Last Friday we wrote about how misinformation creates more disagreements than legitimate differences of opinion.  Today we deal with two more examples of that problem.

Last week’s (August 12) edition of the Park Ridge Journal contained two O’Hare Airport pieces with their own fair share of misinformation.  The first was a story about resident Gene Spanos’ “survey” of approximately 100 residents who had previously expressed opposition to O’Hare expansion (“Spanos Hopes Mayor Will Use O’Hare Survey Results”) – not exactly a “random” sampling.  The second was a letter to the editor from resident Tim Perry (“Residents Must Voice Opinions”).

Spanos wants Park Ridge Mayor Dave Schmidt to use those survey results when he meets with U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam (6th Dist.), presumably in support of reductions in flights, stopping construction of the runway whose path will extend over Granville, noise abatement, and other concessions Spanos wants in connection with the new runway 9L/27R.

While we don’t doubt that Spanos is well meaning, a 100-response survey – from people who have already expressed opposition to O’Hare expansion – isn’t even remotely close to being “statistically significant” (i.e., its results actually have meaning instead of being products of mere chance).  For a survey of Park Ridge residents to have statistical significance, Spanos would have needed approximately 800 responses from a random (rather than a pre-selected) pool.  

So Spanos’ survey results are statistically worthless for use by anybody for any legitimate purpose. In other words, they are just misinformation that actually detracts from legitimate O’Hare arguments and interferes with sound decision-making.

Perry’s letter in the Journal, which also ran as a guest essay in last week’s Herald-Advocate (“Resident begins his final reproach”), blames O’Hare expansion not just for more noise and pollution – as does Spanos’ letter – but also for the increased flooding Park Ridge has been experiencing: “There is information that links the O’Hare expansion to the flooding we now have on a regular basis.”

We trust Perry is also well-meaning, but when we looked for that “information” about the new runway causing our flooding we couldn’t find it anywhere.  And given the half-cocked way that too many residents seem to be going off about the new runway, flooding, and anything else that annoys them, we suspect that Perry’s “information” may have been somebody else’s fabrication. 

We also looked for proof of Perry’s contention that “when O’Hare built the new runway they had to reroute a stream and eliminate 150 acres of wetlands…[that] are no longer there to accept the water” that, presumably, flows into Park Ridge.  We couldn’t find anything about stream relocation, either, but we did find several references to the wetlands elimination – along with reports that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required the creation of 1.5 acres or more of new wetlands for every acre of wetlands that was destroyed during construction of the new runway. 

So unless Richie Daley and his minions were able to pull a “Chicago Way” con on the Army Corps of Engineers and get them to overlook the replacement of those eliminated wetlands, there appears to be no factual support for Perry’s contentions that the flooding in Park Ridge is attributable to the new runway.   

Noise and pollution from O’Hare air traffic is a serious issue for our community, as is flooding.  To deal effectively and successfully with those problems, we will need to enlist the cooperation of other governments and governmental officials – the federal government, the State of Illinois, and our neighboring municipalities.  To do that, we will need to project reason and credibility in the positions we take with them.

Misinformation, in the form of unfounded accusations and meaningless surveys, is exactly what we don’t need.

Over the course of many years of living in this relatively homogenous community, we have observed (anecdotally, not scientifically) that the vast majority of disagreements on public issues seem to occur not because of differences in values or concerns, but because of differences in the amount and quality of the information used to inform the conflicting viewpoints. 

In other words, we have met the enemy and it is misinformation. 

Which brings us to the letter in this week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate by resident Jack Spatafora (“Lean on landlords for retail relief,” August 12), an oft-published letter writer whose subjects tend toward puppies, the smell of newly-mowed grass, and general nostalgia.  Kind of like a cross between Andy Rooney and Garrison Keillor. 

But this week Mr. Spatafora left his comfort zone and strayed into the world of local government, complaining about how our community is losing retail businesses because of rent-gouging landlords and an unresponsive City government that let’s them get away with it.  

That’s a topic worthy of discussion and debate; and it has been a topic we have addressed in various ways over the past couple of years.

Our bone to pick with Mr. Spatafora, however, involves the factual inaccuracies which permeate his letter – starting with his opening sentence of  “[e]ver since the new Mayor and new council members took office” and continuing with his reference to “the new regime in City Hall.” 

Now, we know about “regimes” in City Hall. Over the past two years when we wrote about former mayor Howard Frimark, his guarantied four-member Council majority (Alderpuppets Allegretti, Bach, Carey and Ryan) and the two other alderpuppet reserves (DiPietro and Wsol), we regularly referred to the “Frimark Administration” at City Hall, although we could just as easily, and accurately, have called it the “Frimark regime.” 

But Spatafora seems oblivious to the fact that no “new” aldermen have been elected since 2007.  And its pretty hard for new Mayor Dave Schmidt to have a “regime” in City Hall when five of the current aldermen not only regularly opposed positions taken by then-Ald. Schmidt during the past two years, but they also voted for an official “condemnation” of Schmidt’s lawful release of information about their and Frimark’s closed session dealings – and then they contributed to Frimark’s campaign against Schmidt to the cumulative tune of over $3,800: Allegretti ($1,500), Bach ($400), Carey ($500), DiPietro ($565 in-kind from his business, Cross-Tech Communications) and Ryan ($864.51).  

Spatafora must even have missed the first Park Ridge mayoral veto in at least 20+ years, when Schmidt vetoed the Council’s appropriation of $39,000 in extra handouts to private community groups even though the City budget is already $2.5 million-plus in deficit – a veto the Council promptly over-rode. 

With “regimes” like that, who needs enemies? 

But putting aside Spatafora’s ignorance of who’s who and what’s what at City Hall, his substantive arguments display a troubling view of government and market economics when he advocates for the City meddling in the local real estate market by applying “pressure other city governments have exerted” on landlords to keep rents where they are. 

Hey, Jack…we miss Johnny’s Place, too.  But as far as we can tell, “rent controls” has never been the right answer to any question other than: “What’s one way to screw up the retail market?”  

Spatafora also wants the City to do something about “generating more retail trade” for our local retailers, because “City Hall keeps attracting new retail competition more than retail trade.”  We’re not quite sure what he means by those comments.  But we’ve got a City government that can’t come within $2 million of balancing a budget.  Do we really want those folks trying to micro-manage the local retail market? 

Finally, Spatafora wants Park Ridge to display the same kind of “progress” he sees in Des Plaines and Rosemont.  

We think that statement says it all.

Since the Taste of Park Ridge was handed over to private not-for-profit corporation Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”) in 2005 after the Chamber of Commerce abandoned the event, Taste Inc. has often stated that it would provide the City of Park Ridge with a report on Taste Inc.’s finances.

Taste Inc., however, never delivered; and City staff under Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark never followed up.  But new Mayor Dave Schmidt has expressed an interest in getting that information for the taxpayers who support Taste (the event) with their taxes, their volunteerism, and their patronage.  And Taste Inc. has once again stated that it will provide a report.

Early indications, however, are not promising – if comments by Taste Inc. honcho Albert Galus are any indication.  As reported in the July 22, 2009, issue of The Journal (“Organizers Bask In Success Of Another ‘Taste’”), Galus bragged about the “great success” of this year’s event, bragged about attendance, bragged about vendors and prices, and bragged about the “between $30,000 and $40,000” Taste Inc. spends each year on the event.  

Galus was less than forthcoming about the financial details, however, stating: “We are working with the city in terms of providing them the information we can provide” and claiming that some of that information is “proprietary.”

Hey, Albert!  You guys are running a self-proclaimed not-for-profit corporation that has a no-bid monopoly on running an allegedly not-for-profit community event using not-for-profit City and community volunteer resources.  What the H-E-double hockey sticks could be “proprietary” about that?

As we’ve said before, if Taste Inc. really is on the up and up and if no “insiders” are fattening their wallets on this not-for-profit event, the best way to show it is for Taste Inc. to do the honorable thing and make a full disclosure of this year’s operations and Taste Inc.’s overall financial condition. Produce line-item revenue and expense statements (including the names and amounts paid to each and every vendor), profit & loss statements, and all the other information that shows exactly what’s coming in, what’s going out, and to whom.

That’s the kind of detail the taxpayers have a right to expect from Taste Inc. and its principals who control the City’s premier community event, especially when those principals consistently claim that they do all the heavy lifting for the good of the community rather than for personal gain.
 
And that’s what’s called “transparency,” something that is way overdue from the folks who run Taste Inc.

Tonight’s City Council Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting (7:00 p.m., City Hall) is scheduled to be devoted to two committees: Public Works and Public Safety.  So we were more than a little curious to see that one of the Public Works’ discussion items on the agenda is titled “Subsidy for Overhead Sewers.”  

A discussion of overhead sewers and their desirability as flood control measures is clearly a Public Works issue.  But as we understand the English language, “subsidy” involves money; and money issues have historically been the province of the City’s Finance & Budget Committee (“F&B”), chaired by Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd Ward).  

So what gives? 

Could it be that Public Works Committee chairman Ald. Don Bach (3rd Ward) is trying to hi-jack that discussion for himself and his fellow PW committee member, Ald. Frank Wsol?  After all, Bach is an ardent supporter of Wsol’s plan to spend $420,000 this year alone on “rebates” of as much as $2,500 per residence for the installation of flood control systems – such as overhead sewers – even though this year’s budget is already more than $2.5 million in deficit. 

Back during the F&B portion of the July 6, 2009, City Council meeting, Wsol tried to push through both his “rebate” proposal and his proposal for suspending permit fees – but DiPietro raised a point of order to those matters being presented to the full Council without first being addressed and forwarded by the F&B Committee.  City Attorney Buzz Hill upheld DiPietro’s point of order, and those matters were referred to the July 13, 2009, Finance & Budget COW meeting. 

At that July 13^th COW meeting, however, nothing about flood control was discussed during the F&B portion.  Instead, it was addressed during the Public Works portion.  Although City Mgr. Jim Hock, joined by Mayor Dave Schmidt, suggested waiting until the Flood Control Task Force completes its report and recommendations for how flooding should be addressed before talking about how any of those recommendations could be paid for, Wsol continued to push for spending money on his rebate program now, even mentioning increasing property taxes to pay for his program. 

It’s pretty obvious that Wsol and Bach are leading the rebate charge and don’t care whether the City has to tax or borrow that money so long as they can dish out the rebate goodies – without waiting for the Flood Control Task Force’s final report.  That’s the ready-fire-aim way these things go when taxpayer money is burning a hole in the politicians’ pockets. 

Today we are going to take it a little easier and simply pose some questions…without suggesting any answers.  Hopefully some of you readers will be able to provide those. 

Question No. 1:  Should the City pass through to residents all costs it incurs to third-parties for services provided to residents (e.g., the increase in water costs imposed by the City of Chicago) at 100% of the City’s cost?

Question No. 2:  Should the City continue to run budget deficits rather than increase taxes?

Question No. 3:  Do local political parties (e.g., the old “Homeowners Party” or the new “Citizens for Non-Partisan Local Elections”) help or hurt the local political process?

Question No. 4:  Does the General Caucus really improve the quality of the members elected to the District 64 school board?

Question No. 5:  Do the two local newspapers – The Journal and the Herald-Advocate – do an acceptable job of reporting local news?

Question No. 6:  Should the cost of all Park Ridge Recreation and Park District services, including Community Center membership, be “free” to residents (i.e., paid totally by property taxes, which would need to be increased for that purpose)?

Question No. 7:  Should the City acquire private property whenever it becomes available and “bank” it, even when it has no immediate, concrete plans for its use (as in the Courtland property immediately south of City Hall)?

Question No. 8:  How much more per year are you willing to pay in property taxes to the City for some form of meaningful, city-wide flood control?

Question No. 9:  Should the City continue its new practice of Committee-Of-the-Whole meetings or return to separate, individual committee meetings?

Question No. 10:  Should all of our local governments videotape and post the videos of their meetings on-line? 

Have at ‘em!

Yesterday’s on-line Park Ridge Herald-Advocate reports that four Park Ridge Public Works Department employees received termination notices as one of the City’s cost-cutting measures in the face of this year’s multi-million dollar budget deficit (“Four city employees handed pink slips,” August 4). 

This action came in the wake of the Public Works employees union’s reported refusal to agree to wage freezes or pay cuts.  Ironically, one of the four terminated employees repairs water main breaks and maintains and repairs our sewers, while another one patches our roadways.  

We wonder if those are the kinds of services Ald. Don Bach (3rd Ward) was considering reducing when he came up with his demand for staff cuts months ago, even while he was voting to give more public money to private community groups?

We don’t know how much these four employees were being paid, but we’re guessing that this was more of a shot-across-the-bow, a signal to the union that the City is serious about the proposed wage freeze.  And it should be.

The union is an easy target for blame, if for no other reason than it should have realized – with the City’s big budget deficit and mounting expenses cutting into already-thin reserves – that its bargaining position was weak.  On the other hand, it has a reason to question the City’s good faith when it is asked to give up contractual rights while at the same time hearing Ald. Frank “Borrow & Spend” Wsol and his Council buddies planning to squander $420,000 on ridiculous flood control “rebates.”

The City administration deserves its share of the blame as well, because those are the folks responsible for managing the City’s operations and its money.  They’re the ones who proposed the $2.5 million deficit budget in the first place, and who have failed over a number of years to control spending and/or request increased taxes in order to build sufficient surpluses in “good” years to carry us through the “lean” ones.

In fairness, current City Manager Jim Hock shouldn’t wear the jacket for all of this mess, as he inherited most of it from former City Manager Tim Schuenke, who apparently figured out that the easiest way to balance an unbalanced budget is with revenue estimates pulled out of thin air.  While Hock did himself no favors by proposing this year’s deficit budget, he’s still a big improvement over his predecessor; and, hopefully, he will learn and improve as he gets a better understanding of the community and the sometimes bizarre dynamics of City government.

But the folks who really deserve to wear the jacket for this are the members of our City Council, past and present, who we elect to keep a keen eye on the bureaucrats and represent our interests with good judgment and foresight.  Instead, they spent most of this decade as mindless enablers of Schuenke’s budgetary follies.

Whether they were the rubber-stamp Homeowners Party seat-fillers who monopolized the Council until 2003, the mixture of Homeowners and “Independents” from 2003 through 2007, or the Frimark Alderpuppets who currently predominate, none of them demanded the kind of fiscally-responsible, forward-thinking management the taxpayers deserve.  But as best as we can tell, the current crew has done more than their predecessors to erode the City’s fund balances and leave us exposed to the full fury of a bad economy and neglected infrastructure.

They were the ones who passed what appears to have been the largest deficit budget in recent City history and then compounded that insanity by refusing to pass through the $400,000 water rate increase from the City of Chicago to water users, while also approving over-budget funding increases to private community organizations.

So if you find yourself getting a little ticked off about that pothole in front of your house or that clogged street drain at the corner of your block, consider taking a stroll around the Brickton Art Center or stopping by the Park Ridge Senior Center – because that’s where some of the money is being spent that otherwise could have been used for street and sewer services.

Welcome to the reap-what-you-have-sewn world of fiscal mismanagement in a bad economy.
 

At last Wednesday’s (July 29) meeting of the Park Ridge Flood Control Task Force, the first public words emerged from the City’s sewer consultant, Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.  And those words were not encouraging.

If we understood them correctly after only one viewing – and we encourage you to judge for yourself by watching the Power Point presentation recorded by the volunteer-operated video camera donated by Mayor Dave Schmidt at www.motionbox.com/video/show/7a9ad7bc1919eccbf5 – it sounds like a comprehensive, city-wide flood control program will be financially unattainable.

But before anybody goes off half-cocked, we hope that the consultant will expand and refine its analysis as it continues with the process because, frankly, a few of its comments were hard to accept in the absence of some follow-up questioning that really wasn’t provided by the Task Force members. 

The first one that got our attention was the assertion that the flooding is not the result of insufficient maintenance of our sewer system, or of new development.  We wonder how the consultant could come up with that conclusion, given the fact (as we understand it) that the City has done little-to-none of the sewer-cam inspections of the system that it is planning to do.

But the most notable one was the consultant’s branding as “myth” the idea that there are one or more “gatekeepers” who open and close locks, valves, etc. in logic-defying ways that permit flooding to occur before rapidly draining it away.  That might cause many of us – who, on that bleak Saturday morning of September 13, 2008, watched inches and even feet of water accumulate in our basements over the span of an hour or more before mysteriously draining away in minutes – to wonder out loud, if not utter a barnyard epithet that begins with the word “bull.” 

But only Task Force member Gale Fabisch had the temerity to challenge that conclusion, and challenge it he did – asserting that there are, indeed, such “gatekeepers” because the whole Chicagoland metropolitan area has a “controlled” sewage system where even the level of the Chicago River can be, and is, controlled by…wait for it…locks and valves.  And Fabisch should know, having worked 30+ years for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. 

For the second meeting in a row, Fabisch has shown himself to be the most valuable Task Force member by a sizable margin.  Hopefully, his colleagues, especially those with engineering backgrounds, will raise their games and begin asking the tough questions that need to be asked, starting with Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim.

If we heard Zingsheim correctly, protecting all of Park Ridge against just one of those “10-Year Floods” could cost us in the $240 million range.  Unfortunately, nobody (not even Fabisch) asked Zingsheim to explain whether the entire City needed that protection, which would seem to be a reasonable question in view of the fact that certain areas of the City report little flooding, while certain other areas flooding is mercifully limited to rainwater seepage instead of the nastier sewage backups.  It was left to Fabisch to make that distinction when appealing to more residents to make the effort to report flooding

But hundreds of millions of dollars is not the final word on that topic.  And that also doesn’t mean that significant, worthwhile flood relief can still be achieved on a less ambitious, more focused scale – as evidenced by the consultant’s focus on six specific flooding locations, identified as “St. James Place,” “Northwest Park,” the “Country Club,” “Burton Lane,” “Overhill” and “Mayfield Estates.” 

Once again, we encourage you anyone who has an interest in our flooding problems to watch the video of the meeting, not only to listen to the consultant’s presentation but also to the good/bad/silly questions and comments from the Task Force members.   

But whatever you do, don’t bail on the video until you get about 3/4 of the way through the second (of the 3) video clips when resident questions and comments are received.  Because the comments of Mr. Al Laird, 1525 South Courtland, should not be missed. 

If the iconic Tribune columnist Mike Royko were still alive and giving out his “Ubi est mea?” (“Where’s mine?”) awards, we would nominate Mr. Laird for his money-is-no-object-so-long-as-I-get-mine approach to the much-discussed flood control rebate program.

That fiscally irresponsible program (considering that the City is running another multi-million dollar deficit again this year), proposed by 7th Ward Ald. Frank “Borrow & Spend” Wsol, would put $240,000 of our tax dollars – in up to $2,500 increments – into the private pockets of residents who already installed flood control systems on their property.  But judging from Mr. Laird’s little diatribe, $2,500 of what is basically a “welfare” payment isn’t enough for him. 

Guess he really must be “special.”

Park District Budgeting – Guessing Game Or Scam?  This week’s Herald-Advocate reports (“Cameras approved for Hinkley Skate Park,” July 28) on something that might be termed “good news gone bad” – the Park Board approved a contract for security cameras at the Hinkley Skate Park at a cost of $8,297.  That’s the good news.  The bad news?  That cost was $15,000 less than the Park District budgeted for them!

Trust us on this, folks: we’re glad it was $15,000 less rather than $15,000 more.  But what kind of “budgeting” process can be off on something like this by almost 300%?  C’mon!  Did anybody make even a few phone calls to check on the true cost of these surveillance systems before throwing caution to the wind, making their WAG (“Wild A** Guess”), and calling it a budget item?

But we have to wonder whether this isn’t a variation on the old “bait and switch” scam, albeit a  governmental “backwards” version, where things are intentionally over-budgeted so that – once the much lower price is obtained and revealed – the over-budgeted differential can be treated as “found money” which can then readily be diverted to other uses?  That way, the bureaucrats and elected officials alike can bask in the artificial, feel-good perception that they’re actually managing well.  And the public ends up none the wiser.  

Farcical Facade Improvements  In the past two weeks both local papers reported on the proposed new store fronts for the building at 25-29 S. Prospect that houses Country Financial, Camp Willow and Raffia Gifts.  And this week’s H-A also reports (“New looks proposed for three Uptown buildings,” July 28) that as much as $75,000 of our tax money could be paid to the owner(s) of that property under the City’s “Façade Improvement Program,” which the City Council devised a few years ago to funnel tax dollars to private property owners – on the questionable theory that the City will prosper if property owners are given incentives to spruce up their commercial buildings.

We still haven’t seen or heard how much extra tax revenue has been generated by the façade improvement to the building housing Pines Men’s Wear, but we have to assume the numbers aren’t all that good – otherwise Kim Uhlig, the City’s retail maven, would have already issued press releases, and the Chamber of Commerce would be thumping the tub for more such “investments.”

But one suspicious thing about this latest private drain on uber-scarce public funds is the fact that neither “news” story identified the owner of the property, although The Journal’s story (“Old School Look In Uptown Gains Attention,” July 22) did identify the architect for the new façade, Jonathon Hague of Hague Architecture.  And the H-A story advised that Robert Solari will be looking for a City handout when he adds a new façade to his building at the southeast corner of Main Street and Fairview.

You’d think that with a $2.5 million deficit budget the City would have put a halt to these giveaways of public money.  But not only does the façade program appear to remain on track, but the City looks like it will up the ante of such giveaways with its flood control rebate program. 

And then taxpayers wonder where all their money is going?

The final figures are in, and we now have a better picture of what the two candidates for Park Ridge Mayor in 2009 spent on their respective campaigns.

According to the most recent D-2 reports filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections (which supplemented the 2008 D-2 reports), the winning Citizens to Elect Dave Schmidt campaign raised approx. $36,000, not counting Schmidt’s $2,400 loan, while spending approx. $32,470.  Schmidt’s opponent, former-mayor Howard Frimark, appears to have raised approx. $63,500, while having spent approx. $62,700.

Although those are big chunks of money, they are significantly less than what Frimark and his opponent, Michael Tinaglia, spent in 2005.

In the battle of the political consultants, winner Dan Patlak and his “Landslide Group cost Schmidt’s campaign $6,000, while Frimark shelled out well in excess of $9,000 on Linda Szczepanski (or “Linda Ski,” as we like to call her) – although her exact amount isn’t clear because several of her “consulting” charges are combined with charges for other things, like “insurance” and “supplies.”

But the real news going into the 2011 aldermanic elections is that there’s a “new” political party in town, and it already has $15,000+ in its war chest. 

The new “Citizens for Non-Partisan Local Elections” (the “Non-Partisans”) was formed January 14 of this year, and immediately received a going-out-of-business transfer of $15,000 from the old Homeowners Party (the “HOs”)[pdf], which by then had become little more than a shell of the issues-oriented, policy-driven organization founded by the late Marty Butler decades ago.  The HOs had spent the last six years in virtual exile following their disastrous showing in the 2003 aldermanic elections, when their candidates came in dead last in 5 of the 6 contested aldermanic elections they entered.  Even their sole victor, 2nd Ward Ald. Rich DiPietro, dodged defeat by a mere 21 votes over a virtually unknown opponent.

The smart money is on the Non-Partisans using those HOs funds to jump-start the aldermanic campaigns of the 4 candidates the Non-Partisans need to take control of Howard Frimark’s most notable, and most damaging, legacy to City government: the cut-in-half, 7 member City Council.   

Given that the Non-Partisans opened for business with the HOs cash and were organized as a lawful political party by a former HOs alderman (John English, 1st Ward), expect them to field reincarnations of the stereotypical HOs candidates – a bunch of generally likeable “nice” guys and gals whose primary concern seemed to be go-along-to-get-along consensus building, instead of serious and effective analysis, debate and decision-making on substantive policies and issues.

A lack of issues, policies and actual results doomed the HOs candidates in 2003 and kept them on the sidelines until apparently deciding to retire their damaged “brand” and re-group as the Non-Partisans – who, not surprisingly, declared in their filing documents [pdf] that they “will seek and support candidates to run for office in city government who…demonstrate a desire to work with other elected officials in a spirit of civility and consensus building….” [Emphasis added]

In other words, that “non-partisan” stuff is just window-dressing for “consensus building” – because municipal elections in Park Ridge are, by law, “non-partisan,” meaning that they are required to be free from the influence of the national political parties.  And despite the occasional cries of “Wolf!” by partisan local Democrats or Republicans, that’s what they generally have been, even though we have heard and observed some local partisans privately judging officials and candidates by their “R” or “D” affiliations.  

From our seat it looks like the real goal of the Non-Partisans is a return to those days of monolithic, go-along-to-get-along insipidness that characterized the last years of the HOs’ reign at City Hall, when every City Council meeting seemed to require at least one lengthy-but-meaningless diatribe by then-mayor Ron “Captain Ahab” Wietecha about his “great white whale,” O’Hare Airport, followed by a lot of head-nodding and rubber-stamping by his HOs-dominated Council. 

So unless and until we start hearing something out of them as to substantive City issues and policies, we think the Non-Partisans can best be described by paraphrasing a line from an old Who song: “Meet the new HOs, same as the old HOs.” 

The letter in this week’s local papers from the president of Park Ridge Firefighter’s IAFF Local 2697 begins: “Rarely is life fair and those least responsible for bad decisions are often those who pay most dearly.”

We agree. 

In this case, we have the unfairness of the firefighters agreeing to forego certain contractually-guaranteed benefits in order to help the City of Park Ridge through its current fiscal crisis, while at the same time the City’s Flood Control Task Force is endorsing a foolish $420,000 flood control rebate giveaway contrived by Seventh Ward Ald. Frank Wsol.

For those who have trouble connecting the dots, the money that the City could/should be paying toward the firefighters benefits previously agreed to by the City may end up going into the pockets of a couple hundred Park Ridge residents as partial reimbursement for the cost of flood control devices they voluntarily installed on their own property – and which actually may make flooding worse for their neighbors.

What’s “fair” about that?  What’s even “reasonable” about that?  Ask Ald. Wsol or Task Force chairman Joe Saccomanno.

Let’s not fool ourselves here: What the firefighters union did was not purely altruistic. Given the City’s sad-and-worsening financial situation, it looks like they may have chosen the benefit freeze to avoid more severe alternatives, like unpaid leave or lay-offs.  If so, enlightened self-interest may well have been the prime motivator for their action.

But the bottom line is that they are going to be taking less than what they are entitled to, while a relatively small number of residents will be getting more than they’re entitled to.  And, as Task Force member Gale Fabisch noted during that body’s July 15 meeting, most of the rebate payments will go to residents who already have installed their flood control systems rather than to those who might actually need a rebate “incentive” to install flood control devices which, we reiterate, may make flooding worse for their neighbors.

So unless residents of this community start whispering not-so-sweet somethings into the ears of their aldermen to keep them from jumping on this bandwagon because it’s the easy thing to do, $420,000 of much-needed tax money will be going to enrich those who really don’t need enriching. 

That’s not just unfair…it’s irresponsible.