The annual July 3rd fireworks display at Maine East High School is a grand tradition which Park Ridgians young and old eagerly await each summer.  The shows are spectacular, and they entertain not only the crowd at Maine East but also the crowds that gather at nearby locations such as North, Northwest and Woodland Parks.

But from the sound of things we might soon be seeing a less spectacular kind of fireworks from some of our local officials.

As reported in the July 23, 2008 edition of the Herald-Advocate (“District 207 wants chance to raise funds at fireworks, too”), School Dist. 207 Board member Jeff Bergen wants the District to be able to fundraise at the event in return for its donating the Maine East facilities.  We hear worse ideas from politicians and government bureaucrats almost every day, so we aren’t about to beef about District 207 getting a little quid pro quo for providing a venue for the fireworks.

But Dist. 207 isn’t alone in its discontent.  The Park Ridge Park District reportedly will be discussing at its August 21st meeting whether to pull out as one of the main sponsors of the fireworks – allegedly because it doesn’t believe it’s getting enough credit for helping to sponsor the event.  Assuming the report is true, that could be an entertaining discussion next Thursday night.

These two items got us interested enough to look into the money side of the fireworks show, because when it comes right down to it money is usually at the heart of most of these intergovernmental dust-ups.  And frankly, when its our money, we don’t mind a little frugality.

What we found was not one but two financial reports on this year’s fireworks show: One by the City of Park Ridge Public Works Department and the other by the Park Ridge Park District. Oddly enough, they don’t seem to quite match up, but they may satisfy the cliche: “Close enough for government work.”

The City’s 11-page report [pdf] reports, at page 11, “Total Program Costs” of $37,813.10, and another $22,299 for the cost of City employees.  The Park District’s 1-page report [pdf], on the other hand, shows $26,683.30 in “Total – Expenses.”   

We may be missing something, but if those two governmental bodies can’t seem to come up with the exact same accounting for such a relatively small project and dollar amount, we wonder what might be happening with the multi-millions of dollars in revenues and expenses they handle each year.  But that’s an issue for another time.

We also wonder about the “exclusive” deal the Kiwanis Clubs appear to have for all the food concessions at the fireworks (City report, page 4) – without any evidence that they are contributing anything toward the cost of the show.  We’ve got nothing against the Kiwanis, but so long as the City, the Park District and District 207 are using thousands of our tax dollars to make this event happen – and even the Park Ridge Fine Arts Society is kicking in $8,000 for the musical program – we see no reason for anybody to get a monopoly on anything unless they’re willing to pay for that privilege.  

Meanwhile, it’s time for the City, the Park District and School Dist. 207 to sit down together and exercise a little intergovernmental cooperation to make sure the burdens, the benefits and the kudos for the fireworks show are fairly allocated among all three bodies – and among the taxpayers of their overlapping but not identical territories. If private sponsors can be found to underwrite all or part of the event, so much the better.  

Because when it comes to as traditional a community event as our July 3rd fireworks display, the show must go on! 

In the past decade there has been exactly one – yes, just one – complaint raised by anyone in connection with housing discrimination in Park Ridge.  To most reasonable people, that would mean that our realtors are doing a good job in treating all potential real estate purchasers fairly. 

But apparently not if you are Park Ridge Fair Housing Commission chairman Nan Parson.

Ms. Parson and her sidekick, former Third Ward alderman Sue Bell, see that one complaint not as a sign that things are being done right but, to the contrary, as a sure sign that other fair housing violations are occurring but aren’t being reported because all those victims of unfair housing practices here in Park Ridge don’t know their rights. 

So for the past couple of months they have been publicly complaining about how the City Council’s proposed revision of the City’s Fair Housing Ordinance (FHO) is taking away their powers to make Park Ridge safe for…well, we’re not sure whom, because Nan and Sue can’t seem to identify any of those unfair housing victims.

Last week’s Herald-Advocate published a letter from Ms. Parson (“With no voice how can housing be fair,” August 7) that reveals an agenda that goes well beyond the concept of “fair’ housing.

Parson writes that on August 18, the City Council members are “going to vote to cut [the Fair Housing Commission] out of the investigatory process.”  Her Commission, however, has not had a role in the investigatory process under the FHO.  Section 14-14-2 of that ordinance gives the sole power and authority to investigate fair housing complaints to the City Manager.

But Parson’s letter goes on to talk about our “citizens who are threatened by difference and change,” the need to “embrace change,” and “welcoming and protecting those who are in the most need of protection.”  She even concedes that fair housing is only one of the “several areas” in which our community should “do the right thing.” 

We think it’s time for Nan and Sue to cut the code-speak and talk straight with our citizens.  If their goal is to change the racial or ethnic complexion of our community, they should have the courage and the decency to come out and say so – and let that issue be debated openly and meaningfully by the City Council and the people they represent. 

It’s time they stopped hiding their true intentions behind a Fair Housing Ordinance that actually appears to have done its job well. 

Yesterday, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown wrote about former Chicago Alderman Arenda Troutman’s guilty plea in connection with the federal corruption charges against her for soliciting bribes from people doing business with the City of Chicago. (“What Troutman will get out of her guilty plea,” Aug. 7).

You may remember Troutman for her quote, which allegedly was recorded by the feds: ”Most politicians are hos.”  “Ho,” as in people of loose moral standards who sell themselves for money or other favors.

We’re not sure exactly how accurate Ms. Troutman’s assessment of those people who make a career out of politics might be, although we’re not inclined to strongly disagree with her.  That would be hard to do, given all of the successful criminal prosecutions of state, county and City of Chicago politicians and their henchmen over the years.

In his column, Brown went on to describe how “[b]ribes are for chumps like Troutman” because the sharpest, most experienced politicians have more subtle ways of doing business with the people who are interested in pay-to-play government, and don’t ever really have to ask for the favors they are interested in giving out:

“[P]olitician-lawyers get rich on legal fees, which of course are entirely legal, not at all like bribes, or what would be the use of having a legal degree? Or real estate business is steered to a politician’s relative, or insurance, if that’s the family’s game. Nobody ever need mention doing this for that, the quid pro quo that can get a conviction.”

We are entitled to honest, open, transparent and accountable government.  But we have to demand it – regularly, consistently and uncompromisingly – from our public officials at every level. 

So the next time our City Council, School Board or Park Board members duck into another closed session, or circulate “confidential” memos among themselves, or negotiate sweetheart deals with their friends or campaign contributors, or just do something that doesn’t make sense to us, we are entitled to ask: “Who’s getting what, and why?”

Tomorrow night (August 7, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall) the City Council’s Public Safety Committee will have two issues on its agenda that deserve close public scrutiny.

The first is the long-awaited “Linkage Agreement” [pdf] proposed by that homeless shelter franchise known as PADS.  All we can say is: What a joke!  We can’t remember the last time we saw such a collection of warm-and-fuzzy nonsense masquerading as a legally binding contract.  That the PADS operators can even present such a document to the City displays a level of chutzpah that we have come to expect from folks like Bill Napleton and those shameless real estate speculators and developers who think they are entitled to taxpayer handouts.

We can’t wait to see whether any of Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark’s alderpuppets have the nerve and/or the brass to step up and cheerlead for this meaningless piece of paper.  We also hope the Park Ridge Ministerial Association and Fr. Carl Morello show up to give us their “Who Would Jesus Indemnify” viewpoint, especially now that the reports about violent attacks by homeless people seem to be increasing. 

But that may only be the undercard.  The more meaty discussion could involve the City’s ongoing pursuit of a big new cop shop.  To that end, Public Safety Chairman Ald. Frank Wsol (7th Ward) has drafted a memorandum [pdf] setting forth a process for further exploration of this project.  While it’s not a bad way to start, it does have a few shortcomings that should be dealt with sooner rather than later:

·         “(1)  Build a portfolio…”  When discussing what our community can afford, we would like to see “hard” conservative numbers, not the kind of pie-in-the-sky, funny money projections that former City Mgr. Tim Schuenke was infamous for producing out of thin air when the previous (pre-reduction) City Council’s Public Safety Committee considered this issue in the spring of 2007.  We would also like to hear an informed and detailed discussion of the effect financing of a big new cop shop will have on the rest of City operations and taxes for at least as many years as any bond issue will extend.

And because of how uncertain and speculative such projections become even 10 years out, we strongly suggest that the Public Safety Committee seriously consider a 10 year bond issue rather than the more common 20 year issue.  Locking in long-term fixed and certain bonded debt obligations becomes increasingly dangerous when our ability to pay those obligations remains dependent upon sometimes wildly fluctuating economic conditions – including a potential property tax dilemma that could result from a combination of declining property values and the differing abilities of a home-rule taxing body like the City versus the non home-rule bodies like our school district and Park District to levy and collect more taxes.

·         “(2)  List all potential PD facility sites considered.”  That’s fine, as far as it goes.  But if we are looking at building a brand new building, why hasn’t anybody within City government – or even any of those high-priced consultants the City loves to hire – attempted to identify the optimal location in Park Ridge for that purpose?  After all, a new cop shop is going to cost a lot of money and is intended to last us for the next 40 years.  There has to be one spot in all of Park Ridge that would be the ideal location, based on: railroad track issues; access, distance and travel time to every area of the City; and whatever other factors the PRPD can identify as relevant to how it performs its services. 

Until now, the City has spent all of its land acquisition efforts on what sites are “available” – which seems to mean which ones are on the market and just how well-connected (wink, wink)  the owner(s) are.  It’s time to identify the absolute best location for whatever new cop shop might be built rather than waste more time and effort looking at whatever site may be available and owned by somebody’s friend or political contributor. 

·         “(3)…It may be equally beneficial to re-visit a sampling of the previously discussed numerous weaknesses of the existing facilities….”  That is exactly correct, but those “weaknesses” need to all be re-visited from the perspective of (a) space, and (b) how the proposed alternatives would substantively and practically affect crime prevention, crime investigation, crime prosecution, and overall community safety/security.  Can anybody in City government, including the PRPD, answer this 4-part question: “If the PRPD had an additional 30,000 square feet of space like the ‘experts’ are recommending…

      (a) what crime(s) that have occurred could have been prevented?

      (b) what crime(s) could have been better/more successfully investigated?

      (c) what crime(s) could have been better/more successfully prosecuted?

      (d) how much safer and more secure would the average Park Ridge citizen be?

Until those questions can be meaningfully answered, further exploration of a big new cop shop, or even a major renovation/addition to the existing one, is a waste of time and money.

And before making yet another commitment to brick and mortar, how about figuring out what the human factors – the police officers and staff – still need and deserve in the way of salary, benefits, training and equipment.  It’s those people – not a big building with a bronze plaque bearing the names of a lot of public officials – that keep us safe and secure on our streets and in our homes.

With a variety of other matters vying for the local spotlight, one thing that has pretty much escaped recent notice is the City’s ongoing quest for a big new police station.  Which is why you might have missed the small story on Page 4 of last week’s Herald-Advocate titled “Napleton’s Busse site is still on table for possible police station” (July 31, 2008).

As reported there, the City Council met in…you guessed it…yet another “closed session” on July 21 to discuss the acquisition of the former Napleton auto dealership property at 501 Busse Highway as the site of the new cop shop. 

Napleton is turning out to be Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark’s most favored campaign contributor, with the mayor trying a variety of ways to put taxpayer money in owner Bill Napleton’s pocket ever since the windfall $2.4 million tax and environmental clean-up deal (on which Frimark himself cast the tie-breaking vote) fell through because the Napleton dealerships closed.  Even after the closure nuked the clean-up contract, Frimark still pressed for Napleton to get the $400,000.

And just last week Bill Napleton himself shamelessly warned the neighbors of his former Cadillac dealership who want residential redevelopment of that site that commercial redevelopment could occur unless they asked the City to “assist” in – as in “provide cash to” – the residential redevelopment of that property. 

We can only hope that those neighbors are sharp enough to see Napleton’s appeal for what it was: Just another ploy by a greedy carpetbagger to wheedle more corporate welfare from compliant public officials and gullible taxpayers.  And the same goes for his attempts to sell his Busse Highway property to the City for a new cop shop, which remains high on his “to do” list.  And apparently high on Mayor Frimark’s list as well.

The only way we ordinary citizens even found out about this most recent closed session push to buy Napleton’s property is, not surprisingly, because 1st Ward Alderman Dave Schmidt once again did the right thing – and the perfectly legal thing – by first voting against the closed session and then letting the press know what went on during it.

We’re not quite sure whether we are more impressed with Schmidt’s honesty and integrity, or more depressed that not even one other member of the City Council seems capable of matching it – or even understanding it.  The eagerness with which they retreat into closed session suggests that Ald. DiPietro (2nd), Bach (3rd), Allegretti (4th), Ryan (5th), Carey (6th) and Wsol (7th) might prefer meeting exclusively in closed session, outside of the press’s and the public’s scrutiny.

Schmidt, alone, correctly pointed out that discussing sites for a new police station before the Council has made a final decision on how big a station it wants to build and how it’s going to afford it – without letting our basic infrastructure and city services erode even further, or raising taxes even higher – is putting the cart before the horse.  We heartily agree.

In just the past four years the City – without having a firm plan for the size, shape, kind and cost of the station it expects to build – has actively pursued the acquisition of 515 Busse (the Owen Hayes II fiasco), the parking lots bordering the AT&T building, 720 Garden, 164 South Prospect (School Dist. 64 headquarters), and now Napleton’s Busse property, to name just the ones we know about.  And that doesn’t include 229 S. Courtland, which the City actually bought in 2006 for approximately $660,000 and continues to hold for no apparent reason. 

As we’ve said many times before, the current police station definitely needs an overhaul but it doesn’t need the additional 30,000 square feet that the hired-gun consultants recommended just because that’s what they were hired to do.  By every objective measure we can find, the current station is still getting the job done, which probably is best explained by the late, great Vince Lombardi: “The achievements of an organization are the results of the combined effort of each individual.”  In this case, that’s the police officers and support staff.

But, of course, if you’re trying to cut a sweetheart deal with a connected landowner, you sure don’t want to wait for cop shop plans and specs, or a proposed budget to get resolved.  After all, a big new cop shop pretty much ensures that not only is there land to be bought, but there are consultant, architect, engineer and construction contracts to give out.  And bond financing to obtain.  There’s probably even some insurance and performance bond coverage to be procured. 

And those are some of the things that Mayor Frimark loves best about being mayor.

If one were to judge solely by the article in this week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“What should be on former Cadillac site?“, July 31), one might start wondering if 5th Ward Ald. Robert Ryan is becoming a true man of the people. 

The article reported on a neighborhood meeting Ryan attended on Tuesday at the site of the shuttered Napleton Cadillac dealership, Northwest Hwy. and Meacham, which was called by neighbors who opposed the construction of either a CenTrust Bank or a CVS pharmacy there.  Those neighbors pointed to the City’s 2002 Uptown comprehensive plan, which identified that area – although currently zoned B-1 (for business) – as multi-family residential.

We here at PublicWatchdog have consistently questioned the need and/or desirability of increasing the residential density of Park Ridge, not only from the standpoint of physical congestion but also with regard for an already suspect infrastructure (as reflected in continued flooding and problematic electric service, to name just the first two concerns that come to mind).  So we question the wisdom of adding any more multi-family residential to the current situation.

But we also respect the neighbors’ concerns, and we applaud their activism in voicing them loudly and strongly the minute the CenTrust and CVS concepts hit their radar.

That’s where Ald. Ryan comes in. 

Ryan has been a loyal alderpuppet of Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark since he was elected with Frimark’s support in April 2007.  In his role as alderpuppet, Ryan seemingly has done everything he could to ignore and even frustrate the will of his constituents.

When they vigorously opposed giving the Executive Office Plaza developers (and Frimark campaign contributors) a zoning variance to add extra density, Ryan reportedly met “privately” with the developers and then voted for the variance.  He has spoken in favor of the PADS shelters that many of them have vocally opposed both at St. Mary’s and at St. Paul of the Cross.

But the Ryan vote that is most relevant to the old Napleton Cadillac site is the one he cast in support of the proposed giveaway of as much as $2.4 million of our tax dollars to Napleton Cadillac, another one of Frimark’s campaign contributors – which included $400,000 to clean up environmental contamination of the site so that it could be sold to Uptown developer PRC Partners LLC. 

That deal fell through when Napleton closed down its relocated dealership, although Frimark still tried to get Napleton/PRC at least the $400,000 clean-up money.

Which causes us to view the current Napleton/CenTrust/CVS discussions with more than a little suspicion, especially when Bill Napleton himself urges the neighbors “to contact the city and say they support…[residential development] and then ask the city to assist in some way to make that happen.”  It sure gets us to wondering whether a nice round number like, oh, say…$400,000 might “assist” enough to do the deal?

Maybe Napleton and his buddy, Frimark, are hoping that they can “play” the Cadillac neighbors’ opposition to commercial development on that site into grass-roots support for a new windfall for Napleton and whomever he might sell the property to.  We wouldn’t be surprised if PRC is still lurking in the weeds just waiting – with Napleton – for the City to blink.  After all, an easy $400 grand beats a sharp stick in the eye while riding out a troubled housing market.

As for Ald. Ryan, we guess it’s possible that he might have had an epiphany and now realizes that it’s wrong to prefer the wishes of the monied special interests over the will of his constituents.  Maybe he truly has become a neo-populist who really wants to support the Napleton neighbors’ in their quest to follow the Uptown comprehensive plan and make the old Napleton site residential.  If so, he can take an important first step in proving it by publicly pledging to oppose any economic contributions or concessions by the City related to that property.

We can’t wait to see if this particular leopard can change his spots.

In Monday’s posting we wrote about how neighborhood activists are re-claiming our local government by organizing and speaking out on issues of importance to their own neighborhoods and, by extension, to the Park Ridge community as a whole. 

In researching that piece, however, we came across an interesting post from February 2, 2005, by local political blogger and attorney Russ Stewart, who reported the following about then-mayoral candidate Howard Frimark’s efforts to build a slate of aldermanic candidates to run with him:

“I couldn’t find quality people” to run for alderman, moans Frimark, a 62-year-old insurance agent and a first-term Park Ridge alderman. “There’s a lot of apathy in this town.”

Maybe Frimark just wasn’t looking in the right places back then.  Or maybe it’s taken three years of Frimark’s own brand of special interest, wheeling-and-dealing city government to help “The People” realize that the only way they are going to get “good government” is to do something about it themselves.  One thing is certain: over the past six months a lot of quality people have been anything but “apathetic” in organizing and speaking out against what they believe to be the wrong way our city is being run. 

The mayor might even recognize their names if he was actually paying attention when they came to City Council meetings or e-mailed him about their various concerns – like his endorsement of the sweetheart variance deal for his campaign contributors at Executive Office Plaza.  Or his attempted $2.4 million bail-out of campaign contributor Napleton Cadillac.  Or his pandering to the Park Ridge Ministerial Association with his support for bringing a PADS homeless shelter, first to St. Mary’s Episcopal and now to St. Paul of the Cross.  Or his ridiculous Cumberland underpass idea.  And that’s just part of the list.

People like Carla Owen, Paul Meyer, Becky Bork, Phil Donohue, Dan and Sue Knight, Gary Beckner, Mike Casey, Bob and Barb Christopher, Ruby Cruz, Frank Partipilo, “The Cumberland Patriot”, Jill McGuigan, Joan Sandrick, Paul and Lorna Chevlin, Tony and Carleen Riccio, Mary Ahne, Bill and Angela May, Jim Bruno, Missy Langan, Tony and Jennifer Svanascini, Steve Kopka, Jim Whitney, Paula Waters, Kristin Grant, Gene Spanos, Apple Naughton, Jean Dietsch, Jim Marino, Debby Usher, Jennifer Whitelaw, Bob and Sarah Horak, Judy Barclay, Kristin Grant, Leslie Dempsey, Anna Coakley, Mirek and Patti Dobek, Christine Schilling, Pat Livensparger, Margaret Cohen, Frank Colleran, John Cassiday, Kevin Costello and Kathleen Wolf, to name just a few, have shown that they are not apathetic about this community and that they have the courage to say and do things to make it better.

And that’s the way it should be with a system of government like ours, where ordinary citizens have the right to show up and be heard by their elected and appointed public officials.  And when they do so – especially after informing themselves on the issues – they can have an amazingly positive influence on public policy, and on the public officials who are supposed to be representing us. 

As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Richard Price in 1789: “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”

So here’s to “The People.”

In an era of rampant voter apathy and the growing sense that special interests run the politicians who, in turn, run our government, today we recognize and thank the increasing number of activist citizens who have banded together primarily in neighborhood groups to educate themselves and get involved in the process of making public policy in our community.

Within just the past year alone several citizens groups have formed to oppose such diverse special interest initiatives as zoning variances for the Executive Office Plaza development, bringing a PADS homeless shelter to Park Ridge, the extension of Cumberland Avenue under the railroad tracks and, most recently, building a CenTrust Bank and/or CVS pharmacy on the old Napleton site. 

In so doing, these activists have begun the process of re-claiming local government from those special interests which have turned it into a tool for concentrating and accumulating power and money in the hands of a select and privileged few – while foisting the costs of that government upon all of us. In return for such a noble effort, however, these public-spirited citizens have been criticized and even condemned by many of our local politicians – both those at City Hall and those in the various churches comprising the Park Ridge Ministerial Association – who see this activism as a clear threat to the power and influence they’ve enjoyed for so long.