Park Ridge resident Ken Balaskovits is at it again.

This week’s Park Ridge Journal carries another letter from Kenny B (“Council Must Stay At Seven,” April 21) arguing against restoring the City Council to the 14 alderman size it had for close to 100 years – before it was cut in half through a referendum initiated by former mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark.

Although he would never admit it, we’re pretty certain that cutting the Council in half was Frimark’s strategy for making it easier to control City government: it’s easier to elect a 4-alderman majority than an 8-alderman one.  And Frimark was instrumental in recruiting and helping elect the current Council majority Alds. Jim Allegretti, Don Bach, Robert Ryan and Tom Carey in 2007 – another one of Frimark’s “gifts” to the City that keeps on giving – who, 2 years later, returned the favor by contributing over $3,200 to Frimark’s unsuccessful re-election campaign.

The central thrust of Balaskovits’ letter is his more-aldermen-mean-more-uncontested-elections spiel, which ignores the fact that the 14-member City Council produced more contested races in the past decade than the other three 7-member local governmental bodies (School District 207, School District 64, and the Park Ridge Park District) combined!  From 2001 through 2005 (the last election year for the 14-member City Council), the Council had 35 candidates for 21 seats, compared to 16 candidates for 12 seats on the Park Board, 13 candidates for 12 seats on the District 64 board, and 14 candidates for 11 seats on the District 207 board – and that’s including 2001, the last year of Homeowners Party domination, where 6 of the seven HOs ran uncontested.   

But Kenny B was never one to let facts get in the way of a totally bogus argument, especially one of his own.

Balaskovits warns readers of his letter: “Do not sign this petition and, if you have, make an effort to have your name removed.”  In other words, don’t let the matter even get on the ballot.

Frankly, we think a referendum on restoring the size of the City Council is worthy of voter consideration…certainly a lot more worthy than at least one of the 3 referenda proposed by Ald. Bach: Whether to reinstate the position of City Treasurer, which was a worthless one before it was eliminated in 2005 and has no realistic prospects for providing any greater value if reinstated.

So we applaud the restore-the-Council petition circulators for their efforts; and we encourage the voters to help them put this important issue on the November 2010 ballot. 

A page one story in this week’s Park Ridge Journal asks: “Will This Be Last Year For Oakton Pool?”

More than two years ago, in our post titled “The Old Oakton Bucket” (10/16/07), we called for that year to be the “last year” for Oakton.  We criticized the Park Board and Staff for not having the gumption to close it down, or the ability to come up with any ideas for operating that pool in a way that eliminated, or at least reduced, the $75,000 operating loss it was booking back then.

The Journal story reports that last year the District’s five pools (including the indoor “lap” pool at the Community Center which was built both too short and too narrow to even host a swim meet) lost more than $135,000, with Oakton alone accounting for $95,000 of that unhappy total. 

Oakton’s 2009 attendance [pdf] was only about 17% higher than South Park’s wading/”baby” pool – despite being the District’s only Olympic-sized lap pool, with a capacity more than 6 times that of South Park’s.

Fortunately, new Park District director Ray Ochromowicz appears to understand that the taxpayers shouldn’t have to swallow $95K of red ink annually just to cater to the nostalgia of a relative handful of Oakton/swimming fanatics.  He noted that “[t]here is enough water in Park Ridge to make up for the loss [of Oakton]” – and we don’t think he was referring to our flooding problems.

Better yet, the Journal article reports that “most…[Park District commissioners] said they were ready to make a final decision on the pool’s future soon.”  Unfortunately, it doesn’t sound like they will have the guts to turn “soon” into 2010, so District taxpayers can expect to see another $95K disappear down the drain.

But old attitudes and inertia die hard, which is why the sound of push-back was heard from Commissioners Mary Wynn Ryan and David [identified as “Steve” in the Journal story] Herman, in the guise of concern about where the District’s summer campers will swim if Oakton doesn’t open this year.

Deep-six the hand-wringing, Commissioners.  If you won’t close Oakton because of the campers, the simple solution is to roll all the costs of keeping Oakton open another summer into the cost of the camps.  After all, the District brags about the “fantastic price” of those camps, which range “from $4.28 per hour to $6.08 per hour.” 

So tacking enough extra onto those hourly rates to cover the entire cost of giving all those campers one more chance at the Oakton experience might be the revenue-generating idea that the District just couldn’t quite come up with on its own. 

That way, at least the taxpayers wouldn’t get stuck subsidizing another summer of other people’s child care.

Every so often one of our public officials or a resident comes up with a really ridiculous proposal for one or another of our local governmental bodies.  Which is why today’s post is about the letter to the editor [pdf] in this week’s Park Ridge Journal from Park Ridge resident Ken Balaskovits (“Time To Adopt Village Form Of Government,” March 17) in opposition to a possible citizens’ referendum to restore the Park Ridge City Council to 14 members. 

Balaskovits not only opposes going back to 14 alderman from the 7 the City Council was reduced to in 2006, but he advocates changing Park Ridge from a city into a village, “with six to nine trustees, elected at large.” 

That may be the most cockamamie idea about City government we’ve ever heard – even worse than former mayor Howard Frimark’s successful plan to cut the City Council in half, which we recall Balaskovits supporting.  Nevertheless, Balaskovits is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own set of “facts.”  And, frankly, his whole letter appears to be based on nothing but fiction.

Let’s start with his reference to the “study” he describes as having been done by “[t]wo aldermen” that he claims found only one other suburb (Elmhurst) with two aldermen per ward.  Try as we might, we could not find any mention of such a “study” anywhere.  We did, however, find a “study” by one former alderman – Jeannie Markech (2nd Ward) – in the 11/2/06 edition of something called the “Markech S’up Date,” which we understand she occasionally sent out during her brief term (2005-07) in office. 

The relevant “S’Up Date” pages [pdf] tell quite a different story from Balaskovits’ tale, as Markech identifies 11 suburbs that elect two aldermen per ward. 

Whether you choose to believe Balaskovits or Markech on this point is up to you, although we note that Markech’s “S’up Date” provides chapter and verse while Balaskovits’ letter is basically generalities and bare conclusions.  But even if we judge Balaskovits’ arguments for turning Park Ridge from a city into a village just on their own merits, those arguments appear to be based on more false information and just flat-out wrong.

For example, he contends that an “at-large” election of City officials would be better than the current ward-by-ward elections because “[w]e just do not have a sufficient number of candidates who are able and willing to serve as aldermen” in each of the 7 wards.  Once again, Balaskovits provides no data to support that contention, perhaps because the available data actually disproves that contention.

According to the Cook County Clerk’s election website, for election years 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009, a total of 45 candidates ran for 25 City vacancies, with 39 of those candidates running for 21 aldermanic seats.  Contrast that with the “at large” elections held for the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board and the District 64 School Board, where during that same period the Park District produced just 13 candidates for 11 vacancies while the School Board produced a mere 17 candidates for 15 vacancies.

That causes us to wonder whether Mr. Balaskovits is merely an incompetent researcher or someone who will outright lie to make his point?

As for his claim that “[t]he issues in Park Ridge are not all that different from ward to ward,” we suggest he try telling that to the flood-prone folks in those six designated areas of Park Ridge that the City’s flood consultant has deemed most in need of flood relief.  Or to the people beefing about the airplane noise under the approach to new runway 9L27R.  Or to the folks in the 1st and 2nd wards whose airplane noise has lessened since the new runway was opened.  Or to the anti-billboard group in the Second Ward near the Tri-State.

Balaskovits fares no better when he delves into “policy” with his argument that “[t]he purpose of an election is to provide the citizen with choice so that we have a representative government.”  No, Mr. B, the purpose of an election is to give the voters a means for conferring their governing authority on their chosen representative, thereby binding the social contract which John Locke described as “government with the consent of the governed” that the Founding Fathers adopted in our Constitution.

While contested elections give the voters the benefit of choice, an official elected in a contested race has no greater legal authority than one elected in an uncontested one.  After all, it’s not the candidate’s fault if nobody else cares enough to run against him, is it?

We think Balaskovits also is all wet when he writes that turning Park Ridge into a village “would place us more in conformance with surrounding communities” – without identifying so much as one other community that he contends is better managed, or better governed, than Park Ridge.  So why should we mindlessly mimic those communities, especially given the uniqueness of Park Ridge and the many differences between it and its neighboring communities? 

But our personal favorite bit of Balaskovits silliness is his closing pitch for making Park Ridge a village: “It is a time for change but not for change that takes us backward but rather for one that deals with the realities of today and moves Park Ridge forward.” 

Apparently Mr. Balaskovits doesn’t know that Park Ridge once was a village…prior to 1910.

Or maybe he’s just one of those “one step forward, 100 years back” kind of guys.

As we enter both a new year and a new decade, it’s a good time to look both backwards and forwards at not only our City government but also those other branches of government that primarily service our community, and take stock of where we came from and where we are going financially. 

The years 2000 through 2009 were characterized by spending, spending and more spending, enabled by taxing and borrowing – even though all that spending does not appear to have provided us with better quality infrastructure or services. 

For example, the City of Park Ridge pretty much neglected its sewer system for the past decade, failing to perform needed systemic inspection, maintenance and repairs – not only under Mayor Ron “Damn O’Hare!” Wietecha and the sclerotic Homeowners Party, but also under Acting-Mayor Mike Marous and the “Independents” (non-Homeowner aldermen) and even more so under Mayor Howard Frimark and his Alderpuppets.  Flood control and remediation also were ignored while new development and redevelopment actually increased flooding risks and demands on our sewer systems.

Although its academic standing generally remained stable over the decade, High School District 207 currently is trying to cope with a $17 million “structural budget deficit.”  Meanwhile, during the first part of the decade Elementary School District 64 spent itself to the brink of Illinois State Board of Education intervention [pdf] before bailing itself out with a “back-door” $5 million working-cash bond issue to make payroll in 2005 [pdf], followed by a major referendum-based tax increase in 2007 – neither of which has produced consistent, notable gains in student performance, even as the District has gone about restoring many of the $12.2 million in cuts it made while claiming they would not impair educational quality.  (So why restore them?) 

Even the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District, the smallest-budget branch of local government, continues to bungle the management of its outdoor swimming pools (which look to have booked another operating loss approaching $100,000 once the December figures are in [pdf]) and an almost $200,000 loss on the Senior Center [pdf], while still being bedeviled by the management of problematic facilities like the do-not-resuscitate Oakton Pool and the poorly-designed Community Center.

Fortunately for Park Ridge taxpayers, the schools and the Park District are non-home rule bodies whose ability to raise taxes is limited by what are known (fondly to many taxpayers) as “tax caps.”  Not so the home-rule City government, where spending is limited only by whatever sense of shame City officials can muster about their fiscal mismanagement.  And for most of the past 10 years those officials have been pretty darned shameless.

So what can we expect from these governmental bodies in 2010?

Well, District 207 is proposing to cut expenditures by $15 million and raise revenues $2 million [pdf] to fill that $17 million budget hole.  Part of those cuts will come from a freeze of administrators’ salaries and from the District 207 teachers’ voluntary salary increase give-back program, which they are exploring as an enlightened alternative to the District’s cutting of approximately 75 teacher jobs.

District 64, on the other hand, recently approved an approximately 4.9% property tax levy increase for the 2009 tax year – with only board member Russ Gentile voting “no” [pdf].  And, according to its November 10, 2009, press release [pdf], the District is already starting to waffle on its pre-2007 referendum 10-year financial projections, despite amassing very healthy budget surpluses these last two years.  But what should we expect when the District’s School Board and Administration just gave the teachers’ union members annual raises of approximately 4.5% (including step increases) over the next three years, even though (as the press release acknowledges) the Consumer Price Index increase in 2008 “was just 0.1%”? 

And if what was included in the Park Board’s December meeting package is any indication, the Park District looks to be predicting its own budget deficit of between $800,000 and $1.1 million [pdf], depending on which of two revenue projections is ultimately adopted by the Park Board later this month.  It also appears that $300,000+ of that deficit can once again be attributed to Oakton Pool and the Senior Center, thereby providing further proof of the correctness of Einstein’s definition of insanity.

And the City?  At this point in time, it looks like Mayor Schmidt’s plan for some form of zero-based budgeting is a pipe dream – what with City Mgr. Jim Hock loudly objecting, City Finance Director Diane Lembesis on her way to Gurnee, and the Council majority of deficit-wallowing Alderpuppets installed by former mayor Frimark seemingly incapable of performing subtraction when it comes to City expenditures.

Last May we provided our own simple way to almost balance the City budget (“How To Balance The City Budget,” May 27, 2009) – we came up $49,700 short on the $2 million, which we left for self-proclaimed budget “hawk” Ald. Don Bach (3rd Ward) to take care of.  Fortunately, we didn’t hold our breath for that to occur.    

Which sets the table for Fourth Ward Ald. Jim Allegretti and his Council cronies to push through the highly-questionable Generation Group, Inc. (“GGI”) billboard deal as $400,000 of “found money” that the City would be foolish to turn down – notwithstanding the City Attorney’s preliminary opinion that such an “impact fee” might not be legally enforceable or even constitutional, and despite the whole Allegretti-engineered, City-as-applicant arrangement stinking up the entire Council chambers.

One thing does look pretty certain, however: the taxpayers likely will take a trimming from every branch of local government, to go with the ones they will take from the State of Illinois and Crook County; and that trimming will likely be accompanied by reduced services from most, if not all, branches of local government.

So Happy New Year…and welcome to the 2010 edition of fiscally mismanaged local governments gone wild.

As another year comes to a close, we here at PublicWatchdog hope that we have helped make local government more transparent, understandable and accountable to the taxpayers who fund it; and that we also have helped shine a spotlight on those who would abuse the public trust of government, or manipulate it for their own benefit to the detriment of the community as a whole.  We also promise to try to do even better in 2010.

In that spirit, we offer the following quotes:

“But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.  It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.”
            Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
            Edmund Burke

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary”
            James Madison, Federalist No. 51

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government”
            Thomas Jefferson

“The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush.  It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.”
            Robert Maynard Hutchins

And with that, we wish all of you a happy, vigilant, active, passionate, engaged and well-nourished New Year.

School Rankings Time Again. Today’s Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times each have feature articles on the annual ISAT scores registered by our public school systems.

As usual, Maine South is on both lists of the top high schools, tied for 12th position (with Lake Forest H.S.) on the Tribune’s “Top 50” list, for which the rankings are a function purely of the percentage of test scores that met or exceeded state standards; and ranking 13th (several spots below Lake Forest) on the Sun-Times’ “Top 100” list, which uses a more complex formula that the S-T claims “allows for more definition among top schools.”

But for the first time in recent memory, a District 64 school makes an appearance, with Carpenter Elementary School ranking in a tie for 49th on the Tribune’s list, although no District 64 school shows up on the S-T list.  But it’s a start.  So a big wag of the Watchdog’s tail to the folks at Carpenter – maybe you can share some tips with the other schools in the District that were, once again, notably absent from the lists of ISAT achievement.

Walk On By.  They’re ba-ack.  “They” are those residents who want their own special deal at the Park Ridge Community Center: they want $2 per visit punch passes so that they can walk around the Community Center any time it is open because they don’t want to pay for one of the several kinds of Community Center memberships that were created after numerous other “limited-use” memberships wisely were eliminated several years ago in an effort to make that facility’s operations more efficient and cost-effective.

The problem with limited-use privileges at the Community Center is that the facility’s ridiculous “open” layout can’t reasonably accommodate anything but full-facility membership.  Too many residents found it too easy to buy some low-price, limited-use membership and then expand their use into areas where they weren’t supposed to be – causing migraine headaches for staff, irritating members who were paying full-fare, and ultimately cheating the taxpayers. 

Commissioner Mary Wynn Ryan claims to be offended that people might drive to Golf Mill to walk if they can’t have their $2-a-visit walking pass. 

We here at PublicWatchdog disagree.  If folks would rather drive to Golf Mill than buy a Community Center membership, let ‘em – just add them to the list of all the other people who go elsewhere because the Park District doesn’t offer something they want, like the golfers who drive to Tam in Niles or Chick Evans in Morton Grove to play a round of golf; or the sailors who drive to Lake Opeka to Hobie Cat; or the mini-golfers who drive to Des Plaines or Skokie; or the skiers who fly to Vail or Steamboat….

Not With A Bang But A Whimper.  We hear that City Attorney “Buzz” Hill and the Park Ridge City Council will be spared the agita and potential embarrassment of having to decide whether to prosecute former mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark for violating the City’s ethics ordinance by selling/brokering insurance for the Uptown parking garage in which the City has an interest. 

Word is that Mid-America and/or the Uptown Condominium Homeowners Association (“UCHA”) decided to pull the pin on Frimark’s insurance coverage.  We don’t know whether Frimark had any say in the matter, but that “Whew!” you heard emanating from the direction of City Hall was the collective sigh of relief from elected officials and bureaucrats alike.  And that means no tap dancing or sleight of hand at the City Council meeting this Monday night, when this matter was to have been taken up in earnest by the Council.

But we wonder whether the Council will also try to sweep under the carpet Frimark’s execution of the “First Amendment” to the easement and operating agreement for “Phase III” of the Uptown project – by which, as we understand it, the City ceded some of its voice and authority in the operations of that portion of the project to the developer and the UCHA?

Go, HAWKS!  Tomorrow afternoon the Maine South Hawks start their drive to the 2009 state championship when they host Oak Park-River Forest.  We wish them well in their effort to repeat as state champs, and we encourage all Park Ridge residents to show up and support another Hawks football juggernaut, led on both sides of the ball by University of Indiana-bound Player-of-the-Year candidate Matt Perez and quarterback Tyler Benz. 

Many problems that seem intractable to an individual governmental body can be surmounted by “intergovernmental cooperation” – multiple governmental entities working together.  It’s called “synergy.”

So we’re glad to see that the City of Park Ridge’s flood consultant, Christopher B. Burke Engineering, is suggesting that one way for the City of Park Ridge to reduce flooding in certain areas might be to enlist the aid of the Park Ridge Park District and create above-ground water detention areas in the parks, according to a story in today’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Park water storage could curb flooding: engineer” October 29).

A study of six heavy-flooding areas of the City done by the flood consultant indicates that an above-ground, grass covered basin at Northwest Park – when linked by storm sewers and cross pipes to nearby areas that are regularly hard-hit by flooding – could mitigate flooding in the areas both east and west of that park during those heaviest of rains which pose the worst problems for area residents. 

The water detained in that basin would drain within about 48 hours, according to the consultant.

Obviously, a plan like this, which appears very attractive at first glance, needs to be thoroughly vetted as to, first and foremost, its cost – not only the cost to create it, but the expected costs to maintain it.  Not surprisingly, there is no mention of cost in the Herald-Advocate article, which is a bit troubling given the astronomical numbers being tossed around for the kind of sewer upgrades needed to make a significant dent in the flooding problem city-wide.

And let’s also make sure the plan is thoroughly vetted as to all of its potential consequences to the fields themselves, such as the effect of water detention on the health of the turf and the fields’ playability, the potential for interruption of field use for scheduled events, etc.  Those also have a cost to them, both in money and in time lost to rescheduling or alternatives.

But the idea sure does sound promising, so we hope it will be given all due consideration. 

We’re giving a special wag of the Watchdog’s tail to the Park District, which has led the way in intergovernmental cooperation since 2004, when it saved the City (and, therefore, the taxpayers) several million dollars by offering Hinkley Park as the site of the City’s new reservoir.  And that savings isn’t even counting the approx. $2 million value to the NICOR site, value which would have been permanently lost if the City had gone forward with its plan to put the reservoir there.

Synergy.  Ya gotta love it.

The new Executive Director of the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District won’t take the reigns of the District until November 10th.  But Ray Ochromowicz has already made some of his views known about how a local governmental body should be run, and it’s the kind of talk we like to hear.

According to a Herald-Advocate story (“’When you ask for something, you’ll get it,’ new parks head promises,” October 6), Ochromowicz says residents will get “same-day responses” to questions and comments about the District. 

But the comments that really got our attention are the ones about information and referendums.

Ochromowicz said that during his employment as executive director of the Bolingbrook Park District, both the media and the residents themselves could get information about the park district and documents related to its operations merely by request, without filing a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request.

After years of trying to pry information from secretive or unresponsive bureaucrats, the idea of truly open government operations is welcome indeed.  And in that regard, the Park District has historically been ahead of the curve, at least among our local governments, in making its operations open to the public: it’s still the only local governmental body that videotapes its meetings and puts them on its own website.

As for referendums, Ochromowicz also talks the right talk when he says: “Our job is to take the needs of the people, put them into a plan, attach a price tag and then say, ‘Here it is. Are you willing to pay for it?’ And if they are not, that’s OK.”

That’s a wonderfully refreshing viewpoint after years of watching local governmental bodies treat referendums – especially the binding ones involving tax increases – like military campaigns for which armies of pass-the-referendum volunteers are marshaled to execute what amount to marketing strategies to “sell” the voters on the vital need for whatever project, program or expenditure is being promoted.

Like, for example, School District 64’s “Yes/Yes” referendum campaign back in 1997, and its “Citizens for Strong Schools” referendum campaign in 2007 – even though, technically, each of those campaigns was “privately” run and funded.

Ochromowicz claims that: “The way I like to operate is, I want to blow up people’s traditional perceptions of government.”

Well, Mr. Ochromowicz, it’s clear you know how to talk the talk.  Now we just have to wait and hope that you can walk the walk.

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!

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?