elections look to provide a lively bit of political theater.  Hopefully the outcome will be closer in quality to “Death of a Salesman” than to “Springtime for Hitler.”

To read or post comments, click on title.

With the unanimous approval of the City Council, Mayor Dave Schmidt’s appointee to fill the 6th Ward aldermanic vacancy, Marc Mazzuca, was sworn in at last Monday night’s Council meeting.

RE-DISCLOSURE: The editor of this blog was a member of the four-person selection committee who interviewed the four applicants for the position and recommended Mazzuca.

Mazzuca took his seat at The Horseshoe some seven years and change after he lost the race to succeed retiring 6th Ward veteran Frank DePaul, to Mary Wynn Ryan by a mere 5 votes in April, 2005.  The Council he joins in June 2012, however, is far different from, and only half the size of, the one he would have joined but for the want of 6 votes.

Back then, Mazzuca chose not to seek a recount despite reportedly strong encouragement from supporters of newly-elected mayor Howard Frimark, who viewed Mazzuca as a Frimark ally while viewing Ryan as a guaranteed vote with an alleged “bloc” of old and new aldermen – Don Crampton (1st), Jeannie Markech (2nd), Kim Jones (3rd), Jim Radermacher (4th), Mark Anderson (5th), Rex Parker (6th), Jeff Cox (7th) and Frank Wsol (7th) – whose purported goal was to harass and hinder Frimark.

The G-9’s first official act was to re-claim the Council’s right to organize its own committees, which for years had been ceded by previous Homeowners Party aldermen to previous Homeowners Party mayors.  That was a long-overdue and sound public policy move. 

But it became a rallying point for the purple-beribboned Frimark supporters (including then-private citizen, now mayor, Dave Schmidt), who responded to his plaintive cries of “They’re stealing my powers” – think Emperor Palpatine crying “Help me, Anakin, I’m too weak” just before electrocuting Mace Windu in “Star Wars: Episode III–Revenge of the Sith” – with scathing condemnations of the G-9 that left many G-9ers hiding in plain sight for the remainder of their terms. 

Nevertheless, they scored a couple more notable successes, including passing a first-ever ethics ordinance for aldermen and posting a multi-million dollar budget surplus for FY 2006-07 – even if almost all of that surplus came from the City’s sale of its former “Reservoir Block” to the private redeveloper of Uptown, PRC Partners, for what may have been a couple-three million dollars less than it was worth because the City never even obtained an appraisal of the property. 

But the G-9 was already beginning to crumble from petty political infighting when an annoyed but emboldened Frimark put a referendum on the November 2006 ballot seeking to cut the Council from 14 aldermen to a more “manageable” 7, claiming that it would save $8,600/year in $100/mo. aldermanic stipends. 

Although the Council cut was opposed by the entire G-9 and a number of former aldermen, it effectively became a mid-term referendum on the G-9; and Frimark prevailed, 7,688 to 6,354.

A dispirited G-9 – save for Parker and Wsol – chose not even to seek re-election when all their terms expired in May 2007.  Parker lost to Frimark ally Tom Carey by 1,043 to 654, while Wsol defeated Frimark ally Bob Kristie, 973 to 566.

And Mazzuca’s opponent?  Ryan found a soft-landing in an uncontested election for the Park Ridge Park District Board, where she continues to serve to this day.

Mazzuca now fills the seat of Tom Bernick, who barely used it during the single year he held it after running unopposed in April 2011.  But that didn’t stop Bernick from ripping the Council on his way out the door.

“I didn’t like the politics; I didn’t like the hypocrites; I didn’t like the game-playing. I wasn’t for that,” Bernick was quoted in an article in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate last month, in which he also complained about “street fighting,” “mud-slinging” and the slow pace of decision-making.

That from a guy whose views on a number of City issues raised by the Herald-Advocate in a candidate’s questionnaire back in April 2011 could be, and were, summarized by the phrase: “Candidate did not submit an answer.”

We trust that won’t be Mr. Mazzuca’s problem.  And he’s got 10 months to show the people of the Sixth Ward what a real representative can do.

So welcome, Marc.  And good luck.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Depending on your favorite brand of politicians and their political pundit accomplices, the current recession is either the best or the worst time for a governmental unit to undertake major infrastructure projects and the long-term bonded debt that goes with them.

One “school” of politico-economic thought proclaims the current historically-low interest rates as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to load up on all the bonded debt a governmental unit might need or want for the foreseeable future.  The other “school” laments the existing historically-high debt levels and long-term liabilities as a reason for austerity and caution.

But when infrastructure has been neglected for too long – as it has been in Park Ridge – choice and patience can themselves become an unaffordable luxury.

Monday night (June 11), the Park Ridge City Council commenced serious study and discussion of a new water and sewer fee structure that is intended, in part, to help finance a $15 million sewer improvement-flood relief project and a $3.5 million automated water meter reading system, the latter which promises to increase accuracy in water billing and reduce/eliminate hundreds of thousands of dollars of “losses” in water billings. 

These rate increases are also needed to keep up with the escalating costs of the water we buy from Chicago, which appears intent on remediating, at least in part, decades of gross mismanagement and outright corruption by its twisted dwarf former mayor, Richie Daley, through the regular jacking up of water rates to gouge communities like Park Ridge for the foreseeable future.

Although the new fee structure ordinance is scheduled for a first-reading this coming Monday, June 18, and a final-reading at the July 16 Council meeting, we don’t think this is a “done deal.” 

That’s because, while an “average” residential consumer might see his/her water bill increase by $10/month, major water users like Lutheran General Hospital, the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District, and local schools will take a major expense hit.  And major expense hits bring out the complaints, the special interests, and their advocates.

In a report published back in 2010, Lutheran General was reported as using 87.5 million gallons of water a year, twice the amount of second place user, the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District, and third place user High School District 2007 (Maine South and Maine East).  Don’t expect any of those organizations to quietly accept these increases.

Which is okay by us. 

Open debate on important issues, the more informed and vigorous the better, usually leads to better overall decisions than the silent, go-along-to-get-along approach that was the rule rather than the exception for City decision-making during most of the two post-Marty Butler decades.  Most of the problems the City faces today are the product of the kick-the-can-down-the-road approaches of previous Councils – populated by faux-Republican “Homeowners” and faux-“Independent” Democrats – to just about every difficult or unpleasant situation.

The last time the City’s water service was seriously discussed was in January 2010, which spurred us to write “Whose Water Are You Carrying, Ald. Wsol?”  But back then, the principal focus of the discourse was just the Chicago increase, not catching up with neglected infrastructure or modernizing/improving any aspect of the service.

While most of what we’ve heard of this water/sewer initiative sounds promising, we’re always concerned about giving government a lot of “extra” money – the effect of which is often tantamount to posting a flashing neon sign that says “Government With Money: Please Fleece Us.”  And, as we’ve seen repeatedly, there are plenty of wolves willing to do just that – including some dressed in sheep’s clothing and bleating plaintively.

Unlike a fine Bordeaux, neglected sewers and water mains don’t get better with age – unless you enjoy the dusky, vegetal “nose” that accompanies chronic flooding.  So we applaud this City Council for setting out to grapple with problems its predecessors consistently ignored. 

Let this debate begin.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Here are a few morsels to tide our readers over until we can get a little deeper into some other stuff:

Frimark On The Move?  A couple weeks ago, former Park Ridge mayor Howard P. “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark told the Park Ridge Journal that he wouldn’t seek appointment to the Sixth Ward aldermanic seat recently vacated by Tom Bernick because the committee Mayor Dave Schmidt was forming to screen and recommend an appointee was packed with Schmidt supporters.

In the interest of full disclosure, the editor/publisher of this blog is one of four 6th Ward residents – along with Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board president Rick Biagi, Chamber of Commerce director Gail Haller, and resident Alison Harrington – appointed by Schmidt to that committee.

The irony of Frimark’s comments is two-fold.

First, we hear that only a week or so after he made that comment, Frimark moved out of the 6th Ward (where he had been residing for less than a year) and reportedly relocated to the 2nd Ward.  With current Ald. Rich DiPietro rumored to be ending his 18-year Council tenure next year, no clear successor on the horizon, and the 2nd Ward’s history of uncontested elections, might Frimark be trying to carpetbag his way back onto the Council from that ward rather than compete with whomever Schmidt appoints in the 6th Ward?

Second, on the one occasion Frimark got to appoint an alderman – to succeed himself in the 4th Ward upon his election as mayor in 2005 – he appointed Jim Allegretti.  Neither Frimark nor Allegretti, however, disclosed that Allegretti had made a $300 contribution to Frimark’s campaign fund that had not yet been publicly reported at the time of his appointment and confirmation by the Council – which Allegretti followed up with an additional $200 contribution about a month after the appointment.

Some suspicious minds might view those two contributions as typical Illinois-style pay to play, although we prefer to just consider them an interesting coincidence.  But they may explain why Howard’s suspicious of everybody else.

One More Time For 322 Vine.  At tonight’s meeting, the City Council is supposed to again take up the saga of 322 Vine and its many alleged building code violations that the City can’t/won’t prosecute.  Hopefully, the 322 Vine neighbors and the general public will finally hear the whole story behind why City Staff dogged enforcement of the building code for almost 3 years, and why the City Attorney abruptly abandoned prosecution efforts once he interviewed the City’s key witnesses: Building Administrator Steve Cutaia and outside consulting engineer Bernie Bono.

As we have previously opined, it looks like this situation has been botched irretrievably and cannot be salvaged in a way that might reasonably square things with the neighbors.  But a full airing of the situation would still provide information that can be used to fill in or otherwise correct what appear to be gaping holes in the building code enforcement system, as well as impose some needed accountability on those code enforcers who performed the irretrievable botching and then strung along the neighbors with false hopes of some action being taken.

Airing out this malodorous situation might not come a moment too soon, as we hear some major building code issues have arisen with another single-family home that may make 322 Vine’s pale in comparison.  That might pop up tomorrow night, too.

Which means there may be a lot of tap-dancing and stonewalling tomorrow night, and perhaps even a closed session to shield the building code enforcement system and/or its enforcers from embarrassing public scrutiny of all its/their shortcomings.  Will the Mayor and the Council let them get away with going into the Star Chamber?

It’s Fun To Go To The O-N-C-C.  This past Friday (06.01.12) Park Ridge Mayor Dave Schmidt attended the June meeting of the O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (the “ONCC”) in Rosemont, in part to ask for the ONCC’s support of Park Ridge’s request to the FAA for a supplemental environmental impact study (“EIS”) that the FAA recently denied.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, the ONCC is the red-headed stepchild of former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley and some compliant O’Hare-area governmental units which was born back in 1996.  As best as we can tell, its primary function has been to apply a sheen of legitimacy to whatever Chicago’s wants to do out at O’Hare.  That usually involves Chicago throwing money (mostly federal dollars?) for sound insulation at those affected communities to buy them off.  And it’s worked like a charm so far.

According to the Herald-Advocate’s Jennifer Johnson, who attended the meeting, Schmidt’s request “was met with reluctance” from Arlene Mulder, ONCC’s chairman.  In case you haven’t been following Mulder’s career, she has been an elected official in Arlington Heights since 1979, and moonlights as ONCC chairman when she’s not serving as Arlington Heights mayor, METRA board member, vice president of the Illinois Municipal League, or executive board member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Can you say “professional politician”?

According to the H-A story, Schmidt described Mulder’s back-of-the-hand response to his request as “bureaucratic mumbo jumbo” and branded them the words not of an ONCC chairman but, instead, of an Arlington Hts. mayor who is hoping that O’Hare expansion will totally eliminate flights over her own town, despite his attempts to reassure her that he was just looking to reduce noise over Park Ridge and was “not asking for them to point the planes at your house.”

Think Mulder gives a rat’s derriere about noise over Park Ridge? 

According to the ONCC’s own website, for January 2012 (the latest month posted on that site), only 1 Arlington Hts. complainant filed only 1 complaint about O’Hare noise.  Contrast that with the 145 complaints by 43 Park Ridge complainants during that same time period.  Whatever deal Mulder cut with Daley years ago obviously has worked out pretty well for her town, and she’s not going to support anything which might change that in any way.

Unfortunately, the ONCC has become the only game in town since the money-wasting Suburban O’Hare Commission became defunct, so Park Ridge’s continued ONCC membership is probably justified, however marginally.  But only someone who still believes in the tooth fairy would expect any real support by the ONCC of Park Ridge’s battle against O’Hare noise – at least so long as Mulder is running the show as her Chicago masters dictate.

To read or post comments, click on title.

In the political cesspool known as Chicago, kinkiness in enforcement of the building code, the zoning code, and virtually every other code is a longstanding tradition.

Almost every builder, remodeler and handyman claims to have “a guy” who can do miraculous things to expedite projects and eliminate code problems.  And the best of those “guys” usually work at “the Hall” – as in City Hall, until recently the ancestral home and domain of the Daleys

But naïve as we try not to be, we never thought those kinds of Chicago-style goings on happened in our sleepy little town.

At Monday night’s City Council meeting, however, 5th Ward resident Jeff Getz recounted an 11-minute tale of woe – which can be seen and heard from 1:03:45 to 1:14:55 of the Council meeting video on the City’s website – concerning his neighbor’s property at 322 Vine that has mysteriously defied or evaded numerous attempts by the City over the past 3 years to address as many as 15 building code violations.

According to Getz and other neighbors, some of those violations should have prevented occupancy, including 8 listed on an undated City “Building Inspection Report Form” reportedly issued on June 18, 2009 by City Building Administrator Steven L. Cutaia that includes the unequivocal admonition: “There shall be no occupancy until these issues are resolved.”

But June-July 2009 e-mail traffic between and among Cutaia, 322 owner/builder/resident Philip Spagnolo, P.E., John Zimmermann, P.E. of Terra Consulting Group, then-City Mgr. Jim Hock and Bernie Bono, P.E., of Bono Consulting, reveals something else.  They show that the very same day Cutaia issued his written “no occupancy” decree, he also assured Spagnolo “that he will not enforce the issue” or keep Spagnolo and his family from moving in.  And the day after that, Hock assured Spagnolo that the City (a/k/a, the taxpayers) “will take care of any billing from Mr. Bono” that the City apparently had initially assessed against Spagnolo.   

That’s starting to sound Chicago-style kinky to us.

The 322 Vine neighbors contend that not only did Spagnolo move into that residence on the 4th of July 2009 weekend, before all the violations were corrected and an occupancy permit lawfully issued, but he has been thumbing his nose at the City and his neighbors ever since, even as flooding regularly occurs from “overland” water running off the 322 parcel that was elevated between 1 and 2 feet prior to construction of what some might call a “McMansion,” contrary to building code restrictions.

All of which may make Bono the single most intriguing figure in this saga, if only because he reputedly worked for Spagnolo before being hired by the City to advise it on the enforcement (or non-enforcement) of the 322 Vine building code violations against Spagnolo.  That sounds like some sort of conflict of interest to us, but apparently it didn’t stop whoever at City Hall recommended and approved his hiring.  Nor did it stop Bono from accepting the engagement.

Paging Steve Cutaia?

In a July 6, 2009 e-mail to Getz and fellow 322 Vine neighbor Cliff Kowalski, Cutaia cites “the sensitivity of this matter” as the reason “the City had hired a state licensed civil engineer to perform the final inspection” needed for the issuance of an occupancy permit.  We understand that engineer was Bono, even though Cutaia was apparently keeping Bono’s identity close to his vest back then.

Almost 3 years later, however, and notwithstanding intervening citations issued to 322 Vine by the City, City Attorney Everette “Buzz” Hill sent a May 11, 2012 letter to Mr. & Mrs. Getz, advising them that, despite the fact that Spagnolo “had not made the changes that the [City’s 01.13.12 Notice of Violation] letter demanded,” he had recommended to the City that it not proceed with the prosecution of that violation.

Why?  Hill had interviewed the City’s witnesses “whose testimony would be required” to prove the violation, but had determined from those interviews “that the City could not carry its burden of proof with respect to the proposed citations.”

Those witnesses?  Bono and Cutaia.

As Getz disgustedly asked the City Council Monday night: “Is it my problem that the City cannot trust its own employees and consultants to testify” in support of the City’s own code enforcement? 

No, it shouldn’t be.  And Cutaia shouldn’t be issuing written orders while giving wink-and-nod assurances that they won’t be enforced.  And these types of processes shouldn’t take 3 years to resolve, especially when the “resolution” ends up being the lawyer-written equivalent of “never mind.”

Monday night Ald. Dan Knight (5th), whose ward is the scene of this charade/farce, termed it “a 3-year travesty” while sternly admonishing City Staff to make certain it “can’t happen again.”  As can be seen in e-mail traffic as recently as last month, however, Knight still was being told by Cutaia that 322 Vine lacked the “acceptable swales” that Bono claimed “existed in 2008, when he performed and approved the final drainage design”; and that City code enforcement was still proceeding.   

The Mayor and the City Council should take this fiasco seriously and treat it as what it appears to be: hard evidence that something is very wrong in the City’s building department and won’t be going away on its own accord.  That something makes the City’s building code a joke, at least to some people – which is why a legitimate investigation needs to be conducted.

Of course there likely will be attempts at wholesale dumping of all responsibility on the recently-departed Hock and the less-recently departed Carrie Davis, who ostensibly supervised Cutaia in the early stages of this debacle.  That’s called the “empty chair” defense in legal circles, and it will be especially inviting here because Davis wae sacked by Hock, albeit belatedly and in one of his many incidents of mis-management that nevertheless earned him a new contract in late 2010 with a $120,000+ severance package.  Feel free to thank Alds. Joe Sweeney and Rich DiPietro for that waste of tax dollars.

But from the looks of just the information we’ve been able to review in recent days, Getz may not have been too far off the mark when he voiced his suspicions to the Council Monday night of “back-room deals” involving City employees and consultants.  Or, in Chicago parlance, the possibility that somebody may have “a guy” at “the Hall.”

Only this “Hall” is 505 Butler Place.

To read or post comments, click on title.

Tonight the Park Ridge City Council will have another opportunity to strike a blow for sane, fiscally-responsible government for the second straight week, when the Zoning Code map amendment for the Whole Foods project comes up for a second reading.

We’ve got two words of advice for our aldermen: Defer it. 

And defer it with the express and unqualified direction to the developer (Park Ridge 2004 LLC) and/or Whole Foods that the map amendment will not be taken up again until they legally commit to doing this deal in a way that is acceptable to the Council – and that, unless the developer drops its demand for any bribe money whatsoever, what is “acceptable to the Council” will not be determined until the Council drafts and thoroughly debates a complete overhaul of the ridiculous City Council Policy No. 31. 

This particular developer bought this property several years ago as a speculative investment; i.e., accepting certain risks in return for the prospects of a substantial reward from developing the property.  The original plan was for a 168-unit condo complex to be built by then-mayor Howard Frimark’s campaign contributors Bruce Adreani and his Norwood Builders, which required a zoning map amendment to change the site to R-5 multi-family residential from…wait for it…B-1 commercial, the classification the same developer now wants restored. 

The City accommodated the developer back then with that change, and even agreed to let it build 8 units more than the Code permitted for the size of the site.  As we noted in our 10.19.07 post “An EOP Riddle,” those 8 extra units would have netted the developer and/or Norwood an estimated $600,000 of extra profit, but at least it wouldn’t have come directly out of the taxpayers’ pockets. 

The market for condos cratered, however, and the developer now wants to abandon that R-5 plan in favor of this B-1 opportunity.

Frankly, we vastly prefer B-1 over R-5 because we believe Park Ridge already has become over-dense, from the standpoint of housing units, for its over-taxed infrastructure.  And we think a Whole Foods would be an excellent addition to the City’s retail base, but not at any price.

From a public policy standpoint, we believe the only “acceptable” way to do this deal is with NO subsidy/incentive/bribe to the developer or to Whole Foods.  If our community needs to bribe businesses to get them to locate and invest here, we’ve got big problems that need to be addressed directly instead of papered over with cash handouts to those businesses. 

The more important reasons for our objection to such bribery, however, is our belief in fundamental fairness and a level playing field for all retailers, as well as our opposition to this kind of corporate welfare for the well-off (Whole Foods) and/or the risk taker (Park Ridge 2004 LLC).  As we understand it, the subsidy they are demanding from Park Ridge taxpayers will enable the developer to offer the rent deal Whole Foods wants while at the same time enabling the developer to increase the profit or reduce the loss on its speculative investment – which is just another variation on the “privatizing profits while socializing losses” theme.

That’s just plain wrong and should not be tolerated, even if it means Park Ridge’s “clean” eaters will need to continue burning fossil fuel traveling to a neighboring town to buy organic.

Which makes us wonder where Park Ridge’s “99%”-ers have been hiding during this debate. 

Why aren’t those residents who profess to abhor how the federal government has bailed out Wall Street and who have replaced Dick Cheney’s photo on their dart boards with Jamie Dimon’s showing up to “Occupy 505 Butler Place” in support of the Council’s not giving in to this local bit of crap-italism by a national retail giant?  Whole Foods Market Inc., No. 273 on the Fortune 500 list, is doing so well that near the end of last year it hiked its dividend 40% and announced a $200 million share-repurchase program.   Why should Park Ridge taxpayers subsidize that kind of performance?

We realize it’s much easier to sit around railing idly against NATO, Wall Street and the “one percent” – or to park oneself in front of MSNBC or FOX and shouting “Right on!” or “#$@% you!” at Lawrence O’Donnell or Sean Hannity – than it is to regularly show up at Park Ridge City Council meetings and actually try to do something to improve local government and the community, irrespective of how one might define “improve.”

But if you don’t accept “trickle-down,” then shouldn’t you start working from the “grass-roots” up.

UPDATE:  Last night the developer and Whole Foods blinked…and agreed to do the Whole Foods project without any tax-sharing subsidy/bribe from the taxpayers.  For those keeping score, that means the City will get an extra $2 million or more that otherwise would have gone to the developer and/or Whole Foods over the 20-year term of the proposed revenue-sharing agreement.

Well done, gentlemen!  For the second week in a row this Council showed that, unlike at least two decades of its predecessors, it actually has a spine and is willing to stand up to shameless demands of private special interests looking to feed from the public trough. 

Which proves, once again, that “no” is the most powerful tool in the negotiating toolbox – and a tool that boneheaded bureaucrats and clueless politicians usually keep in the box because they lack both the brains and the…guts to use them on behalf of the taxpayers.  And in addition to winning that battle of wills, the Council also voted 5-1 (Smith dissenting) to approve the zoning map amendment from R-5 to B-1, but with the proviso that it will revert back to R-5 if the developer doesnt’ t get a building permit in 12 months and an occupancy permit in 36 months.

In addition to a big shout-out to the Council for actually walking the walk, we also want to offer a shout-out of another type to those gutless wonders and self-serving whiners who bashed the Council for risking their supply of organic lemonade.  And chief among those naysayers are certain members of the City’s Economic Development Task Force who, at their meeting last week, barbecued Ald. Sal Raspanti (4th) for actually DOING HIS JOB and standing up for the taxpayers against corporate greed.  Those EDTFers let it be known that the Council’s “no” vote on the proposed tax-sharing arrangement irresponsibly jeopardized the chances of bringing Whole Foods to Park Ridge.

How does it feel to be proved almost immediately and totally wrong, folks?  

We suggest that every one of those EDTF chowderheads who ripped on the Council for taking its hard-line position against throwing away tax dollars RESIGN from the EDTF, because they have demonstrated both their incompetence and their lack of good judgment – which, if the Council had listened to it, would have cost us taxpayers over $2 million.  The City doesn’t need that kind of “citizen input,” even if it’s free.   

To read or post comments, click on title.