Monday night a 4-2 majority of the City Council (Alds. Rich DiPietro, Don Bach, Jim Allegretti & Frank Wsol v. Alds. Robert Ryan and Joe Sweeney) voted to sustain Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto of the Council’s earlier decision to suspend the City’s ridiculous Façade Improvement Program, which already has given away hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds that the City borrowed to incentivize private building owners to gussy-up their facades. 

Yes, that’s right: Several years ago, the City issued approx. $34 million in Uptown Redevelopment-related bonds, of which several hundred thousands of dollars in proceeds were set aside to help Uptown building owners pay for improving the appearances of their buildings, and enhance their values.  As best as we can tell, however, nobody at City Hall has been tracking that program to see how much in additional property or sales taxes those handouts have generated.  Go figure.

Which might cause one to wonder why Mayor Schmidt vetoed the suspension of such a misguided program. 

We admit it sounds crazy, but only because it actually is crazy – or, as City Attorney “Buzz” Hill opined: “It’s a bit counterintuitive.”  That craziness is the handiwork of Ald. Sweeney, who – with the help of Allegretti and Ryan – was able to turn a good resolution bad by his amendment that cut a nifty $50,000+ loophole for the will-it-ever-open O’Reilly’s Irish Pub, owned by one of Sweeney’s 1st Ward constituents. 

Call it “Sweeney’s Folly.” 

That amendment itself passed by a mere 3-2 vote, with Allegretti, Ryan and Sweeney voting for the loophole, and DiPietro and Wsol voting against.  The main suspension resolution, as amended, then passed unanimously.  

Although DiPietro already has asked that a new anti-façade improvement resolution that doesn’t contain any special-interest loopholes be placed on the agenda for the December 20 Council meeting, the mayoral veto of Sweeney’s Folly has put the façade program back in business, at least temporarily.  And as we all know, it doesn’t take long for private opportunists to belly up to the public trough. 

Which made it no surprise that at Monday night’s meeting, before the Council could even vote to sustain Schmidt’s veto, the Council was advised that two new applicants for façade improvement funds have already emerged. 

One of them is John Sasser, who purchased the building at 720 Garden shortly after his buddy, then-mayor Howard Frimark, saw his closed-session plans for the City to buy that site for a new police station “outed” by then-ald. Dave Schmidt.  We understand that Sasser got the building at a significant discount from what Frimark wanted the City to pay for it, and he has turned it into the headquarters for some of our local community groups – at least until the real estate market picks up and he can flip it for a profit. 

The other new façade subsidy applicant is Dino Vlahakis, owner of the Pickwick building.  We find his application for a City-funded façade subsidy a touch ironic, given that he was outraged several years ago at the prospect of accepting a larger amount of City funds when newly-elected aldermen Mark Anderson, Don Crampton and Rex Parker called for the City to condemn the Pickwick, acquire it by eminent domain, and operate it as a cultural arts center.  That offer of City funds may even have prompted his support for Frimark’s 2005 and 2009 mayoral bids.

If Park Ridge City government were as kinked up as, say, Chicago’s, some political heavyweight’s sister’s cousin’s nephew’s uncle (by marriage) in the appropriate city department would hurry up and “expedite” the approval of these new façade improvement applications so the applicants could get the projects under contract before the anticipated re-suspension of the program.  That way, they’d have a stronger argument for loopholes of their own in the new suspension resolution.  And if this were Chicago, that city department “expediter” would then promptly retire to Florida, the better to avoid grand jury subpoenas. 

But Park Ridge isn’t that kinked up (we hope), so we will expect that no action will be taken by City staff on the 720 Garden and Pickwick façade improvement applications between now and December 20.

But, thanks to Sweeney’s Folly, we will need to keep our fingers crossed until then.

To read or post comments, click on title.

But the City’s O’Hare Airport Commission (“OAC”) and its allies on the City Council aren’t accepting that decision. 

They now want the City to spend between $60,000 and $110,000 on an air quality/noise analysis and on attorneys’ fees to have the Taber Law Group of Irvine, California, research and write letters challenging the FAA’s 2005 Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) – which found that noise and pollution from the expansion of O’Hare would be within acceptable health and safety limits for the surrounding area, including Park Ridge. 

But it appears that would only be for starters. 

That’s because if the proposed air quality/noise analysis shows conditions significantly worse than what served as the basis for the 2005 EIS – and if the FAA doesn’t fold like a cheap lawn chair in response – the next step likely would be expensive litigation, although nobody on the OAC seems to want to say anything about that right now.

It’s a lot like the saying “In for a penny, in for a pound”:  The OAC is looking for the “penny” part while ignoring what the “pound” might be. 

At last Monday’s City Council COW meeting, Ald. Don Bach dismissed the recent referendum by suggesting that the results would have been different if the referendum amount were only $165,000 rather than $500,000.  On the other side of that coin, Ald. Joe Sweeney claimed that the voters casting “no” votes didn’t want the City to spend another dime on O’Hare-related issues.

Sweeney is wrong: Just because a substantial majority of voters said they didn’t want to spend up to $500,000 on battling O’Hare doesn’t necessarily mean they want to spend nothing at all.

Just because Sweeney is wrong, however, doesn’t mean Bach is right.  The referendum was given a $500,000 price tag because that’s the number the OAC itself came up with as its wish-list figure for dealing with O’Hare issues.  

And if the OAC is given carte blanche with the public purse, that $500,000 figure is likely to be only a fraction of what the ultimate cost will be – because it seems that, to the OAC’s members and those residents who view O’Hare expansion as the equivalent of terminal cancer for their property values and their health, no expense should be spared.  As Bach himself said several months ago, Park Ridge needs to fight O’Hare with “everything we’ve got” – apprarently irrespective of whether we’ve also got a realistic chance of winning that fight. 

In our November 11 post (“Another O’Hare Referendum In April?”), we suggested that this April’s ballot contain a new O’Hare advisory referendum question: “Should the City end its funding of measures related to O’Hare Airport?” We still think that’s a worthwhile question to ask. 

But we’re also willing to let the voters test Bach’s $165,000 hypothesis by adding a second O’Hare advisory referendum question to the April ballot, duplicating the November referendum language but simply changing the dollar amount: 

“Shall the City of Park Ridge allocate funding, in an amount not to exceed $165,000, to seek expanded and accelerated noise abatement solutions intended to address the negative impacts of O’Hare Airport expansion on residential property values, local schools and the overall quality of life in our community?”

Let’s see whether Bach will step up and propose this referendum to the Council for approval; and whether the OAC will support the $165,000 limit rather than a blank check. 

To read or post comments, click on title.

Back on July 8, 2009, we published a critique of the City Council’s July 6, 2009, vote to change the zoning of long-time commercially-zoned properties into multi-family residentially-zoned ones (“Private Property Rights And Sound Zoning Policy Hijacked By 4-3 Vote”).  One of those properties was the former Napleton Cadillac parking lot at 200 N. Meacham.

Our main objection than (as it remains today) was that such a decision favored more multi-family residential development, which increases the strain on our already overwhelmed infrastructure, over commercial development.  That kind of pre-emptive residential rezoning also effectively eliminated any possibility that those properties might attract retail or other commercial development – and the property and sales tax benefits that kind of development might bring – when there wasn’t even a residential developer seeking such a change.

The principal schemer for this foolishness was none other than Ald. Robert Ryan, who is so clueless when it comes to sound government policy and fiscal responsibility that he couldn’t find Col. Mustard in the Public Works Building with the new Vactor.  And Ryan’s co-conspirators were Alds. Jim Allegretti, Don Bach and Frank Wsol, all of whom disregarded the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission that the zoning of those properties should remain unchanged at least until some developer comes forward with a plan that requires a zoning change.

As can be seen from the minutes of that July 6, 2009, meeting, an attorney for Napleton warned the Council that such a change would so adversely affect the value of his client’s property that a lawsuit was likely.  But Ryan and his merry band were not going to be intimidated, and they went ahead and voted for the change.

Well, folks, Napleton sued.  And according to this week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Cook County Circuit Court: Judge overrules rezoning of private property in 2009,” Nov. 23), Circuit Judge Peter Flynn agreed with Napleton that the zoning change made by the City Council over a year ago was unlawful because it required a three-fifths super-majority, rather than a simple 4-3 majority, vote.

That’s pretty much a technicality, but we’re fine with it because it restores the affected properties back to commercially-zoned status – where they likely will remain unless Ryan again pushes for re-zoning; and one of the three aldermen who voted against the change flips to Ryan’s side.

We don’t think that’s likely.  But one thing we’ve observed about Ryan in his 3+ years on the Council – and during his term on the D-64 School Board back in the late 1990s – is that he’s not one to let a bad idea drop, especially if it’s his bad idea. 

Remember: for months he lobbied for the ridiculous 20 S. Fairview (a/k/a Scharringhausen) lot purchase despite the City’s shaky financial condition and the fact that such a purchase would take yet another piece of private property off the tax rolls.  And Ryan can still argue, as he previously did, that conversion of those properties from commercially-zoned to multi-family residentially-zoned is consistent with the City’s now 8 year-old Uptown Comprehensive Plan which, not so coincidentally, he helped devise.

Fortunately, Ryan’s got less than six months left on the Council, which is one more thing to be grateful for this Thanksgiving.  On the other hand, City Mgr. Jim Hock supported Ryan’s boondoggle, and he has no known departure plans.  Nor does City Attorney Everette “Buzz” Hill and/or his deputy, Kathie Henn, who appear to have gotten the law wrong on the number of votes needed for the zoning change.  We wonder just how much that gaffe cost us in legal fees for the Napleton litigation.

But the H-A reports that Hill is saying he does not believe the City will appeal Judge Flynn’s decision, which should put a halt to further legal expenses.  So add that to the list of things to be thankful for.

For PublicWatchdog, that includes all you readers.

To read or post comments, click on title of post.

In the 18 months he has been the mayor of Park Ridge, Dave Schmidt has already done something no Park Ridge mayor in memory had done – and he has done it 4 times, by our count.

He has vetoed City Council actions.

That’s the one power Illinois law gives our mayor to deal with legislation to which he objects. And we believe Schmidt used that power wisely the first three times: to veto the budget (over-ridden); to veto handouts of public funds to private community groups (10 of 13 sustained); and to veto a flawed contract for the city manager (sustained).

But we think Schmidt’s fourth veto this past Monday may have been his most significant use of that power, if only because it appears to have been something no other suburban mayor has done before: he vetoed a Council resolution that would have benefited one of his friends and campaign contributors by as much as $50,000!

That veto prevented O’Reilly’s Irish Pub from receiving funding from the City’s misbegotten and fiscally-foolish Façade Improvement Program. One of O’Reilly’s owners (and a neighbor of Schmidt’s), Ed Berry, contributed $175 to Schmidt’s mayoral campaign.

Given the size of the City’s budget, saving $50,000 – assuming Schmidt’s veto is not over-ridden by 5 aldermen at the Council’s December 6 meeting – isn’t earth-shattering in the economic sense. And those inclined towards trivializing achievements they oppose will undoubtedly note that $50,000 is less than 1/10 of 1% of the budget – like Alds. Allegretti and Ryan so often did in response to Schmidt’s veto of the Council’s public funds giveaway to private community groups.

But in this corrupt, “Ubi est mea” political cesspool known as Illinois, a public official stopping public money from filling the pockets of friends or campaign contributors is tantamount to the occurrence described by the fictional newspaper headline: “Man bites dog.”

On even a local level, Schmidt’s conduct stands in stark contrast to that of his predecessor, Howard Frimark, whose tenure was marked by such questionable maneuvers as his closed-session lobbying for the City to buy 720 Garden from one of his country club buddies…at $200,000 more than the City’s own appraised value; or his casting of the tie-breaking vote to give $1,000 campaign contributor Napleton Cadillac $400,000 of site clean-up money even as GM was pulling its dealership.

We’d like to think that Schmidt’s victory over Frimark was, in part, a product of the voters’ rejection of such chicanery in City government, but that remains to be seen. Questionable deals like billboard licensing and the Fairview parking lot purchase still lay in the weeds; and, this being Illinois, they most likely are only the tip of the iceberg.

But this mayor, once again, has demonstrated that fiscally-irresponsible “business as usual” is no longer the unchallenged rule at City Hall.

To read or post comments, click on title.

One of the most notable, and best, quotes from Pres. John F. Kennedy came near the end of his inaugural address on January 20, 1961: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

Unfortunately, for most of the past half-century since Kennedy spoke those words, too many people came to see government at every level as an ever-expanding cornucopia of benefits large and small.  Only some of the worst economic conditions since The Great Depression have finally caused some to reconsider such a view of government.

So when the Park Ridge City Council cut somewhere between $30,000 and $45,000 (depending on whose numbers you believe) of decorative holiday lights out of the City’s 2009-10 budget, more than a few people who have come to expect more from government than just basic services promptly whined about how the absence of lights would hurt the community’s…wait for it…”quality of life.”

But then a strange and wonderful thing happened.

The Indian Scouts program stepped up and, with the aid of a few local businesses, volunteered to put up the lights; and Park Ridge sparkled pretty much as usual last holiday season.

If you have been out and about over the past couple of weeks you have been able to observe the Indian Scouts’ handiwork again this year.  And the taxpayers have saved another $30,000 – $45,000 that can be put toward the essential services that government should provide in return for the taxes it collects.

Of course, there are some residents who view this scenario as evidence of a decline in our…wait for it again…”quality of life” because private volunteers, instead of the government, are doing the decorating.  And we expect others – such as Alds. Jim Allegretti and Robert Ryan, for example – to dismiss these savings as another meager fraction of 1% of the City’s $50 million-plus budget, just as they did in denouncing Mayor Dave Schmidt’s vetoes of the giveaway of public funds to private community organizations.

Apparently they were missing from grammar school the day the teacher opened Poor Richard’s Almanack and taught about how “a penny saved is a penny earned.”

Whatever money is saved by volunteers soliciting and contributing private funds and labor as a substitute for public funds and labor truly is money “saved” and, therefore, money available for more important public purposes.  And even small amounts of money, when added together, can be significant – as reputedly noted in the early 1960s by Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen in talking about federal expenditures: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”

Even more important than the actual savings, however, is the lesson this kind of volunteerism can teach those special interests for whom the expansion of government and government spending seems inevitable, if not even desirable.

Unlike those private community groups with the entitlement mentality who have become accustomed to getting handouts from government that they can’t get (or won’t make the effort to get) directly from the taxpayers themselves, the Indian Scouts and their parents are giving handouts to government.  That’s the kind of “volunteer” spirit we need more of, especially in these difficult economic times.

And that’s why we offer to those volunteers a hearty “Well done!”

To read or post comments, click on title.

Last summer, members of the City’s O’Hare Airport Commission told the City Council that a majority of Park Ridge residents wanted the City to fight the new O’Hare runways; and it asked for $500,000 to pay for a lobbyist, lawyers, additional noise studies, etc. 

Yet when the Council had the good sense to consider addressing this issue through an advisory referendum, Alds. Allegretti, Bach and Ryan opposed it – with Allegretti characteristically harrumphing about how the voters elect people like him to make these decisions, presumably without the voter input that a non-binding, advisory referendum provides. 

At a later meeting, a $500,000 cap was added to the referendum question by a 4-3 vote of Alds. Carey, DiPietro, Sweeney and Mayor Schmidt (as tie-breaker, in the absence of Ald. Ryan) v. Alds. Allegretti, Bach and Wsol, none of whom wanted the voters to consider the very dollar figure that the OAC was looking for from the City and, hence, from those voters. 

Not surprisingly, members of the OAC now want to read the 7,494 (56.9%) “No” to 5,678 (43.1%) “Yes” result in a glass-half-full way, with OAC chair Sue Perschke and member Christine Kutt both interpreting it as simply a rejection of the $500,000 amount rather than a mandate that the City stop spending money fighting O’Hare expansion. 

Fair enough. 

Now that we know a majority of the voters don’t want to spend $500,000 on battling O’Hare, let the City Council put the following question to another non-binding, advisory referendum on the April ballot, while this matter is still fairly fresh in the public’s mind: 

“Should the City end its funding of measures related to O’Hare Airport?” 

If a majority of the voters say “Yes,” that should serve as a convincing sign to the Council that the City should focus on solutions that don’t involve throwing any tax dollars at the problem.  And if the voters say “No” to that question, then the Council (and the OAC) can reasonably conclude that some middle-ground is needed – perhaps a combination of money for noise and pollution studies (for purposes of building a case for a supplemental Environmental Impact Study) combined with some political arm-twisting of Illinois’ new Congressional delegation.  

Perschke says the OAC is discussing the possibility of another referendum question, but with more specificity as to what noise abatement measures would be pursued.  

We think such a question, especially when paired with the one we propose, would be a fine addition to the April ballot…so long as it contains a dollar amount so that the voters aren’t being effectively asked to sign a blank check.  

Even if a blank check is exactly what the OAC, and the anti-O’Hareans, are looking for.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  We wish to remind our readers that today is Veterans Day, the one day each year that our country pays tribute to the men and women of its Armed Forces, both past and present.  Please take a moment out of your day to to give thanks and to honor them for their patriotism, their service and their sacrifice to help gain and preserve the freedoms we all hold dear.  And we also wish to once again remind our readers that, in addition to our gratitude, our veterans have earned proper medical care, educational opportunities, and jobs.

To read or post comments, click on title.

As anyone who has read this blog knows, we generally like NIMBYs – people who take political action solely because of their unvarnished self-interest in preventing something they don’t want from happening in their literal or figurative “back yard.”  

That’s because, like canaries in a coal mine that provide an early warning to miners that danger literally is in the air, NIMBYs draw our attention to problems we might otherwise overlook because they’re not too high on our personal radars.  And that’s a good thing, irrespective of the actual merits of their position. 

The most recent example of NIMBYism here in Park Ridge is the cell tower T-Mobile wanted to erect at Northeast Park, next to the tennis courts. 

T-Mobile received the blessing of the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District, which stood to receive around $25,000 a year in license fees.  Although the Park Board approved the tower at a sparsely-attended public meeting back in April, an outpouring of NIMBY opposition at the City’s Planning & Zoning Commission hearing last Tuesday night (October 26) prompted P&Z’s denial of T-Mobile’s request for the necessary special use permit it needed for the tower.  

Frankly, the Park District screwed this up, big-time, by not giving the Northeast Park NIMBYs the direct-mail notice of the April Park District meeting it customarily gives neighbors before taking actions that would have a significant impact on any parks.  Had that custom been followed, the crowd that showed up at City Hall for the P&Z meeting likely would have shown up at Park District headquarters back in April; and the T-Mobile deal might have been scuttled right then and there. 

That mistake by the Park District created a lot of unnecessary ill will.  Hopefully, Director Ochromowicz and the Park Board members have learned their lesson. 

And we hope the entire community learned the lesson that a relatively small group of citizens – in this case, the 80 to 100 who showed up at the P&Z meeting – can have an impact on local issues that is generally impossible to achieve on the county, state or federal levels, absent the contribution or bundling of $500,000+ to some politician’s campaign fund.  

But we wonder whether a more important lesson was learned by, or lost on, the NIMBYs protesting the cell tower, many of whom seemed a little too impressed with what was achieved with only one visit to City Hall – a well-deserved victory, most assuredly, but one that may have been as much (or more) the product of T-Mobile’s own failure to satisfy all the City’s special-use application requirements as it was of the merits of the NIMBYs’ complaints. 

A cell tower in a park is the easiest of political targets, and clearly not representative of most governmental problems – whose complexities regularly bedevil our elected and appointed public officials.  

What about resolving the City’s continuing multi-million dollar deficits, or its flooding problems? What about District 64’s less-than-impressive performance on the ISATs compared to other districts?  What about the Park District’s losing almost $100,000 a year on Oakton Pool, and another almost $200,000 on the Senior Center?  Or, for that matter, how does the Park District go about replacing the $25,000/year it was going to get from the cell tower? 

These problems can’t be solved in one meeting, or by a few handfuls of impassioned speeches. But they are far more important to the present and future of this community than one cell tower in one park.  And they deserve a whole lot more resident attention and input than they seem to be getting. 

The big question is:  Can NIMBYs, including the Northeast Park variety still basking in the self-satisfaction of their recent cell tower victory, see their civic duty as extending beyond their own backyards?

To read or post comments, click on title.

“Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.” (George Jean Nathan)

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” (John Quincy Adams)

“If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.” (Thomas Sowell)

EDITOR’S NOTE:  To read or make comments, click on title line.

Most of the “action” at last night’s City Council Committee of the Whole meeting involved the Finance & Budget portion of the agenda, chaired by the current dean of the City Council, Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd Ward). As usual there was some good, some bad, and some ugly – and, as usual, darn few residents turned out to question, complain, or just to bear witness.

The good?

Let’s start with the COW’s 4-3 recommendation (Alds. Bach, DiPietro, Sweeney & Wsol v. Alds. Allegretti, Carey & Ryan) to cut City Manager Jim Hock’s discretionary spending authority back to the $10,000 level where it had been until former city manager Tim Schuenke had his way with the Council back in September 2007, doubling the limit to its current $20,000.  It’s unclear whether this vote was an acknowledgment that the increase was bad policy, or whether it was just an ad hominem slap at Hock for his recent abuses of the privilege.  But under the circumstances, we’ll call this a “win” for now.

Another “good” thing was the COW’s 5-2 recommendation (Bach, DiPietro, Carey, Sweeney & Wsol v. Allegretti & Ryan) to suspend the wrong-headed ab initio facade improvement program and use the remaining $400,000 allocated to it for a reduction of the City’s multi-million dollar TIF-related debt. 

Although involving a relatively small amount of money and coming only after far too much was already given away through this program, this was an important victory for “good government” because it reflected a rejection of that longstanding, bogus argument – raised once again by Hock, Deputy City Mgr. Juliana Maller and Ald. Jim Allegretti, naturally – that nebulous, warm-and-fuzzy “intangible benefits” are more important than actual, provable economic returns – whether we’re looking at these facade improvement windfall payments to local merchants and property owners, or at the annual handouts to various private community groups.

Of course, it should come as no surprise that Hock, Maller and Allegretti had not one shred of hard evidence that the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars already spent to improve the facades of private buildings over the past several years have generated even one extra property tax dollar, or one extra sales tax dollar, in return.  No need to ruin their fantasies with facts.

The bad?

Allegretti, Carey and Ryan – insisting that the mayor or the City Council engage in “good faith” negotiations with Hock over a new contract.  Apparently somebody forgot to tell those three amigos that the City has no duty to negotiate with Hock at all, much less to provide him with whatever giveaway those guys might consider a sign of the City’s “good faith.”  From Hock’s marginal performance over the past two years, he should be grateful he’s still got a job that pays him over $200,000, all in.

Unfortunately, Bach, DiPietro, Sweeney and Wsol let themselves get pushed into approving a proposal whereby the Mayor’s advisory committee of aldermen (Allegretti, Bach, DiPietro & Wsol) will…wait for it…enter into negotiations with Hock, which suggests that Hock’s misadventures might still earn him a raise.  And Sweeney’s common sense hiccupped when he proclaimed that he would wholeheartedly endorse, sight unseen, whatever contract the Council negotiating team might recommend.

Last, but not least, the ugly:

Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”) sent President Dave Iglow and Vice-President Albert Galus to put on a dog-and-pony show during which, under questioning by F&B Chairman DiPietro and Mayor Schmidt, they hinted at ending Taste Inc.’s involvement in Taste of Park Ridge (“TOPR”) should the City dare to eliminate the approximately $5,000 in free “direct” city services (police, fire and public works) Taste Inc. has come to expect since then-mayor Howard Frimark and that purple ribbon-whipped Council gave TOPR away back in 2005.

In reality, that’s about as idle a “threat” as you will find, given that Taste Inc. currently enjoys a monopoly on the City’s “signature” municipal event that generates (according to Iglow and Galus) as much as $500,000 of total revenues – if you consider not just the money Taste Inc. rakes into its own coffers, but also all the additional secondary revenue allegely realized (without any documentation, of course) by the Uptown merchants not only during the event itself but on a residual basis from non-Park Ridge TOPR patrons coming back to Park Ridge weeks and months later.

Iglow and Galus gave a figurative back-of-the-hand to inquiries about how much Taste Inc. returns to the community (beyond the whopping $1,781 in sales tax it generated this year), how it can justify non-essential “marketing” expenditures like the orange gorilla near Hodges Park when it is stiffing the taxpayers for at least $5,000/yr – or much more, because City Mgr. Hock conveniently eliminated “indirect” costs from this year’s expense calculation, thereby dropping the City’s expenses from last year’s figure of $23,000 down to only $9,676 in 2010.

We’ll see if Taste Inc. provides the City Council with any of the Form 990 tax returns it should have filed for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 when it most certainly had gross revenues in excess of the $25,000 threshold for filing such returns.  Judging from its history of six year history of secrecy, however, we won’t be holding our breath on that one.

All in all, an interesting night at the COW – but probably nothing like we’ll see tonight, when the City’s Planning & Zoning Commission tees up the special use permits for the proposed cell towers at Northeast and South Parks (7:30 at City Hall).

Tin foil hats optional.

NOTE:  This site is currently undergoing some technical updating.  During that process, you need to click on the post’s title in order to gain access to the “Comments” section. 

We apologize for the temporary inconvenience.

Two local private organizations that claim entitlement to compulsory donations of public monies from the City of Park Ridge – and are irked that they aren’t receiving them this year – share the word “Center” in their names: The Park Ridge Teen Center and the Park Ridge Senior Center.  And they typify the kind of quasi-“welfare” that needlessly grows local government and inflates its cost.

Let’s start with the youngsters.

According to an article in this week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Teen Center board mulls options to stay open,” Oct. 21), the board of the Teen Center is considering a variety of options to deal with the fact that it isn’t receiving its $22,000 handout from the City this year (thanks to the City Council’s sustaining of Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto of that funding).  Among them: cutting hours of operation, holding fundraisers, applying for grants, seeking corporate sponsorships, closing during the summers, charging members for use, and seeking “freewill donations outside Park Ridge establishments.” 

That last option sounds a lot like street begging to us, with modern-day “Oliver Twist”s standing in front of Five Guys, bowls in hand, seeking not “some more” gruel but a sawbuck for some new video games for the basement of the First United Methodist Church, 418 W. Touhy – presumably because these teens don’t want to play video games in their own or their friends’ basements.

But if the adverse sociological implications of recreating in one’s own basement are too overwhelming, here’s the simplest solution to the Teen Center’s money problem: Cut the $25,000 in salaries being paid to a part-time staff of six, and let all those adult proponents of the Center step up and volunteer to take on those duties.

Now for the oldsters.

Last night a group of Senior Center members showed up at the meeting of the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District board to lobby for keeping the Center operating as the almost-free, semi-private club it has become – and keeping it operating at a deficit of almost $200,000 a year.  Several of them objected to the suggestion by Park District Director Ray Ochromowicz that the building (on Western Avenue, just south of the Community Center) be opened up and programmed for non-senior uses in order to recover some of those excessive costs.

Besides the $200,000 subsidy from the Park District that goes to the 800-1,200 Senior Center members (depending on whose totals you believe), the private Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (“Senior Inc.”) – which seems to have de facto control over the Senior Center – has been getting a $30,000+ annual handout from the City of Park Ridge, although this year’s request for $35,200 also was rejected by the same kind of veto that knocked the Teen Center’s money.  As recently as year-end 2008 (according to its IRS Form 990), however, Senior Inc. was sitting on $114,000 of assets, although we can’t tell what it is today because Senior Inc. has yet to file for 2009.

Like their much younger counterparts, the seniors complain that, without their own special Center, they have nothing else to do and nowhere else to go.  Apparently they’ve tired of the early-bird specials at Denny’s and find the various local dining and drinking establishments the rest of us patronize to be too…pedestrian?

But if the adverse gerontological implications of socializing with Park Ridge’s gen pop are too onerous for these elders, then they should start covering the Senior Center’s $200,000 deficits by paying annual membership dues of $250 ($21/month) for 800 members; or $167 ($14/month) for 1,200 members).  Then they could continue to keep their clubhouse to themselves, at least for now.

Not only would that be fiscally responsible, but from the glowing way these seniors talk about the Senior Center it would be a bargain even at twice the price.

And by making both the Teen Center and the Senior Center self-supporting, their own users/stakeholders can keep them open and avoid the prospect of packs of disaffected teens (many fresh off the mean streets of Edison Park) clashing with cantankerous not-quite-Greatest Generation seniors over control of the heretofore tranquil sidewalks of Action Ridge.

Two Centers, two simple solutions. 

But who would be the “Sharks” and who would be the “Jets”?