The Napleton $2 Million Secret.  According to the Park Ridge Journal’s Dwight Esau, the Park Ridge City Council is making sure the tax incentive deal it’s handing to Napleton Cadillac is “done right.” (“Still Hammering Out Napleton Deal,” Jan. 9)  If you enjoy government giveaways of your tax dollars to one of Mayor Frimark’s political contributors [pdf], or relied solely on Esau’s reporting, you might even fall for that propaganda.  That’s because nowhere in his story does Esau mention that the “deal” embodied in the recently drafted “Sales Tax Rebate Agreement”[pdf] can give Napleton as much as $2 Million in sales tax rebates over 15 years – in addition to the $400,000 of “Environmental Reimbursement” by the City for demolition and environmental clean up costs of the former Cadillac site at the corner of Northwest Hwy. and Meacham so that Napleton can sell a “clean” site to Park Ridge Corporation, LLC (“PRC”) for the construction of more multi-family (as in “higher density”) residential units. 

Frankly, we don’t believe for a minute that Napleton would pack up and leave if it doesn’t get this $2.4 Million windfall.  It’s already open for business at the old Tom Noe site, and the local identity and goodwill it has established in Park Ridge over the years has got to be worth more than that.  But we can’t really blame Napleton and PRC for asking for, and accepting, the sweetheart deal City Mgr. Tim Schuenke, Mayor Frimark and his Alderpuppets seem willing to toss their way.

So is this deal truly being “done right”?  Absolutely…if you’re Napleton and PRC.

Shrinking Violet?  When she was sporting her purple ribbons and railing about those evil new “Democrat” aldermen back in 2005, nobody would have accused C.U.R.B.B.’s Judy Barclay of treating any of the local politicians who displeased her with kid gloves.  So we were surprised that her letter, published in yesterday’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Citizens predicted traffic problems,” Jan. 10)[pdf] warning of the dangers of Uptown’s residential density creeping into the neighborhoods surrounding Uptown, failed to name the “elected and appointed officials…with the dubious distinction of having voted for all the [zoning] exceptions on all of the developments.”  That sure doesn’t help in the never-ending battle to hold our officials accountable for their actions.

We applaud Ms. Barclay’s stand on increased density and share her concerns.  But isn’t her failure to name names the same kind of political pussyfooting that not only seems to have rendered C.U.R.R.B. pretty much an ineffective paper tiger in curtailing the higher-density condo developments, but also failed to inspire the voters of the 5th Ward in her campaign for alderman last April against condo-hugging, density-loving Robert Ryan? 

Which One Is It?  As the City Council continues to hide out in closed session meetings while interviewing several prominent and expensive Chicago law firms to decide which one we will enrich for investigating the Park Ridge Police Department (before or after Chief Caudill is forced out the door by the mayor?), the City’s Community Information Coordinator (“Hey City Hall, how about some truth in advertising by calling it ‘Chief In-House Propagandist’?”) is reporting that residents “are responding pretty favorably to the police department” in a survey that has been sent out since September (“Public Safety Board To Examine Police Survey,” Park Ridge Journal, Jan. 9). 

So…is it the survey that’s the waste of money, or is the investigation going to be an even bigger waste of money?

The Carousel Goes Round And Round.  We here at Public Watchdog are huge fans of citizen involvement in local government, including the writing of letters to the editor.  So we applaud Park Ridge resident Timothy Janes for writing a letter printed in yesterday’s Herald-Advocate (“Weigh the choices on possible lawsuits,” Jan. 10)[pdf], in which he appears to argue in favor of the City permits needed at the new site of Christie’s Carousel of Learning (Park Ridge Presbyterian Church) based on which of the parties to the dispute – Christie’s owners and customers, or the neighbors opposed to the relocation – stands to recover the most money in whichever lawsuit might be filed.

Frankly, Mr. Janes, we don’t have a dog (pun intended) in this fight.  But basing government policy decisions on who might collect more damages if they file and win a lawsuit against the City seems pretty wrongheaded.  And although we’re not municipal lawyers, we understand that something called governmental immunity would likely prevent the City from paying any damages at all for good-faith exercises of its legislative discretion.   

But our suspicious minds cause us to wonder why, after 25 years, St. Mary’s Episcopal Church gave Christie’s the boot.  We also wonder if there is any truth to the rumor that this dispute really boils down to money – the money Christie’s is saving by relocating to another church rather than a higher-rent commercial property, and the money its customers are saving through lower tuition.

When witnesses are called to testify in court, they swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”  At first blush it seems almost redundant, but its meaning is not lost on trial lawyers, their clients, the judge and the jury.  And it shouldn’t be lost on anyone who regularly listens to, or deals with, many of the politicians and government bureaucrats who have mastered the principles of misinformation and obfuscation. 

For most people, “the truth” is pretty easy to understand.  It is correct information.  When you tell “the truth,” old is not new; black is not white; and Bill Clinton really did have sexual relations with that woman.

The “whole truth,” however, is a different matter.  It means that none of “the truth” that is relevant to the matter at hand is omitted.  The reason for that part of the oath is embodied in the Ben Franklin quote: “Half a truth is often a great lie.”  For example, when one of our local governmental bodies reports that it will pay for a $20 Million project by issuing $20 Million of bonds, that may be “the truth” but it certainly isn’t the “whole truth” – because it fails to elucidate that those bonds will actually drive up the cost of the project by many more millions of dollars when the years of interest and fees are figured in.

Even more difficult for people to comprehend is the “nothing but the truth” part of the oath.  That’s meant to eliminate the flotsam and jetsam, however true it might be, that tends to obscure, color or bend “the truth” of the matter at hand.  If you want to understand why this is important to truth-seeking, listen to the first three or four sentences of a politician’s answer to what is posed as a simple “yes” or “no” question and see if you can even remember the question by the time they get to their actual “answer” – which is almost never a “yes“ or a “no.”

Why should “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” be important to us outside of the courtroom?  Because our ability to effectively govern ourselves – which is what we are supposed to be doing, albeit through our elected representatives – depends upon us having enough accurate information, enough of “the truth,” to reach informed judgments about the issues and the conduct of our representatives, and then to act on those judgments. 

Whether it’s by personally contacting our mayor, our alderman, or one of the school board or park board members, by writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, by engaging a neighbor in conversation, or by voting, the quality and value of our self-governance tends to be only as good as our judgment; and our judgment is only as good as the information on which it is based.

Which is why it’s time that our local governments and our local newspapers started taking “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” seriously.  Two examples:

*  As a decision nears on the City Council choosing what is rumored to be a prominent Chicago law firm to conduct an investigation into the Park Ridge Police Department (which is sounding more and more like an effort to force out Chief Jeffrey Caudill rather than simply investigate citizen complaints and evaluate the department), why haven’t we been told “the whole truth” about: (a) the identities of the six-to-eight law firms which City Mgr. Tim Schuenke claims are being considered; (b) what exactly is the scope of the services the City is seeking; and (c) what the City has budgeted for this investigation?  And why are the selection discussions/interviews being conducted in closed session [pdf], preventing the public and the media from hearing and observing those discussions even though there is no legal requirement that such discussions occur in closed session?  What are they trying to hide from us, and why?

*  As for “nothing but the truth,” as the City appears to get closer to bailing Napleton Cadillac out of its environmental problems and throwing some tax-break “carrots” its way, why does the City – and the local media – keep telling us that this is similar to the deal the City gave the Bredemann dealerships?  Any deal with Napleton should be judged on its own merits or demerits, not on what deal may have been done with other property and another party years ago.

The simple truth is that if we want good, honest, efficient, cost-effective and accountable government in our community, then we need to start demanding it.  And the first step in getting it is to insist, without compromise, on “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” from our public officials.

To the delight of those well-connected government insiders and to the chagrin of most decent citizens, Illinois has acquired a reputation as a state whose politicians are some of the most ethically-challenged, if not outright corrupt, in this country.  And judging by the number of news stories and criminal convictions, it would be hard to argue against that reputation being justified. 

Despite that reputation, we do have  a number of laws designed to force elected officials to be more forthcoming about their own personal interests which might conflict – or at least interfere – with their honest discharge of the public trust that comes with their offices.  One of those laws is the “Illinois Governmental Ethics Act,” which requires local public officials to annually file a “Statement of Economic Interests” with their county clerk.

The importance of that filing, which is designed to disclose private economic interests of public officials and their spouses that might affect the officials’ decision-making on matters related to their public duties, is underscored by the fact that the intentional filing of “a false or incomplete statement” is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000.

We would expect that the public purpose of such disclosures and the penalties involved would promote full compliance.  But apparently not, as the subject of today’s ethics lesson – Park Ridge Mayor Howard Frimark – illustrates. 

Item 5 of the “Statement of Economic Interests” form requires, in connection with the official’s (or his/her spouse’s) interest in any real estate, the listing of:

the name of any entity and the nature of the governmental action requested by any entity which has applied to a unit of local government in relation to which the person must file for any license, franchise or permit for annexation, zoning or rezoning of real estate during the preceding calendar year if the ownership  interest of the person filing [the Statement of Economic Interest] is in excess of $5,000 fair market value at the time of filing or if income or dividends in excess of $1,200 were received by the person filing from the entity during the preceding calendar year. 

To comply with that disclosure requirement, all Mayor Frimark needed to do was (1) identify the legal owner (such as Frimark or his wife personally, a land trust, a partnership, or a limited liability company) of whatever real estate he or his wife had an interest worth at least $5,000, or from which they received at least $1,200 in the preceding year; and (2) identify what action was sought from the City of Park Ridge in connection with that real estate.  Pretty simple, right?

Wrong.  Mayor Frimark’s 2006 ethics disclosure statement [pdf]  identifies two real estate interests – one property at 1300 Touhy Avenue and the other at 444 N. Northwest Hwy.  But by merely listing only their addresses, Frimark failed to make the required identification of the owner of those properties.  And by merely listing only their addresses, he failed to identify what type of official City of Park Ridge action was applied for in connection with those properties. In other words, Frimark’s report as filed satisfies NEITHER OF THE TWO DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS! 

Clearly these requirements are not unreasonably detailed or burdensome, so we have to wonder why Frimark totally disregarded them.  Is it because he just didn’t understand them (and it didn’t dawn on him to ask the City Attorney or his own private attorney)?  Is it because he just didn’t take them seriously?  Or is it because of a desire to keep the information private for a more problematic reason? 

We don’t know, but we sure would like to hear the mayor’s explanation.  Because one thing is certain: these disclosure laws were intended to provide answers, not more questions.  And, worse yet, the mayor’s disregard of his disclosure obligations contributes another mystery to the “Culture of Secrecy” in Park Ridge local government.

As the last days of 2007 tick away, we decided to make some New Year’s resolutions for those unlikely to make them for themselves.

For All Our Public Officials:  Start out with these three…

1.         Be honest.  Quit being politicians and start being our representatives.  Begin by telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Example:  When you propose one of your grand schemes that involves taking on millions of dollars in bond debt, don’t just tell us the face amount of the bonds.  Give us the same kind of Truth in Lending disclosures that our mortgage lenders provide – how much we’ll have to pay each year, and the total amount (including interest and fees) those bonds will cost us over their lifetimes.  If you don’t have the integrity and the nerve to do that, then don’t issue the %&@@$*# bonds.

2.         Be transparent.  Stop running into “closed session” at the drop of a hat just because it may be technically legal to do so.  To our knowledge there is no public business for which closed session is absolutely required, nor is there any obligation to treat anything that goes on in a closed session as “secret.”  The more you hide from the public, the more public suspicion you create.  Let’s end the Culture of Secrecy in 2008.

3.         Be frugal.  Try treating our tax dollars like they are printed by the U.S. Treasury instead of by Parker Brothers.  As our legendary U.S. Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen used to say: “A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”  So stop spending our real money like it’s chump change.

If you can keep these resolutions, everything else will be a cake walk.

For the Dist. 64 Board and Staff: 

1.         Stop “spinning” us about how well you do on the ISATs and, instead, start showing us where each of our schools ranks in comparison to the rest of the suburban Chicago schools.  If reporters from the Chicago Tribune can go through state ISAT records and determine (to the best of our recollection) that, among Northeast Illinois elementary schools in 2006, Washington ranked 57th, Lincoln was 144th, Roosevelt was 193rd, Carpenter was 320th, Emerson was 344th, Field was 377th, and Franklin was 508th – ranking behind schools from Arlington Hts., Cicero (yes, Cicero!), Clarendon Hills, Deerfield, Elmhurst, Geneva, Glen Ellyn, LaGrange, River Forest, Western Springs and Wilmette – then you should be able to do the same… assuming you have the stomach for it.

2.         See if you can responsibly manage all the extra money we’re giving you these next two years due to the successful referendum.  Your record over the past decade suggests that you can’t and won’t, but hope springs eternal – especially if the District’s newly-expanded Community Finance Committee (“CFC”) can actually be something more than a sitting collection of special interest cheerleaders for continuing tax increases. 

For Mayor Howard Frimark:  It’s prostate, not “prostrate.”  And the homeland of Norwegians is Norway, not “Norwegia.”  While you’re at it, get rid of your private phone in the mayor’s office.  At least try to create the appearance that you’re using the taxpayer-provided office solely for public business rather than for politicking and insurance sales.

For Napleton Cadillac:  Stop trying to pawn off on Park Ridge taxpayers the financial responsibility for cleaning up any pollution your business caused on your former site.

For PRC Partners:  If you want to develop the Napleton Cadillac property, split the clean-up cost with Napleton – or take it all on yourself.  You already made out like a bandit when you slickered the City out of millions on the purchase price of the old reservoir block, so you owe us.  Big time.

For Paul “Mr. Maine” Carlson:  Keep teaching, in whatever capacity you can.  And keep showing us that “institutions” don’t only come in brick-and-mortar.

For City Mgr. Tim Schuenke:  You’re a lame duck, so don’t screw up anything else before you leave.  In fact, confine yourself to routine paper pushing until you turn your office light off for the last time and head back to Wisconsin.

For the Dist. 64/Dist. 207 School Caucus:  Stay gone.  You’ve never been anything more than a purely political organization run by a handful or two of “insiders” who cynically manipulate an ever-changing cast of well-meaning but generally clueless “delegates” from various community organizations to endorse and help elect what has consistently been the most financially inept governing body in our community – the D-64 Board of Education.  And at the same time you regularly scare off any challengers, thereby producing the fewest contested races – and the fewest choices for the voters – of any local government.

For the Park Ridge Park District:  Since you don’t have the common sense to close Oakton Pool and stop pouring $50-70,000 down the drain each year because it’s the most expensive and worst attended pool in the District, try something innovative – like stocking it with game fish and holding daily kids’ fishing tournaments.  Can you say “Junior Bassmasters”?

For the Park Ridge Police Department:  Answer the following two questions, or admit that your obsession with a new cop shop 400% bigger than the current one is really just about size:

1.         How, specifically, has the size of the current police station made us less safe in our homes or on the streets of Park Ridge than we deserve to be?

2.         How, specifically, has the size of the current police station enabled criminals to avoid detection, apprehension and prosecution?

For Ald. Robert Ryan (5th Ward):  Try actually representing your constituents rather than the developers on density issues.  Or at least do the noble thing and sign on as a co-sponsor of Ald. Schmidt’s recall ordinance. 

For the Planning & Zoning Commission:  Grow a spine and stop rolling over for certain (well-connected?) developers who want to squeeze every square inch – and every single dime – out of their projects.  You’re supposed to be working for “us,” not for “them.”

For the Zoning Board of Appeals:  Ditto.

For the City Council:  Discover and disclose the names of each and every “real” owner of all of those parcels of property that you are considering purchasing for the site of the new police station.  And while you’re at it, publish the appraisals for those parcels so we can compare them to what the City ends up paying.  Maybe the “dots” don’t always connect, but that doesn’t mean we don’t deserve to see every one of them.

For the Park Ridge Senior Center Members:  Get rid of your sense of entitlement.  While your approximately 1,200 members shamelessly pay a paltry $22 in annual membership “dues,” the Park Ridge Park District is burning through almost $150,000 of our tax dollars each year to give you what amounts to a private club. And a number of you aren’t even Park Ridge taxpayers!

For the Maine South Constitution Team:  Another year of hard work and outstanding achievement!

For the Park Ridge Falcons and Cheerleaders:  Ditto!

For All Park Ridge Citizens:  A greater interest in how we’re being governed at the local level.  And more grass roots involvement – because this community has too much quality and potential to be dominated by a small group of profiteering insiders and special interests.

It looks like rookie 1st Ward Ald. Dave Schmidt and fellow 1st Ward resident David Kemerer might not be exchanging Valentine’s Day cards this year.

In recent weeks Kemerer and Schmidt have waged a war of words via letters to the editor of both local newspapers, starting out with Executive Office Plaza’s zoning variance and Schmidt’s push for an ordinance that would let Park Ridge voters recall their elected officials.  Lately, however, those debates have morphed into questions about the EOP-related conduct of 5th Ward Ald. Robert Ryan and Schmidt’s alleged lack of “civility” in performing his aldermanic duties.

Measured by the benchmark of 20 years of sleepy Park Ridge rubber-stamp government dominated by Homeowners Party “partisans” (with the notable exception of the last four years), Schmidt probably does qualify as a firebrand – but one with an infectious populist enthusiasm tempered by a solid conservative foundation.  From what we’ve seen, he hit the ground running; and he has been a strong and vocal advocate for positions that we believe represent mainstream Park Ridge values and opinions. 

That’s why we are alternately entertained and bemused by many of the comments contained in Kemerer’s most recent indictment of Schmidt [pdf] – except for Kemerer’s defense of 5th Ward Ald. Robert Ryan’s private meeting with EOP’s developer (we hear it was with one of the project’s investors who regularly attended the Council meetings whenever EOP matters were on the agenda), which shows a total disregard for the serious problems presented by “A Culture Of Secrecy” in Park Ridge government.

Our citizens deserve, and have every right to expect, that official City business will be done on the up-and-up and openly at public meetings rather than in secret.  A private meeting between an alderman and a developer to discuss that developer’s project while it is awaiting final Council action just plain looks and smells bad…like a judge meeting privately with only one of the parties to discuss the case he’s hearing.  That Ryan “voluntarily disclosed” the meeting after the fact still doesn’t let the rest of the Council, and the public, know what was said by whom and to whom.  Attorney Schmidt gets it; why doesn’t attorney Kemerer?

The bottom line is that whatever information Ald. Ryan or any other alderman needed or wanted about the EOP project should have come either from the developer through City Staff to all aldermen, or directly from the developer to the aldermen in the course of a public meeting.  Because if the information Ryan got in private was so important and persuasive that it caused him to change his “No” vote to a “Yes,” then the public also deserved to have the benefit of it.

Sometime over the next couple of months the City Council is likely to review last April 2nd’s 11-3 vote (by what was then a 14-member City Council) approving the construction of a new police station of roughly 37,000 square feet – four times the size of the current station – with another 12,000 square feet of “secured” (indoor?) parking.  

The estimated cost?  Hard to tell for sure, but the former Council suggested a whopping $19 Million in bonded debt to help pay for it.  And with all that extra space, you can be sure that the cost of operating it year after year will be a heck of a lot more than is being spent on the current station.

Why did this project get the former Council’s approval?  Primarily because it was recommended by hired-gun consultants who make their money – $55,000 from the City so far – by recommending big new police stations to municipalities who want big new police stations.  And in the case of the City’s most recent consultant (Sente Rubel Bosman Lee Architects, Ltd., an architectural firm that specializes in giving local politicians what they want), the potential to make a much bigger bundle as the project’s architect, where fees are often based on a percentage of the project’s cost.

But there was another reason, this one legitimate:  The current 9,000 square foot cop shop is admittedly a dated and poorly laid-out facility that does not make the most efficient use of its space and is sorely in need of modernization.  Unfortunately, instead of starting out by looking at how the current facility might be renovated and reconfigured to optimize its 9,000 square feet of space, the City let the highly-paid, one-trick-pony consultants do a “blue sky” analysis that effectively began with a blank page and no space or cost restrictions.

Before this boondoggle gets pushed into “done deal” territory, however, we would like to try to bring some sanity and fiscal responsibility to what, until now, has been basically an irresponsible, consultant-driven process.  As you will see when you read the account of the public discourse on the police station at pages 8 through 16 of the minutes of that April 2, 2007 Council meeting [pdf] – and we strongly encourage you to do so – you will find no answers to what should be the most important questions about a project such as this:

1. Has the size of the current police station made us less safe in our homes or on the streets of Park Ridge than we deserve to be; and, if so, in what specific ways?

2.  Has the size of the current police station enabled criminals to avoid detection, apprehension and prosecution; and, if so, in what specific ways?

3.  Is a big new police station the absolutely best way for the City to spend $19 Million, especially when it involves digging itself into a $19 Million long-term debt hole?

Maybe one of the reasons those questions weren’t answered by anybody involved in City government is because the honest answer to all of them is a big fat “No!” 

After all, the police department – operating out of that dated, inefficient 9,000 square foot space – keeps on getting accredited and keeps on winning awards.  And the Park Ridge crime rate remains low despite that dated, inefficient 9,000 square foot space.  And any time there is a job opening, we have an abundance of applicants willing to work in, and out of, that dated, inefficient 9,000 square foot space.

So if the current station isn’t jeopardizing or compromising our safety or the enforcement and prosecution of our laws, or the hiring of new personnel, then the bottom line is that the big new $19 Million cop shop really will be far more of a convenience and amenity than a true necessity. 

But if Chief Caudill, Deputy Chief Swoboda, or Mayor Frimark’s designated hitter Cmdr. Lou Jogman want to convince the taxpaying voters of Park Ridge otherwise, let them stand up in an open City Council meeting and answer those three questions – and any other questions the public has about the big new cop shop – fully, honestly and with specifics rather than vague generalities or arbitrary calculations provided by the self-interested consultants.

Meanwhile, our aldermen can gain a much-needed reality check on how much sense it makes to quadruple the size of the police station by going to their bosses and demanding that their workplace be quadrupled in size.  And then they can let us know how long it took, and what kind of tools they needed, to remove their bosses’ boots from their derrieres.

Except in certain national security situations, secrecy in government usually ends badly for the average taxpaying citizens. This is especially true in the operation of our local government bodies, which rarely deal with matters where secrecy is an absolute necessity – notwithstanding how eagerly most public officials run into closed session to escape public scrutiny.

Unfortunately, the longer things remain secret, the easier it is for any adverse effects to become irreversible. And the easier it is for the public officials responsible for them to avoid accountability – whether because facts are lost over time, or because officials leave office and find it easy to pass the buck to their successors.

Secrecy can take many forms: non-disclosure, incomplete disclosure, and outright misinformation are three examples. The first two were on display in three articles from last week’s Herald-Advocate: “Uptown TIF revenues top predictions,” “‘Typo’ or zoning loophole?” and “New site for police station is under consideration” (December 13, 2007).

• “Uptown TIF…” displays the typical governmental practice of using the press to disseminate only good news, however incomplete it might be. In this case, City Mgr. Tim Schuenke trotted out “new calculations and predictions” that he claims show how the Uptown Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) District will generate higher revenues – starting next year and continuing until the TIF is due to expire in the year 2027 – than were projected just two years ago.

We love good news as much as the next watchdog, but why are only “revenue” figures included in that article? Why no mention anywhere of the expenses and the debt the City has incurred or expects to incur to generate those revenues? And, more importantly, why doesn’t that article or the actual Schuenke report [pdf] disclose who prepared those projections, and what data and assumptions underlie them? Is the big difference between the 2005 projections and these latest ones primarily the result of the most recent reassessment of property values?

Of course, by the time we find out whether the TIF revenues really will exceed expenses by 2010 instead of 2019 (as projected in 2005), Schuenke – who has already announced his retirement and is expected to leave Park Ridge for Wisconsin – will be long gone. So much for his accountability.

• “Typo…” discusses a potential change in the language of the new zoning ordinance that would tie R-5 multi-family residential zoning district to the boundaries of the “Central Business District” rather than to the “B-4 Uptown Business District” as the ordinance currently provides. As reported, this change would increase the amount of land that could become the subject of more R-5 developments beyond the area that is generally considered as “Uptown.”

Director of Community Development Randy Derifield claims that this change is needed because it’s inappropriate to use one zoning designation (i.e., “B-4”) in describing the boundaries of another (i.e., “R-5”). He doesn’t say that it’s illegal, however, nor does he explain what adverse affects the City could suffer if the current “B-4” language were retained.

He also doesn’t explain how this “inappropriate” zoning term got past the Ad Hoc Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Committee’s “Principal Consultant,” Jacques Gourguenchon, and Associate Arista Strungys – as well as committee chair Ald. (former) Kirke Machon and committee members Ald. Rich DiPietro; Ann Tennes; attorney Gary Zimmerman; Atul Karkhanis; attorney Ellen Upton; Brian Kidd; Philip Mitchell; attorney Cynthia Funkhouser; Timothy Metropolus; Rob Lohens; Judy Barclay; attorney Joseph Cwik; attorney Terry McConville; Tom Provencher; Anita Rifkind and attorney Aurora Abella-Austriaco.

And by the way – Derifield is also retiring from his City employment, so his accountability for this change (if it occurs) will be zero.

• “New site…” reports on the pursuit of a site for the new police station – a site so secret “[neither] Schuenke nor Police Chief Jeff Caudill would reveal the location.” But why aren’t they talking? Why isn’t the proposed location of the new cop shop a matter of public record?

It can’t be because they’re afraid to lose the deal or get gouged on the price, as the City has condemnation powers that can force the owner(s) to sell the City the property at its fair market value – and coming up with that value presumably is the reason why the City got its appraisal earlier this year and the secret property owner is having its own appraisal done now.

So we ask again: What’s the reason for all the secrecy? Could it be that the City is trying to put together a sweetheart deal with a favored “insider” before the public finds out about it and raises objections to taking yet another piece of private property off the tax rolls – especially when it purchased property on Courtland adjacent to the current City Hall parking lot just a couple of years ago for the express purpose of constructing a new police station there?

And remember the last time the City acted secretly to buy property for a new cop shop: It almost gave “insider” Owen Hayes II a quick $200,000 “flipping” profit. “515 Busse Highway – The Park Ridge Police Station That Almost Was” (Watchdog 11-15-07)

Isn’t it time we ended Park Ridge’s “Culture of Secrecy”?